[gaulois]

I think the new Canadian economy will have a larger grassroot economy component where People trade among each other goods and services, what it was supposed to be in the first place. The Internet will keep displacing many middle-men. The challenge will be to figure out how this can coexist with a globalization component.

[Brianne]

Not really an answer to Calumny's question, but just a comment on part on his premise that it will be difficult to get people to act without selfish intent to create a new economy: <br /> <br />Obviously, human nature, as it is called, has some qualities that are less then enviable. Greed, for instance; and yet, greed in accumulation of goods is not a part of our nature. The need to accumulate goods in order to attain a percieved 'station' is completely superficial and is not apart of human nature, but a created identity within a materialistic society. Our societies did not emerge from the hunter-gathering state by competition between neighbours and small settlements. Our societies emerged from the earlier developments through cooperation, and merged into societies where a type of democratic or primitive communism was practiced. This state of society was displaced by a more affluent agricultural time, and development continued, both economically and politically. However, it is important that the world seems to be moving back towards a democratic division of power at the same time many are pushing towards a more equitable share of goods and land. <br /> <br />The connection to the topic is this: the suggestion that it is human nature to be greedy and keep the little guy down is a fallacy. Society has developed through cooperation and through community effort. To deny that is to deny all of our existence before the onslaught of capitalism or the beginning of renewed international trade. While it may not hold universally that all peoples, at all times, were willing to help all others, I would argue that most of the time, most of the people were willing to help those that needed it most, and that that is human nature.

[Calumny]

Reread my initial post and have to agree with you Brianne. My statements were rather broad and could have been worded better. <br /> <br />The majority of people don't have the acquisition of material goods and/or power as their top priority. I'm sure throughout history the top priority for most would be a comfortable, e.g., enough to eat, and safe life for themselves and their family/community. <br /> <br />It should be noted I used the terms 'accumulate', 'hoard' rather than 'greed' and did not indicate it was part of human nature to keep the little guy down. <br /> <br />I'm sure that prior to achieving consciousness, humans 'understood' that some form of community, herd, etc. and co-operation/organization bettered chances for individual survival. Co-operation in this regard was not selfless, but rather selfish. Regardless of the motive or incentive to co-operate, the outcome of this behaviour behaviour was positive for both the individual and community in strengthening the chances of both to survive. <br /> <br />How this actually played out out in these communities e.g. democratic, communistic, 'big man' autocracy, etc. is something we can't be sure of and may have differed throughout the world and time. There are obvious benefits in hoarding for a rainy day, whether you be a squirrel, hamster or a person. Whether this hoarding is done for self or, through peer pressure or choice, on behalf of a community is another matter. However, it's clear many mammals possess a hoarding instinct, which has nothing to do with good, evil or greed, for survival purposes. The fact remains that hoarding of wealth and power by individuals or groups of individuals existed long before capitalism. <br /> <br />Consciousness brought with it free will and the abilty to decide on a noble or ignoble course in one's actions, as opposed to simply reacting based on hard wiring, e.g., instinct. Thus we have the ability to sacrifice our interests for the good of others or the community, or choose not to. But, we are still hard wired in many respects in ways that pre-date our consciousness. What we have now is the ability to recognize this hard-wiring, e.g., male instict in many creatures to inseminate as many females as possible to better guarantee spread and survival of genes, and subordinate it for the overall good of society. And with consciousness came conscience. <br /> <br />I am not aware of any non-hunter gatherer society that has not at some point been of a 'big man' natures, whether the 'big man' be male, female or a group, and in many cases the 'big-men' accumulated resources at the expense of the general populace. Some societies dealt with this better than others however the fact remains that every society that has moved out of a hunter-gather position has gone through a 'big-man' phase and many of these 'big-men' were into big time accumulation that was not redistributed throughout the populace and a notion of forced co-operation/compliance from the populace long before any notion of capitalism came on the scene. <br /> <br />The attainment of a 'perceived' station and acknowledgemt is pretty common amongst living things. Whether this attainment involves puffing up of feathers, large antlers, brute strength or territory/goods, it amounts to the same thing. <br /> <br />There are many reasons we find ourselves where we are today, one of which may be an unhealthy form of capitalism, another may be a religions that move humans away from the notion they are part of a world and replace that with the notions that they are masters of the world, another may be the growth of cities severing a sense of community and fostering anonymity, another may be that our society glorifies the 'self-made' 'ambitious' 'individual' who are successful in the accumulation of goods and power, another may be the 'god of individualism' that so many North Americans worship without understanding. <br /> <br />However, the most important reason is that we haven't moved beyond what we were to who we could be. As is amply demonstrated in a study of evolution, qualities that serve a species well in specific circumstances may cause its downfall in others. Many of the hard-wired instincts we still possess may have served the individual and group well in a pre-consciousness existence or in circumstances of earlier times, however, may be detrimental to the group as a whole in our current circumstances. <br /> <br />The problem is that this instinctive behaviour is not always recognized for what it is and at times is glorified by society rather being discouraged or more productively (for all) channeled. <br /> <br />As evidenced by some comments on Vive and at any of the many U.S. neo-con sites, there are many who view socialism as inevitably resulting in a government controlled society of automatons devoid of individual thought and choice. Needless to say, some hypocrite controlled totalitarian states that have termed themselves socialist or communist haven't done much to contradict that view. This type of state would destroy the 'individualism' so cherished by these folks. I could discuss the whole concept of individualism at length, but won't. <br /> <br />Suffice to say, I believe some compromise exists between capitalism/ socialism and individualism/societism. This compromise must appreciate what it means to be human, including the need for acknowledgement, approbation and reward for effort. <br /> <br />So what's the compromise and how do you get their in societies that gives from more weight to the concept of the individual as an entity in and of itself than it does on the individual's responsibilities within the society?

