Military Review

About social selection or where this world is heading

19
About social selection or where this world is headingLet's talk about social selection. Immediately, we note that talking about social equality as a real phenomenon is pure utopia. Social differences arose at the dawn of the formation of society, still in the primitive communal system, and was not stories humanity is no example when such differences did not exist. Social distinction is the inevitable consequence of the division of functions and labor in society. Someone sows, someone bakes bread, someone makes plows, someone protects society, and someone controls this single organism. This is a given.

So only mankind has come across this reality, a banal question has arisen, what about sharing according to social clusters? It seems like everyone has 1 head, 2 arms, 2 legs ... etc. And the second question that has arisen is how to evaluate the contribution of each of the participants in the social system and to allocate for it a share of the result of total labor.

Actually, the whole history of our society is based on the search for answers to these basic 2 questions. And this is not just a search. This is a consistent movement from simpler to more complex forms that, solving the problems of earlier answers, provide the basis for the qualitative growth of the social system, but also over time set new problems and limits for growth.

Globally speaking, humanity has tried in its development the following conceptual criteria: the criterion of power, the criterion of kinship (clan), the criterion of ownership of the means of production, the criterion of ownership of information. Social division according to these criteria was carried out very simply, uniting into groups those who are close to each other according to the actual criterion at a given historical moment.

These criteria replaced themselves for a reason. The transition from one criterion to another was carried out together with the growth of the size of society, and, consequently, of its complexity. The criterion of power that worked in small tribes was logically replaced by kinship, when several tribes united into a state, which in turn was logically replaced by the criterion of ownership of the means of production, when the agricultural population began to massively move to the cities, creating the prerequisites for the industrial revolution.

So far, all of the above is fairly obvious and well-known, although many are trying, in times of crisis, to turn to outdated approaches, idealizing the past, and ignoring the aspect that the fact of the changes that have been accomplished speaks about the loss of the former adequacy criteria.

It is very important to note that there is an unambiguously clear correlation between the size and complexity of society and the social selection criteria used in society. That is why, all lovers to look for answers in the "good old" begin to build this "old" in the outback-village. The insoluble problem here is that only within the framework of such small social units is this possible. The correlation between the principle of organization of society and its complexity of organization is a given! Here we can remember both the Old Believers and the modern neo-pagan sectarians ... times change, and the principle of regress is unchanged.

Modern society is approaching a completely new stage for it - the global unified social system. Its complexity of organization is qualitatively different from the state system. There are 2 extremely important aspects: the population size aspect and the absence of competing societies. This sets completely new standards of social organization and naturally requires a new principle (criterion) of social selection (division). The failure of the US to build a global planetary system, guided by its old principles, confirms the validity of our conclusions. Below we will return to this issue.

We note another very important detail. The criterion of social selection does not just carry out such a selection, but at the same time acts as a development factor for this criterion. This is the most important postulate, which is not so obvious and not so well known, but it is his understanding that gives us the most serious tool for further work. In simple terms, if the criterion of social selection is strength, then all members of society train strength. If kinship, then everyone is looking for a way to get into a well-born family through a dynastic marriage. If the means of production, then the activity of each member of society is focused on production activities.

Catch the connection? In fact, if you dig deep, it turns out that each stage of the development of society does not simply correlate with the level of complexity of social organization, but at the same time solves some significant social problem, making it irrelevant for future generations!

As you can see, everything is quite simple. There is a certain logic of the development of society, which cannot be replaced, since it is holistically connected with the size of society, the complexity of its organization, the key constraint of further growth, the surrounding conditions of society, the level of cultural development.

