July 1, 2014 at 7:07 am #82939AnonymousInactive
Posted by Socialist CenterYour interests are different that mine, so will be your priorities. The same is true for countries. Each country has its own problem and issues. What could be a matter of grave concern for the USA might not be even relevant to the condition prevalent in Sudan, India or Brazil. When interests differ and priorities change in an environment that is characterized by internationalization, there comes an uneasy situation. Countries interact with each other; especially, in terms of economic and commercial transactions. Economic aspects do not operate in isolation and they have implications over other issues such as public health, education, development etc. When two countries are interacting with each other in the wake of globalization, there might be a situation when conflict of interests ushers into the relations. This situation is then brought to the table where the parties with vested interests come to negotiate and find a solution to the problem. Now, solution to each of the said country is the one that satisfies its own interest. As the interests are in conflict with each other, the possibility of such solution accepted to both of the parties becomes remote. In such a scenario, the best way is to compromise and work out a solution that reflects the larger interest of the world as a whole. The presumption here is: if something is good for the society as a whole, it must be good for its individual constituents. But ‘what happens’ in the real world is different from ‘what should happen’ in the real world. Whether such ‘good-for-all solution’ is really arrived at by those who come to deliberate is an important proposition to analyze.When two countries hailing from different economic development levels come to negotiation table to deliberate over some issue, it is not justified. How can you expect unequal countries to have same bargaining power when they do not have similar position in terms of what is considered to be the most important parameter of development in today’s world? After all, it is the principle of equality that equals should be treated equally. Those who are not in a position to effectively voice their interest should be given special consideration when it comes to arriving at amiable solutions to the issues faced by the international community at large. The stance of some developed countries coming up with international arrangements that are put forth under the guise of bringing good to all the countries should not be tolerated when the real intentions behind them is to serve the interests of the side with higher bargaining power. Such steps are unilateral in nature and can never bring real answers to the questions.Illustration: Take example of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). Some countries like USA came up with ACTA (Anti –Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) for putting in place what can be termed as “more than TRIPS-plus” arrangement. Developing countries have certain flexibilities under TRIPS agreement and these are sought to be curtailed by the countries who want their innovation or ‘so-called innovation’ to be protected in the developing countries. Now, it is critical to note that developing countries are a great market for the developed world. But the developed world doesn’t want the developing countries to start producing what is being ushered into the latter by the former lest the market of the foreign goods should suffer because of the domestically produced goods. The common reason that is often advanced for protection of IPRs is that IPRs are incentive to innovate and innovation is good for the rest of the society. In response to this, it should be noticed that in the beginning of the civilization innovation of one society travelled to another society without restriction of IPRs. The whole world reaped the benefit of what was invented in one part of the world. I am not against IPRs. But how can a country that has to feed its millions and millions of hungry mouths be concerned with IPRs that is a tool to commercialize innovation and wrongfully projected as an incentive to innovate? I sincerely believe that IPRs are crucial to protect invention but equally significant is the movement of that innovation across physical and intangible boundaries. If IPRs are to be used against humanity, we have to install in place a system that makes sure that innovation happens and it is afforded to every section of the society. This is true especially in the case of live-saving medicines. Therefore, when countries like the USA negotiate with countries in Africa where people die each day for they are not able to afford life saving drug out of poverty or even because of not having access to such drugs, it is important that the all the interests on the priority lists of the participant countries are taken care of. We are human being first and then, we are innovators and entrepreneurs.July 1, 2014 at 7:57 am #102299SocialistCenter wrote:Each country has its own problem and issues.
