With whom to co-operate??

There are two aspects to the whole aspect of co-operation- Internal and External. Internal co-operation leads to cohesion whereas as external co-operation leads to extinction. Individuals co-operate with people whom they think can return more than what they invest. The ‘Selfish Gene’ safeguards an individual to put his interest above the common interest, which helps him to survive. If a co-operator helps a non co-operator, his efficiency will come down. Worst will be his case when he helps his competitors. Co-operating with free riders can have an adverse effect on the entire industry since everyone will try to pass the buck!

Kopehagen climate talks!!

Kopehagen climate talks have once again proved the unwillingness of the developed countries to cut their emmisions of green house gases, and accept their responsibilty in the global warming. Instead, it has turned into a game of passing the buck to the developing countries in the name of assistance. How can there be any substantial work done when the developing countries are emitting upto 500-1000 times emissions than the developing counties and still shying away from their responsibilty as it would affect their economic growth??

Relevance of non violence

When we talk about the Gandhian thought and non violence as a tool and its affectivity, we should consider few things. First of all who are the person we want to change. As Gandhi himself admitted that if the concerned people would be Nazi instead of English, he might have to adopt some other strategy i.e. may be non violence will be there also but with a different approach. Second thing patience required in this approach on a mass scale, have we have it? Third thing non violence will be more effective when a large mass follow it collectively against a lesser number. Aang san su ki in Barma and Dalai Lama in Tibbet are following it but for several years unfruitful. This not to say that violence will work either. If we consider Philistine movement, involving violence has made situation worse. On the very humanitarian ground it can be considered wrong and is there any right way to do wrong thing?

Co-operative Management

I came across this small incident in my neighbourhood sometime back, now I wanted to see it through the mirror of rationality and co-operative.

Two brothers were running a grocery store. These brothers were making good business. One of the reasons behind it other than the quality of products was that they tended to the customers very politely and respectfully. And as both of them were present in the shop no customer had to wait for a long period. Moreover they didn’t have to employ any helper both of them smoothly ran the shop. Both the brothers were crowd pullers. I consider this setup as a good small co-operative.

But four years back both the brothers got married. After sometime they divided their store into two parts. The reason behind it was a family fight. The two wives were not comfortable with each other. One brother started selling clothes with grocery and the other one started selling bakery products with grocery. They had to employ helpers, bringing down the profit. Moreover customers started getting confused about which shop to choose for grocery. Slowly they started losing business to other shops. Currently their business is in shambles. People say your family should be given the top priority so I think they went ahead with this decision to keep the closest family happy and to keep fights at bay.

I have put this snippet to show how a successful co-operative can get disintegrated because of issues. These issues could be personal problems or dissatisfaction with group policies. The above case was of real brothers, in a large co-operative people from various backgrounds and interest come together. How the rationality influences them to stick together? What is the binding force and how such issues and controversies are resolved? How do leaders make everyone happy? Which I believe is next to impossible. Are their decisions bound by theories of economics or Human resource policies?

I have crossed the word limit by leaps and bounds but i just felt like writing. Next time I will restrain myself.

COLLECTIVE ACTION AND JP MOVEMENT

When people engage themselves in collective action they bring about difference or resist social,political and economic change.While some of them are routine or non-violent but some others use social unrest and violence to bring about change in the present structure.JP movement of 1970s was one of the examples of second type.JAIPRAKASH NARAYAN lead the movement of students after three decades of his silence(after the quit India movement of 1942) of his active socio-political life and gave a call to the nation(GADHI CHORO KI JANTA AATI HAI) against the autocratic rule of mother-son duo.National emergency was imposed on the night of 26th June 1975 and most of the opposition leaders including JP were jailed.This movement was tried to brutally suppressed.But,when the movement turned violent in Bihar,Gujarat,UP,MP and other parts of India,emergency was withdrawn and fresh elections were held.After those elections a new breed of socialist leaders like-Madhu Dandwate,George Fernandes,Madhu Limye,Lalu-Mulayam,Ramvilas and many others came on the front.First non-congress govt. under the leadership of Morarji Bhai was formed.And,an alternative to the congress party emerged.At the same time Mandal Commission was also formed.On the recommendation of which reservation for backward castes was implemented in the early 1990s.This implementation was not just a tool for giving jobs to the back-benchers of the society,but increased their reprentation on many socio-economic and political forums.

Is violence the only means of getting rid of the ‘big fish’?

Those in favour would give replies like the the ‘big fish’ has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, hence his reaction to nonviolent menas can only be negative. They would always say that whenever the state fails, private players, in the form of mobs, guerrilla warriors, or armed insurgents have to step in to fill the vacuum.

Marxian philosophy states that the dictatorship of the working class, though installed and maintained by violence, shall yield to the withering away of the State. However, it has been seen time and again that it has not, and these societies, setup with a Marxist ideology have been shaken up and gone through repeated cycles of violence many times since. Most of the times, it is not actually the oppressed, but the resourceful and opportunists who gain from these shakeups.

At the same time, even the nonviolent stream of thought, preached by Gandhi, Martin Lr King and others since has not met much success in whatever attempts it has seen. In our own country, Gandhi’s own followers have been so corrupt, and devious in the use of violence that they really have no legitimate claim on being his followers.

So what is the right wya? And what is ‘rational’?

Rajat Bhatia, 30029

Violent Collective action and co-operation

Story of a pond called Myndia.
There are a few Big fishes which eat a lot. They like eating the small fishes. Depending on the caste, religion, region the small fishes belong to, they are eaten one by one, sometimes. In large numbers most of the times. *Poverty of the small fish would make him/her the best tasting fish. The small fishes dont complain. They feel grateful for being granted the little space in the pond and the litlle food that keeps them from deing of malnutrition.
The number keeps depleting.
Finally when there is no other alternative left, they decide to unite, co-operate and retaliate. They end up killing one big fish. Just one, after centuries of exploitation and subjugation. Just so as to reach the deaf arbiters of the pond.
Big fishes like the small fishes no more. They have turned vegetarians.
My rationality calls it ideal collective action.
Formation of a state would help depending largely on the number of big fishes it has and if they are vegetarians...