TED Conversations

Roger Farinha

Founder, New American Spring

This conversation is closed.

Our New World Order

I propose that our world has reached the point of being able to transcend the capitalist verses the communist, the entrepreneurial verses the socialist debate. I say we can do this if we seize upon one of the most central insights about our nature as human beings--that we are creative and noble creatures, in essence.

What if our paradigm for "success" is transformed from material accumulation for the individual or private interest to creative contribution to all humanity? Is this possible? Are we there yet?

You may respond to this idea generally, considering only its proposition in these three short paragraphs, or you may check out its more nuanced presentation at my Facebook pager here:



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 16 2012: Well, I think we already realize we're creative, noble creatures. The disagreements come over how we should organize ourselves to use our creativity, for example, communists think we will use our creativity best under communism, capitalists under capitalism, etc. Funny enough, both systems have been successful here and there. China has been successful as a communist country, America as a capitalist country. So really, why do we need to debate?
    • thumb
      Nov 20 2012: You can't say China has been successful as a communist country until you have freedom of speech and basic liberties. Otherwise, the people will not be able to truly respond to their reality. I saw a recent report, for example, of how the new Chinese president's family is doing their best to hide their true INCOME-- purported to be much higher than what they should be entitled to under the communist system.

      As long as our world remain locked in its SURVIVALIST mentality, there will always be greed and wealth inequality and states of worldly affairs unhealthy to the true well being of the people.

      I'd rather say that Communism and Capitalism has BOTH failed. Because our human dignity calls for a basic right to the world's resources for all, and a liberal interpretation of human creativity and meaningful productivity.
      • thumb
        Nov 20 2012: Well, I've not spent any time in China, Roger, so I don't know if the people have freedom of speech and basic liberties. our media suggest that they don't, but i take what the media say with a grain of salt--the most powerful thing is to see for yourself. But it seems possible to me that what a chinese person would consider freedom of speech and basic liberties might be different from what you or I, Americans, would. For a Chinese person, they may believe they have sufficient freedom of speech or sufficient basic liberties, or, like i say, what those things mean there might be different than here. For example, don't chinese people really value etiquette and propriety? So they might be more careful about freedom of speech than we would.

        When I said that china is a successful country, i meant the country continues, it's not wracked by major protests, its citizens are not starving in the streets. If the people were terribly unhappy i believe they would rise up. therefore i conclude they are somewhat happy.

        well, if the chinese president has amassed great income, i don't know that that would mean communism has failed, it could be one corrupt individual. sooner or later corrupt individuals get found out.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.