This is where we disagree, Paramjeet.We have the same problem. And that is, the ruling class.The British ruling class has the same 'problems and issues' as the Indian ruling class.The proletariat in Britain has the same 'problems and issues' as the proletariat in India.If 'your intererests are different than mine', it's because your political methods will support your ruling class, whereas mine will support the international proletariat.These are philosophical differences, Paramjeet. That's why other posters have pointed out that you are on the wrong site.Your key organising concept is 'countries', whereas our key organising concept is 'classes'.July 1, 2014 at 1:00 pm #102300alanjjohnstoneKeymaster
"We have the same problem. And that is, the ruling class."It is often the very same ruling class we work for eg Mittal's global steel holdings.July 2, 2014 at 8:07 am #102301AnonymousInactive
My article titled: "Philosophers do not govern the world, “Wants and their Satisfaction” do: A Case For Socialism"Published at Socialist Center's blog hereYou can follow me on twitter at @LawyerParamjeetYou can email me at: email@example.com "Socialism: It is not 'theoretical', it is 'practical'. It is not about "Philosophers'. It is about 'PEOPLE'."July 2, 2014 at 8:09 am #102302AnonymousInactive
Dear LBird. Thank you for your comments. You might want to read my article "Philosophers do not govern the world, “Wants and their Satisfaction” do: A Case For Socialism" RegardsSocialist CenterJuly 2, 2014 at 8:45 am #102303AnonymousInactiveSocialistCenter wrote:Dear LBird. Thank you for your comments. You might want to read my article "Philosophers do not govern the world, “Wants and their Satisfaction” do: A Case For Socialism" RegardsSocialist Center
I agree. Wants and satisfaction are denied in capitalsm and are the the driving force behind socialism. Our wants and satisfaction can only be met with the common ownership of the earth and its resourcesJuly 2, 2014 at 9:03 am #102304Vin Maratty wrote:SocialistCenter wrote:Dear LBird. Thank you for your comments. You might want to read my article "Philosophers do not govern the world, “Wants and their Satisfaction” do: A Case For Socialism"RegardsSocialist Center
I agree. Wants and satisfaction are denied in capitalsm and are the the driving force behind socialism. Our wants and satisfaction can only be met with the common ownership of the earth and its resources
I think that you both might find that 'wants and satisfaction' are determined by 'philosophy'.In fact, in constrast to Paramjeet's article title, 'Philosophers do govern the world'! At least, in their ideological guise.Unless we fight and win the 'battle of ideas' (ie. 'philosophy' in its widest sense), then we won't defeat capitalism.The philosophy of 'common ownership of the earth and its resources' is one I share with you, Vin, because we are Communists.I think Paramjeet does not share this 'idea', and so Paramjeet will disagree with our aims.'Philosophy', eh?July 2, 2014 at 10:08 am #102305AnonymousInactive
My hunger is a physical, biological need and is not determined by philosophy.July 2, 2014 at 10:21 am #102306Vin Maratty wrote:My hunger is a physical, biological need and is not determined by philosophy.
And that's 'Socialism', is it, Vin?The satisfaction of our animal needs?I had rather thought that 'culture' (educational advancement, arts, development of individual abilities, expansion of minds, etc.) was an essential part of our aims.I'd rather our slogan was 'Pies and Philosophy!'; it's so much more inspirational than mere 'Pies!'.Are you a member of the "Pie Faction" within the SPGB?July 2, 2014 at 10:40 am #102307AnonymousInactive
… the usual smoke screen for your ignorance.Is my need for food determined by phylosophy? If you don't have an answer just say so.July 2, 2014 at 10:53 am #102308Vin Maratty wrote:… the usual smoke screen for your ignorance.Is my need for food determined by phylosophy? If you don't have an answer just say so.
A rather surly response to my feeble joke, Vin.I suppose 'humour' won't be carried forward into your 'Socialism' either?No laughs or philosophical mutterings, just pies.Is your party Solely Pie Gorging Bodies, Vin?July 2, 2014 at 11:57 am #102309AnonymousInactive
You say my need for food is determined by ideology or philisohpy, I say it is biological and physical. Both of your responses failed to address the question.A question you raised yourself :LBird wrote:I think that you both might find that 'wants and satisfaction' are determined by 'philosophy'
I will not engage with you if all you have is snideness and sarcasm.July 2, 2014 at 2:13 pm #102310Vin Maratty wrote:You say my need for food is determined by ideology or philisohpy, I say it is biological and physical. Both of your responses failed to address the question.
So, you've never heard of 'Cordon Bleu', then, Vin? Just your 'biological and physical' drives. One is forced to wonder how your ancestors got beyond the stage of eating raw mammoth. Perhaps even the cooking and dining complexities of a 'pie dinner' is beyond you, and you eat raw spuds, pig, wheat and water, off the floor.Vin Maratty wrote:I will not engage with you if all you have is snideness and sarcasm.
I think you should look at your, err… less than thoughtful… responses to difficult philosophical questions.'Science and culture'? You seem to think that is all exhausted by emphasising 'rocks and pies'. And when I reduce complexities to simple illustrations, you cry 'foul!'.If this is really the level of debate in the SPGB, perhaps I should give up.I think I'll go for a roll in the mud…July 2, 2014 at 2:32 pm #102311AnonymousInactive
Again your post is snide and sarcastic. None of it makes any sense otherwise. Why don't you just admit to making a silly statement? It doesn't hurt, I'v done it myself.July 2, 2014 at 2:48 pm #102312steve colbornParticipant
Vin Maratty wrote:You say my need for food is determined by ideology or philisohpy, I say it is biological and physical. Both of your responses failed to address the question.I totally agree with Vince's appraisal. Food is a "biological" imperative and has nothing whatsoever to do with "philosophy". One can have an interest in science, culture and the art's and still assert that the need for food is a biological imperative, not an occasion for philosophical debate.By the way, whats with the fixation on "pies"? As for rolling in the mud, I'm sure the pigs will appreciate the company, or maybe not, if the pies you are fixated on, are pork pies!!! Steve Colborn.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.