I do not believe the communist ideal that people in a non-local society [say over 3000 members] would add to the common good as well/much as they could given their options.
No dear comrades, only in a local transparent society, the ideal of giving freely what I could is possible. Only there I can trust the reciprocation when all my needs are being met. Reciprocation is not working where there is a mist (may cover freeloaders) and-or mistrust i.e. with secrecy or when dealing with strangers. The rules of non-local deals are thus written in [town to state] laws since people would at large try to play the strangers (system), as you comrades did when you preached this ideal yet drank your privileges. Very few, probably nice, pure and perceptionally manipulated, believed {or still believe} this ideal since actions speak louder than proclamations. Comrades who climbed the opportunities ladder did not believe this ideal. They spoke lie using the party ladders and niches to become directors... claiming the companies successes, pretending to know the future when planning. The employees played this system their way. Their motivation was way under ´giving as much as one could´ and the saying among the bestest party outsiders went: 'they who do not steal steal from their family'. Zappa nodded and said 'people like to own stuff'. Our socialist past was a special case of unfair -ism when the privileges of the party members were implicitly and sincerely given= stated in the laws. Samewise the wealth equality was fairly praised and controlled as the old bourgeousts were punished just because they were richer. Today the fairest system is in Scandinavia because it is the most transparent one. Not as many players, few hidden motivations. Of course it has its problems and ways to deal with them. Niches in nature or society tend to be monopolised by one species, one solution. The bestest way. If the way is a new organisation, the problem's niche of abuse is created. In the case of monopolised solution, the transparency is a must, since every organisation created to cope with something has an existential interest in keeping that thing. With secrecy there is a free reign for the natural tendency of hidden adding to the problem despite the coping declarations. Firemen starting fires is old as state. The definitions of what needs to be classified must so be regularly contested. Any option for an experiment should be given a green light. Say, in one region some data is a secret yet in a similar another it is not. A good candidate for a secret act may be preventing the attacks on transparency. Like in this city we will secretly curb gdpr and other threats to its minimum and in other region openly. Competition/experiment here is to openly say: just in our region we keep the public transparency in (say) everyone´s income statements... Later one would be able to assess which worked better, which region´s society is healthier in individual happiness and lower corruption. Assessment is not by experts but surveys. A short time should be put on the publication of the old secrets so that the experiment conditions and results can be publicly viewed and expertly studied. In an organisation to cope with problems (at niches of abuse), there is a pressure to keep the gravy trail of non transparency or a monopoly. This will/force would try to suggest there is a trade of between transparency and competition in this, the most important of problems. The importance of a problem is subjective. One of yardsticks is in how much pressure (lobbying, corruption, keeping ´natural´ monopoly narration, holding on the old paradigm) is there to keep this problem being dealt by a monopoly or at least secretly. The secrecy of power (only 2 strong parties duopoly), of NATO top meetings with no minutes, of tenders condition manipulation suitable for chosen competitors. Is there a natural monopoly? Army? In a changing environment of many facets it is more likely than not that there are viable alternative, creative ways to make profit in the previous natural monopoly realms. The monopoly so dissolves. For example. The foreign security aka wars and invasions started to being dealt by alternative contractors, flexible forces with a more direct gravy trailing to the organisers than from the usual secret army tenders. “The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” ― Frank Zappa
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Authorbiodive.weebly.com Archives
August 2021
Categories |