If you have been following the series on Individualism and Socialism, you now have a little break to read about something else before we tie everything up. So delving right in: by this point we are all aware of the protests and revolutions occurring in the Middle East and North Africa. They have been going on for months now and every week seems to add a different country or different agenda to the list. I recently read an article which explains to a certain extent the often times perplexing stance taken by the United States in dealing with this protests or for that matter not dealing with them. If you look at the region country by country, the United States varies widely in how it responds to pleas for assistance and in its willingness to support protests that seek to oust the leaders of those countries. If you look at the region as a whole, however, you will see that Iran dominates any response from the United States. Every protest and consequent decision by the United States as to support or not support is considered as to how it will affect Iran, its power in the region, and its attempt to make nuclear weapons.
The United States, long sought after for its humanitarian aid, support of democracy and the general freedom of all people, has fallen incredibly short recently in its lack of support of some protests. Depending on which country you look at, we hold a different response for each one. In Egypt, while vaccilating at first, we eventually threw our support behind the people seeking to reclaim their government from Mubarak. In Libya, we are assisting in conducting air raids to weaken Qadaffi's forces to prevent further deaths of the people in that country. (Partly a show of force to show Iran what we can do). Now lets flip to Yemen, we are just recently seeking to quietly transition power from Saleh to his VP instead of completely reforming the government because we want to continue conducting covert raids against Al Qaeda cells in that country. (Essentially, we have said to the people, your concerns our great, but our concerns over Al Qaeda trump your desire for democracy and freedom.) And Bahrain, where we have remained mostly silent, even as Saudi Arabia sent in troops to help quell the protests, all because our Navy's Fifth Fleet is stationed there and it just happens to be in close proximity to Iran. Syria now? Well, there has yet to be a definitive position stated by the U.S. Our government is probably currently absorbed trying to figure out the correct response when it comes to how it will affect Iran. And what about Iran. We support protests there but will not officially say so in order to prevent Amagonnapoop from using us as a reason to stifle yet more protests.
There is no universal response from the United States when it comes to supporting democracy. The people in these countries see the value in democracy and having the freedom to vote and live their lives, yet depending on where they live, they do not get the same response from the U.S. Many people, especially in countries like Bahrain and Yemen, have lost faith in us to do the right thing. We are incredibly wrapped up in ourselves and can not see the desire that these people have for freedom. It all comes down to how unrest in these countries will affect the United States via Iran. It is a vicious circle and not an easy one to get out of. The more we play to our own interests in the region, the more fuel we give to Al Qaeda cells who will use it to galvanize even more people against us. If there are anti-U.S. sentiments in the region, you can be sure that they will inflate them and use them to their own benefit. Would the U.S. be taking a chance supporting the freedom of the people? Only in the respect that it could allow more freedom for members of Al Qaeda as well. Yet if we support the people in these countries, show them that we are there to support them in their drive for democracy and freedom, they will be less likely to be turned against us by Qaeda. Inclusive in this is showing the Iranian people and those in Jordan (who I did not mention before), Syria, and any other nation seeking to remove their leader, that we will support the spread of democracy and freedom, regardless of the ensuing results.
The United States foreign policy, in my mind, has turned incredibly inwards, concerning ourselves more with stability as pertains to our own security than the actual spread of democracy and freedom. Change is never easy, especially on a large scale when dealing with entrenched regimes. The United States is essentially being selfish. There is no grand desire simply to promote freedom and democracy anymore. It reflects on a larger scale what is occurring in our society. It seems there is a general movement to be more concerned with ourselves and how events will affect us rather than concerning ourselves with other's well being. So what is the remedy in the Middle East. In my mind, it is quite simple (although no decision concerning foreign policy is ever simple), support the spread of democracy and the freedom of all people and let nature take its course. Is there an inherent risk of increased terrorist attacks? Yes, and I am not advocating diminishing intelligence gathering operations, but we should deal with the attacks when we percieve they will occur and not seek to attack before being attacked. All in all, freedom and democracy must be supported. We must personally take a stand and let our government know our feelings (hoping against hopes that they will listen). For today, look outside yourself at the people around you and seek to understand them more. In doing so, it could open up a window unto yourself.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Part 2 of 3: Individualism and the Pitfalls of Socialism
Yesterday, I discussed my beliefs on what makes us unique as individuals and the processes by which we arrive there. Today I will delve into Socialism to the extent that I can. Socialism is defined as a theory of social organization by which the means of production and distribution of capital, land, etc. is vested in the community as a whole. There are a number of different theories of socialism running the gammit from a complete state run economy as in Communism to the complete abolition of the state as in a Utopian society, to everything in the middle. It would be impossible to cover every nuance of every socialist theory and be able to completely reconcile at the end. So lets stick with the basic theory. Socialism is, according to Marx and Engels, a natural process that is adopted by the community as a whole and eventually supersedes capitalism. In this natural process, human consiousness comes to be defined by society rather than human consciousness defining society.
