Institutional Complexity

 From Arnold Carpet.

Proving something complex right is one of the hardest tasks.

    This week, I analyzed the complexity of Oedipus: his virtues, his morals, the way he presents himself, etc. This led me to think about complexity in general and since I have been reading and watching a lot of politics, I will be applying it to politics. Take any heated issue today such as gun rights, taxes, etc. and break it down to its fundamentals. That is something many of us don't do. Yet so many of us feel so strongly about certain topics. We are so sure of our stance, yet we can't really explain what the topic is.

Skepticism and humility are crucial in solving the hatred that stems out of politics today. Do real research. Do not simply cherry-pick, but read what doesn't agree with your stance. Then, and only then, can you have a true opinion. Radicalism borne from entertainment is unfortunately widespread.

    Take a concept like democratic socialism. In the United States, this is essentially communism or Marxism. But what is it? Does it mean we live in a thought-police governed world like in Orwell's 1984? Does it mean competition is lost because everyone earns the same wage? What does democratic socialism really entail? Most of the American population can't describe what it is, but they know it's bad and it takes freedom and stuff like that. But Eduard Bernstein surely wasn't set out to make "the worst thing for America" (Trump, 2020). So, let's examine what the public thinks of a complex interconnected ideology versus what it actually is. If we were to go by America's perception, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Eduard Bernstein had the same goal: limit freedom. Unfortunately, it's not that easy because no political ideology is that simple.

Finding correct knowledge is hard. Reading requires focused attention. It requires work. But how do you encourage the American people to read when the American Dream is to work as little as possible to achieve the most? The grand illusion of knowledge presented by the media is a short-cut. And this shortcut leaves out a lot of critical information. 

     People like to simplify these ideologies because it's easier. It's easier to rely on effortlessly accessed information. Reading is thought-provoking. Reading is full of articulation but people don't like that. They want to form their own radical opinion on issues without putting in the work to achieve a true sense of what an issue really is. Now, back to the political ideologies. Eduard Bernstein took Adam Smith's concept of the free market and integrated the cooperative economic equity within it. Therefore, the concept of democratic socialism stripping competition out of the economy is simply not true. The free market (like in Denmark and Sweden) advocates for no barriers to entry and no government supported monopolies/oligopolies.

Is the United States truly "libertarian"? It gives its people freedom of speech and freedom to carry. But, like everything that ever was, it's more complicated than that. How do you consider yourself in a "free country" when its citizens have to work a 9-5 to pay off deb. When they come home too tired to do anything thought-provoking, so they watch T.V. How easy is it to open a business? In the United States, businesses run the country and annihilate any competitors. So, in that sense, the United States is authoritarian. Just because you have the freedom of speech (which is very important) and the freedom to have a gun does not mean you are free to do what you would like to do. That's freedom in one sense that is not the most important category of freedom today.

    If we were to analyze the American experiment of capitalism today, it would be clear that Adam Smith's vision has been violated. Lobbyists control the Senate, domestic companies are subsidized to protect them from foreign competition, and organizations are supported by the government, not because they provide the best product for the people, but because they often form Super P.A.C.s that aid politicians in their campaign. Win for the politician. Win for the company. Lose for the public and the dreams of a free market. Therefore, the illusion of a free market and competition is simply not true today. Democratic socialism would, thus, be a better solution if looked at from an economically libertarian perspective. Communism, on the other hand, does not advocate for the free market but rather a more collective share of economic businesses by the public (run under government programs). 

*Capitalism favors economic competition. Democratic socialism favors economic cooperation*

These ideologies are more complex than I care to write. I pointed out the major difference between them but they can be dissected further to find many more similarities and differences. 

    Why did I pin point these two political ideologies and express their main difference? Because I want to show how interchangeably these words are used, despite the major economical difference. But that's the problem, the public is fed information from their favorite politician or news network and stop. There is no deeper analysis. There is no skepticism. There is no freedom of thought. News networks and politicians oversimplify issues when they literally have no clue how to solve them and the public follows mindlessly.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate"-Noam Chomksy.