Re: Easing Transition to Cybereconomy
Who was talking about any final solution? I find such a strawman a tad offensive. And, believe me, I was sensitive to the implication of the term; however, your uncompromising views do give the impression that you can see only one solution, and that that solution is the final one. But, even so, I do apologize for giving in to my baser instincts. Uncompromising means, not changing opinions even when presented rational reasons to do so. In the absence of such what can I do? What if my opinion is actually a good approximation to reality, such as, say, Newton's views on gravity? Was he uncompromising about these? Hmmm. So, in your opinion, there is a final solution after all! ?? Just because I find no adequate reason as yet to change my opinion, that doesn't mean that said opinion says anything that can be termed as final solution. You sidetracked your debate about the way I said it (uncompromisingly) to what I said - two different things in most books. In a compromise one need not give up one's opinions (to which one is always entitled); one may simply agree to put them on hold in order to get on with life. In the case of this listserv "life" is simply the stated issue for which it provides a forum. (A compromise may also involve each side in a disagreement merging views to produce a mutually-acceptable position, but I don't that's likely in this context.) Yes, compromise is a very essential part of human cooperation, no argument there. However, it is not always possible, or even necessary or useful. If we are consccous about something harmful, we have a duty to attempt, using the most convincing evidence, to shift other people to our view, so that we can cooperate to avoid the continuation of said harm. To both collectivists and certain environmentalists discussing such short range or limited issues is tantamount to shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. But, as has been noted before, to muddle through a bit at a time, while frustrating, may be the best approach. It at least holds out the prospect that society may attain a singular (critical) point at which a paradigm shift occurs and the correct views are conceived and implemented. To muuddle through is the maddest possible strategy when you are aware, that the boat is sinking. - You should tell as many people as you can, so you may use the largest capacity of human inventiveness to avoid/survive the catastrophy. Human history is defined by the progress of "artificial" involvement in the paradigm-shift business. At this point, if you leave it to the muddle-through shortsightedness of the present captains of the media, you might as well pop a few pills and jump overboard to avoid all the chaos of the sinking. I uncompromisingly try my best to shift that horrid paradigm. The gist of syncronising cooperative production with cooperative distribution did not happen, the process of polarization of economical, thus political power is happening as much and more than in Marx's time. All compromises so far ended up with an untouched capitalist economic base. I agree, that the non-compromising revolutions failed, too, but we had a chance to find out exactly, why, and all those conditions that lead to the failure - such as poverty, illiteracy, thus the continuation of the despotic burocracy intact from the tsar - cannot be repeated with the awareness and expectancy of democracy - a paradigm shift that actually happened in my opinion, and waits for the opportune moment to assert itself... Eva The following is an extract from "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engels. How much of this has already been implemented? Or found to be undesirable? Or outmoded by technological change? "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, _by degrees_ (my emphasis), all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, 18) and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. These measures will of course be different in different countries. 19) Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable: 1.Abolition 20) of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 21) 3.Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4.Confiscation of
Re: An Aside: On Rational Thinking
Eva Durant wrote: Uncompromising means, not changing opinions even when presented rational reasons to do so. In the absence of such what can I do? What if my opinion is actually a good approximation to reality, snip Let's take a harder look at rational thought: as it happens, I wasn't as deep as you wanted me to be, by rational reasons I meant those that can be demonstrated to be best describing our experiences/ our reality upto the time of the decision. However, as the FPLC is working away happily, I might as well give you my reflections... "Rational thinking ... cannot predict the future. All it can do is to map out the probability space as it appears at the present, and which will be different tomorrow when one of the infinity of possible states will have materialized. Technological and social inventions broaden this probability space all the time; it is now incomparably larger than it was before the Industrial Revolution, for good or for evil. Who claimed any prediction of the future? Marxism claims with evidence that capitalism has an inbuilt contradiction, and that a system is possible and maybe more effective in maintaining human society without the capitalist anomaly. Everything else depends on the given particular initial conditions. From these probabilistic predictions may be drawn. People happen to trust the products of "rational thinking", they step into airoplanes and cars without giving much of a thought to probability, not to mention the million other such everyday effects of scientific thinking. "The future cannot be predicted, but futures can be invented. It was man's ability to invent which has made human society what it is. The mental processes of invention are still mysterious. They are rational, but not logical, that is to say not deductive. The first step of the technological or social inventor is to visualize, by an act of imagination, a thing or a state of things which does not yet exist, and which to him appears in some way desirable. He can then start rationally arguing backwards from the invention, and forward from the means