Socialism in effect promotes total equality amongst people. It seeks to eliminate class distinctions, moderate income disparity, and create equal opportunities for everyone. Production and distribution, in socialism, is to be managed by the community. However, how is a community of 100,000 people supposed to have equal ownership and control of a company? Community, or collective run companies can only work where the community is small enough where it is feasible for everyone to have an equal say and opportunity to have ownership in that company. In certain small towns, this could work, but it has been tried in a Utopian setting many times, and has failed. The option then, is to still have a form of management which runs the company and its production, but to hold that management as equal to the workers. People would be paid based on their production efforts, but how is the production of an iron worker equal to that of the manager which oversees production. There are still varying levels of skills needed and thus, there should be different levels of pay dependent on the level and quantity of work that a person is providing. Socialism accounts for this, but in socialism's efforts to eliminate class distinctions, it invariable still creates them through the quantity of work produced verses the type of work executed. Here in lies the crux of the situation, how is equality to be achieved while still maintaining incentives for workers and creating drive to do better? I feel that the two are irreconcileable.
Unions are one example of an attempt to socialize the workforce. If you look at a union closely, though, there are vast problems with the system. Workers are guaranteed jobs, irregardless of the individual's efficacy at that job, not necessarily in performing the work needed, but in their drive to do the best job possible. Why should someone strive to do their best job when nothing is at stake. A good number of people, guaranteed a job, will not put out their best effort because A) they can not be fired, and B) they will make the same as the person next to them who may be more effective at peforming the given job. How would this work in say the banking industry? I feel that if every industry where socialized, including the banking industry, there would be a general stagnation. While socialism promotes education for everyone and equal opportunites for everyone, the fact is that not everyone is equal in every respect. People who have an intense drive to perform to the best of their abilities and do the best job possible should be greatly rewarded for their efforts. If people in a socialist society are rewarded to the extent that their work warrants reward, it will create a class system and invariably break down the theory.
While the theory of socialism and its beneficial attributes seems appealing, when put into practice, there are many undesireable consequences. People are not all equal as much as we would like them to be. In a Capitalist society, it is possible to make something of yourself. It is hard to rise to the top of a company? Absolutely. It shouldn't be easy. If someone wants to rise to the top, they should have to work their butts off to get there. Some people may posit that it is impossible to rise out of poverty and make something of oneself. I disagree. If there is a drive within a person to rise above their current status, it is within the realm of possibility for them to do so. It has happened many times before, and we still hear stories of people turning their lives around and making it better for them and their families. Socialism would create a level playing field offering an opportunity for everyone to work regardless of their drive. If someone does not want to rise to the top, then that opporunity should not be afforded them, they should seek it out and make it their own. Once we decide that we should create equality through equal possibilites, we invariable alienate those who have "made it", those who have worked hard to get there, and the income they receive as a benefit. It is an attempt to bring back down to earth those that have made something of themselves and I personally disagree with it. Each person should make of themselves what they will. If someone wants a menial job, taking out the trash, then let them have it, but they should not be rewarded to the same extent that someone who holds an executive position at a company is rewarded.
To sum it up, Socialism in my mind is great in theory, but in actuality, it is a flawed system which we will delve into more tomorrow as we relate it to individualism and our uniqueness. Life is what you make of it, at least thats my theory. While this has been a brief foray into socialism, admittedly inadequate in the overal scheme of things, I have tried to point out the basic tenets of the theory and how they relate to our society. If anyone feels that I have come up short in a certain area, please let me know and I will expound on it. I will leave you with a question about socialism till tomorrow. If socialism, as posited by Marx and Engels, is a natural process that will occur over time and eventually eliminate capitalism, why has in not happened in the 150 someodd years since their theory was put down on paper? Till tomorrow, smile and live your life to your full potential realizing that only you are in control of it and only you can make of it what you will.
