How do we vote? For a candidate/party or against? Usually against the incumbent… Or against what we dislike…
What do we vote for? What do we expect? Leadership or stewardship? Do we expect our elected officials to take us by our collective hand and lead us through darkness or just want them to turn on the light? To make it so that we may lead whatever lives we choose for ourselves ? For as long as we behave in a generally acceptable manner, of course…
Which brings us to ‘what democracy really is’ and ‘how can we make it work for real’?
First of all, let me point out that no democratic ‘arrangement’ had ever failed. For as long as it managed to maintain its democratic nature, of course…. Secondly, no authoritarian regime had survived for long. And most of them had fallen under their own weight rather than under outside pressure.
You see, even the ‘weakest’ democracies are way more adaptable than any authoritarian regime. The fact that anybody can voice their concerns sheds light on each problem, as it arises. The fact that all positions under the despot are filled with yes-sayers actually blinds all authoritarian regimes. Furthermore, the fact that ‘we, the people’ has peaceful means to ‘fire’ those who do not rise to the occasion makes it possible for the society, as a whole, to survive ‘the event’. Even if the previous ‘decision maker’ could not find a way out. Faced with the same predicament, an authoritarian regime must first pass through a revolutionary transformation…
Then, if democratic regimes have such an evolutionary advantage compared to the authoritarian ones, why are we still confronted by so many dictatorships?
Because democracy demands something which is in short supply. Mutual respect among all members of a given society! Furthermore, democracy works only when the questions seeking answers are about the ‘how-s’ of the matter and not about the ‘what-s’. A democratic society will remain democratic for only as long as its members continue to stick together. To have a common goal. To share a common weltanschauung.
As soon as a society allows itself to be divided into ‘parties’ promoting antagonistic interests its previously democratic arrangement will fade into ‘mob-rule’. Which is the ante-chamber of authoritarianism.
As soon as I finished reading, I started to wonder…
Who, in their right minds, would accept to work for such an ’employer’? After all, sooner rather than later, everybody makes mistakes! And if the penalty for the slightest mistake is being thrown to a pack of wild dogs…
On the other hand, who – in their right minds, would treat their employees like that? Given the fact that no right minded people would accept – as per my previous observation, to work under such ‘constraints’.
And, even more interesting, who – as an ‘owner’, would hire such a ‘manager’?
Given what’s currently going on in the most powerful democracy on Earth, it becomes obvious why Putin had helped Trump’s 2016 campaign to become POTUS. Remember Ulises’s Trojan horse? OK, it’s impossible to know for sure whether Trump and Putin actually ‘negotiated’ anything. The point being that for a seasoned judge of people Trump behaving like an elephant in a china shop after being sworn in office was a no-brainer. Putin could not know exactly what Trump was going to do. But he was certain that it would not end well…. For America!
Now, that Trump is throwing democracy to the dogs simply because the process didn’t end up the way he wanted, Putin must be gloating in front of the biggest mirror in Kremlin!
As some of you might already know, two weeks ago my wife tested positive. Hence we had to spend 14 days in isolation. During which we had some interaction with the government bureaucracy. Through mail and telephone.
Meanwhile we witnessed, with an even keener than before interest, the public discussion about the whole thing.
Here’s what I learned.
The government bureaucracy, no matter how well intended its members might be – many of them on temporary positions, as expected during an emergency, is very close to the brink. Meanwhile, the public – at least too many of those sharing their thoughts on FB, is still far from realizing the depth of the crises.
And here’s what I experienced.
Not knowing what’s going to happen to you is the worst thing. Not knowing what’s going to happen to those you love is even worse.
Because you’re so busy worrying, you’re practically useless. OK, you know statistics are on your side. But statistics are not infallible. Hence ‘what if?’!
On top of being worried for your own, and your family’s, fate, comes the ‘political’ incertitude. That sowed by the ‘naysayers’. And trafficked by the equally worried citizens. Specially by those who find themselves backing the opposition.
Things like ‘the mask is no good’. From ‘the mask cannot protect you’ to ‘the mask is a nuisance’ and ending with ‘the mask is dangerous’. And besides being ‘no good’, the ‘mandate to wear one in public infringes upon our human rights’!
On top of that, the naysayers attempt to convince us that ‘we’re on our own’! That ‘government will not lift a finger to help us!’. That its entire attention is focused on serving the ‘special interests’ which control it.
For all it’s worth, here’s my ‘official position’ on the matter.
We’re indeed on our own. As we’ve always been! The ‘government’ – all governments, is composed of humans. Of people, like you and me. Hence no government will ever be willing to do more for us than we are willing to do for our neighbors!
We are the ones who need to survive. Because in order to thrive – as we all wish, we need to survive first! As a fully functional social organism, mind you. Hence we are the ones who need to start doing things!
And the first thing we need to do is to determine what comes first. Our right to walk without wearing a ‘muzzle’? Or our right to protect each other against a disruptive virus!
Smart enough to brag about it when attempting to become the next President of the United States…. at least according to Donald Trump… and to those who had voted for him – numerous enough for him to achieve his goal.
Smart enough or smart, period?
Let me put it differently. You have no car. Yet you need to go to work and to shop for groceries. Hence you use public transport. Do you pay for it? What would happen if a sizeable portion of those who use it would find a way to stop paying while still using the service? Those who continue to pay would have to pay more to keep the service going? Or the community at large would have to subsidize it?
You don’t care for my example because you do have a car… Then you need roads to drive on… hence you have to pay local taxes. And federal ones for the interstate highways… You’d like them all to be privatized? Then you’ll pay gladly? And how much will that be? At this point I must remind you of Ma Bell. The telephone company which had to be dismantled, by the government, to make room for the present ‘data revolution’. If prices to move information from one place to another would have remained in the same range as in Ma Bell’s time you wouldn’t have had access to internet today. Unless you were a millionaire…
Taxes, local and federal, are ‘access fees’. If you want to operate – as a corporation or as an individual, out of a civilized place – safe and all, then you incorporate your business/set up residence in a civilized country. And pay the taxes collected by the administrators – read governments, to run those places.
Taxes are too high and or ill spent?!? That’s a completely different subject!
Most civilized places are run as democracies. You don’t like the way your money is spent? Or how much of it is collected to run the place? Then what’s keeping you from voicing your concern? From holding accountable those who misspend your taxes? From doing whatever you see fit? After you pay your taxes, of course…
You feel ‘crushed’ by the majority? Whom you despise, by the way? Then you don’t live in an actually democracy. That’s either a ‘mob rule’ – a.k.a. populist regime, or the population is so divided that no real conversation is taking place between the various social segments. And democracy without honest conversation is nothing more than make believe. I had chosen very carefully the word ‘population’. When something like this occurs, ‘nation’ is no longer appropriate.
Still unwilling to pay your dues? Still convinced it’s a good thing to turn your back to what’s going on in your front yard?
Still convinced that remaining ‘sane’ is more important than finding out what’s really going on?
Division of work was the first milestone we had passed in our quest to reach humanhood.
If not convinced, compare the effectiveness – in any situation, of a team composed of identically educated and similarly skilled people versus one comprising individuals with various skills and diverse exposure to the world – a.k.a. education. In other words, compare a bunch of ‘robots’ to a gang of people who complement each-other.
Historically, societies – when and where enough resources had been present, have become increasingly complex. While those composing them have become more and more specialized. And more and more dependent on the rest of the society. On the smooth functioning of said society. In Adam Smith’s words: the baker, the butcher and the brewer depend on each-other to feed their respective families.
In fact, all of us depend on the smooth functioning of the market. Those of us who had experienced communism had learned this on our own skin. Same thing is valid for all totalitarian societies. Any attempt to run complex systems from above – in a centralized manner, will – sooner rather than later, end up in failure. For no other reason than the fact that nobody – individually or in a small team, is above error. No matter how smart or well intended, all of us make mistakes. If the system allows for those present to point out errors – and to demand those errors to be fixed, things may continue.
