Last night, in a response to something I had written on Twitter, a friend tweeted Oscar Wilde’s quip that “the trouble with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings”. And although Wilde wrote long before socialism got established anywhere, and although it looks like just a clever comment, I think there is more in it: like many artists, Wilde captured the essence of the advantages and the problems of a political and economic system even before it became a reality.
This is a crazy idea, that an authoritarian, technocratic approach to governance will be successful in the same way it is for business, in the longer run.
Firms are smaller units and some destruction (Schumpeterian) is considered healthy in a market economy. A collapse of a firm is not catastrophic for its workers. The collapse of a nation is a catastrophe for its citizens.
Firms also have a singular focus (profit) and thus can respond to pricing signals. A small number of decision makers can have aligned incentives with the firm at large. When they succeed, the lower workers can succeed—in getting paid.
The goals of a nation are much more complex and not singular. In fact they are total: the goals of a nation encompass the entire well being of its citizens. Hence there is no parallel signal like price for a nation state. And without a check on the power of the leaders by citizens the incentives become badly misaligned. In a firm, the leaders seeking power and wealth aligns at least in direction with the interests of workers. Because the leaders do not have absolute power over their workers.
In an authoritarian state the motivations of the leaders might be very similar or exactly the same as those or firm owners and managers. But it is likely that the structures that maximize those outcomes for the leaders result in a brutalizing society as citizens lives will be structure in alignment with the goals of leaders. But in this case, since most people do not find being treated as nothing but a means to fulfill the power and wealth of leaders to be a genial way of life, repressive and oppressive methods of governance must be employed.
Can it be, that efficiency not the only parameter is for ruling a country? I think all the different opinions have to be heard in some way, if there is mistrust in the population, efficiency will not help. When I speak with people from former GDR, from Russia, they all are so disappointed, often they even don't trust science.
Our government(s) are not authoritarian, but when the communication of the government looks like advertisement, like propaganda, it looses trustworthiness.
Never admitting a fault doesn't build up trust.
Democracy needs to include opposing forces too. Leading a country like a company will not bring success on the long run.
Democracy is bumbling, shambolic, far from the most efficient way to do anything. But that also is more likely to prevent critical strategic mistakes. It’s not a problem if company CEOs make a critical strategic mistake. The company goes bankrupt or is bought, people find new jobs, life goes on. Rather a bigger deal if a country goes down a bad path (ask those who lived under Hitler/Stalin/Mao). For that matter, has the Chinese a half century hence. They’ll be cursing the Communists who put in place the 1 child policy.
The more widen your history analysis gets, the more the concept of "efficiency" seems to be non-natural to human relations. I sometimes get the feeling that at some point we will end up so efficient that humans won't be needed anymore, at least to tasks where some form of 'human connection" ain't needed. The question is what happens when reach efficiency? Maybe efficiency in itself turns into some form of commodity.
This is a crazy idea, that an authoritarian, technocratic approach to governance will be successful in the same way it is for business, in the longer run.
Firms are smaller units and some destruction (Schumpeterian) is considered healthy in a market economy. A collapse of a firm is not catastrophic for its workers. The collapse of a nation is a catastrophe for its citizens.
Firms also have a singular focus (profit) and thus can respond to pricing signals. A small number of decision makers can have aligned incentives with the firm at large. When they succeed, the lower workers can succeed—in getting paid.
The goals of a nation are much more complex and not singular. In fact they are total: the goals of a nation encompass the entire well being of its citizens. Hence there is no parallel signal like price for a nation state. And without a check on the power of the leaders by citizens the incentives become badly misaligned. In a firm, the leaders seeking power and wealth aligns at least in direction with the interests of workers. Because the leaders do not have absolute power over their workers.
In an authoritarian state the motivations of the leaders might be very similar or exactly the same as those or firm owners and managers. But it is likely that the structures that maximize those outcomes for the leaders result in a brutalizing society as citizens lives will be structure in alignment with the goals of leaders. But in this case, since most people do not find being treated as nothing but a means to fulfill the power and wealth of leaders to be a genial way of life, repressive and oppressive methods of governance must be employed.
That’s just a very strange idea.
Can it be, that efficiency not the only parameter is for ruling a country? I think all the different opinions have to be heard in some way, if there is mistrust in the population, efficiency will not help. When I speak with people from former GDR, from Russia, they all are so disappointed, often they even don't trust science.
Our government(s) are not authoritarian, but when the communication of the government looks like advertisement, like propaganda, it looses trustworthiness.
Never admitting a fault doesn't build up trust.
Democracy needs to include opposing forces too. Leading a country like a company will not bring success on the long run.
Democracy is bumbling, shambolic, far from the most efficient way to do anything. But that also is more likely to prevent critical strategic mistakes. It’s not a problem if company CEOs make a critical strategic mistake. The company goes bankrupt or is bought, people find new jobs, life goes on. Rather a bigger deal if a country goes down a bad path (ask those who lived under Hitler/Stalin/Mao). For that matter, has the Chinese a half century hence. They’ll be cursing the Communists who put in place the 1 child policy.
The more widen your history analysis gets, the more the concept of "efficiency" seems to be non-natural to human relations. I sometimes get the feeling that at some point we will end up so efficient that humans won't be needed anymore, at least to tasks where some form of 'human connection" ain't needed. The question is what happens when reach efficiency? Maybe efficiency in itself turns into some form of commodity.