And now quite briefly about the requirements of the present time. The holistic conditions of modern society obviously set the criteria for social selection of personal qualities. Our society finally came up against the problem of distribution. Production capacity is at such a level that, with proper inquiry, can provide almost any reasonable level of consumption, but the concentration of the means of production is such that only a small group of people can be consumers of such goods. We quickly found a solution through the creation of an information space, which becomes the main sphere of labor and at the same time the method of distribution of wealth. However, we have already noted that the phases of development of society are integral for a number of factors. And this means that the criteria for social selection should undergo qualitative changes. Based on a new key area of ​​activity, we can easily define it - this is the ability to process information. And here we are talking about the creative aspect. In practice, this means a transition from Knowledge to Awareness. That is, the key social quality is not the possession of static knowledge, but the presence of a complex of skills for its analysis, processing and creative creation. Such an ability cannot be the result of memorization, it can only be as a certain mental psychological ideological personality paradigm (integrity).

We note a very important new quality: the selection for personal qualities is qualitatively different from previous systems in that it is an intrapersonal, rather than a social criterion. This change increases the importance of the current moment, makes new demands not only for the selection criteria, but also for its tools. Any career models that have proven themselves in the past become irrelevant here. The fact is that while we were evaluating social achievements, the formal tick criteria made sense. Effectively doing your job - got a tick, earned a large amount of money - got a tick, showed dedication to the boss - got a tick, served in the army - one more tick. These checkboxes create your career history, and all your efforts are aimed at obtaining these checkboxes. However, this approach is not acceptable when we try to evaluate the inner personal qualities. After all, if we try to assess intrapersonal qualities through a tick, then, firstly, we will not be able to get a reliable assessment, and, secondly, we develop the ability to receive a tick in a person, but not the required qualities.

