В данной статье я делаю попытку подойти к проблеме антисемитизма в рамках некоторой общей точки зрения на национальный вопрос. Эта точка зрения опирается на веру, что целесообразно сохранять многообразие этносов и государств как институтов, гарантирующих их развитие. Вместе с тем, у каждого этноса в принципе возможна и диаспора.
Я далее обращаю внимание на меру совместимости и меру враждебности между этносами в условиях, когда они живут в рамках одного государственного образования. Рассматривая условия совместимости этносов, я особо выделяю ситуацию, когда в государстве недоминирующий этнос стремится к деятельности в «программирующей» сфере, т.е. в сфере, где формируется «генетический» код доминирующего этноса.
Several years ago I presented a dinner-lecture Strategic Positioning of a Corporation for the top executives of Mars’ electronic division. After the lecture one of the vice-presidents thanked me for the presentation. This looked like a pure formality. But then he added: “You gave me a license for subjectivity.” This remark reflects the deep understanding of my message and I have taken his thanks seriously.
It requires a long journey to help a reader to understand why I be-came excited by the last remark. Let me start from a couple of business stories.
Once upon a time a famous scholar has been invited by a paper mill to help increase its profits. The firm expected that the scholar would use sophisticated linear programming procedures for setting an optimal schedule of production for different kinds of stationers. Instead the scholar offered a very different approach: to eliminate as many unprofitable products as possible. A new incentive system for salesmen had been offered to implement this suggestion. The new system proposed that the salesmen are not only given a commission from sales but also from the profit from their orders. The scholar’s suggestion was successful. Meanwhile it has some pitfalls that I will discuss a little bit later.
The investigation of the universe aims to uncover the laws that govern the physical processes. This methodology was deemed appropriate because the physical system was perceived as changing very slowly (in time and in space). Once discovered, the law (such as the law of gravity) was thought fixed and uni-versal for the entire physical domain (not just some parts of it) from elementary particles to galaxies.
Apart from the physical laws, the universe was analyzed algorithmically; that is, on the base of equilibrium (optimization) models that incorporate the variables of given physical systems. This complete and consistent procedure links the initial state of a system with its future states.
This raises the following question: What are the specific features regarding fast changing systems that preclude the use of the methodology that is widely adopted in physics…
If one would like to avoid the difficulties of this way of defining the system, then he may respond to the question, “What is the given system?” by paraphrasing the mathematicians’ answer to the question, “What is mathematics?” “Mathematics,” they respond, “is what mathematicians study.” Thus economy is that which is studied by economists.
Another definition of an economic system that follows a thornier path arises from the methodology of the systems approach described in the introduction to the book.
First of all, there is no “given once and for all” definition of an economic system. Attempts to formulate one ultimate definition give way to a pluralistic mechanism of search for the most relevant definition (Katsenelinboigen, 1989). The gist of this search mechanism is the following: the initial stage involves the construction of a possibly expanding set of definitions. Subsequently, specific investigative objectives determine the choice of the most pertinent definition from the set. If the definition is found lacking over the course of a given investigation or the objectives of the analysis shift, then the employed definition is replaced by another one borrowed from the above mentioned expanding set of definitions.