Author
|
Topic: The Corporation
|
Giiba
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2782
|
posted 28 March 2004 05:22 AM
Now I am sure that this movie has been thoroughly discussed here already. Today was a very odd day for me. I began my day by not writing my paper for class instead choosing to catch up on the news at the ever curious spin of perpetual geeks at [ http:www.slashdot.org ] . there was a link to this story by a lady who rides through the destruction of chernobyl: http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/ As the credits rolled, I thought of all of the talk of democratizing corporations. A case can be easily made that democracy is a failed experiment. However the above story struck in my mind as an example that giving the means of production to the government is all but proven to be just as bad. It would seem that the solution lies with a completely new system, as dramatic as the one that lept up in the 1400-1500's. Can it be done?? And what might it look like?? [ 28 March 2004: Message edited by: Giiba ]
From: somewhere cold | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885
|
posted 29 March 2004 07:49 PM
From D'Aquino (who really should be forced to return his name): quote: Yes, if you admire the techniques of Goebels and Trotsky and their ilk. The bigger the lie, the better, and why not? It has worked in the past, with tragic consequences of course. But clearly the producers of The Corporation are disciples of the age-old dictum that ‘the end justifies the means.’
My ironymeter just crapped out again. Thanks, Thomas. [ 29 March 2004: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Giiba
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2782
|
posted 30 March 2004 09:12 PM
Not to rouse an argument, but I think that anarchism is the cheap way out of the question I posed. I would have to admitt that I am an anarchist at heart (though more nihilistic tendancies do prevail), but I would suppose that human history (politicaly) began with anarchism. Anarchism to small family groups to tribes to blah blah blah, you probably get the idea, feudalism to capitalism to corporate domination to _________?? While I would enjoy seeing everything destroyed, in this day and age all that it would mean is rule by those with the bigger guns (and of course more ammunition).Communism (as Marx saw it, not Lenin or Stalin) seems like a great idea; ulitmatly a form of anarchism where the common good is achieved seems a tad too idealistic for me. If you agree with Marx that humans are altruistic under our blinders of capitalism, then this is the way to go. However as a student of government and economics, I think if economics has done nothing it has at least proven that self-interest is the driving force behind humans. So without altruism (Marx was a visionary, but never did a person get human nature so fundamentaly wrong) you would have communism as Lenin (or Stalin) saw it. Which may end in revolution and democracy, which would end us back where the whole damn thought started. So from here spawns my original question; What? The idea of the benevolent dictator (plato I believe, or at least one of those Greek fellows; please forgive my lack of political thought history) would work, if one believed in benevolence (or that power does not in fact corupt). Is humanity capable of self goverment? Sorry but I am going off an even stranger tangent here... I watched the movie The Last Samurai last night. Though the main thing I took from the movie was: Modernization... but at what cost? I did have it occur to me the banter that occured between the main characters about how he was the protector of the nation. I'll try to make this more clear. The leader of the samurai tribesaw himself as the protector of this group (and in fact the nation of Japan). He was the ruler but he did so with benevolence. Is it just Western culture that has bred so many wicked people? Or is there something else that causes our society to continuously seek domination of others by the few? Just some random banter from the mouth of a disheartend youth. I am wtching this world eat itself, causing enormous suffering while it dies.
From: somewhere cold | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 31 March 2004 03:29 PM
Anarchism isn't what you think it is. I'm not talking about bloody Libertarians. I'm not talking about foolish young demonstrators in black shirts talking about destroying everything with no idea what to do instead. And I'm certainly not talking about the hypothetical Hobbesian "state of nature", the war of each against all. Incidentally, humans have almost certainly been in medium sized bands, larger than a family group, with pecking orders, since before they were human, since our nearest relatives are like that and nearly all of our medium-near relatives are too. Except orangutans. So no, there never was a point in human history without organization beyond the family group.Anarchism, the political ideology I am referring to, is not a cheap anything. It is as I said a sophisticated current of thought. It does not imply no rules, but no rulers. Decentralization, co-operation, community, participation, direct democracy, these are strands that run through Anarchist thought. There have been many versions over the years. As a real-world example, worker-owned co-operatives are an essentially anarchist form of organization. Anarchism was strong in Pre-Franco Spain. It was important in revolutionary Russia, before the Bolsheviks crushed competing groups. Another principle consistently advanced by anarchists is the importance of consistency with ideals--that organizations to advance anarchy must abide by anarchist principles; that is they must themselves be egalitarian, communitarian, decentralized, reject hierarchy and so forth. Which sounds simple, but most progressive groups don't adhere to it. Anarchism is an important progressive strand with a lot of thought and scholarship behind it, and it bugs me that so many people who consider themselves progressive just accept what boils down to the establishment caricature. Even some people who think they're Anarchists, for Pete's sake!
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Giiba
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2782
|
posted 01 April 2004 06:23 PM
The Anarchism of which you speak sounds like the communism that Marx spoke of (which was really anarchism anyways). However I think that it would fall prey to the self-interest of humans that I talked about earlier with regards to marxist communism. I've always thought that the idea of communism was one that could work incredibly well on a smaller scale; such as a business co-op, tribes, etc. where transparency is inevitable, and secrecy cannot prevail. On a large scale transparency becomes increasingly more dificult with as the size of the group grows, and at the same time it would be easier to maintain secrecy.Can something like a nation of 30million people (not to even discuss the 1 billion mark) that requires such an enormous bureaucracy to function, be properly administrated by an anarchist system?? As a note: I just cannot see that 30 millions people can function as a society (or collective) without something working to link them together, aggregate their preferences, and spread their ideas/hopes/dreams/angers/etc... Back to the world... Sory that I am so dificult, it just seems like there is no real hope.
From: somewhere cold | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813
|
posted 04 April 2004 05:04 AM
For an excellent discussion of workable politics, both on small and large scales, check out "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn and the "Tao Te Ching" by Lao Tzu (or similar Taoist thought). They are by far the most insightful ideas on the topic I have yet come across, and easy to read as well. Tao Te Ching Ishmael Ishmael website [ 04 April 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]
From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|