Is the principle simple, does the selection system need a tick? - we get a tick, the selection system is focused on the quality of the individual? - develop personality traits. This is a qualitative system difference! That is why we constantly talk about the need to build root structures, which should be a union according to the mental, personal similarity, and not according to any external social criteria that will select people like themselves by personal qualities and be the supplier of such people to society. Such structures can become the basis for a qualitatively new system of social selection and at the same time develop significant qualities and skills for modern society.
Originator:
http://oko-planet.su
19 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Normal
    Normal 5 October 2012 07: 17
    +3
    Article +. I fully agree that personal qualities should be a new criterion for assessing personality. Although if you look closely, this is not such a new criterion. Personal qualities have always played a huge role in the advancement of a person up the social ladder in the past, and it was the development of the information field that made it possible to replace the assessment of personal qualities by "PR" with promotion and propaganda. In quantitatively small societies where everyone knows everyone, it was impossible, as now to brainwash the electorate with the help of the media. It was useless to promote the business qualities and imaginary success of the individual if those who knew this person were well aware that he was a thief or a bastard.
    In my opinion, a combination of the development of the information field with a mandatory assessment of the personality by people who directly know this personality is necessary. And this assessment should be decisive. Then it will become impossible to come to power such as Gorbachev, Yeltsin or Putin. Unfortunately, I do not know the mechanism that would allow to take into account personal qualities in this case.
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 5 October 2012 09: 56
      -1
      Quote: Normal
      Then it becomes impossible to come to power such as Gorbachev, Yeltsin or Putin
      - I set a minus. He put the points for you for Gorbachev and Yeltsin, and there’s only one minus, but he’s so big that he outweighs all the advantages, he’d still put it, but by the rules it is impossible.
      1. dmb
        dmb 5 October 2012 11: 01
        0
        Relating to the pros and cons is quite indifferent, and not going into the assessment of the last character, I want to ask in the context of the article, but do you personally like the way the character came to power?
        1. aksakal
          aksakal 5 October 2012 11: 46
          +2
          Quote: dmb
          I want to ask in the context of the article, but do you personally like the way the character came to power?
          - here he is not talking about a method (I don’t want to give a nickname), he makes an assessment of the personality and, moreover, puts on a par with such characters as hump and EBN, which is already extremely offensive for 63% of the population of Russia. By the way, EBN came to power quite legitimately, at the right time at the instigation of his spouse - an analogue of Sakharov's Bonner - at the right plenum of the Central Committee said the right words, for which he was subjected to severe obstruction at the same plenum. And since the mood of the people in general was so against this Central Committee that anyone who "dared" would automatically wake up famous in the morning. So the EBN came quite legitimately, another thing is populism, but then the people hardly distinguished populism from the present. And this legitimacy did not prevent him from doing later, even with great zeal, for which he criticized that Plenum there. By the way, I don't know about fairy tales about Berezovsky, but just EBN chose the last character. This is the only positive merit of EBN - he really approached the selection of candidates responsibly, checking them in the posts of prime minister. Moreover, the checks for lice were very sophisticated. Read Nemtsov, he still "with disgust" recalls the visit, when he was prime minister, with Yeltsin to the Swedes. They were received by the royal family, incl. and there was a very attractive Swedish princess at the reception. EBN noticed the carnivorous look of Nemtsov and immediately ... ordered to come up and kiss her. This was exactly the same test for lice, the Germans could not find a way out, stuttered, blushed, got angry, bit nails and so on. The king of Sweden saved the situation, at his sign the princess herself came up and kissed (damn, I can imagine how much mental strength is needed to do this and kiss this scum) Nemtsov. In general, what kind of president, even if he could not find a way out of a stupid everyday situation? And the Brzezinskis are rustling in the world - masters of putting politicians in even more stupid positions, but at the political level. Nemtsov had a chance, but he swam - let him yap now.
          I just can’t imagine Putin in such a situation. I am sure that he immediately arranged everything in a relationship with Yeltsin so that such things simply became impossible! That's all! Then Yeltsin introduced Putin to the people, and the people could already choose, but could not choose. Do you have any complaints about how Putin came? Sound, don’t tell tales about Berezovsky - you’ve heard and are already laughing.
          And yet, DMB, why did you call that coming to the polls is the most correct? And where did you get the idea that since the election, the most worthy will definitely win? Do you seriously admire the personality traits of George W. Bush, his social development? Are you a liberoid? Let's listen
          1. dmb
            dmb 5 October 2012 14: 28
            0
            Well, it all started so well. They expressed, expressed their position, and then, bang, and moved on to insults. If I were such, then immediately "in return" I should have called you "putinoid", I do not call you, because the overwhelming part of your previous comments says that most likely it was an emotional breakdown on your part. As I said earlier, I don’t want to go over to the assessment of all individuals. First, about legitimacy. Then the unforgettable MC was nowhere more legitimate. Unlike EBNa. (Do not consider the Belovezhsky conspiracy to seize power as legitimate). As for Berezovsky, I can’t say, but the fact that an ordinary colonel in the course of 3 years from an assistant to the Kremlin supply manager turned into the Head of an albeit but still powerful state solely thanks to his personal qualities, I hardly believe. Your assessment of Mr. Bush actually convinces me of this. You can, of course, in the style of Zadornov "American Fools". But it seems to me that everything is somewhat more complicated. So. From your message it turns out that EBN realized that he was bad and brought the good to power. I have little faith in this either. About the choice of Putin by the people, we can talk about his second term, but not about the first. You will also say that the people chose Yeltsin in 96. Even the representatives of the unfortunate princess did not believe in this. they wrote a lot about what later. And the last thing. If not elections, then what is the monarchy? But the Constitutional monarchy is the same elections (see Great Britain), and the absolute monarchy is Nicholas 2, with all the consequences that follow from this Nicholas, which you know.
            1. aksakal
              aksakal 5 October 2012 15: 32
              +1
              Quote: dmb
              Well, it all started so well. They expressed, expressed their position, and then, bang, and moved on to insults. If I were such, then immediately "in return" I should have called you "putinoid",

              I apologize, broke.
              Quote: dmb
              Unlike EBN. (The Belovezhsky conspiracy to seize power is not legitimate.) As for Berezovsky, I can’t say, but the fact that for 3 years an ordinary colonel has turned from an assistant to the Kremlin supply manager into the Head of a state that has been rooted but still powerful solely due to his personal qualities, I believe weakly.

