There were quite a number of sex scandals that have dogged quite a number of politicians. It is rather apparent that sex scandals seem to have a negative effect on politicians than they have on those in the private sector- who might even see it as a positive attribute- as the charm is a definite plus point when hunting for the next job.
Sex scandals, affairs, extra-marital affairs on public officials are almost as old as sex itself. It would never go away as much as we wish for a pristine image of people who will represent us in highest governing body of a country or in the international arena.
The negative impact it has on public officials is partially due to their breaking of taboo and general conventions of society and of which they fiduciary duty of ensuring it’s best interest.
Personally, I feel that a person’s sexual orientation and habits should have little bearing on the conduct of public affairs. But it would indeed be hypocritical to ask your people to get married and bear more babies when one is conducting illicit affair outside of the auspices of conventional marriage.
That’s why I think it is best to have a person of conventional standing rather than an alternative one because it would give them moral authority to speak and assert his stand. But having said that, I guess like all cases, everything of such ambiguous nature should be given a full statement of facts- and it’s merits and demerits weighed- before one is given a judgement.
After all, I think in current times at least, deviance of this nature- unless it corrupts the judgement of the person, ie corruption through sexual favours- seems much more tolerated than it were say half a century ago.
But nonetheless it is a demerit point but not necessarily a fatal one- and lastly should not be publicized unless it breaks any prevailing law, as it would unnecessary dilute the moral authority and undermine the person’s ability to do his job.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Revolutions
Will there be a communist or socialist revolution? I seriously doubt so. Will capitalism last the test of time? I seriously doubt so as well. What then can we thrust the future into having went through capitalism and socialism? Is there no other alternative way to reorganize society other than into these two binary and dichotomous way?
Will there be a revolution like how feudalism was overthrown and replace by organization through representation?
Firstly there are several factors of which to consider before revolution can be even considered and that is the management of nation or society. At heart, there are several important elements before an upset of an order is satisfied 1) Security 2) Resources 3) Nation-hood 4) Economics and Financial security 5) Ideology.
I believe if there are mastery of the above 5 factors, revolution of any kind- other than that of an external intervention- is an impossible task.
1) On Security, security refers to threat from within and from with-out. The presence of strong military and armed forces enables the protection of mortality from external forces. This is an almost given prerequisite since the dawn of time.
But the security landscape is much more different today. Previously we could be self-sufficient which means that any external intervention can be prevented because external trade and relations is much less frequent and interlinked. It essentially means that traders are mostly restricted to the market-place and people have sense a continuity with time- which means people generally have historical experience, or most of us would expect our community to remain the same for the foreseeable future.
But today we are faced with a deluge of unfamiliar faces, information and values, which rather than provide us with consistent set of values but rather thrust us to an experience of confusion and conflicting, and sometimes meaningless and misunderstood world view.
Hence the idea of security has been expanded beyond the realm of the physical but to that of the mind, value systems and worldview. It is therefore that security threats come not just from guns but from ideas that could weaken the mind and resolve of a nation’s people. And given today’s interlocking economies and societies- it would indeed be difficult to discern between what is a threat and what is innovative and creative.
2) Resources. The basic currency before money was crops and previously many cities were built around and beside rivers. Because these are basic requirements for survival before any governments or any leaders can even begin to talk about building a life of over own.
Given the complex nature of our society and economy, securing supplies of these resources are of critical nature: Food, water, energy-oil, clean air. Hence anyone who has a mastery and control over these resources would ensure that the people are properly fed, watered and sanitized. These would include basic public services like water sanitation, waste disposal and food hygiene.
Previous feudal societies thrive on self-sufficiency which means that they grow their own crops and eat their own home-grown food. This is because each cities and societies tend to be relatively isolated. Trade is less infrequent and food is of therefore paramount importance internally before one can even talk about external expansion. But in today’s world linked by counteracting and interlinking economic, security and financial relationship, supplies of these resources are more readily available on the international market. Unless there are major disruptions in global and regional supply chains, resources of these nature are easily procured.
Renegading on any international agreements could mean switching to another buyer and also faced a international community response through sanctions which ultimately would do more harm than good on the unilateral aggressor. This is evidenced in North Korea and Iran.
Therefore the interlocking and interdependent relationship between nations have proven to be one thing- the game is so delicately balanced that it would be foolhardy to play hardball all the time.
3) National Identity and nation-hood used to be a given when we have communities that don’t see each other so often on the internet, on t.v or on the newspaper. It is just much easier to produce a “US vs Others” mentality when we don’t know much about the “Others” anyway. Hence protecting a common concept was much easier back then.
Even the idea of a national identity has become much more fluid and we even have the idea of a “global village” as compared with a local village. But the idea of a national security threat is still very real- even as the idea of globalization spreads across the world, there are many if not all national governments whom will protect or advance their interest both through rather covert and “interventionist” means.
The idea of nation-hood also means a common concept of national identity. If a government masters the idea of nation-hood within the citizens, it is protected against foreign intervention which might spread ideas incompatible with its political and economic system- which otherwise might cause a revolution within the ranks. There is “Power to the People” and there is “Tyranny of the Majority”- therefore the idea “People” must not be allowed to be “tyranny” but rather performed under the auspices of nation-hood then rampant unruly herds baying for blood rather than peace and prosperity.
4) Economic and Financial Security. When we talk about economic and financial security, we refer to the economic health of an economy and it’s fiscal health. In today’s world, it means the ability to provide jobs and opportunities both internally and externally, and how plugged it is into both the trade links and financial markets.
An economy can be destroyed if it is structurally incompatible with it’s strengths and weakness and the needs of the global economy. We can destroy a country economically by snuffling it out of global supply and economic chain and financial markets- much like what has happen in North Korea. The inability to find funding without causing rampant inflation and the immobility of capital meant that funds cannot be reached to areas most needed like infrastructure and communications- hence jobs cannot be created and demand for goods is limited by local consumers.
But likewise, an unwanted market or economy can be sprung up to divert capital into value-destructive areas like drugs and prostitution. Wealth is therefore not circulated into critical areas and might end up into hands of a few with unsavoury motives. The sin economy is something that will exist but if not well-managed- it’s less than desirable traits will seep into the general economy and society which would otherwise destroy a hardworking and value-seeking populace.
5) Ideology. The term ideology is used in the most general terms of which to mean how the nation sees itself and how it wishes to project its ideals and values. It is not used in a narrow political rhetoric sense.
Some nations are formed on the back of political ideals like communism and democracy. It is in fact so sacred that some would argue that it is an ideal that should be defended. And some people would die to protect an assault on these ideals. The ideology is a story and a myth on which we can retell to the people to help them makes sense of the world. Quite simply, it is a myth and a story of which we would tell to galvanize the people. The ideas of equality, justice and diversity and equity would have no meaning insofar that the above factors are not fulfilled.
But much like kids, our life would be quite meaningless if we were not told a story of which we can strive for. The daily toil of work and routine would bear no meaning if we do not have an abstract ideal to protect or to live by.
Therefore an ideology is at the same time the least important and most important factor. It has no bearing on survival but it wraps all the above determinants into one little neat story of which we can live by. Hence a nation with a consistent and salient ideology would succeed as the people would work and seek towards these ideals- both abstract and unachievable at the same time.
Now, one would ask, is revolution possible based on mere ideas alone? It is near impossible, unless the person leading the charge has a mastery over all these above factors. But by definition, a revolution already presumes a lack of control of these factors in the first place- the “underdog” one would say.
The upset of feudalism towards capitalism and representative democracy is the result of changing determinants in the political, economic and societal system. The French Revolution was the result of waning political authority and clash of conflicting ideals- but the ideas of “French-ness” still remain intact.
There are some countries with a much more gradual approach towards the current political system. It is that of UK and certain Arabic countries. UK had gradual approach towards representative democracy as a result of it’s elites retained power in spite of it’s waning salience and changing attitudes. The class system was largely entrenched and the elites occupy the majority of legislative and governmental posts up till half a century ago. It is no wonder that the term “revolution” is seldom held in the same breath with the UK. But in no less, it had evolved from that feudal society to that of a democratic one.
“Revolution” itself is a ra-ra word. It lifts the spirit and gets the adrenalin pumping. It paints a picture of nationalistic and patriotic “revolutionaries” waiting to sacrifice themselves for a better world.
In fact the term “revolution” can be an ideology- it can be a myth used to galvanize and motivate it’s adherents for a better tomorrow. But before we can revolt- everyone should ask themselves this question: “What are we revolting for and is it really that bad?”
*Important*
This is a personal opinion and does not represent any organization. It would therefore be foolhardy to take it upon yourself as an ideal without taking into consideration local and indigenous factors. I would not bear any responsibility for any actions taken as a result of the above thesis
Will there be a revolution like how feudalism was overthrown and replace by organization through representation?
Firstly there are several factors of which to consider before revolution can be even considered and that is the management of nation or society. At heart, there are several important elements before an upset of an order is satisfied 1) Security 2) Resources 3) Nation-hood 4) Economics and Financial security 5) Ideology.
I believe if there are mastery of the above 5 factors, revolution of any kind- other than that of an external intervention- is an impossible task.
1) On Security, security refers to threat from within and from with-out. The presence of strong military and armed forces enables the protection of mortality from external forces. This is an almost given prerequisite since the dawn of time.
But the security landscape is much more different today. Previously we could be self-sufficient which means that any external intervention can be prevented because external trade and relations is much less frequent and interlinked. It essentially means that traders are mostly restricted to the market-place and people have sense a continuity with time- which means people generally have historical experience, or most of us would expect our community to remain the same for the foreseeable future.
But today we are faced with a deluge of unfamiliar faces, information and values, which rather than provide us with consistent set of values but rather thrust us to an experience of confusion and conflicting, and sometimes meaningless and misunderstood world view.
Hence the idea of security has been expanded beyond the realm of the physical but to that of the mind, value systems and worldview. It is therefore that security threats come not just from guns but from ideas that could weaken the mind and resolve of a nation’s people. And given today’s interlocking economies and societies- it would indeed be difficult to discern between what is a threat and what is innovative and creative.
2) Resources. The basic currency before money was crops and previously many cities were built around and beside rivers. Because these are basic requirements for survival before any governments or any leaders can even begin to talk about building a life of over own.
Given the complex nature of our society and economy, securing supplies of these resources are of critical nature: Food, water, energy-oil, clean air. Hence anyone who has a mastery and control over these resources would ensure that the people are properly fed, watered and sanitized. These would include basic public services like water sanitation, waste disposal and food hygiene.
Previous feudal societies thrive on self-sufficiency which means that they grow their own crops and eat their own home-grown food. This is because each cities and societies tend to be relatively isolated. Trade is less infrequent and food is of therefore paramount importance internally before one can even talk about external expansion. But in today’s world linked by counteracting and interlinking economic, security and financial relationship, supplies of these resources are more readily available on the international market. Unless there are major disruptions in global and regional supply chains, resources of these nature are easily procured.
Renegading on any international agreements could mean switching to another buyer and also faced a international community response through sanctions which ultimately would do more harm than good on the unilateral aggressor. This is evidenced in North Korea and Iran.
Therefore the interlocking and interdependent relationship between nations have proven to be one thing- the game is so delicately balanced that it would be foolhardy to play hardball all the time.
3) National Identity and nation-hood used to be a given when we have communities that don’t see each other so often on the internet, on t.v or on the newspaper. It is just much easier to produce a “US vs Others” mentality when we don’t know much about the “Others” anyway. Hence protecting a common concept was much easier back then.
Even the idea of a national identity has become much more fluid and we even have the idea of a “global village” as compared with a local village. But the idea of a national security threat is still very real- even as the idea of globalization spreads across the world, there are many if not all national governments whom will protect or advance their interest both through rather covert and “interventionist” means.
The idea of nation-hood also means a common concept of national identity. If a government masters the idea of nation-hood within the citizens, it is protected against foreign intervention which might spread ideas incompatible with its political and economic system- which otherwise might cause a revolution within the ranks. There is “Power to the People” and there is “Tyranny of the Majority”- therefore the idea “People” must not be allowed to be “tyranny” but rather performed under the auspices of nation-hood then rampant unruly herds baying for blood rather than peace and prosperity.
4) Economic and Financial Security. When we talk about economic and financial security, we refer to the economic health of an economy and it’s fiscal health. In today’s world, it means the ability to provide jobs and opportunities both internally and externally, and how plugged it is into both the trade links and financial markets.
An economy can be destroyed if it is structurally incompatible with it’s strengths and weakness and the needs of the global economy. We can destroy a country economically by snuffling it out of global supply and economic chain and financial markets- much like what has happen in North Korea. The inability to find funding without causing rampant inflation and the immobility of capital meant that funds cannot be reached to areas most needed like infrastructure and communications- hence jobs cannot be created and demand for goods is limited by local consumers.
But likewise, an unwanted market or economy can be sprung up to divert capital into value-destructive areas like drugs and prostitution. Wealth is therefore not circulated into critical areas and might end up into hands of a few with unsavoury motives. The sin economy is something that will exist but if not well-managed- it’s less than desirable traits will seep into the general economy and society which would otherwise destroy a hardworking and value-seeking populace.
5) Ideology. The term ideology is used in the most general terms of which to mean how the nation sees itself and how it wishes to project its ideals and values. It is not used in a narrow political rhetoric sense.
Some nations are formed on the back of political ideals like communism and democracy. It is in fact so sacred that some would argue that it is an ideal that should be defended. And some people would die to protect an assault on these ideals. The ideology is a story and a myth on which we can retell to the people to help them makes sense of the world. Quite simply, it is a myth and a story of which we would tell to galvanize the people. The ideas of equality, justice and diversity and equity would have no meaning insofar that the above factors are not fulfilled.
But much like kids, our life would be quite meaningless if we were not told a story of which we can strive for. The daily toil of work and routine would bear no meaning if we do not have an abstract ideal to protect or to live by.
Therefore an ideology is at the same time the least important and most important factor. It has no bearing on survival but it wraps all the above determinants into one little neat story of which we can live by. Hence a nation with a consistent and salient ideology would succeed as the people would work and seek towards these ideals- both abstract and unachievable at the same time.
Now, one would ask, is revolution possible based on mere ideas alone? It is near impossible, unless the person leading the charge has a mastery over all these above factors. But by definition, a revolution already presumes a lack of control of these factors in the first place- the “underdog” one would say.
The upset of feudalism towards capitalism and representative democracy is the result of changing determinants in the political, economic and societal system. The French Revolution was the result of waning political authority and clash of conflicting ideals- but the ideas of “French-ness” still remain intact.
There are some countries with a much more gradual approach towards the current political system. It is that of UK and certain Arabic countries. UK had gradual approach towards representative democracy as a result of it’s elites retained power in spite of it’s waning salience and changing attitudes. The class system was largely entrenched and the elites occupy the majority of legislative and governmental posts up till half a century ago. It is no wonder that the term “revolution” is seldom held in the same breath with the UK. But in no less, it had evolved from that feudal society to that of a democratic one.
“Revolution” itself is a ra-ra word. It lifts the spirit and gets the adrenalin pumping. It paints a picture of nationalistic and patriotic “revolutionaries” waiting to sacrifice themselves for a better world.
In fact the term “revolution” can be an ideology- it can be a myth used to galvanize and motivate it’s adherents for a better tomorrow. But before we can revolt- everyone should ask themselves this question: “What are we revolting for and is it really that bad?”
*Important*
This is a personal opinion and does not represent any organization. It would therefore be foolhardy to take it upon yourself as an ideal without taking into consideration local and indigenous factors. I would not bear any responsibility for any actions taken as a result of the above thesis
Monday, February 06, 2012
On Dictators and Peace
There has been a wave of over-thrown dictators and authoritarian figures around the world. Before one plunges into the nostalgia of having a simple understanding of which one man [or one group], one voice, one order, one must understand how did this idea of orderly society came about especially in the emerging societies or nations whom have attained nation-hood in the last 50 years or so.
After the world war, there was a wave of anti-colonial sentiment of which swept across the world especially those in ex-colonial states- in Africa and in Asia. The stability of brought about by a legitimized order- those of colonial masters and that of it’s subjects were put into question. Ideas of nationhood and self-rule coupled with revolutionary strands of communism upset this order. At the same time, the ex-colonial masters recovering from a crippling war were unable to make a stand in the maelstrom of ideological fervour and the inadequacy of the so-called Western “Powers”.
Hence post-war Asia and Africa were volatile and unstable- up till the 1970s. Quite a number of nations attained their statehood during this period of 1950s to 1960s and after the ex-colonial masters left, with the existing order upset- a new one emerges to fill up this vacuum. Hence from Northern Africa right up to South-East Asia, the idea of an authoritarian leader coupled with support from the military and police imposed their ideals and policed a new system in each nation. Hence invariably, all new nations that arise from these ashes had a military-like figure as it’s head to put in a simply understood order in an otherwise chaotic times- I[or we] am/are the boss- everyone else has to listen to me.
From Suharto right up to the recently deceased Gaddafi, these are figure-heads that symbolizes the “dictator-like” figure in all of these nations at this point in time. At the same time, these figure-heads formed a functional utility as well- they formed a simple head of which a nation relies upon. If these nations were to follow the diversified and fragmented political picture of mature societies with well-understood class systems and time-honoured rituals and traditions like in Europe and America- it would collapse under the weight of a thousand voices with no clear direction. It would be like a recently-released herd with no clear direction heading towards the cliff.
Hence up until recent times, the idea of a father-head figure is still etched in the social memory of many citizens of these newly-minted nations. Therefore, it is no wonder that there is still nostalgia attached to personalities of which that have heavily shaped nations since it’s infancy stage.
But in current times, the idea of “one-man or one group ruling it all” has lost quite alot of salience among the younger set whom might not have seen the need for hierarchical order during it’s more chaotic days. But rather from the world-view of a person of the Gen X or Gen Y, these rather privileged status of a certain group of people smacks of “inequitable elitism”- which sees themselves more “functionally” suited for the present system than the older set who arm themselves with “organizational knowledge” or understanding of the present system and it’s relationships.
It is no wonder that across the world- quite a number of previous “dictators” and “authoritarian” figures have been over-thrown because to a certain degree, they are longer useful in these times of peace and general consensus on social interaction.
To a certain degree as well, they might prove to be a liability in the prevailing order as well- as they attempt to impose their will forcefully like the early critical years- and therefore quite illegitimately- in quite stable times.
Traditions, culture, consensus and national identity have generally been built up over the past few decades- and this has entrenched itself into quite a number of citizens in these relatively young nations. This has brought social stability as well as economic prosperity to these nations as well over the last few decades.
Therefore, it is no wonder that the “dictator-like” figure with an iron-will appears to be out of vogue in these rather stable and prosperous times but rather one which bridges divisiveness, classes and interests appear to be what is needed in these times of stability.
*Important*
This is a personal opinion and does not represent any organization. It would therefore be foolhardy to take it upon yourself as an ideal without taking into consideration local and indigenous factors. I would not bear any responsibility for any actions taken as a result of the above thesis
After the world war, there was a wave of anti-colonial sentiment of which swept across the world especially those in ex-colonial states- in Africa and in Asia. The stability of brought about by a legitimized order- those of colonial masters and that of it’s subjects were put into question. Ideas of nationhood and self-rule coupled with revolutionary strands of communism upset this order. At the same time, the ex-colonial masters recovering from a crippling war were unable to make a stand in the maelstrom of ideological fervour and the inadequacy of the so-called Western “Powers”.
Hence post-war Asia and Africa were volatile and unstable- up till the 1970s. Quite a number of nations attained their statehood during this period of 1950s to 1960s and after the ex-colonial masters left, with the existing order upset- a new one emerges to fill up this vacuum. Hence from Northern Africa right up to South-East Asia, the idea of an authoritarian leader coupled with support from the military and police imposed their ideals and policed a new system in each nation. Hence invariably, all new nations that arise from these ashes had a military-like figure as it’s head to put in a simply understood order in an otherwise chaotic times- I[or we] am/are the boss- everyone else has to listen to me.
From Suharto right up to the recently deceased Gaddafi, these are figure-heads that symbolizes the “dictator-like” figure in all of these nations at this point in time. At the same time, these figure-heads formed a functional utility as well- they formed a simple head of which a nation relies upon. If these nations were to follow the diversified and fragmented political picture of mature societies with well-understood class systems and time-honoured rituals and traditions like in Europe and America- it would collapse under the weight of a thousand voices with no clear direction. It would be like a recently-released herd with no clear direction heading towards the cliff.
Hence up until recent times, the idea of a father-head figure is still etched in the social memory of many citizens of these newly-minted nations. Therefore, it is no wonder that there is still nostalgia attached to personalities of which that have heavily shaped nations since it’s infancy stage.
But in current times, the idea of “one-man or one group ruling it all” has lost quite alot of salience among the younger set whom might not have seen the need for hierarchical order during it’s more chaotic days. But rather from the world-view of a person of the Gen X or Gen Y, these rather privileged status of a certain group of people smacks of “inequitable elitism”- which sees themselves more “functionally” suited for the present system than the older set who arm themselves with “organizational knowledge” or understanding of the present system and it’s relationships.
It is no wonder that across the world- quite a number of previous “dictators” and “authoritarian” figures have been over-thrown because to a certain degree, they are longer useful in these times of peace and general consensus on social interaction.
To a certain degree as well, they might prove to be a liability in the prevailing order as well- as they attempt to impose their will forcefully like the early critical years- and therefore quite illegitimately- in quite stable times.
Traditions, culture, consensus and national identity have generally been built up over the past few decades- and this has entrenched itself into quite a number of citizens in these relatively young nations. This has brought social stability as well as economic prosperity to these nations as well over the last few decades.
Therefore, it is no wonder that the “dictator-like” figure with an iron-will appears to be out of vogue in these rather stable and prosperous times but rather one which bridges divisiveness, classes and interests appear to be what is needed in these times of stability.
*Important*
This is a personal opinion and does not represent any organization. It would therefore be foolhardy to take it upon yourself as an ideal without taking into consideration local and indigenous factors. I would not bear any responsibility for any actions taken as a result of the above thesis
Sunday, February 05, 2012
An Interaction: Traditions and Money
In time immemorial, we have basically spend whatever we earned. Anything more, in the long term would lead to an implosion of the economic system as well as order of a society.
But in modern times, this idea has been turned on his head. Order in the society is basically dictated by a widely-accepted and legitimate distribution of resources. And from time to time, there would be a widespread inequity, it would be policed by whoever that have a monopoly on organized violence. But ultimately, with unhappiness and war, production would decrease and it would lead to an ultimate demise on the system- in spite of ownership of organized violence.
When order has entrenched itself into the system, traditions are formed. Traditions and rituals are created to legitimize prevailing order and persuade people on the “rightness” of existing system of distribution and status hierarchy. This “soft” approach prevents a more overt and expressive form of control- that of sanctions and organized violence- which could undermine the “equity” of prevailing system.
Therefore, when we have a finite amount to distribute- we give out according to the existing system- generally “agreed” by everyone and any “deviant” who attempt to take more than what is “understood by everyone” would face “harder” coercive means.
Ultimately, this is how distribution of resources in a relatively closed off society perpetuate itself through various generations- without extensive international or external financing. This meant that assuming we have X amount of rice, we would distribute to what is understood- nothing more, nothing less.
But come later into the 1960 and 1970s, there was an explosion of money and credit. This rather delicate balance and order has been turned on his head. Millionaires become billionaires, money can be doubled within a very short period of time through very legitimate and legal means like the stock markets. Young people became richer than their parents overnight. Parents depend on their children for income much earlier than understood before. Traditions that came to legitimize previous order- which work well before- no longer has salience on the existing scheme of things.
Age, seniority, experience, status no longer has any bearing when you consider that risk management and intelligence seems to be a better marker for success than an understanding for how things work- or organizational knowledge. Moreover, with the explosion of money, now X has become X+Y+Z. Therefore anyone with X can leverage till X+Y+Z and perform much better than anyone who has a concept of only X- because they are only dealing with limited resources while the other is dealing with multiple sources.
It is with this explosion of money that the previous mode of traditional mode of distribution of resources- which assumes X- no longer have salience with the populace; and it is therefore traditional understanding of society going from status to seniority to age cannot make sense to many when we dealing with X+Y+Z rather than X only.
Salience and legitimacy- or soft understanding of order is one matter. But there would still be policing of boundaries and order of the more “harder” kind as well. Sanctions, exclusion and when deviance becomes more overt, violence would ensure that “traditional” order would still prevail at least on the “everyday” actions of people and on the superficial level.
But unfortunately, the battle of supremacy is fought mostly in heart and minds of people rather than it’s outward action.
Ultimately, it is mistaken to note that technology that dilutes traditions and culture but rather traditions and rituals are formed around people’s economic understanding of the world. Technology just quickens the pace that’s all.
But in modern times, this idea has been turned on his head. Order in the society is basically dictated by a widely-accepted and legitimate distribution of resources. And from time to time, there would be a widespread inequity, it would be policed by whoever that have a monopoly on organized violence. But ultimately, with unhappiness and war, production would decrease and it would lead to an ultimate demise on the system- in spite of ownership of organized violence.
When order has entrenched itself into the system, traditions are formed. Traditions and rituals are created to legitimize prevailing order and persuade people on the “rightness” of existing system of distribution and status hierarchy. This “soft” approach prevents a more overt and expressive form of control- that of sanctions and organized violence- which could undermine the “equity” of prevailing system.
Therefore, when we have a finite amount to distribute- we give out according to the existing system- generally “agreed” by everyone and any “deviant” who attempt to take more than what is “understood by everyone” would face “harder” coercive means.
Ultimately, this is how distribution of resources in a relatively closed off society perpetuate itself through various generations- without extensive international or external financing. This meant that assuming we have X amount of rice, we would distribute to what is understood- nothing more, nothing less.
But come later into the 1960 and 1970s, there was an explosion of money and credit. This rather delicate balance and order has been turned on his head. Millionaires become billionaires, money can be doubled within a very short period of time through very legitimate and legal means like the stock markets. Young people became richer than their parents overnight. Parents depend on their children for income much earlier than understood before. Traditions that came to legitimize previous order- which work well before- no longer has salience on the existing scheme of things.
Age, seniority, experience, status no longer has any bearing when you consider that risk management and intelligence seems to be a better marker for success than an understanding for how things work- or organizational knowledge. Moreover, with the explosion of money, now X has become X+Y+Z. Therefore anyone with X can leverage till X+Y+Z and perform much better than anyone who has a concept of only X- because they are only dealing with limited resources while the other is dealing with multiple sources.
It is with this explosion of money that the previous mode of traditional mode of distribution of resources- which assumes X- no longer have salience with the populace; and it is therefore traditional understanding of society going from status to seniority to age cannot make sense to many when we dealing with X+Y+Z rather than X only.
Salience and legitimacy- or soft understanding of order is one matter. But there would still be policing of boundaries and order of the more “harder” kind as well. Sanctions, exclusion and when deviance becomes more overt, violence would ensure that “traditional” order would still prevail at least on the “everyday” actions of people and on the superficial level.
But unfortunately, the battle of supremacy is fought mostly in heart and minds of people rather than it’s outward action.
Ultimately, it is mistaken to note that technology that dilutes traditions and culture but rather traditions and rituals are formed around people’s economic understanding of the world. Technology just quickens the pace that’s all.
Friday, February 03, 2012
Societies: Democracies, Socialism and Capitalism
We have various features of societies right now. Some are representative democracies, some centrally-controlled socialist states. And most participate in the open market capitalist system even though in name they are communist states.
Capitalism, Socialism And Democracies
Capitalism and socialism arise on the back of industrialization and arise from the ashes of feudalism. Democracies as an intellectual pining has it’s roots from even the Greeks some two thousand years ago. But it flourished as a mass operational political system just as capitalism arises.
Democracies in the most basic form proposes that the state should be ruled by it’s people and it is therefore operationalized by the voting system- which elects the people who will represent the electorate in running of the state. This is insofar a practical form of democracy as ideally actually each person should have a say in running of his own polity.
But as states grow and population expands, it would be impractical to practice such democracy in this form hence we have the legal system to ensure that the representative democracy is as fair, transparent and as “representative” as possible.
Socialism on the other hand arise as a result of mass industrialization and unfettered capitalism- which was propose as a more just and equal system- as it emphasizes on equality and need for economic distribution rather than a market-driven one. It replaces the individual in deciding state matters but rather places faith in the system that all goods and resources would be distributed fairly and equally.
Since the individual is unable to articulate his self-interested needs and wants on basis of social justice and equality, therefore representation in politics is seen as a secondary matter. Therefore it is no wonder that socialist and communist states than to be centrally controlled by a person, or an organization- which tends to be the military, as they can have prevent organized violence against the state, or a well-respected group of elites.
Capitalism is not a political ideology but rather a label to describe a market-driven economy based on the movements of capital which ideally would produce where demand requires. Capital can be in form of machines and other means to produce goods but in modern times, we would normally refer to money- as with money, we can buy machines to produce goods.
Industrialization on the other hand means the mass production of goods mostly via machines or modern method of production- the idea is organized production which prides on uniformity and quantity- as opposed to previous modes of production which either requires the delicate labour of craftsman or haphazard production of labour like in agriculture and textile. Industrialization therefore requires a large mass labour force to produce goods for mass consumption.
But as technologies improve, the requirement for labour as greatly reduced and conditions improved. But nonetheless, in modern times, quite a number of goods still require to produce and mass automation- where humans are seen as managers rather than labourers- is only seen in industries like in consumer goods- in food and beverage and in certain high-tech ones.
Capitalism and Democracies
It would not be unsurprising to really conclude that democracies- which prides on individuals- is quite incompatible with capitalism-which requires a large labour force for production.
Assuming that we only have one country in this world, and it is a democracy, it would not be unsurprising that many go back to subsistence living and farming, as they might not be able to agree on who is suppose to be working for the privilege for whom.
It is therefore unsurprising that many developed and mature economies have farmed out the production of many of their primary and secondary goods to countries where control of mass labours is more pronounced- which ultimately tend to be communist or hierarchical societies, where centralized control is easier and quicker.
It can be said that in these mature economies that they are living their lifestyle on back of these communist and hierarchical states which enable them to farm out their undesirable production at a cheaper rate too while living a fairly comfortable middle-class lifestyle.
For example, while designers and engineers work on creating the next iPhone with comfortable office chairs and cafeteria in America, the actual grunt work production occurs in China.
Capital Accumulation
How they are able to maintain a comfortable lifestyle while enabling a constant flow of cheap goods and labour is two fold. 1) Capital hoarding 2) order. Capital in it’s tangible form is money, and money is derived from labour and ownership of machinery.
1) How money [or capital] is accumulated and increases exponentially is the result of surplus labour being accumulated on the end of capital rather than that being distributed to labours.
For example an iPhone is sold for a thousand dollars. Design and creativity is paid to the 2 engineers say $150 in America for every iPhone sold. The actual production for every iPhone say cost $200- and this $200 is distributed to 100 workers along the entire production chain in China. Take in for example, it takes another $50 for other logistical cost to pay say 25 workers for around the world. And lastly they pay the single manager in America- $150 to manage the entire process. And of course they have to pay taxes- say $100 to both sides of the government. And the rest of $300- goes to that one original capital owner. And perhaps, he owns some shares in say Microsoft as well. And you can imagine the capital owners accumulate even more capital
And smart managers and entrepreneurs would therefore reinvest used $200 to invent better machines and better products to earn even more money and reinvest the rest to earn interest. And it’s original $400 would multiply for every successful venture. Everyone tell me that there is risk in every business venture- but you would not do too badly if you have the above cost structure, you might make just lesser money thats all.
And imagine this process would be accelerating even faster- why, technology. Imagine if everything else is automated. We can pay the engineers, the logistics less and removed the entire labour force and pay the manager slightly more, pay the governments more in terms of taxes to support their pro-business policies. And the capital owners would make $500 instead- much more than the original $300. Imagine, this process has been repeated since 1800 and think how large this orginal $200 has become now.
How then do I say that this is accumulated surplus of labour [or profit]- imagined that this original $300 accrued to one single capital owner should be equally to everyone in the entire labour process and we give him $50 for the risk taking. Do you think he can accumulate sufficient “surplus labour” and use the capital to employ this capital to built other goods to reinvest again. He can- but his reduced capital means that he is no longer so powerful in the market-driven economy.
One could have imagine that since it is so blatantly unjust- how come there were no repeated calls to do something. There were. In China, Russia, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, Germany and North Korea- successful ones that is.
2) Order
As one can see, it is to the interest of mature and developed societies and classes to keep things the way it is. We consume and engage in activities that is desirable to us while leaving the grunt work to economies and classes that are more inclined to these activities.
How then, could we maintain this prevailing order?
Media, organized violence and coercion.
- Media shaped opinions to legitimize prevailing order. Some provide intellectual justification while others delve into popular culture to allow certain ideas to go down a little smoother. Essentially, when you are happy working, then I am happy.
- If all these does not work- there is a threat or actual employment of violence and other coercion methods. Any methods is employable- be it legal or “right” and perhaps “extra-legal” and ambiguous. The point is to ensure that you agree with me.
When you are able to control the actions and minds of people while maintaining monopoly in the markets and economies- essentially what you have is a satisfied work-force and a peaceful, leisurely life.
Nations as a stratified society
What I have spoken is in terms of global relations- but such segmentation exist too within society and economies.
Every society would have a class that serve another class. And it’s picture is similar in terms what is seen above and methods, causes are similar in both form and functions.
The essential difference would be that within nations and countries, the government plays a much more important role in the segmentation because international policing is fraught with ambiguous areas and issues of sovereignty as compared with national ones where the state normally has monopoly in organized violence and coercion means, and media policing and censorship.
The segmentation and balance within societies and nations hence depend on the strength of the governments and on which side does it lies on.
*Important*
This is a personal opinion and does not represent any organization. It would therefore be foolhardy to take it upon yourself as an ideal without taking into consideration local and indigenous factors. I would not bear any responsibility for any actions taken as a result of the above thesis
Capitalism, Socialism And Democracies
Capitalism and socialism arise on the back of industrialization and arise from the ashes of feudalism. Democracies as an intellectual pining has it’s roots from even the Greeks some two thousand years ago. But it flourished as a mass operational political system just as capitalism arises.
Democracies in the most basic form proposes that the state should be ruled by it’s people and it is therefore operationalized by the voting system- which elects the people who will represent the electorate in running of the state. This is insofar a practical form of democracy as ideally actually each person should have a say in running of his own polity.
But as states grow and population expands, it would be impractical to practice such democracy in this form hence we have the legal system to ensure that the representative democracy is as fair, transparent and as “representative” as possible.
Socialism on the other hand arise as a result of mass industrialization and unfettered capitalism- which was propose as a more just and equal system- as it emphasizes on equality and need for economic distribution rather than a market-driven one. It replaces the individual in deciding state matters but rather places faith in the system that all goods and resources would be distributed fairly and equally.
Since the individual is unable to articulate his self-interested needs and wants on basis of social justice and equality, therefore representation in politics is seen as a secondary matter. Therefore it is no wonder that socialist and communist states than to be centrally controlled by a person, or an organization- which tends to be the military, as they can have prevent organized violence against the state, or a well-respected group of elites.
Capitalism is not a political ideology but rather a label to describe a market-driven economy based on the movements of capital which ideally would produce where demand requires. Capital can be in form of machines and other means to produce goods but in modern times, we would normally refer to money- as with money, we can buy machines to produce goods.
Industrialization on the other hand means the mass production of goods mostly via machines or modern method of production- the idea is organized production which prides on uniformity and quantity- as opposed to previous modes of production which either requires the delicate labour of craftsman or haphazard production of labour like in agriculture and textile. Industrialization therefore requires a large mass labour force to produce goods for mass consumption.
But as technologies improve, the requirement for labour as greatly reduced and conditions improved. But nonetheless, in modern times, quite a number of goods still require to produce and mass automation- where humans are seen as managers rather than labourers- is only seen in industries like in consumer goods- in food and beverage and in certain high-tech ones.
Capitalism and Democracies
It would not be unsurprising to really conclude that democracies- which prides on individuals- is quite incompatible with capitalism-which requires a large labour force for production.
Assuming that we only have one country in this world, and it is a democracy, it would not be unsurprising that many go back to subsistence living and farming, as they might not be able to agree on who is suppose to be working for the privilege for whom.
It is therefore unsurprising that many developed and mature economies have farmed out the production of many of their primary and secondary goods to countries where control of mass labours is more pronounced- which ultimately tend to be communist or hierarchical societies, where centralized control is easier and quicker.
It can be said that in these mature economies that they are living their lifestyle on back of these communist and hierarchical states which enable them to farm out their undesirable production at a cheaper rate too while living a fairly comfortable middle-class lifestyle.
For example, while designers and engineers work on creating the next iPhone with comfortable office chairs and cafeteria in America, the actual grunt work production occurs in China.
Capital Accumulation
How they are able to maintain a comfortable lifestyle while enabling a constant flow of cheap goods and labour is two fold. 1) Capital hoarding 2) order. Capital in it’s tangible form is money, and money is derived from labour and ownership of machinery.
1) How money [or capital] is accumulated and increases exponentially is the result of surplus labour being accumulated on the end of capital rather than that being distributed to labours.
For example an iPhone is sold for a thousand dollars. Design and creativity is paid to the 2 engineers say $150 in America for every iPhone sold. The actual production for every iPhone say cost $200- and this $200 is distributed to 100 workers along the entire production chain in China. Take in for example, it takes another $50 for other logistical cost to pay say 25 workers for around the world. And lastly they pay the single manager in America- $150 to manage the entire process. And of course they have to pay taxes- say $100 to both sides of the government. And the rest of $300- goes to that one original capital owner. And perhaps, he owns some shares in say Microsoft as well. And you can imagine the capital owners accumulate even more capital
And smart managers and entrepreneurs would therefore reinvest used $200 to invent better machines and better products to earn even more money and reinvest the rest to earn interest. And it’s original $400 would multiply for every successful venture. Everyone tell me that there is risk in every business venture- but you would not do too badly if you have the above cost structure, you might make just lesser money thats all.
And imagine this process would be accelerating even faster- why, technology. Imagine if everything else is automated. We can pay the engineers, the logistics less and removed the entire labour force and pay the manager slightly more, pay the governments more in terms of taxes to support their pro-business policies. And the capital owners would make $500 instead- much more than the original $300. Imagine, this process has been repeated since 1800 and think how large this orginal $200 has become now.
How then do I say that this is accumulated surplus of labour [or profit]- imagined that this original $300 accrued to one single capital owner should be equally to everyone in the entire labour process and we give him $50 for the risk taking. Do you think he can accumulate sufficient “surplus labour” and use the capital to employ this capital to built other goods to reinvest again. He can- but his reduced capital means that he is no longer so powerful in the market-driven economy.
One could have imagine that since it is so blatantly unjust- how come there were no repeated calls to do something. There were. In China, Russia, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, Germany and North Korea- successful ones that is.
2) Order
As one can see, it is to the interest of mature and developed societies and classes to keep things the way it is. We consume and engage in activities that is desirable to us while leaving the grunt work to economies and classes that are more inclined to these activities.
How then, could we maintain this prevailing order?
Media, organized violence and coercion.
- Media shaped opinions to legitimize prevailing order. Some provide intellectual justification while others delve into popular culture to allow certain ideas to go down a little smoother. Essentially, when you are happy working, then I am happy.
- If all these does not work- there is a threat or actual employment of violence and other coercion methods. Any methods is employable- be it legal or “right” and perhaps “extra-legal” and ambiguous. The point is to ensure that you agree with me.
When you are able to control the actions and minds of people while maintaining monopoly in the markets and economies- essentially what you have is a satisfied work-force and a peaceful, leisurely life.
Nations as a stratified society
What I have spoken is in terms of global relations- but such segmentation exist too within society and economies.
Every society would have a class that serve another class. And it’s picture is similar in terms what is seen above and methods, causes are similar in both form and functions.
The essential difference would be that within nations and countries, the government plays a much more important role in the segmentation because international policing is fraught with ambiguous areas and issues of sovereignty as compared with national ones where the state normally has monopoly in organized violence and coercion means, and media policing and censorship.
The segmentation and balance within societies and nations hence depend on the strength of the governments and on which side does it lies on.
*Important*
This is a personal opinion and does not represent any organization. It would therefore be foolhardy to take it upon yourself as an ideal without taking into consideration local and indigenous factors. I would not bear any responsibility for any actions taken as a result of the above thesis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
