A new world without rules, good or bad?

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 14/07/12, 11:02

Ahmed wrote:Nietzsche said: "Man is something that must be overcome".



According to Nietzsche, man would only be a transition to "something else" ... for the moment we would only be a half-beast half -? *

The concept of equity is a human construction, therefore cultural.

And recent! the abolition of slavery dates only to 1848!
Equality is an idealistic concept, but by no means realistic.

If the hierarchy inside animal societies is a functional necessity, human societies would benefit from dispensing with it since they have superior aptitudes allowing it.


This is what was advocated H. Laborit, but we will have to be patient!
The hierarchical system is everywhere, our whole society is based on this principle, from nursery school to the Élysée ...

* God or demon it's up to us!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Greg T
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 39
Registration: 03/06/12, 19:18
Location: Jehay, province of Liège, Belgium




by Greg T » 14/07/12, 11:04

I think we will come up with something good! : Cheesy:

I (we) ask myself a question:

We agree that man is differentiated from other animals by thought. I speak of thought because even if man is a social being, he is not the only one (ants, wolves, dolphins, ...).

Certain men are at the origin of currents of thought which really marked our history. I am grateful for their enumeration (I would especially not want to forget one 8) ). These men (or women) in spreading their thought were leaders (you may be yourself).

So here is the question: Wouldn't having leaders at the origin of currents of thought automatically create a hierarchy even if the idea in question is to remove any hierarchy ???

Image
0 x
(Formerly known as Gregconstruct) Because every gesture counts ... I serve you a little 10 ???
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 14/07/12, 11:20

Greg T wrote:
So here is the question: Wouldn't having leaders at the origin of currents of thought automatically create a hierarchy even if the idea in question is to remove any hierarchy ???



Be careful not to confuse level of awareness or Awakening with hierarchical positioning!
Jesus Christ, Buddha, etc. was at the bottom of the social ladder, it was only afterwards that ideologies were made on them (religions) and we re-institute a logic of hierarchy.
Originally, his philosophies aimed to free man from his ego, the rest (hierarchy, domination) naturally vanishes.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 14/07/12, 11:40

Perhaps one of the best basic questions ever posed in this Greg T fo-fo ...

I venture to a modest answer in the form of a question ...: Isn't this precisely what seeking to study and initiate all constructivist epistemiology (not recovered, Laborit, Piaget and so many others with the basic psychology VS psychiatry) that is to say that each human being is himself a vector and bearer of the values ​​of construction, socialization, change and improvement of society: where he is and in everyday life is called among other civic sense although the term is totally disparaged ...
(thus there should / no longer be a "leader" since their role would be to stop the "leveling down" and in particular to serve as a guide instead of a chiourme guard ... well theoretically ... it is a delicate subject : Cheesy: especially when you see what's going on in classes today ...

In such a society, it is the Ministry of Culture that would be at the center of the State => but I am not saying that this is not the case today, it depends on how each elected politician is inhabited, from there until it becomes the norm .... shit I'm going to bring tears to LeJusteMilieu's eye again ...)
0 x
User avatar
Greg T
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 39
Registration: 03/06/12, 19:18
Location: Jehay, province of Liège, Belgium




by Greg T » 14/07/12, 11:42

I am not convinced that hierarchy and social scale are linked. In any case, not at the start.

And there, I believe in the end (thanks to your answer dear sen-no-sen) that we must in fact separate everything to better understand. Let me explain!

Hierarchy and social scale are different things since everyone at their social level can be hierarchically strong. So, if our "world", voluntarily or not, stops at our social scale, we can be the master of our world. This is not the most important ...

What seems to me the most important is that we have a bad image of the leader (I did it too, I think ...). In fact, the leader is not a leader. The real leader is a guide, a unifying character. The true leader therefore has no hierarchy or social class. The leader does not impose anything, he suggests. Men's thought and reflection do the rest.

