|
|
Post by Kai'zen on Mar 5, 2013 20:57:22 GMT -6
[teal]So, Hugo Chavez is dead, as of not long ago.
I'm interested to see what'll start happening in Venezuela, with the passing of the old guard. After the recent deaths of Muammar Gaddafi and Kim Jong Il, it looks like Socialists like myself can look forward to interesting times ahead.
It's also quite interesting to observe the direction that Kim Jong Un is taking North Korea in. Wherever he's taking it, I don't think it'll be in line with the Juche philosophy of his forefathers.
I'd be interested to see what thoughts or opinions the rest of the Cult have, regarding either Chavez, or the future of Socialism in general?[/teal]
|
|
|
|
Post by erwyn on Mar 15, 2013 10:24:09 GMT -6
I wouldn't be surprised if the USA would try to get a bigger foot hold in Cuban affairs now that Chavez is gone. With regards to socialism I think there has been a global trend towards the growth of the influence of liberalism and capitalism. I expect that in the future more nations will start to resemble a meritocracy, where people will be valued on a basis of what they contribute as opposed to the equal distribution of wealth and welfare provisions. Here in my homecountry (the Netherlands) politics have been swinging more to the right.
But if there is any idea that has seemed to be constant throughout my life it is that what goes up must come down and so I suspect that at some (vague) point in the future capitalism might find a decline and socialism a resurgence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kai'zen on Mar 15, 2013 17:06:12 GMT -6
I wouldn't be surprised if the USA would try to get a bigger foot hold in Cuban affairs now that Chavez is gone. With regards to socialism I think there has been a global trend towards the growth of the influence of liberalism and capitalism. I expect that in the future more nations will start to resemble a meritocracy, where people will be valued on a basis of what they contribute as opposed to the equal distribution of wealth and welfare provisions. Here in my homecountry (the Netherlands) politics have been swinging more to the right. But if there is any idea that has seemed to be constant throughout my life it is that what goes up must come down and so I suspect that at some (vague) point in the future capitalism might find a decline and socialism a resurgence. [teal]It seems that way. I suppose maybe we can expect a renewed interest in South America then? That's less than positive, given the bloody history such interests. To be honest I'm looking forward to new movements. I think that both capitalism and socialism have had their day, a new world for a new age, or something like that. Though anything particularly at odds with the USA way tends to get crushed under foot in the name of freedom.[/teal] |
|
|
|
Post by erwyn on Mar 15, 2013 17:55:05 GMT -6
I have to pick my words very carefully here because I don't live in the area and don't have a very good grip on the current state of affairs over in south america. But I guess we don't have to fear any attempts at annexation of the USA in South America, for at least 2 good reasons.
The first is that most of the larger South American countries have huge amounts of resources (even though they are very unevenly spread amongst the population) they would be capable of amassing armies quickly if it came to military interventions, I can think of a few Asian countries that might aid in a 2nd arms race.
The 2nd reason is that politics has increasingly become a matter of economics and the power seats are shifting towards multinational corporations instead of national governments (think about the influence corporations have on national politics by providing financial aid for political campaigns). It is no longer a matter of occupying the lands with resources but being able to hold the key to the market (the place where they generate money) of those resources.
Cuba is special case though if you consider the role it played during the Cuba crisis during the cold war nuclear arms race. It is a strategic point for US homeland security, and Castro has been taunting the hell out of US governments during his entire reign.
I can sympathize with your feelings about the current global political state of affairs. (and here is where I'm gonna start sounding like a geriatric hippie) The idea of absolute market freedom has clearly failed in my eyes, and being exploited by a tiny group of people. But I guess that is what power does, and these are the people power attracts.
Just don't forget we are not the victims in this story every day we exercise full control over our immediate environment, in a physical and spiritual/psychological way.
I guess we live to learn to fully realize that, maybe that is also what I would understand as Awakening.
Awaken!
|
|
|
|
Post by I AM the Way on Mar 18, 2013 10:06:12 GMT -6
A meritocracy would be the third side to capitalism (libertarianism) and socialism (communism). Governing by merit makes sense; although, these days it is perverted into a slippery slope. On one side, many believe those with the most capital have more merit. On the second side, many believe all people have merit just by being alive and are given to egalitarianism. Our democracy is the middle ground or grey area; however, such is not always the same as the third side.
How should a society or culture define "merit"... that's the key to the whole thing.
