Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War

[Imran Siddiqui]

Taking profit was considered a sin.

While at the same time the Church took profit hand over fist.

Face it, that thing about profit being frowned upon before the commerical revolution is BS. The elite were always into money, and tried their best to prevent the lower classes from accepting the same beliefs.

Why can it not be said that the 'lack of greed' was socially imposed constraint rather than greed being one?

Selfish people only work when it will get them something and then only to a point where they have to. They would much rather cheat, kiss ass, or stab someone in the back to get what they want. Maybe that's not lazy either, but I wouldn't call them hard workers.

Some do work hard. However, those that are selfish to the point of asskissing and cheating don't really get you that far, contrary to popular opinion.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Willem
But changing those attitudes has to come from within, they can't be enforced. That's been the mistake of the failed socialist experiments so far, they tried to supress a tendency that is just an aspect of our nature.

One, no they didn't. Two, capitalism tries to suppress all instincts aside from greed, or which there are many.

[GePap]

Stay away a couple of days and good hreads pop up everywhere.

Vel: not only would this admin. not implement your plans, but no admin. ever would do so either, and for that, I am grateful.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There are many problems, which can be broken down into the fundamental and the practical.

The fundamental problems with your plan, as i see them, are:

1. The problem of legitimacy: First of all, in many cases you utterly discount nationalism. It is a terrible truth that Nationalism is the most important political idea in the world today: better ruled by a local thugs than a benevolent outsider. It was nationalism that brought down the Soviet Union, and nationalism that stiffled most democratis reforms in that area long enough to entrench the dictators that now rule most of those 15 ex-republics. The problem of legitimacy is compunded by the fact that you call for an imposed system, not only on those kept out, but those in. Would the voters of the democracies get to vote on whether they wish to join? If they don't get to say, then how democratic can it be? And can democracies opt out,and be left alone? Could they carry on business with the "evil" states if that was what they wanted, or would that make them "quisling' democracies?

2. The problem of definitions: others have stated the point about who defines the democracy. You? HRW? Each state? Democracy varies greatly, some are strong and some are weak. Some are being rotted from inside by ehtnic politics. Pakistan was done in that way, India is sadly slowly heading that way, Ivory Coast is another example. What about Apartheid SA? It was a democracy, which did not define most people as equal citizens (just like the ancient democracies).

Then there are the practical issues. They are many, but the most important is the following:

You grossly overestimate the power of the US, as does almost everybody. That the US today is unrivalled in the versitility of its military is unquestioned, but that lead is not based solely on our inherent strenghts (wealth, democracy, technical advancement) but because the other players in the system that share those qualities let us keep that lead: they spend their money elsewhere. They do so because, to one extent or another, they trust our stewardship of the system. Why buy your own guns if the cop on the beat is good? As 9/11 showed, destruction is cheap, and getting cheaper. Assault rifles make each man dangerous, chemical and biological weapons can do much harm for very cheap, and anyone can put together some powerful bombs. If at any point the US was viewed as an unfit steward, then our lead would vanish, not because somehow we become weak, but because evryone else would take it upon themselves to aquire means to be as destructive as they can be, for their own survival. The US then can't impose a new system without the consent of most states. To try to do otherwise is to bring to question our leadership, and in one bold stroke to make the world a far more dangerous place.


Fom 1914-1945 at least 100 million died in wars and massacres out of a top population of 2 billion. In the last 50 years the number of humans has grown 200% while the number of terrible destructive wars has gone down. Is the system perfect? No, and it will never be, but the system we have today has seen more human beings reach better lives than at any other time in human history. Improvement is good, but it must be viewed as legitmate, or the whole house of cards comes down.

[Willem]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One, no they didn't.

Oh so private enterprise flourished under the Soviets did it? What happened to all those farmers that didn't want their land turned into a collective enterprise? Siberia or death.

Two, capitalism tries to suppress all instincts aside from greed, or which there are many.

Funny, I'm living in a capitalist society right now, and I don't feel suppressed. In fact, I feel quite free to express myself in any way I choose to.

[Velociryx]

GePap….only two fundamental flaws? That’s a smaller number than I expected if either you or Boris saw this thread….

I’ve heard the phrase before. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Maybe so, but I always ask….with no intentions whatsoever, where does the road lead to?

And the answer:

Nowhere.

So…while it IS true that sometimes (less than 100% of the time) good intentions have bad results, it is also true that inaction gets you nowhere, exactly 100% of the time. Which is superior? The answer, for me at least, is clear.

