Men’s movement: Specialization Cooperation Collectivism

About the men’s movement: specialization cooperation collectivism — There was not enough time yesterday to comment on all of the thoughts Peter had expressed in his message. Having slept a bit, having recuperated somewhat, and before I get back to the project I could not finish yesterday, I will comment on the conclusion of Peter’s commentary.

As before, I will insert my comments between Peter’s lines.

Peter wrote:

….My brief answer to WS from long ago that I never did get to make is that when people specialize in one pursuit they must count on others who specialize in other pursuits to fill the gaps of what they have not themselves done.

You should have quoted or paraphrased what your brief answer relates to.

Still, you are right. The system you describe is called a hierarchical system. It is something that industrial, commercial and bureaucratic enterprises increasingly moved away from during the past 40 or more years, the more so the more liberalism and feminism came to dominate society.

Hierarchical systems are seen as being a socially detrimental legacy of the “patriarchy,” even though quite a few oppressive and not entirely peaceful “patriarchies” throughout history were ruled by women or the sons whom they put on the throne.

Specialization Cooperation Collectivism

It is now preferred to have corporations and organizations being run like collectives, where the workers specialize, and where the managers move through all departments, spending a little time in each, becoming Jacks-of-all-trades and masters of none – based on the assertion that job rotation causes adaptability, whereas specialization in management is alleged to be the cause of rigidity when reorganizations are required due to the changing nature and growth of a business or organization.

So an information specialist must count on communication specialists to put out the material. And other specialists too.

Collectivism depends to a very large part on networking of the sort that some people consider to be a management structure arranged as a matrix.

To varying extents, collectivism leads to mediocrity and growing disconnectedness between management and what its business is all about.

To function well and efficiently, collectivism requires the will by people to coöperate.

Collectivism depends on the members or agents in the system to decide amongst themselves to agree on how they divide the functions and responsibilities of the system of which they are part.

As you so exceedingly well illustrate through your continual complaints against and about men’s rights activists and organizations and through your obsessive compulsion to be nevertheless involved with them, willing coöperation does not always exist amongst people in a given system. That makes the system more or less inefficient, at times being so inefficient that the system will either gradually decay, catastrophically collapse or, conversely, punish or even expunge, one or a minority of its members.

Collectivism evolves into forcing its members to coöperate with one another and has been a prominent feature of all totalitarian communist regimes. On the other hand, hierarchical systems tend to evolve into dictatorships.

Both work best by means of the influence of universal religious or ideological coercion or – depending on the effectiveness of social pressure (usually on account of all-pervasive propaganda) – through voluntary and even enthusiastic compliance.

Or there can be no specialization. Each person must make his own group and network and research and be a lawyer, …

Yes, that has already been covered, “the Jack-of-all-trades and master of none.”

In economics it is called economies of scale and is the basis of the theory of free trade. In fact it is the basis of civilization.

Well, I somewhat disagree on that. Families are the foundation and building blocks of civilization. The last ten thousand years of humanity are a thin veneer on a long history of mostly swinging in the trees.

More importantly, economy of scale is something greatly different from what you think it is. Economy of scale relates to money, costs, expenditures, profits and income. More specifically, economy of scale relates to the general and generally hoped-for lowering of the unit-cost of production that can come with the increasing size of a system and improved efficiency.

Ostensibly, bigger is better, and mechanization is cheaper, but generally only with the production of a large number of items. That is generally true, but only if cooperation increases along with the size of a system and if that coöperation leads to peaceful decisions as to how the system needs to be designed and on how to evolve toward the ultimate end, the most effective and acceptable division of the work processes between man and machine, with every sector designed to operate at its maximum efficiency, always aiming at the ideal, the ultimate: no losses of any sort.

Anyone can be replaced with a button. Robots take no sick leave or coffee breaks and never go on strike. Mechanization causes unemployment, but it most definitely is an effective solution for reducing unit-cost of production attributable to worker dissatisfaction or inefficiencies.

Keep in mind that politically it is more expedient to claim that someone is unemployed because he is being punished for “refusing” to make child support payments * or because his Employment Insurance benefits haven’t begun yet or have not run out yet (prior to and after which they are not officially unemployed), than it is to say that he was replaced by a machine. (* In the vast majority of cases there is no question that the “refusal” is in reality the result of nothing more than being guilty of the crime of having fallen into poverty.)

However, the social engineers have a solution for dissatisfaction, too. They simply reduce the world population down to between 300 million and a billion people (the UN’s figure for the size of the 2150 world population is 3.5 billion, but that estimate is most likely quite a bit too high). After all, according to environmentalist and eco-feminist hysteria, if we wish to have Paradise on Earth, then it is necessary to eradicate or at least greatly reduce the world population and primarily the number of men.

Without a doubt, that will reduce both, the number of the unemployed as well as that of the dissatisfied. After having succeeded in making abortion – the killing of children about to be born – legal, there are now fewer reservations about the killing of men. As a result of that, the gender gap in the life expectancies of the sexes in the US grew from three years in favor of women in 1929 to six years (eight years in the case of Blacks) in 1996.

So people could have jobs other than growing themselves food. But this link has broken in the mens movement. So I admit I was wrong doing research and counting on anybody for anything. As with other aspects of society divorced men have decided other divorced men are the best marks to victimize. So the only way I can continue doing studies is if I am paid so I can pay groups to publicize them.
They shoot themselves in the feet at every turn. I did meet a few nice people though. Arnie and Guy Lavigne come quickly to mind. They gave more than they took. Guy is now dead and Arnie is growing his own food.


I’ll leave you with a few thoughts:

The “family” in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities–such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations–grow.

— Allan Carlson, in
What’s Wrong With the United Nations Definition of ‘Family’?
The Family in America (August 1994), p. 3

One of the paradoxes of management is this: Most employees usually are happier and more comfortable in a well-structured environment than in one that operates with disorder and permissiveness.

Telephony, Feb. 6, 1978, p. 61 (author unknown)

Ah yes, that means duty and a system of punishment and rewards, rather than one of entitlements. It means order. All of those concepts were primary features of families and other “patriarchal” systems headed by men. People didn’t talk much about feelings in those days, but a lot of people felt good then.

Now we no longer have much order, and we increasingly lean toward economic and social chaos. It is curious that feelings came to be talked about and to dominate our society to the extent that they are now compulsory, even though far fewer people now seem to feel good.

In the 1950s there was a sense of stability, satisfaction, of confidence in the future. That has been largely replaced with dissatisfaction and dread of the future. The last time something like that happened in the background of my life was during the liberalism imposed by the Weimar Republic. The economic, social and moral rot caused by that cried out for a Messiah to clean house. The permissiveness and disorder of the Weimar Republic produced the National Socialistic Workers Party of Germany (NSDAP: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei) with its leader, Hitler. After the NSDAP took over there was order, a lot of satisfaction and happiness, but not for very long.

The euphoria produced by the NSDAP was a deadly illusion and officially ended with Stalingrad, the beginning of the collapse of Germany and of much of the rest of Europe into rubble and ashes. The deaths of many millions of men brought about women’s liberation and the rise of a new and even more deadly ideology: modern feminism. What could be more deadly than an ideology that literally causes humanity to die out?

(Visited 13 times, 1 visit(s) today)
This entry was posted in Family, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, The New World Order. Bookmark the permalink.