              - I outlined my version in a post below, and although I am critical of this (discussed) article, as indicated even below, nevertheless there is a certain correctness in the article - you need to choose according to personal qualities, Putin was chosen according to those among all available candidates . True, I still didn’t understand why Yeltsin didn’t please the very same Kiriyenko, which test he didn’t pass for lice, but judging by the activities at Rosatom, he’s a manager very much. But I could be wrong.
              I just had the opportunity to observe how such personalities are selected. In real life, really off the mark. Although the check marks should be - these are the rules. I will illustrate - one kurpny businessman to another, listen to the type, I have seams at that factory, then - a description of the problems and what kind of villain the top manager hired by him. There is someone whom you can advise. He naturally advises. And this is not always a top manager, but simply the head of a department can easily. The final decision is still based on the results of a personal direct meeting. If you like it, the turn comes to the ticks. What a diploma and other. DMB, then what are you sure of? You seemed to convincingly refute my allegations, but then how did Putin come? Why exactly him? There were a bunch of candidates, including Nemtsov, Kiriyenko and a bunch more. The version was not announced.
      2. Normal
        Normal 5 October 2012 21: 44
        0
        Quote: aksakal
        minus I set. Put the points for you for Gorbachev and Yeltsin, and only one minus, but it’s so big,

        And what actually didn’t suit you? Judging by your posts below you have a nervous breakdown at the sight of one last name. Well, this is not the first time you have to be treated.
        My minus is certainly not as big as yours, but you are fully deserved. For bias, for personal attitude and for minus off topic.
    2. ughhh
      ughhh 5 October 2012 11: 31
      +3
      Quote: Normal
      with a mandatory assessment of the person by people who know this person directly. And this assessment should be decisive.

      pretty naive view of things)
      1. aksakal
        aksakal 5 October 2012 12: 50
        +1
        Quote: ughhh
        Quote: Normal with a mandatory assessment of personality by people who directly know this personality. And this assessment should be determinative. A rather naive view of things)

        - and most importantly, it contradicts itself.
        It’s as if he doesn’t know that Putin’s rise to power happened just like that, but right there with hatred and drooling:
        Quote: Normal
        Then it becomes impossible to come to power such as Gorbachev, Yeltsin or Putin

        Let it be known to him that, on the instructions of the EBN, the head of the Kremlin organization, Voloshin, it seems, his surname had already chosen a successor on such a basis. Not by check, as indicated in the article under discussion, but on the basis of personal qualities. Voloshin transmitted the EBN request to people respected, professional, deserved and authoritative - it’s just stupid to run around the yards and ask the janitors about the most worthy, I have nothing against the janitors. And one of such respected, professional, honored and respected advised, like, sitting in St. Petersburg there alone, take a look. Take a closer look, run in at the premieres - there is a result. You’re somehow normal if you are voicing a position, then it’s somehow logical to do this, or something, but the impression is just awful.
        And I will continue against the DMB - I am against broad elections. Both profane elections (practiced in all countries) and against real ones (not held in any country in the world). In the first case, everything is clear, in the second case, such a person will come to power ... Well, how can I tell you, well, like there is - "do you want to lose weight without sports? Let's do it!" This will surely come as a result of real elections. And he will fulfill his promise: he will give pills with tapeworm eggs with a miracle effect - you really lose weight very quickly without sports, and so lose weight ... In short ...
        The leader must first be selected according to the principle of loyalty and loyalty to the people, and then professionals should already be selected from this mass, because Only professionals can evaluate the level of professionalism. I like how they do it in the Vatican - they lock twelve pros in one room, so they choose the very-most.
        What about the people? And what about the people.? In general, the most important thing is not the opportunity to choose, but the ability to exert influence and control on an existing one. IMHO
        1. dmb
          dmb 5 October 2012 19: 28
          0
          There is such a science, logic. And this logic tells me that both Yeltsin and the dearest man Stalevich (we will be judged by their deeds) did indeed select according to the criteria you specified. But where does the people. They did not attribute themselves to him, having been born to him, as well as the current and successful ones. And the selection was made on the basis of fidelity to their loved ones. And, I note, the chosen one didn’t let anyone down. He didn’t take anything from any of these voters, and that he let others go closer to the feeder was a business, nothing personal.
          1. aksakal
            aksakal 5 October 2012 20: 19
            0
            Quote: dmb
            And this logic tells me that both Yeltsin and the dearest man Stalevich (we will be judged by their deeds) did indeed select according to the criteria you specified. But where does the people. They did not attribute themselves to him, having been born to him, as well as the current and successful ones. And the selection was made on the basis of fidelity to their loved ones.
            - you can agree with the amendment: certainly loyalty + compliance with the chosen position + necessary personal qualities. There is not one of these three conditions - the other two are completely depreciated.