In short, we are in dire need of leaders, guides ...
0 x
(Formerly known as Gregconstruct) Because every gesture counts ... I serve you a little 10 ???
User avatar
Greg T
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 39
Registration: 03/06/12, 19:18
Location: Jehay, province of Liège, Belgium




by Greg T » 14/07/12, 11:55

Obamot wrote:In such a society, it is the Ministry of Culture that would be at the center of the State => but I am not saying that this is not the case today, it depends on how each elected politician is inhabited, from there until it becomes the norm .... shit I'm going to bring tears to LeJusteMilieu's eye again ...)


First of all, I am delighted to see that you appreciate my question!

Back on topic :
From a cultural point of view, I think it has never been worse than it is now. Which is all the more distressing when every day access to information is always easier! For many, it has become a simple disposable consumer product instead of being a source of personal enrichment.

General culture is the very basis of thinking and critical thinking! Critical sense is of utmost importance when it comes to respecting others. How can we know where our freedoms begin and stop without being endowed with this meaning?
0 x
(Formerly known as Gregconstruct) Because every gesture counts ... I serve you a little 10 ???
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 14/07/12, 14:07

Greg T wrote:
So here is the question: Wouldn't having leaders at the origin of currents of thought automatically create a hierarchy, even if the idea in question is to remove any hierarchy ???

This is a very good remark and poses a real problem.
Those who are most able, in our society, to have a critical thought, are, because of the specialization of the tasks, "professionals" of the thought, since it takes a significant time devoted to this activity so that 'it is fruitful ...
This gives them de facto a kind of monopoly on thought, which is completely paradoxical since thought, to make full sense, must be a common good (the latter adjective taken in its two meanings).

The question is then how to overcome this situation which considerably limits the scope of this knowledge which is expressed ex cathedra*, by reserving its use elitistly and therefore by defusing a good part of their critical charge (performative contradiction).

Perhaps we have part of the answer in front of us, since the forums allow a direct, anonymous exchange, therefore without the authority of titles or social position.

* From the top of the professorship.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
plasmanu
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2847
Registration: 21/11/04, 06:05
Location: The 07170 Lavilledieu viaduct
x 180




by plasmanu » 14/07/12, 14:59

If we think we are a minority
If we are stupid we are in the majority
If a thinker is in the majority it is a dictator.

Summary:
Image
0 x
"Not to see Evil, not to hear Evil, not to speak Evil" 3 little monkeys Mizaru
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 14/07/12, 16:10

Perhaps we have part of the answer in front of us, since the forums allow a direct, anonymous exchange, therefore without the authority of titles or social position.
but this hierarchy is replaced by the authority of knowledge or supposed to be such. One-eyed for the blind?
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 14/07/12, 18:48

Model and crumbling in the real economy (notes on Wolfgang Streek II)

According to the description and the observations made by the author (and if my neurons have correctly captured):

Wolfgang Streek (translated by Obamot) wrote:- "Companies are social institutions, not just networks of private contracts or the property of their shareholders [in the German compromise model].

Their internal order would be a matter of public interest and would be subject to extensive social regulation, by law and industrial agreements.

In addition, the managers of large German companies manage capital management and a “labor market” which are very well organized, allowing both capital owners and “labor forces” to participate directly in the daily decision-making process. of the business, demanding that decisions be continually [re?] negotiated.

Decisions thus take more time, but are also easier to implement once taken. ”


So, always if we believe the author [and the translation] and since companies are in the money-debt paradigm, let's take a look at it from a “gallette” perspective.

"Capital market"

Still according to the author:

Wolfgang Streek wrote: "[...] The German capital market is not based on a paradigm of" [total] market control ". Many companies continue to be in private hands, and only a small part of the productive capital is listed on the stock exchange, the banks can hold shares, but the shareholders are very concentrated, and the shares and companies do not change often of hands.

