Read, The Brothers Karamazov

 

Vanilla Socialism is non-sense

             I came across a very simple definition of socialism. For a very long time it was very tiresome to understand this societal concept. It is not that I have become a specialist at it. It is just that I know it as a single line which tries to encompass the whole concept of it. "The entire ownership of the means of production is with the state". If this is the case what do individuals own in a pure socialist setup? Does the means of production also include the people. All the big socialist tryouts in the past have made it very clear that the state owns the people, their livelihood, their actions and their style of living. Yes, I understand that we are now looking at Dictatorship of the state. But, isnt socialism just that. Are all humans on the planet inherently self motivated and all work for the common good. Are all the individuals ready to take in the same salary and live in same sized houses, same rations, same clothes, same everything. By birth every individual is unique and always tries to be his own. Every individual wants his place under the sun in a unique way. It might be in a good or bad way, depending on how the society decides what is good and bad.

                  If everybody works the same amount and produces the same quantity and quality of goods, there is no question of state deciding it, it is already there and done. The world is so complicated. How is the state going to innovate if all its people go out and do the same job for their entire life. How is the state going to reward the extra-ordinary. Innovation, design and related activities are creative. How is the state going to ensure that creativity also is equal? But, all humans are not creative. The creativity among humans varies from near zero to a level where some people cannot sit quite for even a second. What is the motivation for this sort of creativity. Will the state take this ownership and create a creativity department. No, creativity is not a factory. What if some people dont accept this societal setup. Will they be forced to accept it or banished to an other planet. One more important question is what all will the state do. Since it owns all the means of production, that means all the activities have to be managed by the state. What will the constituents of the so called "state"? Will the state be questionable? Will there be "questioning" department? If there is one there definitely should be an answering department. How beautiful. You ask the question and you answer it. It cannot get better than this. Which people are the state. How will they be chosen? How big will the state be? Will they live in the same houses and lanes. If you want true socialism then the there should be vast expanses of houses with eerily the same design what so ever. For dinner the entire society will be eating the same food, irrespective of their position in the state or out of it.

                If such setup does exist, how do you ensure that it stays that way? Now, we are entering into dark waters where nobody wants in. Will you use fore to ensure that the society stays this way or do you depend on the human tendency that he is a "social" being and will accept this intrinsically. A person who works hard will not do so. A person who wants better food, better facility by hook or crook cannot do so. A creative idea when it comes into any person, he should be having that "socialist" yearning for disclosing it, otherwise it will stay locked and die with him. But then we are humans, not ants and bees. We are an evolved species. Creativity has flowered in toughest dictatorial setups for want of recognition and better living conditions. Yes, they do suppress creativity aimed at the common good, but it gives out routes for creativity in lanes which would not have opened in a more free setup. The lack of recognition and the redtape involved in the socialist setup will again inhibit creativity for the common good and support creativity for controlling strategies.

Any society if it tells itself as socialist, should come out with the percentage. Pure socialism is non-sense even for a textbook explanation, because we are talking about humans.

Governments, Anyone?

The public network is full of posts, views and counter views. If we give a closer look at the various posts in general, covering nearly all the topics available to mankind and closely analyze the comments, views and counter views, we see that anybody is commenting on anything. That means that everybody knows about or wants to know or has framed his views without knowing anything. The latter's views are normally based on the generalization of the present subject with his specialization. This gives us the conclusion(?) that everybody knows about everything and everybody are capable of giving their own views about everything. Is it? Shall we generalize a little further and tell there is nothing any "body" can do to change the views, Inertia? Does this mean there is no need for any "body" to tell us what to do and what not to? Does this mean we know what is expected from every "body" without anybody explicitly stating it? Does this mean that we have ceased to be taught or we can "manage" ourselves? In other terms is there no need for us to be governed by an elite few? By extrapolating a little further shall we state it in more dangerous terms "We don't need governments"?

OMG, Blasphemy!!!!!!? or would it be a relief? Do governments govern the borders of their political control or borders were born out of the capabilities of the local governments? These governing bodies can be traced back.... previous post... Social adjustments gave way to profit motives in the guise of optimizations they reached a crescendo. After several iterations of societal setup we ended up with classifying the people based on the tasks they were doing and then gradually several tasks were made more important than others and in turn, we had classes increasing by importance. All of a sudden people doing few tasks were more equal than other equal people down the societal setup. As people were grouped based on tasks, the initial industries were also based on the same setup. The initial optimizations was from the artisans themselves by grouping themselves together. The higher groups/classes saw opportunity here also. They wanted to increase the size of the groups so that they could have the advantages of scale. There is the seed of today's large corporations.

Every "body" is attached and dependent on some corporations directly or indirectly. The corporations tell what is expected of every person attached to them. When these controls were not enough, corporations turned to a third party, the governing bodies to bind all the people to corporations. As though, people were born only for this, to work for corporations. There are very rare occasions wherein people have led their life without their umbilical cord not attached to the corporations. Such people will immediately be knighted and an image created wherein it will be told that all others cannot become him or think like him. Now, they have only one person with the "free" attitude while others stay enslaved thinking that they are too "norm" to reach that stature.

The governing bodies(governments henceforth), tell people they should work for corporations to fulfill their worth of being born. The other people whose mentality and attitudes don't suit this labyrinth of laws are labeled unstable or great whichever suits them better.

So, what is the problem now? Governments frame laws to help corporations and corporations employ people, what is wrong. The thing is this system is prepping artificial number ones. If any individual does have the real vision of the society, he will grow up and build better corporations with better hold on the governments. So, the society is being prepared in such a way that if there is anybody against it, he will be treated to the high in the society so that he will become one among the oppressors or else he will vanish into oblivion.

Thing is, the educational level has gone up. Information is available at the finger tips. Anybody wants to know about the rigveda they are welcome to do so. They want to understand Einstein's work they are free to do that also. People know what is expected of them. They know to maintain equilibrium in the world. They know that the number of java programmers have exceeded the requirement. They do suitable adjustments. They make true the basic law of nature, that of "equilibrium". Now it is the time to dictate the expectations from the corporations as well as the governments. Everybody wants to make a difference to the world. Though many of them don't show they have that latent feeling towards nature. Provided an opportunity, they would do miracles for the betterment of the whole world. They would do better than send some food packets to the under-developed countries which feed all the necessary raw materials required for the materialistic life of developed countries.

Of course there would definitely be ideals which would be beyond comprehension to the society and in the same vein society would be incapable of convincing that they are wrong(wrong, either might be). Anomalies do exist and exist they should. It is like the floating point math. Nothing in the world is discrete.

Now, what if, nobody is governing them, ie, there are no governments. just imagine. People move about freely, like minded people pool their ideas irrespective of the borders/languages/caste/color. The same applies to the anomaly group of the existing societal setup. If the anomaly groups argues and convinces the regular part of the society, they will grow, otherwise, there is no way they can come into their own. Why, because, they don't have an enemy now. There were people unhappy with governments/corporations. What are they unhappy about, high rise buildings, no. They are unhappy about "people" running these establishments. This minority is telling the majority how they should lead their life. The 1% of the people are defining the word "intelligence" for the remaining 99%.

You can now argue with me that the majority of the governments formed are democratic. But, we all know the pitfalls of democracy. The person elected by 51% of the people will decide their fate as well as the fate of the remaining 49% who did not vote for him. This is a most theoretical example in a democratic setup. There have been instances where people have won elections by getting only 10% to 20% of the votes. People voting in a democracy have one more constraint, that they have to chose the best of the worst. So we do elect somebody, because, that is the essence of democracy. Yo don't vote, you are missing the whole point. If at all, you give an option for none of the above, in the ballot paper, what are you going to do if the majority of the votes are for this option. what if it is a minority? Oh, my god, Democracy.

Why shouldn't people go about their business without any governing body? Will the huge corporations themselves run their local governments. The most important and deciding factor here is the military. For a situation, wherein, we don't have governments, the first step is to de-militarize the entire world. Now you will tell me the dark forces will take over. You also will definitely tell me that all this is going to happen only over a bloody revolution. That was easy to tell. That was an obvious answer from anybody since the beginning of this subject.

At this time, I would like to know how many people in the wold would like to take to arms when all that the world wants is an equilibrium state, wherein, everybody does his own thing. What about people who know to only handle arms? How will they make their living in this situation.

All the governing bodies in the world was not formed in a day. They were formed because a need was created for their forming and we were "convinced" of that need. Once we were convinced of that need we had to accept the result. Now with the information age upon us, wherein information is generated and assimilated by everybody, do we need to be governed? We know what we can and what we do best. Why should be try to fit ourselves. How would it be if the world expanded and adjusted to us? Awesome. How many Einsteins would we have? Cant tell, because, we have not tried it. We have always complained that the present society is a one size fits all scene.

We now talk about mass customization. When we can go that extra mile for non-living things to suit us, why are we neglecting the same for people. Come one. Cant we remodel the society to embed customization. Each his own. Was it too much an ask?

Eliminate the borders, eliminate the governing bodies, Bring in self help groups, bring in voluntary lead or led individuals and wait for the planet to reach an equilibrium. What, what did I hear? communism, socialism, No, No, I don't want to hear any of it. They are all based on governance. They are but different styles of governance withe varying amount of freedom for the individuals and society as a whole. Will the corporations die? No. The corporations needed will survive. The apt people capable of doing that particular job will position themselves. Everybody would rush to 5 star hotels/resorts? Yes, maybe. But it will not survive. Somebody has to work/pay for the upkeep. People now are smart enough and know they cannot be made sheep once again by pigs and wolves. They know everybody's contribution is of importance. Everybody's voluntary trivial and non-trivial contributions are the requirements for making a truly equilibrium/chaotic situation instead of a non-voluntary controlled situation.