Archives for posts with tag: authoritarianism
Newer Entries »

1989 si Criza Financiara Globala.

December 20, 2013 //
2

Ce a fost.
Ce ar fi putut sa fie.
Ce a iesit.
Ce va sa fie.

Voi incepe cu sfarsitul.

Vom repeta aceleasi greseli de cate ori va fi nevoie pana cand vom intelege ca greseala este inevitabila si ca daca tot am facut-o ar fi mai bine sa invatam ceva din ea.
 A te intoarce din drum pina inainte de greseala si a porni din nou cu gandul de a nu o (mai) repeta nu face decat sa te aduca, din nou si de cate ori este nevoie, in fata aceleiasi lectii: decat sa te ridici pentru a cadea din nou mai bine mergi in patru labe pana se termina gheata!

Ce ar fi putut sa fie? Greu de spus. Ar fi putut sa fie mai bine dar in acelasi timp ar fi putut sa fie mult mai rau. Sa ne bucuram ca a fost.

Ce a iesit? Din cate se pare nu ‘a iesit’ inca. Ne ‘pregatim’ cu naivitate sa urcam, precum Sisif, acelasi deal la capatul caruia in realitate se afla o raspantie numai ca pana acum noi am vazut doar varianta ‘din nou si de la capat’.

Ce a fost? Eu m-as intreba mai degraba ‘a cata oara a fost?’…

Nu, nu ma refer doar la caderea comunismului sau la criza financiara!
In realitate atunci nu a cazut comunismul ci doar prea putine dintre regimurile comuniste, am sa  dezvolt subiectul asta mai tarziu.
Ma refer la faptul ca nu am inteles nimic!
Pe ce ma bazez cand spun asta?
Simplu. Pe faptul ca peste nici 20 de ani ni s-a intamplat acelasi lucru si atunci iarasi am fost luati prin surprindere precum si pe faptul ca ne straduim de zor pentru a reface seturile de conditii care au condus la cele doua miscari tectonice.

Ca sa fie clar ce am in cap am sa o spun pe sleau: atat prabusirea regimurilor comuniste cat si criza economica din 2007-2008 au avut aceiasi cauza si din pacate lucrurile au reinceput sa curga in aceiasi directie: autoritarismul/centralismul politic revine in forta – chiar daca sub alte forme – iar modul de functionare al economiei mondiale revine incet la obiceiurile de dinainte de 2007.

Toate necazurile astea provin din faptul ca ne credem mai destepti decat suntem cu adevarat.
Asta duce pe de o parte la aroganta – unii dintre noi cred ca stiu ei mai bine ce este potrivit pentru toti ceilalti – iar pe de alta la ‘autocastrare’ – prea mare parte dintre acesti ‘ceilalti’ accepta cu resemnare concluzia ‘logica si rationala’ la care au ajuns: aceea ca ‘nu ma pot descurca de unul singur’, ‘El este acela’ asa ca se aseaza disciplinati si ascultatori in spatele ‘lui’, ii indeplinesc fara sa cracneasca ordinele si apoi isi justifica ‘rational’ faptele in fata propriei constiinte.
“In conditiile acelea nu se putea altfel!”
Daca am avea mai putina credinta oarba in rationalitatea noastra si mai multa modestie poate ca am fi in stare sa intelegem mai multe din ceea ce ni se intampla.

Aproape nimic din ceea ce veti citi in continuare nu este nou. Eu nu sunt un tip caruia sa ii vina ‘idei’! In schimb imi place foarte mult ca atunci cand ma intalnesc cu una sa o intorc pe toate fetele si sa incerc sa vad ce legaturi exista intre ea si celelalte idei cu care m-am intalnit pana atunci.

Ceea ce urmeaza poate fi asemuit cu un ‘carnet de bal’. Este ‘lista’ ideilor cu care m-am intalnit. Am schimbat pe ici pe colo ordinea, unele intalniri nu au fost chiar atat de intamplatoare ca altele dar nimic nu a fost atat de premeditat precum este faptul ca am inceput, in sfarsit, aceasta impartasanie.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crisises., Economy, politics, Psychology

No, we don’t need more ‘leadership’! We just need to rediscover “respect”!

December 12, 2013 //
3

Image

Romania, the country I was born in and I dearly love, is in a mess.
The US, a country for which I feel a profound gratitude, is deeply divided across numerous fault lines.
Ukrainians have such a low opinion on Russia, their former big brother, that Moscow has to resort to bribing in order to lure Kiev out of joining the EU.