Socialism in effect promotes total equality amongst people. It seeks to eliminate class distinctions, moderate income disparity, and create equal opportunities for everyone. Production and distribution, in socialism, is to be managed by the community. However, how is a community of 100,000 people supposed to have equal ownership and control of a company? Community, or collective run companies can only work where the community is small enough where it is feasible for everyone to have an equal say and opportunity to have ownership in that company. In certain small towns, this could work, but it has been tried in a Utopian setting many times, and has failed. The option then, is to still have a form of management which runs the company and its production, but to hold that management as equal to the workers. People would be paid based on their production efforts, but how is the production of an iron worker equal to that of the manager which oversees production. There are still varying levels of skills needed and thus, there should be different levels of pay dependent on the level and quantity of work that a person is providing. Socialism accounts for this, but in socialism's efforts to eliminate class distinctions, it invariable still creates them through the quantity of work produced verses the type of work executed. Here in lies the crux of the situation, how is equality to be achieved while still maintaining incentives for workers and creating drive to do better? I feel that the two are irreconcileable.
Unions are one example of an attempt to socialize the workforce. If you look at a union closely, though, there are vast problems with the system. Workers are guaranteed jobs, irregardless of the individual's efficacy at that job, not necessarily in performing the work needed, but in their drive to do the best job possible. Why should someone strive to do their best job when nothing is at stake. A good number of people, guaranteed a job, will not put out their best effort because A) they can not be fired, and B) they will make the same as the person next to them who may be more effective at peforming the given job. How would this work in say the banking industry? I feel that if every industry where socialized, including the banking industry, there would be a general stagnation. While socialism promotes education for everyone and equal opportunites for everyone, the fact is that not everyone is equal in every respect. People who have an intense drive to perform to the best of their abilities and do the best job possible should be greatly rewarded for their efforts. If people in a socialist society are rewarded to the extent that their work warrants reward, it will create a class system and invariably break down the theory.
While the theory of socialism and its beneficial attributes seems appealing, when put into practice, there are many undesireable consequences. People are not all equal as much as we would like them to be. In a Capitalist society, it is possible to make something of yourself. It is hard to rise to the top of a company? Absolutely. It shouldn't be easy. If someone wants to rise to the top, they should have to work their butts off to get there. Some people may posit that it is impossible to rise out of poverty and make something of oneself. I disagree. If there is a drive within a person to rise above their current status, it is within the realm of possibility for them to do so. It has happened many times before, and we still hear stories of people turning their lives around and making it better for them and their families. Socialism would create a level playing field offering an opportunity for everyone to work regardless of their drive. If someone does not want to rise to the top, then that opporunity should not be afforded them, they should seek it out and make it their own. Once we decide that we should create equality through equal possibilites, we invariable alienate those who have "made it", those who have worked hard to get there, and the income they receive as a benefit. It is an attempt to bring back down to earth those that have made something of themselves and I personally disagree with it. Each person should make of themselves what they will. If someone wants a menial job, taking out the trash, then let them have it, but they should not be rewarded to the same extent that someone who holds an executive position at a company is rewarded.
To sum it up, Socialism in my mind is great in theory, but in actuality, it is a flawed system which we will delve into more tomorrow as we relate it to individualism and our uniqueness. Life is what you make of it, at least thats my theory. While this has been a brief foray into socialism, admittedly inadequate in the overal scheme of things, I have tried to point out the basic tenets of the theory and how they relate to our society. If anyone feels that I have come up short in a certain area, please let me know and I will expound on it. I will leave you with a question about socialism till tomorrow. If socialism, as posited by Marx and Engels, is a natural process that will occur over time and eventually eliminate capitalism, why has in not happened in the 150 someodd years since their theory was put down on paper? Till tomorrow, smile and live your life to your full potential realizing that only you are in control of it and only you can make of it what you will.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Part 1 of 3: Individualism and the Pitfalls of Socialism
In order to fully examine why socialism does not work, we must first start by examining briefly what makes everyone a unique individual in our society. There is not enough time or space to write to explore this issue to its end if an end is even possible. There are many different beliefs and theories of personal identity and individualism as pertains to uniqueness. However, I will endeavor to explore briefly what I believe is the basis of uniqueness and through that exploration initiate discussion and a certain amount of introspection. This three part series that I am embarking on was sparked by a friend's comment that "humans are not as unique as you think they are." This one comment got me thinking about the my former college experience and the hours of studying and researching I did directly pertaining to personal identity. I believe that each human being is vastly unique and as such should be treated as a unique being in society.