[Calumny]

Some of the discussion in this thread ties into the flow of the increasing Canadian sovereignty thread. <br />

[Marcarc]

I thought I'd respond, if for no other reason than it's clear that considerable thought went into that posting, and though I don't read every message on here, I don't think there's anything worse than not attempting to understand a point of view. I know that's what I would like. <br /> While the majority of it doesn't need comment because I agree with the gist of what is said, it is your 'first principles' that I don't believe bear scrutiny. First, it is clear that even among anthropologists or historians there is no clear evidence of how life was lived 'pre-consciousness', and whether or not at the pre-consciousness level our ancestors were even homo-sapiens. The accumulation of language, which would be one indicator, goes back farther in time than any historicial record of what life was like. So we can't make predictions. <br /> I'm assuming your 'big man' theory is a term of your own devising, as I've never heard it in any anthropology text (my minor). The problem with your argument at this point is that, though you don't define it, I suspect that any society you don't feel fits the 'big man' theory, you would simply disqualify as a 'hunter gatherer' society. <br /> So what you are suggesting is a particularly western theory of 'progress' where hunter gatherer societies develop into 'big man' societies. I would have no problem with that statement as long as you weren't claiming that it's natural or inevitable. <br /> My 'big point' (which seeks to dominate and accumulate all other points<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> is that we have a typical bias of what a 'hunter gatherer' society entails. We know, for example, that even the most primitive societies we have come across have extremely elaborate political, cultural, and social inter-relationships. The fact that these societies exist, and there are thousands of them, and possess these complex interactions shows that they did not exist 'hand to mouth'. Places like the amazon, or lets even talk about Canada: we know from historical records just how plentiful food was. The people followed the herds for a reason, namely that it's pretty easy living to go out and pick off an animal to meet one's daily requirements (relatively). As late as the 1950's the maliceet of New Brunswick were pretty much self sufficient, this only stopped when the St. John river was dammed. The vast majority of ones diet can be met with vegetation, while game fed throughout the winter. And by most accounts, there was LOTS of game for the population. This left considerable time for leisure, one estimate I agree with is that a maximum of four hours was necessary for 'work' to sustain life. <br /> Even if we define non hunter-gatherer societies as being those where the autocratic system prevails, there is wide variance. For example, I disagree about how the 'majority' of what I assume you mean our culture, wishes to live more communally. The autocratic system is built into our culture at the most basic level, the family. If you've ever seen a parent at a mall screaming at a youngster, or vice versa, you know what I mean. In our society the parents role is autocratic, NOT protectorate or informational. Parents 'take care' of infants when they require the basics of survival, however, at a young age it is the institutions which provide for their needs-and in my opinion very badly. Just as an aside I'd like to mention the autocratic display whenever a child 'makes noise'. This is clearly natural for children, and I find it far more disquieting to hear parents either scream back at, or threaten to abandon a child. <br /> We are just now beginning to understand this, we see more and more 'montissory' schools and their like springing up because we have come to understand that having a teacher 'enforce' a specific type of learning has very real, and in the opinion of subscribers of these schools, very bad repercussions. <br /> That children can learn together without parental support still is not believed. In our culture we all read 'lord of the flies' (at least most) where we learned that children become ruthless thugs without support. <br /> As far as communal aspects of an advanced civilization we can again look at Canada. On the east coast we know they were considerably advanced, as systems of development and language clearly existed. What was lacking was autocratic structures. In letters of the period we see considerable exasperation on the part of europeans who were always trying to talk to 'who was in charge'. One of the basic problems with treaties is discussing which are even legitamate. The british would often just find some native, get him drunk and get him to sign some document and claim he was the chief. There was no designate chief in the eastern native cultures and there was even no such thing as a 'warrior'. And just to dispell some propaganda I'd like to mention that 'scalping' was something that was brought over by the europeans, it did not exist in native cultures. <br /> We know, for example, that the first acadians adopted many of the political traits of the natives of the region who helped them survive. This also was not autocratic on most of the levels. <br /> So there really isn't any hard and fast rules in anthropology or political theory. Virtually every society that exists and has existed has very different traits. <br />