The two problems you mention with the plan as outlined are….pretty big problems, but I would contend that they are by no means insurmountable.

Legitimacy: This problem is solved by acting *through* the United Nations, which is a legitimate world body, if something of a paper tiger at present. The revisions proposed would make it any thing but a paper tiger, however, and so the real question becomes, would the United States have sufficient political clout to make the changes needed? As far as opting out or voting to join….no….by being a nation state on planet earth, you are, by default, a member. And nations just can’t “opt out” either, but that does not make it undemocratic. Virginia cannot “opt out” of the Union that is the United States, and by your logic, this would make the US a dictatorial state, yes? As to nationalism, it is entirely possible to structure a UN temporary government in such a way that it *would be* led by members of the indigenous peoples, and merely backed up and supported by UN forces and advisors, to prevent warlordism from running rampant in country.

Working Definition of Democratization (subject to revision by the revamped UN): The People choose their leaders. Free elections. No coercion, no guns pointed at them if they dare to vote for “the opposition.”

-=Vel=-
PS: And for the record, my plan has nothing to do with America enforcing its will on other nations, and so my estimation of this country’s relative strength doesn’t really play into the plan outlined above at all (except for where leading the charge for change in the UN goes).

[Arrian]

Good thread, Vel.

It ain't gonna happen (like you say in your first post), but it's nice to think about.

GePap,

The law of unintended consequences certainly applies here, but Vel does have a valid counterpoint (not trying = not getting anywhere).

Che,

One, no they didn't. Two, capitalism tries to suppress all instincts aside from greed, of which there are many.

Talk about turning reality on its head! The communist dictatorships never surpressed people (or ideas), but rather it is the democratic capitalist societies that do the suppressing. That's priceless. When do you get shipped to San Quentin, you suppressed Commie, you?

-Arrian

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Willem


Oh so private enterprise flourished under the Soviets did it? What happened to all those farmers that didn't want their land turned into a collective enterprise? Siberia or death.

They never said you couldn't be greedy. They just said you can't own private property.

Originally posted by Willem
Funny, I'm living in a capitalist society right now, and I don't feel suppressed. In fact, I feel quite free to express myself in any way I choose to.

How about the instinct to own the means of production for the goods you produce?

[Velociryx]

Thanks man! I'm doing this when I need to be getting my butt in gear and makin' the combat interface window for Candle'Bre...LOL...but, I'm....thinkin' about it/workin' on it....

And yep....I wasn't *even* gonna touch Che's latest, but I'm glad that someone did!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Duncan, what you say is contradictory.

If you can't OWN anything, then how can you possibly be greedy?

As for owning what you produce, let me ask you this:

If you use MY $500,000 machine to make something....who owns it. You? You could not have made it without my mondo-expensive machine, true?

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

A thought on the Che/Duncan line of thought regarding people's motivations:

People who are motivated primarily by "good" things like enjoying what they do (good for you, Vel) aren't really a problem. Those aren't the people who need added incentive. They're gonna work anyway. It's the lazy ****s (hmm... kinda like me) who need to have that extra financial incentive to work (more). Get it?

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK

They never said you couldn't be greedy. They just said you can't own private property.

I fail to see the distinction frankly.

[DuncanK]

Willem,

You can dream of expoliting people, but if you really do it then that's different. Why should that ever be legal? Just so people can have an outlet? No way.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Duncan, what you say is contradictory.

If you can't OWN anything, then how can you possibly be greedy?

See my answer to this to Willem.

Originally posted by Velociryx
As for owning what you produce, let me ask you this:

If you use MY $500,000 machine to make something....who owns it. You? You could not have made it without my mondo-expensive machine, true?

-=Vel=-

That misses the point. My arguement is that the means of production should be community property.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Arrian
A thought on the Che/Duncan line of thought regarding people's motivations:

People who are motivated primarily by "good" things like enjoying what they do (good for you, Vel) aren't really a problem. Those aren't the people who need added incentive. They're gonna work anyway. It's the lazy ****s (hmm... kinda like me) who need to have that extra financial incentive to work (more). Get it?

-Arrian

I'm not all against incentives. People should be rewarded for hard work. And I'm not talking about plaques and crap that our bosses give us these days. I'm talking about real incentives, like more vacation.

[Arrian]

Vacation is time. Time is money. Just in a different form. For me, that's literally true, as I can "buy" an extra 5 days of vacation (for the cost of my salary for those days... I'm just signing up for 5 days of unpaid vacation). Believe me, I buy those 5 days every year.

-Arrian