How did we get here?

Romanians have elected Traian Basescu – an ex sea captain – as President, not so much because of his promise: ‘You should live better!’ but mostly because they were fed up with the arrogance displayed by his opponent. 9 years later, fed up with the way Basescu has maneuvered his pet prime minister into wrecking the economy, Romanians have brought to power a new prime minister who has promised to keep Basescu on a short leash. What was the first thing this new prime minister has done? A formal ‘non-aggression’ pact with the president, as if the constitution wasn’t a good enough to frame relations between the presidency and the government. Now the pact is already broken and for the last month or so the two are accusing each other of corruption while the EU is trying to asses if Romania is mature enough to join the Schengen group of selected countries who trust one another so much as to give up border controls altogether.

The Americans elected Obama, a charismatic leader, hoping he will lead them out of the cul-de-sac where the lackluster but rather rigid G.W. Bush has left them. Do you remember ‘Yes, we can!’? I must confess I was thrilled at the time but I was also weary: ‘What if he will not be able to fulfill all the hope his people has put on his shoulders?’ Now, six years later, Obama’s main promise – an affordable health care system to cover everybody – is in shambles and he has shifted his priorities to a ‘war on poverty’, a move seen by the conservatives as another trick intended to widen the scope of the already ‘too powerful central government’.

The Russians, disillusioned with the chaotic ways of Boris Eltsin – on whose reign the country was left to the mercy of a few oligarchs (pun intended) – brought to power an ex KGB operative. Now, 13 years later, his grip on power is almost as comprehensive as it was that enjoyed by the communist leaders while the country still depends on exporting vast amounts of energy from fast dwindling reserves. Meanwhile its neighbors see Russia as a less scary but no less spiteful version of the old USSR.

What is to be done?

A couple of days ago I took a cab, in Bucharest. The driver, fed up with the constant bickering between the Romanian political leaders, ejaculated: ‘What we need is a dictatorship. A honest guy, preferable from the military, that will clean up this mess!’. While not very common this belief – that current problems could be solved by a ‘honest and benevolent’ dictator, a “Tatuca” (Father in Romanian) – is spreading again. In fact this is exactly how Putin acceded to power in Russia.

Last night I happened to ‘stumble’ on Donald Trump speaking to CNN’s Piers Morgan. ‘What we need is more leadership. We need someone to take the bull by the horns!’ (Unfortunately the clip posted by CNN on the Youtube starts exactly after Trump had finished speaking about ‘leadership’ but you can still read the caption about the ‘bull’s horns’. Still, it is worth watching, you’ll find out about how popular Donald Trump is among the restaurant owners).

It seems that finally the Russians, the Americans and the Romanians have reached common ground.

But would this be a wise thing to do?

To me it seems obvious that while the empires/dictatorships fell/failed rather sooner than later a more stable form of running things is true democracy. After all history provides plenty examples of how peoples who organized themselves based  on mutual respect fared a lot better than those who let themselves to be bullied around. One caveat though, modern democracy seems less and less based on respect and honest efforts to find the common ground and more on tricks performed with the intent to manipulate the masses.

So what will you have, authoritarianism, demagoguery or mutual respect?

PS.
I asked the cabbie ‘OK, but how to you find the right guy for the job?’
I left him scratching his head in search for an answer.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories politics, Psychology, yes but

Chiar asa sa fie?

November 11, 2013 //
0

Cand eram mic am citit povestea asta sub o alta forma.
Astazi am gasit-o in mail.
Sa fie oare o coincidenta cu ce se intampla acum?

“De aici s-au inspirat românii !

Targovetul cu mere.

Într-o dimineaţă, stăpânitorul unei cetăţi fu trezit de nişte strigăte care se auzeau din piaţă:

“Hai la mere! Mere dulci cum n-aţi mai gustat!”.

Ridicându-se indispus din pat şi privind pe fereastră văzu un târgoveţ ce vindea într-adevăr mere, înconjurat de o mulţime de muşterii.

“Trebuie să fie tare bune merele alea” , îşi spuse mai-marele cetăţii şi, făcându-i-se poftă, îl chemă pe primul său sfetnic şi îi porunci:

“Ia cinci galbeni şi mergi în piaţă să cumperi mere de la târgoveţul acela”.

Primul sfetnic îl chemă pe paharnic şi îi spuse:

“Uite patru galbeni , du-te şi cumpără mere”.