I think that we can all agree that humans possess many similarities with each other when it comes down to basic bodily function and design. We all possess a body controlled by a brain and nervous system and consequently all the systems that the brain and nervous system are connected to. There is general knowledge that if you prick any human's finger with a needle, they will feel pain and in response, jerk that finger away from said pain. We all may react slightly differently depending on our pain tolerance or the certain degredation of nerves, but the underlying reaction is to an extent, universal. Similarly, most of our body's systems function in similar ways to everyone elses. The physics behind eyesight, hearing, and mobility are the same regardless of where you are from. Even our brain's pathways operate similarly to those of others. To me, this encompasses most of our similarities with each other. Once we move beyond the scientific similarities of the human body, we begin to encounter different variables that begin to distinguish us as individuals.
Once we move away from the human body and the general world population possessing one, we start to see differences depending on where and how we live. Our bodies, while operating similarly to others, react differently depending on the region and climate that we are raised in. Our minds begin, from an early age, begin to cultivate certain distinctions about the world we live in separate from any other individual. Someone living Alaska, will have a completely different set than someone who lives on the tropical island of Fiji. Based on the parameters developed in the mind, a person comes to expect certain phenomenon based on his physical location in the world. While this begins to separate us from each other, i.e. develop our uniqueness, it can be argued that if the person from Alaska moved to Fiji, then his body would eventually aclimate itself to the new locale. This may be true, but the argument fails to draw upon the most distinct part of us that makes us unique, our memories and perceptions carried with us from place to place irregardless of time. While certain memories may fade over time and others may become more vivid, every memory builds upon the previous and in so doing affects our perceptions of the world that we live in. The person from Alaska, having moved to Fiji, will most likely show outward signs of amazement at the beauty that the island holds noticing intricate details that may not hold that attention of the Fijian as long because he has grown up in the lush island paradise and is accustomed to the world around him.
Our memories and perceptions are the distinct part of who we are that separate us from everyone else. Our minds are what make us unique from anyone else. (For this explanation I will draw off of the theory of heterophenomenology proposed by Daniel C. Dennet). The person we are today, I believe, is a culmination of our memories and impressions accumulated over our lifetime. Every memory we have, meaning everything that we experience as impressed upon the brain either through sound, sight, smell, touch, or taste, is different from anyone elses and creates a unique perception of the world around us. No two people are the same because no two perceptions of the world based upon memories and impressions are the same. Even if you take the Alaskan and Fijian (the Alaskan having been acclimated by now) standing side by side and ask them to relay their experience of an event they both witnessed for the same amount of time from the same vantage point, you will get different responses. Why, because A) they could not be physically standing in the same spot to view the event from the same angle, even if separated by a few inches and B) they will notice different things about the event because they are standing in different spots and because their memories and perceptions inform their minds to pick up on different nuances and to place greater importance on ones that they feel will have a greater impact upon them. For instance, if both are viewing a tribal dance, the Alaskan may place greater importance upon the beautiful topless women dancing in the circle, while the Fijian may place greater importance on the story that is being told through the dance.
Similar to viewing things and our differences in percieving the physical world around us, so too are our beliefs separate from those around us because they are informed by a specific set of variables (memories and perceptions) that no other person has access to. There may be a large group of people who call themselves Zoroastrians (I choose this because I do not know any Zoroastrians nor am I one). The beliefs they hold about their religion may be similar, but each person holds a slightly different view of that religion based upon how they were raised, what they encounter specific to that religion, and their interaction with others and how those memories of the interactions feed their perceptions of the religion. Thus, no two perceptions of Zoroastrianism can be exactly the same. One person will inevitably view things differently through the lense of that religion than his friend will view things.
Although brief in nature, I believe that this explanation of what makes us unique can carry us through this three part series individualism and the pitfalls of socialism. I know that there will be people who do not agree with my theory of uniqueness and individualism, but I would like to hear your opinions so as to greater inform my own. For now, let us all realize that no two people are the same and thus we must make an even greater effort to understand each other, where we come from, and the distinct memories and perceptions that make each of us who we are. If we leave our judgement at the door and go into any conversation with an open mind about the other person, we may just come out enlightened. This is not to say that we will understand everything about everyone in such a short period of time, but we must at least make the effort to not impart judgment on others based upon our own unique memories and perceptions for they do not hold true for the other person. We are all vastly unique beyond, even at times, our own comprehension. I do not feel that people engage in introspection enough to learn about who they truly are in order to understand others enough. We all hold our vision of things as truth to a certain extent, but it is only true for us and no one else. If we are to reach a middle ground of understanding, we must first seek to explore the individual and how each individual informs the greater community. Till next time, be well and smile!