[However], companies finance themselves with less equity than through long-term bank credit.
Since banks can vote by proxy on behalf of shares they hold on deposit, they can effectively control performance management, which allows them to “grant” businesses long-term loans and creates an incentive to them not to [speculate] [directly] with capital.

[We can also infer from this below] that union forces are similarly present in companies, exercising legal rights [enforceable] through the Councils representing the workers, functioning as supervisory bodies. Together, these regulatory systems applied collectively and in accordance with legal regulations, would make this co-determination of the employment regime making it difficult for employers to fire workers [arbitrarily] ... ”


PS: text in [square brackets]: implicit and cropped from German.


At this stage, we are indeed faced with a sort of enforceable right. But it is all the same a sophisticated and evolved arrangement of the three ['CON'] of Mc Grégor => CONduire, CONtraindre, CONTrôler, only they added in a CONcertée and CONsentante way (I have good?)

Some comments (On this system and without taking a personal position)
The arbitration of banks on the productivity of companies (associating workers and unions ... and therefore also managers up to senior managers who are also "workers"), should suggest to us that companies would not be able to take on alone the productivity challenge which is intrinsically their responsibility and above all that it would allow control through “monitoring of management performance” (what I call elsewhere “new management").

It's very clever! And possibly a reflection of society, but also a major admission: the capitalist system, presented as so virtuous, would therefore have failed in "the motivation of men to work"!

Thus the banks would subtly monitor / conduct / control the system nonetheless, basing benchmarking on a sort of fallacy which would in fact be a pure alibi for "installing power". Based on arguments from the 'holy scriptures':
- the natural propensity of man to idleness (which must be combated absolutely, from childhood and until the end ...!)
- of the a priori biblical guilt syndrome! (We feel guilty first, we see then).

While in principle "the market economy" would seek by virtue to make individuals responsible, we discover that a priori "we could not trust them!". Which is totally wrong of course, but it is even more effective than the sinews of war: money.

The Germans would seem however to have understood the advantage to be drawn from their model, by limiting a contrario the influence of the banks ... To pretend that the companies would be immunized from the aims of the banks not to take advantage of their position to speculate on the markets via the yield management is amha a sheer sight of the mind in the very long run! Since, according to changes and adaptations, financial speculators would advance their pawns, the time working for them (1 ... 2 ... 3 ... generations or more, they are in no hurry), they would thus end up controlling over time all the companies and picking up the jackpot (see Goldman Sachs etc) only it would take time: what does it matter when the betrayal is discovered, all the old ones are already ... dead! Obviously, this is done insidiously and above all in silence .... death bank.

This is the result of observing long-term facts, examples of which abound in recent as well as older history. In this context, the exercise of legal rights is quite illusory - consolation: it is at least temporary - since the legal form FOLLOWs the evolution of successive transmutations. Co-determination by the Works Councils - even if it surely works very well as a safeguard - casts doubt that it can be generalized under the high protection of "Supervisory Boards".

But I recognize that I am not qualified enough to know the conformity with the current legal regulations (discipline which is relative to “Comparative Law” ...)

However Wolfgang Streek himself admits that such a system is only applicable in Germany, for reasons that I invite you to discover by reading this very interesting text of 28 pages.

The positive point that can possibly be drawn from this is that this co-determination system supports a collaboration regime, which must be remembered: makes it difficult for employers to dismiss workers (except, of course, in cases extremes of bankruptcy, etc.). It is a bit of a paradox, but it works as long as we are dealing with a population of workers who are not reluctant to do the job. And our first cousins ​​are known for that culturally. It may be a hard model, but one that is possibly antagonistic to the type of model that produces repetitive crumbling.

The negative point is obviously that it does not combine - among other things - some advantages of "Universal dividend»!

We get tired of everything, except to learn ...  (Virgil)

It must be remembered that all of this is very theoretical.

I leave to those who want, the care of making a better synthesis, because mine is undoubtedly very incomplete.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 253 guests