[Marcarc]

I thought I'd continue on a second letter so that people have one or the other they can skip over! <br /> The other half of this argument, though you don't mention it specifically, is applying these socialist structures to Canada. In this is where our fundamental difference lies, in that the highly anarchic system of governance I'd support wouldn't subscribe to any federal notion of canada. Whenever decision making is taken away from people who are directly affected by a problem exists, I believe that is wrong. <br /> This is why I talk about simply running for office as a direct democracy candidate. If we had more of these, then the balance of power shifts, and that's exactly what is desired. This is why I disagree with the idea that some 'charismatic philosopher king' will come along and suddenly operate benevolently is some kind of pipe dream, albeit one that permeates our society. The idea is still that, we don't need a new political system, we need new politicians. <br />

[gaulois]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] The idea is still that, we don't need a new political system, we need new politicians. <br /> [/QUOTE] <br />Do you not need politicians to bring the new political system? I am not sure if a new political party is required. I would hope the NDP would see the light on this. But I do not think they have. They seem to carry too much baggage.

[Marcarc]

I'll mention this for your benefit, though no doubt others are sick of hearing me spout on about it. When I ran as a direct democracy candidate it was as an independant and without any positions. As a councillor my job was to get the pertinent information and make it as accessible as possible. Then the people would vote on it, and the further job would be to set up either meeting places for votes, or more conveniently for phone or email voting. Then count the votes and present them at council. The exact same structure would exist at the provincial and federal level. Since it is considerable work, getting people involved is benefecial so that others aren't dictating the issues. <br /> Although this person is technically a politician, it is such a far cry from what we have as politicians now to be a creature of a different name. Personally, I do not agree with all the NDP positions, but some of them, and sometimes I agree with some conservative positions and some liberal ones, but most often on ones all the parties refuse to talk about and which seem to be highest on the agenda for canadians. <br /> I've had some people say that that's a radical departure, but really I think that's what a representative should be doing now. If you combine that with the fact that most people don't like people 'from away' dictating their policy, I think you'd find quite a different federation since one area would stay out of much of another area's concern so that the favour would be returned. I think the majority of things though are things which all canadians feel strongly (clean water, good health, decent education, lack of poverty, etc.)