            Quote: dmb
            But where does the people.
            - I already said - there is nothing for the people to choose. I repeat:

            Quote: aksakal
            What about the people? And what about the people.? In general, the most important thing is not the opportunity to choose, but the ability to influence and control the existing one.
            .
            That is, the people should be so much higher, it is like a shareholder to its manager - “I don’t care who you put in this plant as a top manager, the main thing is the result (here are the numbers). I’ll ask you. In case of failure, I’ll take my head off you.” All. And there is no need to stage performances under the names "democracy" and "elections". Perhaps a utopia. But the current system in democratic countries and the one adopted in Russia is no less a utopia.
        2. 916-th
          916-th 5 October 2012 19: 45
          +2
          Author: Modern society is approaching a completely new stage for it - a global unified social system. Its complexity of organization is qualitatively different from the state system ... The failure of the US attempt to build a global planetary system, guided by its old principles ...

          On the issue of globalization. The fact that globalization is ongoing is beyond doubt. In the same way, there is no doubt that they are following the script and under the control of the Anglo-Saxons, in particular the United States. Regarding the failure of the US attempts, in my opinion, the author got a little excited - they have problems, for example, the financial crisis, the paper dollar crisis. But the general trend of US dominance in globalization processes persists and we see how they solve their problems, broadcasting them around the world within the framework of the same globalization.

          The question logically arises - do we need to integrate into global structures and processes, if it is known in advance that there is a game going on according to someone else's rules, and we are assigned the role of a raw materials appendage? Until our state (let's say - the Eurasian Union) gets strong enough to defend its interests within its own limits and on the world arena, it is too early to strive for a get-together of "common people".

          For us now, it is not the criterion of personal qualities that is relevant, but the criterion of the qualities of our ethnic groups, striving to unite within the framework of a single state in the post-Soviet space. It is these qualities that fundamentally distinguish us (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazakhs) from the same Anglo-Saxon ethnic group. In the meantime, we are witnessing the degradation of our national qualities under the pressure of Western democratizers and liberalizers. If so, then the priority of our power should be the building of a strong union state and the revival of primordially national qualities among the people, and not dissolution in globalism in the interests of ethnic groups alien to us.

          Regarding personal qualities. The qualities of the qualities of discord. After all, the Anglo-Saxons also built their egoistic hegemony based on certain personal qualities, just like the builders of communism in the Soviet Union had to meet certain behavioral and personal criteria. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not enough to talk about the importance of personal qualities in general - it is necessary to clearly define the criteria by which they should be evaluated. Let me remind you, and for some, perhaps, I’ll discover America that a survey was conducted on the Military Review website in May this year, dedicated to the topic of assessing state political figures:

          Part 1: topwar.ru/13065-proekt-ocenka-gosudarstvenno-politicheskih-deyateley. html
          Part 2: topwar.ru/14595-ocenka-gosudarstvenno-politicheskih-deyateley-rezultaty- oprosa.html

          According to the survey, three main criteria for evaluating domestic politicians were identified:
          1) Strength / Activity (strong, active - weak, passive)
          2) Morality (moral - immoral)
          3) Competence (competent - incompetent).

          The objects of evaluation were 25 political figures of the past and present of our countries, including Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin. Aksakal and DMB, as well as other visitors to the site, could find in the report a lot of interesting material for their discussion today. Success hi
          1. Nick
            Nick 5 October 2012 22: 33
            0
            Quote: 916
            For us now, it is not the criterion of personal qualities that is relevant, but the criterion of the qualities of our ethnic groups, striving to unite within the framework of a single state in the post-Soviet space. It is these qualities that fundamentally distinguish us (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazakhs) from the same Anglo-Saxon ethnic group.

