Roger,
I divided the thread in two (Democracy and Intellect) as probably it's only
the latter that needs focus.
I'm glad we reached this agreement on democracy:
>
> You [Marco] are the greatest!! Your recent post was
> awesome, and we agree in soooo
> many ways. Let me throw out a few observations.
Hey! Am I the greatest just when we agree? :-)
>
> 1) On cooperative/competition, we are in great alignment. We both agree
that
> competition is a necessary element of evolution.
Actually my thought is not that competition is quality or evolution per
se.It's a sort of catalyzer which makes it faster the evolutionary process.
It happens as the result of competitions is often the reciprocal destruction
of static patterns, and in these situations a good solution is to develop
new static patterns.
In facts, competitions are often a disaster (wars, for example) so the leap
beyond is
performed exactly to surpass the need of a competition. I'm sure that no one
here is longing for a war, just to see new advancements.The great challenge
should be to be able to evolve as soon as the competition begins, just when
the static patterns are under discussion, and not when the static patterns
have gone lost. To this challenge, one has to be able and free to grasp the
DQ immediately, and spread the insight to everyone, and we know it's not so
easy...
> We could argue a weee bit
> on whether the failure of so many alternatives to democracy is best
> characterized as resulting in:
>
> a) less competition between styles of government, or
> b) more competition within the dominant economic model.
>
> Certainly neither is exclusive, and I agree with you though that both are
> important.
>
b) has been certainly very important lately. The supremacy of democracy
resides in its embodied dynamism. In the future.... ?
> 2) I agree that some of the ideas of socialism have spread into democratic
> countries, both through socio-economic competition and through memetic
> transfer (good ideas are tried and tested lots of ways, and bad ideas
> eventually die off).
>
All right.
> 3) In general, I believe the most advantageous opportunities for dynamic
> advance are located around more successful models.
In general, yes. But it's not a certainty: dinosaurs have been the
successful
biologic model for millennia, then.... something happened to promote
another evolutionary line: mammals. The success of today could not be
forever,
even at the social or intellectual level.
> The next big advance is
> more likely to come from a culture that experiments with new angles of
free
> enterprise/democracy than with new versions of.... let's say....feudalism
or
> totalitarianism. Regardless though, I do agree that experimentation -- of
> models and not just within models -- is essential.
>
Agree.
> 4) I was intrigued by your point that many of the 'democratic' economic
> success stories of the 20th century were fortuitous and not of free
choice.
> Germany, Japan and Taiwan for example. You make an interesting case for
> forcing cultural change. (Don't worry, I know you don't intend this in a
> malicious way). I think the IMF and other international agencies may share
> some of this perspective.
>
It's well known here that the USA financed a socialist leader in 1948 to
abandon the socialist party and create a social-democratic party, faithful
to the NATO. The so-called popular front (communists and socialists) lose
those elections, also for this episode, and the story of Italy has been
influenced. It's a news of today that the CIA financed the opponents of
Allende, as well. I can't say enough about memetic transfers (I'm still
studying), but this kind of "cash" transfers seems to me more effective and
quick.
> 5) I would offer that the cold war didn't just lead to the spread of free
> enterprise and social advance, it also led to the spread of communism and
the
> propping up of puppet dictators. My guess is you agree with me here as
well.
>
Of course.
> 6) I would also like to add that many of the less successful countries
that
> you throw in as "Western Economic" are countries that have still failed to
> reach pluralistic balance. They are exploited countries...exploited by
> dictators, wealthy landowners, the military, socialist-model unions, other
> countries, corrupt gangsters, etc. A healthy, balanced plurocracy needs to
> control exploitative win/lose behavior to maximize social success. These
> societies are slowly learning. I will offer that their standard of living
> has gone up dramatically in the past 50 years even considering their
failure
> to piece together a first class economic/social template. Certainly I
agree
> with you that 'western democracy' is easier to pronounce than it is to
> practice well. (For example, I have a hard time imagining Russia
establishing
> any successful version any time soon.)
>
This is an important point. The free market is dangerous without a balance.
In the USA this balance was set up by the intellectual work of the founders
of your democracy.
> 7) I am not advocating leaving the social model wholly exposed to 'market
> laws'. Not at all. I agree that society should learn the checks and
balances
> of government, free enterprise, good laws, social safety nets, liberals
and
> conservatives, environmentalists and land owners....... (you've read it
b4).
>
So you agree with me that we live in a lucky situation (as we have those
balances), and that it's our duty to spread them abroad, while we spread the
market?
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST