Ergo Cognito Sum

On Dictators and Peace

2012-02-06T00:41:00.001+08:00

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

An Interaction: Traditions and Money

2012-02-05T16:25:00.003+08:00

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.

Societies: Democracies, Socialism and Capitalism

2012-02-03T17:28:00.004+08:00

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