            True 916. Our ethnic groups have a common mentality. I can’t explain why, but it’s a fact.
        3. Normal
          Normal 5 October 2012 21: 53
          0
          Quote: aksakal
          and most importantly, contradicts itself.

          Quote please. You have no less contradictions than mine.
          Quote: aksakal
          It’s as if he doesn’t know that Putin’s rise to power happened just like that, but right there with hatred and drooling:

          Well, your version of Putin’s coming to power is only good for first-graders to tell. Such a naive is rare, so even they most likely will not believe it.
          And where did you see my hatred and drooling? Quote please!
        4. Nick
          Nick 5 October 2012 22: 20
          0
          Quote: aksakal
          The leader must first be selected according to the principle of loyalty and loyalty to the people, and then professionals should already be selected from this mass, because Only professionals can evaluate the level of professionalism

          I agree with you, dear Aksakal, you determined the criteria for selecting the leader of the nation correctly, but the question arises - how to select these very professionals.
          As regards GDP, my opinion is that Russia was just lucky. A patriot came, besides with the qualities necessary for a statesman. Providence ... IMHO
    3. crazyrom
      crazyrom 5 October 2012 21: 56
      +1
      Quote: Normal
      Gorbachev, Yeltsin or Putin

      Che, completely foolish, Putin on a par with Gorbach ???
      1. Normal
        Normal 5 October 2012 23: 11
        +1
        Quote: crazyrom
        Che, completely foolish,

        Well, judging by the nickname, it’s just you who are foolish. What do you dislike about the series? Among these are Stalin and Chernenko, Brezhnev and Andropov, Khrushchev and Yeltsin, Gorbachev and Putin. and even Medvedev is there.
        If you want to communicate normally, then choose expressions. If not, then there’s nothing to talk about.
  2. bask
    bask 5 October 2012 07: 21
    +3
    Social selection, as I understand it, neo-Darwinism, when, the strongest survive. Weak, disabled people are not socially adapted groups to practical extinction. There will be enough experiments on people. Only a SOCIALIST idea with elements of a market economy.
    1. kulpin
      kulpin 5 October 2012 17: 30
      +1
      Basque, I would give you a minus, but not minus anyone "by definition". It is impossible to combine the "SOCIALIST idea" with the "market economy".
      Take a look at the charter of any (ANY) LLC, CJSC, etc. and so on. First line: goals and objectives. "Improving shareholder returns". Have you ever wondered why the "trade market" model failed to squeeze out the supposedly "bursting at the seams" model of the "national state"? Namely, because TNCs, in principle, are not able to solve POLITICAL tasks, because their goal is to make a profit at any cost.
  3. valokordin
    valokordin 5 October 2012 09: 02
    +3
    Well, what is stated in the article is a private opinion, read F. Engels "The Origin of the Family of Private Property and the State." Everything is said and chewed there, and there is no need to invent anything. The presence of the Internet and mass disinformation, of course, influences the formation of personality, but this is only a means to subjugate a much larger number of people than the word of a shaman or a leader in a small group of people. The essence of social relations remains the same as during the emergence of statehood. Personality has always played a leading role in the life of society, therefore Leo Tolstoy's opinion about the insignificance of the role of personality in history was erroneous. The coming to power of negative personalities is an inevitability that arises at the time of the decomposition of society and the loss of its ideals ..
    1. Ross
      Ross 5 October 2012 12: 10
      +1
      valokordin,
      Very correct formulation of the question.
      The author of the article did not essentially suggest anything, and having mentioned the selection system according to Marx and Darwin, he excluded other systems.
      For some reason, many agree with Marx that the evolution of society goes from the communal system through slaveholding, feudalism to capitalism, etc. And if this is not progress but regression? Anyone who is not blind already sees what our society has come to. But who of those who know the history of the same Russia, will say that our ancestors lived in a retired society? Passing slavery, the Romanov Germans drove Russia into feudalism! And the uprisings of the people began! To this day, justice is most important to us, it is in our blood. Namely, such a society we had in the early period of Russia.
      Because it was based on castes (as with all Aryan peoples), and the priest could never become a medallion stink, as well as a prince. And only with the introduction of the inheritance of power and the destruction of the spiritual power of the priests who control the power of the princes - we received the death of justice and ancient law.
      1. kulpin
        kulpin 5 October 2012 17: 38
        0
        And therefore it turns out "regress" that gentlemen liberals do not remember (Or, rather, do not know. They are proud that they shirked during their student years from the "worthless" social sciences) Rousseau's second postulate. First: the socio-historical process is uneven. Second: the socio-historical process is INVERTIBLE. It is impossible to return from a higher formation to a lower one. It is impossible to turn from socialism with its socialized means of production to the market archaic. All the fuss about the "market with a human face" is stupidity and complete ignorance of the basics.
  4. volcano
    volcano 5 October 2012 09: 36
    +3
    And now we are generally turned upside down. (and this applies not only to Russia, but also to the world as a whole) ..
    When some actor or singer gets a lot of money and is elevated to the rank of "elite", and the military, researchers, engineers, cosmonauts, etc. to the rank of some not very necessary people, what are we talking about ???

