> I agree with the sentiments expressed in the book 'Animal Farm'. > > So do I. It aptly reflects Stalin's USSR. Again, people behaved according to their historical circumstances, in a backward, mostly feudal, war-beaten, starving country that had never known literacy or democracy at all, and most people who had some idea what should happen wer killed in the civil war, that was waged with the help of all the rest of the world. So there was no confident new democratic force to take over from the landowner/capitalist establishment. A totalitarian regime built on the old tsarist burocratic lines filled the gap. Based on present economic/social conditions I cannot see the same scenario to occur. Eva > At 11:57 AM 1/6/98 +0100, you wrote: > >People's motifs and their self-interest is > >determined by their social/cultural > >environment, which ultimately, is based on > >the economical structure. > > > >Workers - people who have no choice but > >to go to work, otherwise they cannot > >survive or cannot be the socially/ > >culturally accepted member of their > >community. > >Employers/entrepeneurs have to maximise > >their profit for basically the same reasons. > > > >Where does individual evilness come to the picture? > > > >We have to make people aware, that their > >best interest for survival, peace, self- > >fulfillment, and yes, better standard of living > >may be gained from a restructured and non- > >capitalist economy. > > > >Eva > > > > > > > > > >> >> Does it necessarily follow that "lowering of living standards for all > >> >> workers and absolute poverty for most" follows from capital's "roaming of > >> >> the world in search of cheap labour". > >> >> I think not. > >> >> Surely it must improve the living standards of some individuals in > less well > >> >> off countries. > >> > >> >Relying on experience so far, only a small minority benefits > >> >in most cases, while for the rest living standards won't > >> >improve and the environmental conditions worsen. > >> >The products and the profits leave the poor country. > >> >There are a few exceptions, such as South Korea, > >> >but there is no guarantee against crisis, when > >> >unemployment may force people back to the > >> >poverty and unbelievingly inhumane working > >> >conditions. While international finance risked and lost > >> >nothing. > >> > >> So there are benefits! And probably not too minor to the people who would > >> now be employed. > >> Or do others have "authourity" to determine what is beneficial to a third > >> world country. > >> To me it seems to be a problem with people rather than what system or mode > >> of economic development is in place. > >> > >> > >> >> Richer countries may have to "pay" for their lesser well off > neighbours but > >> >> our standard of living on average is much higher. > >> >> Is part of the "problem" with globalization, that Western nations will > have > >> >> to take a pay cut! (( washes mouth out with soap and water )) ;-) > >> >> Are we concerned about how globalisation affects the whole world or only > >> >> part of it. > >> > >> >so far the effect of globalisation is making the rich richer and the > >> >poor poorer in every country - perhaps with the exception of Norway. > >> >Everywhere we are demanded by the monetarists and the free-marketeers > >> >to tighten our belt if we are employees, and concessions, tax-breaks > >> >and excessive salaries if we are top cats. Masses are driven to > >> >social unrest and fundamental fanatism. Capitalism doesn't work. > >> >Capitalism is dangerously rotten. > >> > >> People's motives and self-interest are what are rotten. > >> > >> Tony Pierce > >> > >> > > > > > > Tel 61+(8) 9314 1308 || Fax 61+(8) 9337 3246 || PO Box 380 Hamilton Hill > 6163 Western Australia || http://www.users.bigpond.com/apier > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