Paharnicul se adresă , la rândul său , stolnicului:

“Poftim trei galbeni , de care să cumperi mere de la târgoveţul acela”.

Stolnicul îl chemă pe primul străjer îi dădu doi galbeni şi îl trimise în piaţă.

Acesta dădu un galben unui străjer din subordine, iar acela se duse la târgoveţ şi îi luă la rost:

“Hei, ce tot strigi aşa? Ai tulburat somnul mai-marelui cetăţii, iar drept pedeapsă mi-a poruncit să-ţi confisc căruţa asta cu mere”.

Zis şi făcut.

Întors la şeful său , străjerul se lăudă:

“Am făcut un târg nemaipomenit. Cu un galben am cumpărat o jumătate din căruţa cu mere a tărgoveţului”.

Primul străjer merse la stolnic:

“M-am târguit şi , cu cei doi galbeni pe care mi i-ai dat am reuşit să cumpăr un sac cu mere!”.

Stolnicul – repede la paharnic:

“Cu trei galbeni am luat o tolbă întreagă cu mere”.

Paharnicul dosi jumătate din cantitate şi apoi merse la primul sfetnic:

“Iată , cei patru galbeni mi-au ajuns doar pentru o jumătate de tolbă cu mere”.

Iar primul sfetnic se înfăţişă dinaintea stăpînitorului cetăţii şi glăsui:

“Măria ta , iată , am îndeplinit porunca. Numai că de acei cinci galbeni n-am reuşit să târguiesc decât cinci mere”.

Mai-marele cetăţii , muşcă dintr-un măr şi cugetă:

“Hmmm. Cinci mere pentru cinci galbeni. scump, foarte scump!

Şi, cu toate acestea, târgoveţul acela avea o mulţime de cumpărători.

Înseamnă că lumea o duce bine, are bani.

Ia să măresc eu birurile!”

Tags , ,
Categories politics, Psychology

Lenin’s Ax Handles

November 4, 2013 //
3

Living in a communist society (Romania, 1961 to 1989) I was ‘educated’ – like everybody else, into becoming a ‘good member of the working class’.
The indoctrination process included becoming familiar with ‘the classics’ and this was how I ended up reading some of Lenin’s ‘works’.
One concept stuck to my mind. At some point he was explaining that ideas are like axes: very sharp, able to do a lot of things but powerless without a handle to leverage the force with which they are wielded. With axes it is simple, just attach them to a wooden handle and you’re in business.

With ideas things are a little trickier. If you want them to take hold among the targeted section of the population you need to ‘seduce’/convince credible but gullible members of that group that those ideas are “good”. For the society at large and for them in particular.
In theory this should be difficult since people are (supposedly) rational.
In practice it’s not that hard. Even ‘sophisticated’ intellectuals have allowed themselves to act as ‘ax handles’. And no, I’m not going to mention a long list of prestigious people who praised communism, fascism and other aberrations.

I’ll just make good use of my memories.
In 1983, while studying Mechanical Engineering at the Bucharest Polytechnic a Mathematics Professor tried to convince me that wearing a beard will be detrimental to my career. At least he was seemingly speaking in good faith and in the end he let me be.
I know that this idea is hard to understand nowadays. But in those days the communists were so intent in micromanaging every aspect of our lives that even our hair was the object of their ‘recommendations’. Men were supposed to be clean shaven and to have their hair cropped short. There was no formal law on this subject but the recommendation was followed by most people. Specially by those who needed to ‘blend in’.
Next year, 1984, I wasn’t so lucky. I had to shave, just for one day, because another Professor (?!?) stated, point blank, that he wasn’t going to allow me to take the exam if wearing a beard. I showed him my IDs. In all of them I was sporting a lot of ‘facial hair’, including in the one identifying me as a army reserve officer. Military service was compulsory at that time and was almost the norm for college educated people to rise to the rank of officers. He wasn’t the least impressed.

Now it doesn’t make the slightest difference that one of them was sincere in the conviction that his advice was sound while the other was a plain rascal (and a communist party mid level boss), both of them were efficient ‘ax handles’ who helped transforming young people into obedient sheep. One would have expected differently. They were “Professors”! 

Let me finish by mentioning the fact that at the beginning we were 6 students sporting more ‘facial hair’ than a simple mustache. At the end of our studies, the five years needed to get the equivalent of a Msc in Mechanical Engineering, I was the lonely bird still hanging on to my beard.

Fast forward to 2021.