    That's really the WORLD TURNED OVER.
    1. kulpin
      kulpin 5 October 2012 17: 41
      0
      No. The world, unfortunately, did not change. He simply was not ready for the phase transition. However, not all transformations occur on the first try.
  5. dark_65
    dark_65 5 October 2012 10: 04
    +2
    The author sets out almost everything correctly, almost, and the fact that society has moved from industrial to post-industrial .... I would like to understand that the grub, production were canceled in the information society ... and other attributes of being? Who will produce this?
    The delirium of the greatness of the inhabitants of the inner city of Cadiz.
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 5 October 2012 13: 57
      0
      Quote: dark_65
      The author sets out almost everything correctly, almost, and the fact that society has moved from industrial to post-industrial .... I would like to understand that the grub, production were canceled in the information society ... and other attributes of being? Who will this produce? of inhabitants

      - Dark, this does not mean the complete departure of residents who produce grub and other things into oblivion, but their departure to the very bottom of the social ladder, not even the bottom, but the basement. From this point of view, everything was noted correctly - in primitive society, the strongest and most arrogant climbed to the most social upper hand, a little later he pulled his relatives there too, etc. Now - the most informed will get in there, and those who produce grub will feed it.
      True, the article promises that the most intelligent and knowledgeable will go up, I dare to object - the same Soros was not the smartest and most knowledgeable at the time, when he broke a bank of Britons, he was the most informed. And there are suspicions that he did not get the information thanks, but simply because he either was or became an agent of a very influential intelligence agency, whose main activity was just to extract critical, supercritical and insider information in general. And the rest of the article is correct.
      Well, I'm going to be recruited -))) Knock knock !!!! I look at the forum users, who is the least I like here? -)))). Who is it that merged about the regime enterprises? -))))
  6. baltika-18
    baltika-18 5 October 2012 10: 09
    0
    Quote: bask
    bask (1)

    Quote: volkan
    volcano

    Plus to you. I support completely and completely.
  7. xmike
    xmike 5 October 2012 10: 12
    +1
    You may not agree with me, but in these matters it is better to adhere to the norms and traditions that have been tested for centuries bully
  8. saruman
    saruman 5 October 2012 12: 33
    0
    "In practice, this means a transition from Knowledge to Awareness. That is, the key social quality is not possession of static knowledge, but the presence of a set of skills for its analysis, processing and creative creation. Such an ability cannot be the result of memorization, it can only be as definite mental psychological worldview personality paradigm (integrity). "

    This is the key idea of ​​the article. For which I put a plus. The society that will be the first to make such a transition will become dominant on our planet.