at his disposal, until a way is found from one to the other." The ability to invent is secondary to be able to remember and to communicate. Every inventor is "standing on the shoulder of giants" who are unknown and number thousands of the same and several previous generations. When a given number of data is accumulated, and there is a given number of well fed people with access to this data and a bit of spare time from chasing the dynosaur, tilling the land or manning the checkout counter, there is a good chance that the "invention" will follow. Quantity turning into quality... I can't think of any of these "backward" inventions - can you? the rest seem to be semantic/relativistic mix, making strawmen arguments from wierd definition of rational thought - I'll get back to them later, you seem to be ahead in the "time management pardigm". Eva ( D. Gabor, Inventing the Future, Penguin Books, 1963, p. 161) "... criticisms of rational (decision-making) model: 1.Success in goal attainment means commitment to the goal, and commitment is an emotional -- thus nonrational -- state ... 2.All groups have several goals ... so that over-specialization may threaten survival ... 3 it is very difficult to gain agreement on just what goals or goal are being sought ..." (W. Breed, The Self-Guiding Society, The Free Press, 1971, pp. 95-96) "Several critics of the rational model suggest a second approach to decision-making -- incrementalism. "Two major weaknesses ... First ... reflects the interests of the most powerful groupings in society ... second .. ignores overdue innovations." (ibid., pp. 99-101) "The model (of decision-making) we recommend is called mixed scanning. "An example of mixed scanning: weather satellites hold two cameras. One takes broad-angle pictures covering large segments of the sky ... The other lens photographs much smaller segments but in much greater detail ... dual scanning device ... scans for signs of trouble. The second camera explores these danger points in detail ... "When criticism shows that a policy is ineffective, stop incrementing and turn to more encompassing scanning." (ibid., pp. 103-111) "Intellectual competence will be judged in terms of the ability of the student to synthesize the explosion of information. Most significant thinking will be reflective ... Men will succeed or not in the measure of their ability to order information into unity and to evaluate and judge (Aristotle's order of judgment again, his very principle for distinguishing wisdom from mere science)." (F. D. Wilhelmsen and J. Bret, The War in Man, University of Georgia Press, 1970), p. 35) "Kant's complaint against Cartesianism was based on his insistence that pure rationalist analysis can never add to our knowledge. Analytic
FW Fugitives lured with job offers
No comment. But think about it. Boston. The promise of high-paying construction jobs with union benefits turned out to be an empty one for 102 fugitives with outstanding arrest warrants. After luring the job seekers to a convention centre with the promise of a job, Boston police arrested them Sunday. Some brought friends who were also wanted and were promptly arrested, police said. The fugitives were wanted for crimes that include assault, robbery, drug offenses, welfare fraud and child support violations. Those who took the bait were told to attend an orientation at the Bayside Expo Center and reminded to be on time and bring photo identification. (Toronto Globe and Mail June 30/99)
Re: Easing Transition to Cybereconomy
I think we're making progress. Eva Durant wrote: snip McD: To both collectivists and certain environmentalists discussing such short range or limited issues is tantamount to shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. But, as has been noted before, to muddle through a bit at a time, while frustrating, may be the best approach. It at least holds out the prospect that society may attain a singular (critical) point at which a paradigm shift occurs and the correct views are conceived and implemented. To muuddle through is the maddest possible strategy when you are aware, that the boat is sinking. - You should tell as many people as you can, so you may use the largest capacity of human inventiveness to avoid/survive the catastrophy. To clarify: while many social critics, such as yourself, Jay Hanson and a number of religious catastrophists (though from quite different perspectives), hold a world view of impending disaster, I don't share that view. That is, I alleged above that some behave as though the boat is sinking, but I don't think it is! But, to continue for a moment with that metaphor, I do think that the boat is in dangerous waters and we ought to take appropriate action to safely navigate through them. The good news is that navigational charts are available but the bad news is that some have errors, and we don't know which they are. But if you think the boat is sinking then by all means persuade us to head for the lifeboats. In the meantime, while you are busy persuading, we'll do our best to steer out of this mess. But environmental and on-board conditions may indeed continue to deteriorate until it becomes obvious that the boat is sinking and we welcome the lifeboats. Now, returning to the real world, what exactly is it you would have us do to adapt working conditions to the cybereconomy? -- http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
Re: Easing Transition to Cybereconomy
Now, returning to the real world, what exactly is it you would have us do to adapt working conditions to the cybereconomy? First, I would have a look if that cybereconomy is all that different in its basic functions and in its effectiveness in satisfying human needs. Then probably I would have to come to do conclusion, that it does not play any particularily positive role in the process of polarising the economic and political power and powerlessness. The present economic mechanism is based on profit, and the growth of return to shareholders. On this basis there cannot be any change to 4 hours working day and thus a fully employed population with the appropriate education and integration/cooperation. I cannot fathom how anyone can ignore this and go on writing millions of words on whatever future work patterns. Eva -- http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