But, by definition, a totalitarian – a.k.a. centrally planned, system has no feed-back loop. The planners have ‘no’ information about the consequences of their decision making. Well, my experience suggests a combination. Those at ‘the bottom’ gradually loose their appetite for sending information topside – because those at the top had the habit of ‘killing’ the bearers of bad news, while those at the ‘top’ gradually loose any interest in what goes on at the bottom.
Working democracies are organized around the principle of ‘separation of powers’. Another form of ‘division of work’. Each ‘power’ does what it’s supposed to do and, together, balance the whole system.
Nothing ‘fancy’. For as long as those involved pay due respect to the principle instead of lip service to the form…
Nassim Taleb had coined an interesting concept. Intellectual yet Idiot. Any individual conceited enough to believe he’s always right and arrogant enough to try to impose his worldview on those around him.
Or, in Karl Marx’s terms, an individual who has convinced himself that the world needs to be changed according to his own precepts.
‘What?!? Are you implying that Marx was the first ‘intellectual yet idiot’?’
No, only the second… Remember Plato’s ‘king priests’? What’s the difference between those who, according to Plato’s advice, were to be groomed to govern and those who had been conditioned by various totalitarian parties and sent out to ‘spread the word’? What’s the difference between Plato, Marx and, say, Alfred Beumler and Alfred Rosenberg?
Plato had been inspired by what Pericles – a dictator, had managed to achieve and his most prominent ‘product’ had been Aristotle. Who, in his turn, had educated Alexander the Great. Supposedly one of the greatest generals and statesmen in human history. According to European historiography, anyway… If you ask to those of his contemporaries who had happened to be in Alexander’s path to glory… you might get a different opinion! And what’s so glorious in being the immediate cause of death for so many people across three continents only to die of alcoholic poisoning?
Marx had come up with a brilliant explanation for what went wrong in early capitalism and with an abysmal solution for the problems he had identified. The worst thing being that he didn’t stop at proposing aberrant solutions. He was actually instrumental in several attempts to put them in practice.
Alfred Beumler and Alfred Rosenberg. Is there any need for me to comment on them? On their absolute arrogance? How else to call their willingness to declare that some people are to go on living while others should be disposed off?
This being the moment I’ll be pointing the finger to what Plato, Marx and Beumler/Rosenberg have in common. All of them share the willingness to divide people into ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’. The arrogance to put forward criteria which are to be followed by the rest of us. The arrogance to consider the world should follow their teachings.
Division of work had done it’s job. Invented by nobody in particular, used by most of us – and many of our ancestors, it had brought us to where we are now. When so many of us have time to think. Technology – maybe the most evident consequence of ‘division of work’, is proficient enough to feed us all. If we use it right. Or to kill us all. If we use it wrong.
What will it be? Are we going to remember what, time and time again, our forefathers have figured out? That ‘together’ we can ‘move mountains’? That diversity is the key to survival? To finding new paths into the future? Or are we going to fall pray – not for the first but, certainly, for the last time, to those who teach us to despise our neighbor? To stay separate? To consider some people – mainly ‘us’, as being above the rest?
A new pandemic is gripping us. By our egos! One which is a hell of a lot more dangerous than Covid….
In fact, narrow mindedness is a disease which occurs naturally. It probably affects some 10 percent of the population in ‘normal’ times. When things are no longer normal – and people become nervous because uncertainty does all kind of ‘funny’ things to our minds, narrow mindedness becomes an opportunity. A golden opportunity for those who ‘professionally’ fish in troubled waters.
“The Petersons weren’t wearing pro-police T-shirts,” notes Churchill. “They weren’t carrying a banner, holding a sign or waving a black-and-blue flag. They appear to just be listening. But merely listening to an opinion that some Skidmore students find objectionable is apparently enough to get a professor in hot water.”
Professor Greg Patton at the University of Southern California (USC) was telling students in a communications lecture last month about filler, or pause words, such as ‘err’, ‘umm’ or ‘you know’ in English. Footage of his lecture, which has now gone viral, shows Prof Patton saying: “In China, the common pause word is ‘that, that, that’. So in China, it might be na-ge, na-ge, na-ge.” Enunciated, na-ge sounds like the N-word, which led several of the professor’s students to complain to the university. Responding to the complaint, the dean of the university, Geoffrey Garrett, told students that Prof Patton would no longer be teaching the course. “It is simply unacceptable for the faculty to use words in class that can marginalize, hurt and harm the psychological safety of our students,” he said.
