What is more effective for the survival of society: a well -thought -out distribution of roles in a pack (liberalism), or gross combined power of the herd (collectivism)?

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

4 Comments

  1. A little rudely asked a question. The society of people is not a flock of parrots, and even more so the herd of rams. When reading, it seems that both of the answer will be equally bad. This is not true. In modern realities, it would be more correct to ask a question: “Which socio-political system is better in the long run:
    1) totalitarian. Where there is no place for human rights, where values ​​are imposed on top with decree, where there is only one correct path determined by the decree from above.
    2) liberal. Where human rights are respected, where there is freedom of choice, where there is criticism, competition and opposition. “At the beginning of the 90s, this issue was formulated in a similar way:” Which system is better: ”
    1) where the sausage cost 2 rubles. 80 kopecks, but it was necessary to be silent in a rag.
    2) where the sausage costs 10 rubles, but on every corner you can say: “Here are the Communists to what the country has been brought to.” And in the modern formulation and in the formulation of 30 years ago the answer is unequivocal – according to the second option, it is always better, without everywhere, without Anyone if, for and would. A huge number of times were verified by history. A totalitarian system in general, and the same rough collectivism in particular, is always built in the opinion of the leader and excludes any criticism and indication of errors. As a result, errors are not corrected, but accumulated. Over time, the number of errors becomes critical, society is overgrown with insanity, old methods do not work in changed conditions, but society does not understand this. The vast majority smells something wrong, does not understand the deep reasons, but at the same time afraid to open his mouth. In this case, they say that such a system buried.
    As an example, one can recall such seniles as – the magnificent funeral of the leaders, demonstrations in honor of the Day of the October Revolution, subbotniks, trips to the collective farm for agricultural work, and much more. A love liberal system, which is based on criticism, competition and opposition, which represent feedback. Thanks to criticism, all the shortcomings instantly pop up. Thanks to competition, each competitor is trying to make its own product better, cheaper and more affordable. Thanks to the opposition, murderous senile actions are ridiculed at the discussion stage, and not introduced into society. Thus, errors do not accumulate, a democratic society does not collapse as totalitarian, but continues to develop further. Including the price of sausage is stabilized and becomes acceptable.

  2. Different societies are different survival strategies. In Europe, there have been not enough resources for a long time: land, water, etc., so we need strict accounting and compliance with the rules in order to effectively distribute. In Russia, there was an excess in Russia, therefore, for example, it was beneficial to build wooden barges annually so that, by fusion of the goods on them, throw in the lower reaches. In the Baltic provinces of the RI, serfs were released into the wild without land, and there were no riots. In Russia, they released with an overwhelming earth, most often insufficient for survival, stretched this process for decades, there were riots and revolutions. During the war, the feudal structure in the presence of an excess of resources is more effective. In WW2 in the USSR, tens of thousands of simple T34 tanks were built in the USSR. In Germany, an order of magnitude less due to a lack of resources, but the tiger pierced the T34 through, remaining invulnerable at such a distance, was composed in maintenance and repair. The result is known.

  3. Different societies are different survival strategies. In Europe, there have been not enough resources for a long time: land, water, etc., so we need strict accounting and compliance with the rules in order to effectively distribute. In Russia, there was an excess in Russia, therefore, for example, it was beneficial to build wooden barges annually so that, by fusion of the goods on them, throw in the lower reaches. In the Baltic provinces of the RI, serfs were released into the wild without land, and there were no riots. In Russia, they released with an overwhelming earth, most often insufficient for survival, stretched this process for decades, there were riots and revolutions. During the war, the feudal structure in the presence of an excess of resources is more effective. In WW2 in the USSR, tens of thousands of simple T34 tanks were built in the USSR. In Germany, an order of magnitude less due to a lack of resources, but the tiger pierced the T34 through, remaining invulnerable at such a distance, was composed in maintenance and repair. The result is known.

  4. Each mode has its advantages and disadvantages. It depends on which side to watch. The centralized state with a tough hierarchy, unlike liberal and democratic regimes, easier to reach the tasks, are more protected, more aggressive. Hence the possibility of forcing construction, production, etc. And you can look from another prospect – humanism, man, the values ​​of human life, rights and so on. And all this turns into shortcomings. It is possible, the question should be posed as follows: to solve certain specific problems of which of the regimes in this situation is currently more suitable.

Spiritual values ​​above economic.?

Where to draw resources to the marketer?