I think that we can all agree that humans possess many similarities with each other when it comes down to basic bodily function and design. We all possess a body controlled by a brain and nervous system and consequently all the systems that the brain and nervous system are connected to. There is general knowledge that if you prick any human's finger with a needle, they will feel pain and in response, jerk that finger away from said pain. We all may react slightly differently depending on our pain tolerance or the certain degredation of nerves, but the underlying reaction is to an extent, universal. Similarly, most of our body's systems function in similar ways to everyone elses. The physics behind eyesight, hearing, and mobility are the same regardless of where you are from. Even our brain's pathways operate similarly to those of others. To me, this encompasses most of our similarities with each other. Once we move beyond the scientific similarities of the human body, we begin to encounter different variables that begin to distinguish us as individuals.
Once we move away from the human body and the general world population possessing one, we start to see differences depending on where and how we live. Our bodies, while operating similarly to others, react differently depending on the region and climate that we are raised in. Our minds begin, from an early age, begin to cultivate certain distinctions about the world we live in separate from any other individual. Someone living Alaska, will have a completely different set than someone who lives on the tropical island of Fiji. Based on the parameters developed in the mind, a person comes to expect certain phenomenon based on his physical location in the world. While this begins to separate us from each other, i.e. develop our uniqueness, it can be argued that if the person from Alaska moved to Fiji, then his body would eventually aclimate itself to the new locale. This may be true, but the argument fails to draw upon the most distinct part of us that makes us unique, our memories and perceptions carried with us from place to place irregardless of time. While certain memories may fade over time and others may become more vivid, every memory builds upon the previous and in so doing affects our perceptions of the world that we live in. The person from Alaska, having moved to Fiji, will most likely show outward signs of amazement at the beauty that the island holds noticing intricate details that may not hold that attention of the Fijian as long because he has grown up in the lush island paradise and is accustomed to the world around him.
Our memories and perceptions are the distinct part of who we are that separate us from everyone else. Our minds are what make us unique from anyone else. (For this explanation I will draw off of the theory of heterophenomenology proposed by Daniel C. Dennet). The person we are today, I believe, is a culmination of our memories and impressions accumulated over our lifetime. Every memory we have, meaning everything that we experience as impressed upon the brain either through sound, sight, smell, touch, or taste, is different from anyone elses and creates a unique perception of the world around us. No two people are the same because no two perceptions of the world based upon memories and impressions are the same. Even if you take the Alaskan and Fijian (the Alaskan having been acclimated by now) standing side by side and ask them to relay their experience of an event they both witnessed for the same amount of time from the same vantage point, you will get different responses. Why, because A) they could not be physically standing in the same spot to view the event from the same angle, even if separated by a few inches and B) they will notice different things about the event because they are standing in different spots and because their memories and perceptions inform their minds to pick up on different nuances and to place greater importance on ones that they feel will have a greater impact upon them. For instance, if both are viewing a tribal dance, the Alaskan may place greater importance upon the beautiful topless women dancing in the circle, while the Fijian may place greater importance on the story that is being told through the dance.
Similar to viewing things and our differences in percieving the physical world around us, so too are our beliefs separate from those around us because they are informed by a specific set of variables (memories and perceptions) that no other person has access to. There may be a large group of people who call themselves Zoroastrians (I choose this because I do not know any Zoroastrians nor am I one). The beliefs they hold about their religion may be similar, but each person holds a slightly different view of that religion based upon how they were raised, what they encounter specific to that religion, and their interaction with others and how those memories of the interactions feed their perceptions of the religion. Thus, no two perceptions of Zoroastrianism can be exactly the same. One person will inevitably view things differently through the lense of that religion than his friend will view things.
Although brief in nature, I believe that this explanation of what makes us unique can carry us through this three part series individualism and the pitfalls of socialism. I know that there will be people who do not agree with my theory of uniqueness and individualism, but I would like to hear your opinions so as to greater inform my own. For now, let us all realize that no two people are the same and thus we must make an even greater effort to understand each other, where we come from, and the distinct memories and perceptions that make each of us who we are. If we leave our judgement at the door and go into any conversation with an open mind about the other person, we may just come out enlightened. This is not to say that we will understand everything about everyone in such a short period of time, but we must at least make the effort to not impart judgment on others based upon our own unique memories and perceptions for they do not hold true for the other person. We are all vastly unique beyond, even at times, our own comprehension. I do not feel that people engage in introspection enough to learn about who they truly are in order to understand others enough. We all hold our vision of things as truth to a certain extent, but it is only true for us and no one else. If we are to reach a middle ground of understanding, we must first seek to explore the individual and how each individual informs the greater community. Till next time, be well and smile!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)