Thursday, February 09, 2012


On Collectivism

Collectivism versus Communism and Socialism

The first terms that come to mind about Collectivism are the older and simpler Communist and Fellow Traveler, rather than the myriad shades of Radical Liberalism, Progressivism, Collectivism, Socialism, Marxism and (still) Communism that are in use today to describe both theoretical and actual government organizations, and in particular, some political group orientations that are operating in and around our government today.

The primary evidence I have come across to date of a substantial group flying the flag of Socialism in America is the 56 to 70 or so members( as of about 2000) of the Democratic Socialists of America or DSA that are also members of the House of Representatives of the USA. They are identified here by name:

Of course, it is not very smart for such men to parade their allegiance to Socialism in today’s Individualistic America, nor is it very practical for those who believe in Communism to wear their badges either, in the public eye if they want to serve in government, so they hide under various guises: Progressivism, Collectivism, “Democratic Socialism (of America!), Liberalism, Far-Leftists, but not the poison word Communism, not yet anyway!

From the same source:

“Q: What are seven principles behind what the DSA's calls it's "Progressive Challenge?"

Dignified Work

Environmental Justice

Economic Redistribution

Democratic Participation

Community Empowerment

Global Non-Violence

Social Justice

To implement these mainly Collectivist/Socialist principles, there must be significant change in the US. Private Property must be dissolved in favor of the State; Economic Redistribution really means to take over the productive industries and all of the land of the private sector by way of eminent domain, and for the government to become the owner of record, as Socialist nations must. Then it will be the government that is supposed to solve all of the problems of inequality in our current society, render social justice to the downtrodden, lead the effort to create environmental justice for the World, provide “dignified work” to all, and stand down our military in an act to further non-violence in the World, or else empower the UN to have its own military capable of co-opting all or nearly all national militaries to their ends.

I would personally argue that there are both short-range goals (a few decades), and long-range goals (perhaps three, four, or more decades) for the DSA and its allied organizations. In the short range it is the further Socialization of America. It is not clear, however, which of the many brands and subbrands of Socialism they have in mind. In the long range, however, it is for the Socialist State to evolve into a Communist State, an outcome that Marx thought to be inevitable. Here again, the exact type of Communism is not specified, but one thing is certain: it would have to be a revolution to a totalitarian regime in order to seize full control in America.

Marx wrote that in order to implement the Utopian Communist State it would be necessary to destroy the existing Capitalist state completely, and then to rebuild it along Socialist/Communist lines, together with the careful fostering and education of the New Socialist Man (see Theodore His-en Chen,, and others.), who would fit to populate this Utopia.

A radical idea in this regard is to separate parents from their children so that the children can be educated very early on to the New Socialist Man philosophy, which was an early staple concept in both Communism and Secular Humanism as first defined. Religion in this Utopia is to be destroyed in favor of elevating the State to a God-like status. While this concept is very much still in the minds of Collectivists, they could not stand up to the furor that was raised by the people about giving up their children, so they left it out of later tomes.

This path to Utopia has never been and never will be completed for the very simple reason that those in power can not give their power up, they cannot manage a modern economy effectively, and those oppressed by this false dream will in the end rise up against it, and they will not morph themselves into or foster the New Socialist Man. In my estimation, Utopianism is a chimera, and hence undue emphasis in government to Socialist or Communist principles is doomed to failure.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, February 01, 2012


On Decision-Making

There is a prior step to good decision-making:  Problem Analysis

In my view there are quite a number of drivers for making decisions.

Here is a partial list, in no special order:

--Rational and analytical

--Dictated by:

   A person in charge, by careful thought or whim


   Political ideology

   Laws, such as the Constitution




   Emotions of a mob


--Haphazard, as in letting things happen

--Deliberate non-decision-making

--Irrational decision-making




   Tea leaves



   Mean of a distribution

   Median of a distribution

   Throw of the dice

   Toss of a coin

Rational/analytical decision-making is a preferred process since it minimizes the inclusion of extraneous or nebulous elements and constraints on the eventual solution.

A distinction should be made between decision-making and problem analysis. In fact, several things must happen before a rational decision can be made:

Problem Analysis

1) Objective and scope: Determine the objective of the decision, the scope of the problem and the universe of possible solutions, being careful to define the constraints to be imposed on the solutions. Take into account prior solutions to the same or a similar problem.

2) Problem Analysis: Analyze the problem, being certain to include all known factors affecting the objective within the scope of possible solutions. Establish the needs and requirements for the solution.

3) Possible Solutions: Identify all major practical solutions possible within the constraints.


1. Perform tradeoff studies between the alternative solutions to decide which solution or solutions meet the needs.

2. Decide upon and select the most promising solutions for further analysis and tradeoff studies.

3. Decide to prototype the selected solutions for further evaluation. Halt the process if infeasible.

4. Decide and select the final solution.

Example: Perhaps a very simplified example will clarify these steps:

Problem Analysis

Objective and scope: to carry 400 passengers in comfort to any point on the globe within 10 hours.

Prior solutions: Boeing 747, 20 to 24 hours, and one stop for refueling. B-2 Bomber flying wing, which requires multiple in-air refuelings to extend its range.

Possible Solutions: The only practical solution at this time is to design a better commercial transport plane, and more efficient engines. Configuration possibilities are basically twofold: 1) a conventional aerodynamic design; and, 2) a more efficient aerodynamic design, such as a flying wing. Current jet engines cannot achieve the fuel economy needed for over Mach 1 flight for 15 thousand miles, which means a new state of the art engine development is necessary. In-air refueling is not to be considered. Consideration of the impact on ground handling must be factored into the analysis.

Passenger comfort and a pleasing experience is a heavy constraint.


Decide between conventional and unconventional aerodynamic configurations by modeling and wind tunnel analysis, followed by a possible prototyping flyoff between competitive designs using available engines. Decide whether small scale models of the airframes would suffice to decide between the two configurations, or should the two airframes be built full scale.

Decide between feasible competitive engine designs through analysis of competing designs, and possibly a run-off test between prototypes. Constraints here include meeting the installation requirements of the airframes under consideration. (If no feasible engine design is forthcoming, the problem is over.)
Decide between competitive proposals from aircraft builders for the prototype developments.

Decide whether to extend the competition to include more than one airframe and engine selection, or to go ahead with detailed design, development, test and pre-production prototyping of only a single solution.

Decide the final solution, in this case, say, a four-engine 400 seat conventional configuration. This was decided basically on the needs for ground handling at terminals and the width of the wings, and (partially, shall we say) on the criteria for passenger comfort and a pleasing experience, since the wing configuration does not allow for as adequate a passenger viewing experience as does the conventional design.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?