    In the modern information society, obtaining static knowledge is not a problem. The problem is the assimilation of this knowledge and its application in practice. Modern educational practice is not able to transfer the amount of Knowledge into Awareness. The Soviet education system was the first attempt to create such an education. Unfortunately, in our country not only did not take advantage of these developments, but also completely rolled back in this matter. The broadest access to information does not lead to Knowledge, since, in principle, there is no need to know. The main task is to teach a person to receive from information - knowledge, and then to realize it.
    1. kulpin
      kulpin 5 October 2012 17: 47
      0
      All the arguments about the "possession" and "operation" of information in the social and civilizational terms resemble good delusions stretching not even from the era of "enlightenment", but also from Plato and Pythagoras. A very simple touchstone to test the concept: "Does this parameter exclude the GIT?" It is easy to see that an arch-educated person can be a primary scoundrel and literally "walk over corpses." So the "informational" and "postindustrial" myth is not the true path of progress.
  9. dirty trick
    dirty trick 5 October 2012 16: 48
    0
    I wonder what criteria should lead to this sequence:
  10. mark021105
    mark021105 5 October 2012 16: 52
    +1
    The best way to evaluate: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
    Nobody has come up with anything better.
  11. Astartes
    Astartes 5 October 2012 17: 24
    0
    Here the author raises an interesting topic, though the manner of expression is rather boring, and confused. Clearly, one new system for assessing the achievements of a person is vitally necessary, otherwise we already have baseness and meanness as a guarantee of success and begin to turn into a positive quality. In any case, moral attitudes are also formed by the appropriate environment, so I would suggest not to choose pearls from shit, but to educate people with the necessary set of qualities.
  12. Yves762
    Yves762 5 October 2012 20: 48
    0
    Either way:


    Either way:
  13. arkady149
    arkady149 5 October 2012 22: 36
    +1
    If everything was as simple as in this article ... But this is only one of the views on the development of society. Article plus.
  14. Magadan
    Magadan 6 October 2012 01: 48
    0
    I have one striking example from personal experience. The father of my best friend was the simplest hard worker in the USSR. Nothing outstanding, and at the present time, it is quite possible that he would be in need and, perhaps, he would not have children at all. But in the USSR, everyone was provided with food, education, medicine, etc. and therefore children were born. My friend's father was a very honest, just and spiritually strong man. But he did not possess the skills that were appreciated by that society. He was a simple driver. And drivers, plumbers and plasterers, painters were not appreciated. The "intellectuals" and members of the Komsomol were appreciated. But a son, my friend was born. And this man is amazing. In a word, this is a man with a capital letter. Incredible spiritual and physical strength, which in everything is based on justice, responsibility and loyalty in absolutely everything. Even when he was a bandit in the 90s, hucksters stood in line so that the brigade in which he was the leader would cover them. Times were cruel, but there was never any lawlessness on their part. But there were "dark stories" when the brutalized juvenile criminals who attacked people in broad daylight suddenly disappeared in a swoop.
    Then he moved away from banditry, becoming Orthodox. He became a very big person in business. He has five children, all brought up in self-discipline and respect for our spiritual laws. If exemplary families remained in the country, then this is his family. And the positive influence and help of my friend extends far beyond his family and even his circle of friends.
    Therefore, I draw a conclusion - now a person can be a "gray mouse", which is of no value to today's society. But he can give birth to such a person as my friend. Therefore, I am grateful to the USSR for the fact that unremarkable and "unnecessary" people by today's standards (not lawyers, not managers, not businessmen with deputies) received equal rights with people "necessary" (intellectuals and Komsomol members), giving their children an education, normal food, medicine and even housing.
  15. Gromila555
    Gromila555 7 October 2012 15: 51
    0
    First question: WHO will select ???
    Paradox: A thieving and not very honest boss always wants to have an honest and decent subordinate, but the subordinate, seeing such a g ... and feeling his "innovations" on himself, at best, will leave, at worst - if possible, he will nip or "throw" good - lots of variations