Society exists in two forms. One in which the individual members have a certain amount of respect towards their peers. And another one, where John Doe doesn’t give a damn about anybody else. Or even hates everybody else.
The first kind evolves. People talk – and listen, about their problems. Then find solutions. The second experiences revolutions.
When too many individuals have never had anything ‘substantial’ on their name, and feel they have no chance of improving their lot – because ‘everything’ has already been appropriated by a small minority, that society has a marked tendency towards communism.
Sometimes, too many individuals see their fortunes go down the drain, for no matter what reason. From there, only God knows how, those fortunes go straight into somebody else’s pockets. Any society which experiences something similar has a marked tendency towards fascism.
The problem with both communism and fascism being that they have always failed. Crumbled from within before being pushed into the precipice by those who has seen the situation as an opportunity. As an opportunity too good to be wasted. Then, if neither had ever survived for long, why are so many people who continue to profess either? So many intellectuals who try to convince their audience that …
Well…, first of all, because ‘intellectuals’ are nothing but regular people. With a twist! Not only that intellectuals have the same ‘passions’ as the commoners – ‘greed’ being the most intense, but they also have a very good opinion about themselves. Hence too many of the intellectuals consider that they are the ones who should be in charge. That they are the ones who know what everybody else need to do if they want to live comfortably.
In a nutshell, too many intellectuals fall into the trap of considering themselves infallible. And ‘deserving’! Hence those would do everything needed to get what is rightfully theirs.
If a society is ripe for communism, one/a bunch of the ‘intellectuals’ I described above will, for sure, drape themselves in a communist flag. If another society is ripe for fascism, in a similar manner, one or, probably, more ‘intellectuals’ will drape themselves in a fascist flag.
It’s up to us, who’ve experienced at least one of them, to blow the whistle. And it’s up to the rest to listen…
Culture is to human communities what DNA is to biological species.
It transports vital information from one generation to the other. Hence providing a venue for survival. Furthermore, both culture and DNA can change in time. Hence providing a venue for evolution.
The difference between culture and DNA being, of course, the fact that culture is way more fluid than DNA. DNA changes only once for each generation – what you get at birth is what you’re taking to the grave, while culture is in constant flux. No individual organism has anything to say about their genetic information but almost every human is capable of learning almost anything.
Now for the historical part.
Stage one.
Veneration of the elders. The elders were the depositories of the common knowledge. Hence everybody took good care of the ‘data bases’.
Stage two.
Somebody learned to write. Elders were no longer indispensable. More and more information could be ‘warehoused’ in alternative ways. A structure was needed to manage the new ways of dealing with the vital information.
Stage three.
The state is born. At first the structures which insured that culture was passed from one generation to another had been rather empiric: kingdoms, monasteries, etc. Soon after the Enlightenment things had become more rational. Cultured people became nations and the academic scholars gave us the state. As the structure charged to make sure that culture and people stay together. Hence providing for the nation’s survival.
States who had been in constant contact – read rivalry, kept each-other fit. Or else. States ‘removed’ from reality – geographically, by becoming too powerful to care or both, had experienced a natural decay. The people at the top of the food chain had forgotten about those at the bottom and those at the bottom had lost faith in their leadership.
States too weak to survive – for various reasons, have succumbed while those too powerful for their own sake have eventually imploded.
Psychology to the rescue.
Culture is more fluid than DNA for a reason. DNA follows exclusively the laws of nature while culture is heavily influenced by us. We, men, are the measure of all things. All life heavily transforms the place it inhabits. So do we, humans. Only we do it willingly. On purpose, that is.
Now, that we have amassed so much information – about life in general and about how we relate, as agents, to the entire process, we have reached a reckoning moment. What next?