VS
|
|
|
|
Post by Kai'zen on Mar 25, 2013 1:46:18 GMT -6
[teal]Are you hinting at what I think you're hinting at? I'll assume you are, as we're both living this religion. A Lovecraftian theocracy would certainly provide a suitable measuring stick to form the main basis of a meritarchy.
As with anything as subjective as merit, it's necessary to have a relative position from which to gauge it. The more comprehensive the method, the messier things become. A directed effort, such as self-deification would work better than most methods, that much I'm sure of.
Really the problem is the human element, there are going to be malcontents as well as so called 'false outsiders'. Most people want to live according to their own nature. (one of the main reasons I am against globalisation and strict immigration laws)
Personally, I've recently taken to tribalist current that's been growing in the ONA and other groups lately, not in that I want to return to more primitive ways specifically.
Rather than a government of the masses, I think a meritocracy would function better as a small, self-governing group of people working towards a common goal. Power being allocated to those most able to pursue the goal.[/teal]
|
|
|
|
Post by erwyn on Apr 5, 2013 5:21:48 GMT -6
How should a society or culture define "merit"... that's the key to the whole thing.
VS
This question reminds me of the famos Antiquiated question of who should be allowed to rule a society. Who will define merit, or measure and gauge the value of peoples contributions to a group (society), and hence allocate merit amongst it's members. What seems to one person like an act of merit may look to another like an act of villainy. I agree with Kai'zen that the act of assigning merit may only work in smaller groups, for can we rightfully and objectively say that those who wield the most power in our western societies, have attained their positions through merit? Are Hollywood (/mass media) images and classic success stories a good yardstick for us to collectively assign merit? Because to me it seems that we are evaluating people's merit on how closely they can resemble these people and their success stories. Capitalism to me seems wrong because I do not believe in (completely) rational human beings (that is something entirely reserved for Vulcans  ) and egalitarianism seems problematic because people are not born with the same talents, and in to different cultures that bestow different cultural paradigms on to them with which they view the world. Furthermore people acquire different skill sets throughout their lives. To quote Einstein "if you repeatedly judge a fish to be stupid based on it´s tree climbing skills, it will eventually believe itself it must be stupid" If we are going to allocate merit, one yardstick will not do. This becomes apparent when we try to awaken. Awaken ! |
|
|
|
Post by lokidreaming on Apr 19, 2013 20:36:07 GMT -6
In order to understand Venezuela today it is best to understand the history of South America and you have to understand the social and political dynamics from a South American perspective and not the media spin you have been errenously feeding yourself with.
In my opinion, certain South Americans are still romanticizing Simon Boliviar, The Conquistadors, Che Guevara and etc so a few of these people are trying to emanate these figures and in the process winning over the common people and the these common people believe this hype.
A very destructive cycle and very predictable cycle.
In my opinion the worst is yet to come and I personally wish people in South America would stop trying to emulate the past and the stupid South Americans wake up!!!
LD
|
|
|
|
Post by Kai'zen on Apr 27, 2013 3:29:11 GMT -6
In order to understand Venezuela today it is best to understand the history of South America and you have to understand the social and political dynamics from a South American perspective and not the media spin you have been errenously feeding yourself with. In my opinion, certain South Americans are still romanticizing Simon Boliviar, The Conquistadors, Che Guevara and etc so a few of these people are trying to emanate these figures and in the process winning over the common people and the these common people believe this hype. A very destructive cycle and very predictable cycle. In my opinion the worst is yet to come and I personally wish people in South America would stop trying to emulate the past and the stupid South Americans wake up!!! LD [teal]I personally view the romanticisation of cult of personality figures as a positive force myself. I guess that's a point of divergence there. Whereas you view it as an illusion, or a stupor, it seems to me to be nothing more than the human process of deifying the ancestors, in the same sense as gods like Thor were surely once mighty warriors. Trying to emulate such figures and shape history is a positive thing in my eyes, and the deluded masses that are directed by this process recognise the spirit of the leader atavisms, which is why they respond to them.[/teal] |
|
) and egalitarianism seems problematic because people are not born with the same talents, and in to different cultures that bestow different cultural paradigms on to them with which they view the world. Furthermore people acquire different skill sets throughout their lives. To quote Einstein "if you repeatedly judge a fish to be stupid based on it´s tree climbing skills, it will eventually believe itself it must be stupid" 