Vince (Login MoxiFox) Sufi Posted Feb 26, 2009 12:28 PM
in most cases where one is trying to find a solution to a problem, to imagine scenarios in the extremes ........ and then work out some kind of middle ground.
What would you have in an idealistic society?
A community of people all dedicated to their mutually best interests. Some "god" or leader of the community would evaluate how life was going in the community and see where the community's inefficiencies lay.
Every individual going out and scrounging for food. Every individual needing to gather firewood with which to cook. Individuals, constantly needing to put fresh boughs onto their shelters to keep out the wind and rain.
So this god would say, "we're living very inefficiently here. We could organize ourselves far better so that the food gatherers concentrate more exclusively on THAT task ......... spend a bit more time and gather enough for several people, rather than just get enough for themselves for each single day.
Meantime the skills of fixers would be utilized to maintain the dwellings and the skills of the thoughtful would be utilized to brainstorm, finding ways to make thing even easier by building machines to help them all produce greater quantities of goods with less human effort.
Maybe they'd find a way of routing in running water to all of their huts ...... thus eliminating the need for daily water carrying etc.
The time they saved by their organization and ingenuity, they would put into exploring and having fun.
On the other end of the spectrum, what do you have in the most undesirable society?
You have a group of people who are constantly trying to exploit others ...... steal from others ......... con others ....... enslave others ..... eliminate competition etc. ............ in order to horde the best life for themSELVES.
The argument could be made for both societies that the methods they adopt for living are absolutely crucial for survival ........ and maybe they are -for their own given society- but obviously, their methods are completely different.
It seems to me that when we discuss or debate the problems of social economy, we are always thinking ONLY in terms of balancing our own system. Do we go left or do we go right now? Maybe we've gone right too long and now we should be going left?
We don't look beyond what we've accepted as "the norm" and don't comprehend possibilities that lie outside of what we've "always done."
What if we were to consider brand NEW ways of doing things? Like ...... gradually move away from the money system we now rely on?
What if we moved away from the belief that consumerism is the only answer to a robust and healthy economy? That the accumulation of property is the only valid reason to exist in this life?
What if we were to focus on quality of life for ALL? Everyone works in areas of their own interests as much as possible and everyone pools their resources so that the needs of ALL are taken care of.
Now........ that concept is called "socialism" and is immediately decried by the more ambitious people as being a lazy society which spawns dependency on the system ........... and they can point -justifiably- at what happens when people are given easy welfare or healthcare of unemployment benefits etc.
HOWEVER ........ what these more ambitious people fail to comprehend is that their OWN attitude is largely responsible for such a situation as well.
Well, ambitious people who are motivated by property acquisition and consumerism do NOT get what they pursue through their OWN labor. It never happens. "Rich" people never get rich without exploiting the labors of others. Even when an ambitious person is shrewdly working on a new deal or angle, and calculating how best and most efficiently to EXTRACT what he wants ............ from the most willingly vulnerable, in "deals" ........ he is NOT truthfully "working hard" himself by his own labors, to create what he wants ....... but rather, to extract what someone else has produced and to get it for himself.
So-o ........ you have people who are unemployed and collecting insurance money for doing so......
What are THESE people doing? Pretty much exactly the same thing. They're extracting the best deal they can for themselves ....... same as the rich people.
Now IF the ambitious folks were actually community oriented or minded, they would recognize that essentially they don't CARE what happens to people in the lower social strata as LONG AS they're producing and their products can be extracted and exploited for personal gain.
So the caring/awareness plays hugely into the motivation of the lower classes to produce.
Supposing you had a society where -yes, there ARE more and less ambitious people but ......... it isn't POSSIBLE to exploit anyone. (Well, it's heavily frowned upon, anyway). Then you'd have the ambitious people simply gaining from their own industriousness. Since they're industrious, they would see that they could vastly improve their own productivity by engaging the labors of the less industrious and mutually satisfy the needs of themselves AND the less ambitious.
Ok, here's the fine point difference between that ........ and what happens in our job economy today ........
The industrious would SEEK OUT the assistance of the less ambitious.
In other words, their interests and focus would change from one of offering jobs anonymously to all comers (and then cull the best of them out of whoever shows up to get the best advantage for themselves) ......... to one of actively recruiting the assistance of those who had time and interest to help them.
See the difference? On one hand, you have companies putting out job ads to strangers and culling the comers to get the best personal advantage for themselves .............. and on the other hand you have ambitious individuals going into the community, finding available and willing people to join into a new venture that will be mutually beneficial for all.
Now, I'm not naive enough to think we could ever create such an ideal situation in our present world but just trying to present the contrasting scenarios for thought stimulation.
The answers to solving economic crisis are really not that hard to implement. The hard part is changing perception and attitude.
The ambitious need to realize that they NEED and must VALUE the worker and that the worker deserves to get as much benefit from mutual cooperation as the ambitious plan to get for themselves.
Just giving the rich more breaks so that they can create more jobs through their ambitious ventures and thereby benefit the lower class through "trickle down economy" ............. is a silly idea and we've already seen how that works (or we should). It doesn't happen. The rich will ALWAYS look for ways to cut their costs and squeeze the workers more and more until they're finally left life-less. The entire system strangles itself.
Does a totally socialistic society stifle production? People often point at Russia as an example of what happens in a forced socialistic society. All incentive is lost to produce voluntarily and mindfully. Workers simply do as much as they're told and no more ......... and produce only as automatons.
Well, but what actually HAPPENED in Russia? The entire system was forced and monitored by secret police. What for? Was such a layer of suspicion and coercion actually necessary?
When you have an economy where everyone cares and wants to cooperate and contribute for the good of all -say, like right after WW2- you get very positive results. It's not a greed driven economy, it's an opportunity driven economy. It's like a fresh start with high hopes and dreams. Everyone cares about everyone else to a great degree. Employees feel good about their companies and proud to represent them and they work very hard because they want to. Employers feel very attached to their work force and proud of their efforts and RESPONSIBLE for keeping everyone working so that they have a good life too.
So-o .......... ultimately, to solve an economic crisis, the attitude has to change from extreme thinking of advantage for either end ........... to one of mutual advantage for all.
Once the ambitious actually care for the welfare of the less fortunate, less intelligent, less ambitiously driven ......... the lower class will have more interest in cooperating and offering their labor to support the schemes of their administrators .......... and unemployment and welfare will taper down.