I just came across this.

It made my blood boil.

It was not a single famine which had proved how evil communism was.
Every communist regime which had ever existed had imploded under its own weight. Exactly because the subjects were famished enough to get to the streets. And topple the regime.
Even execute the former dictator, as it had happened in Romania.

Capitalism only provided the resources for British, and others, imperialism. That the British had chosen to use those resources in that manner… is something else.

Yes, resources generated by the capitalist free market can be put to bad uses. But not necessarily! Check what’s going on in Scandinavia, for example.
Communism, in contrast, actually wastes the societies it controls.

The British Empire, like all others before, had crumbled because its imperialistic nature, not because it used to ‘sport’ capitalism.
Communism had also crumbled because its imperialistic, dictatorial, nature.
The difference between these two imperialisms being the fact that communism is mainly focused to its ‘inside’ while the ‘classic’ imperialism is focused on its ‘outside’.
The British (capitalist) imperialists have brought ‘in’ a lot of wealth – and civilized, to a degree, its colonies. The Bolshevik Communists have continued the Tsarist imperialistic tradition. In doing so they have wasted the resources of a huge continent and the talents of a marvelous people while keeping the rest of the communist lager decades behind their European neighbors!

While capitalism provides ample resources, and allows people to show whatever side of their souls they choose to bring forth, communism stifles everybody in its embrace.

Please be careful which ideas you choose to promote!

Tags , , ,
Categories politics, Psychology

Doua viziuni.

October 5, 2013 //
0

Definitia clasica a statului, cel putin cea europeana, face apel la notiunea de ‘contract’ – explicit sau implicit – intre cetatenii care il populeaza si despre care se presupune ca ‘impartasesc’ dorinta/nevoia de a supravietui in comun. De unde si ideea de natiune ca o comunitate care are suficient de multe in comun astfel incat sa se poata autoguverna, sa poata genera suficient de multa democratie astfel incat guvernarea sa fie incluziva si nu centripeta.
In principiu statul este reprezentat de institutii iar acestea sunt populate de oameni, care au liber arbitru. Iar acestia pot alege sa trateze statul ca pe o resursa si nu doar ca pe un mecanism de cooperare.
Sa ma explic. In definita de mai sus statul este in realitate instrumentul politic prin care comunitatea nationala isi indeplineste, constient sau nu, scopul minimal de a-si asigura supravietuirea. In anumite conditii unii operatori politici, lipsiti atat de scrupule cat si de o viziune mai lunga decat propriul nas, pot ajunge sa priveasca statul ca pe un instrument de imbogatire sau de autopromovare, ca si cum locul pe care ei il ocupa in interiorul institutiilor ar fi o resursa si nu o responsabilitate. Astfel statul (impreuna cu institutiile sale) devine instrumentul prin care acesti indivizi isi impun dominatia lor, sau a ideilor lor, asupra celorlalti – de la autoritaristi de tip religios la ‘social progresives’, de la mullahii Iranieni la comunistii de tip sovietic – sau prin care sa acumuleze resurse materiale – coruptii de pretutindeni. Din nefericire practica ne arata ca ‘instrumentul’ este polivalent, poate fi folosit in ambele scopuri simultan.
Iar ‘problema’ apare in momentul in care ‘parazitii’ ajung sa consume suficient de multe resurse incat ‘activitatea’ lor sa puna in pericol supravietuirea celorlalti. Acela este momentul in care reincepe razboiul descris de Pareto, cel dintre lei si vulpi…

Tags ,
Categories Uncategorized

How come evil is always free while good is sometimes imposed by force?

October 3, 2013 //
0

I was watching an episode from ‘Ghost Whisperer’ on AXN when a certain (evil) character said: “All I have to do is convince them!”
And then I realized that in reality the devil is powerless. In order for anything evil to happen a human has to make the decision: the serpent only told them what to do, it was Adam and Eve who did bite into the apple.
And the same for any-other bad thing that comes into being. For one reason or another a wicked thought might come into my mind but it is my ‘reasonable’ self that ‘validates’ it and turns it into an action.

And then how come there are humans who feel free or even compelled ‘to do the right thing’ unto the other without his prior consent or sometimes even against his expressed refusal?
From baptizing the two weeks olds under the conviction that unbaptized toddlers go directly to hell if they happen to die to the innumerable rules and regulations imposed unto the unsuspicious citizen by the overbearing modern state.

Tags
Categories politics, Psychology
Newer Entries »