Are we going to choose the path of the cuckoo or that shown to us by Hokule-a?
During lock-down I had more time for my research regarding conscience. Or, in Maturana’s terms, ‘self-awareness‘.
At first glance, evolutionary speaking, conscience – our ability to observe ourselves ‘in the act’, is about increasing the survivability of the individual having said ability. Hence increasing the survivability of the species to which said individual belongs.
Now, since humankind is divided in cultural ‘subspecies’ – and, according to Maturana, conscience is an ability which has been developed in social context, cultures have different chances of survival. Depending on subtle differences imposed upon the individual consciences during the ‘coming of age’. Only there’s something which contradicts Darwin’s evolutionary theory. According to the classical version, individuals cannot adapt themselves. Individuals can only survive – and transmit their genes, or – if said genes are not good enough for the circumstances, expire and make way for other individuals/species. According to Darwin, only species can evolve.
The notable difference being what we call ‘free will’. Not as free as some believe it to be, not as bounded as other think it to be, free will does exist. And allows us to evolve on an individual basis. During the life span of the current generation.
Only there’s a small problem here. Cognitive dissonance. No matter how conscient – aka aware of our own misgivings, each of us might be, our first tendency when confronted with arguments contradicting our previously held convictions is to rationalize away those arguments. Change convictions according to the newly acquired knowledge? Maybe later… Don’t believe me? How much time elapsed between learning that smoking is bad for you and actually quitting? See what I mean?
Hence my ‘impression’ that ‘conscience’ is more concerned about maintaining its own consistency than with the fate of the biological organism which actually supports it.
Want some more arguments?
Northern Italy. France. Spain. Bad Corona-virus outbreaks, followed by intense lock-downs. Currently the situations are, basically, under control. Suggesting that people do learn, fast, when confronted by really dire circumstances. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore… reacted immediately, had relatively few problems. Suggesting that people are able to learn from past experiences. The ‘original’ SARS, you know… Germany had a less ‘dramatic’ trajectory. Suggesting people may, under certain circumstances, learn from others. US and Brazil. The rest of the US, actually. The NE having experienced the North Italian scenario. Too many people concerned more with remaining consistent with their previous selves than with adapting to the new challenge. ‘Government tries to subdue us’ and ‘masks are an infringement to personal liberty’.
What about China and Russia? I’ll let you be the judge of that. Only you need to remember that ‘free will’ is of a totally different nature there than it is here. In the rest of the world.
Same in India. With a twist. While in China/Russia free will is stifled from above, in India – and in too many other developing nations, free will is ‘conscripted’ by poverty. It is very hard to think about the day after tomorrow if you don’t know whether you’ll be able to eat tomorrow. Even less so if you are hungry right now.
For subjects to become free, they must first remain alive. As soon as individuals die, whatever freedom they might have enjoyed vanishes.
Individual liberty is a matter of degree. No matter what any of us might do, none of us – well, almost, will ever escape gravity. We are all pulled towards the center of the Earth and this is how things should be. Otherwise… can you really imagine us drifting freely through the Universe and still being alive? There are some constraints we might escape for a while. While gravity stays with us forever, we need to breathe only once every second or so. If needed, some of us can go without air for almost five minutes. Most of us can go without water for days and without food for a couple of weeks. Without friends… is more complicated. My real point being that individuals will start considering freedom, in earnest, only after reaching Maslow’s self-actualization stage. Until then we remain subjects. Subjected to our needs.
Liberty, as a function, is a social matter. According to Berger and Luckmann, ‘reality’ is a social construct. Going one step further, we realize that freedom – like money, is also a social construct. Something we all contribute to. Help building it. Or tear it apart by negligence/carelessness. Help building it by encouraging others to become free. As in helping them to lead a decent enough life. For freedom to happen, the society – as a whole, must remain functional enough for each of its members to have the opportunity to reach the self-actualization stage.
We must constantly remember that each time somebody puts our lives in danger that somebody attempts to hurt our freedom. Every action which ultimately reduces the opportunities for each of us to reach the self-actualization stage – or to remain there, is hurting the liberty of our entire society.
