It Isn’t Always Obvious How Modern Business Models Limit Entrepreneurship … Or What To Do About It … But There’s A Postmodern Eject Option That Will Set You Free
[This particular post is dedicated to the real and aspiring entrepreneurs out there, especially my brethren who are the creators, compilers and consorts of information ... and it's distribution to the people.]
As Always, I like to start near the beginning …
In the case of looking at modern business models we need to look to the great monarchies and empires that grew out of the dawn of the Agricultural Era. There were a number of forces that shaped societies at this time, including the ever present economic forces driving the behaviors of men (Author’s Note: assume the term “men” is used here and throughout for convenience sake referring to all of humankind, i.e.: children, women and men).
By economic forces we can begin with the fundamental necessities required for sustaining and nurturing life, including creating a context appropriate to successful procreation. Prior to the Agricultural Era the evidence we have uncovered points to at least two previous phases of evolutionary development in human systems, a “Hunter/Gatherer” phase and a “Hunter/Horticulturist” phase. Sometime during these phases of human development basis social tenants were being programmed into the basic biological machinery as well as the social machinery. Essential remnants of the developmental process that imprinted itself on the human species remain in place today, e.g.: competition and altruism.
The primary social evolution mechanism during this phase transition from “Hunter/Gather” to “Hunter/Horticulturist” to “Agriculturalist” included the ability to create larger groupings leading to the first of many city-states and subsequently empires. The primary driver of this development was the ability to create wealth in the form of excess food resources, freeing individuals for specialization beyond food production in the population. From this consideration we can make the argument that the first rudimentary elements of what we think of today as business began to evolve within the social fabric.
It would be a reasonable conjecture to presume that the first elements of business in early societies took the form of services and craft, production of products, access and acquisition to goods, and distribution of goods. While it would also be reasonable to presume that services and craft, along with the production of products came first, the access and acquisition of goods, and the distribution of those goods was unlikely to be far behind. We can place the last of these two elements of business under the heading “trade” for simplicities sake. This model of the fundamental elements of early business models can then be presented simply as a triad of services/craft … production … and trade …
At this time there were only a few ways business of any kind to be conducted …
In a very local model, e.g.: craftspeople serving their local communities … carpenters, potters, healers …
Creating goods to be traded directly, i.e.: barter … or later for the exchange of payment in coin made of valuable metals representing fixed value, typically in direct association with the value of the metal in which the coin was minted, e.g.: copper, bronze, silver, gold …
Trade between kingdoms for precious resources and goods … this trade was the sole privy of monarchs, even when conducted on their behalf by merchants of their choosing.
Back to Basics For A Moment …
However, behind this model was the constant of food production as the basis of all “real” wealth – and in an Agricultural society that meant land upon which the Agriculture depended for the growing of grains, vegetables and fruits, the raising of livestock, or the hunting of game. This was the driving force behind the concept of “real estate” … of the “King’s Estate” … the land is owned by the monarch, and all others have use as decreed by the monarch with taxes applied to the rights of use, i.e.: “real estate taxation” … the “owner” of the land is NOT the one who occupies and or uses the land, the “owner” of the land is the one who can claim taxes for the right of occupation and use. The owner can also always reclaim the land for a higher use, e.g.: eminent domain.
Since the ownership and control of land, the right to occupy and use it, as well as access to the resources contained on or below it … e.g.: fauna, flora and minerals … was (and to a great extent remains) the most essential economic driver another source of economic growth for the monarchies was conquest. As the need to expand the ownership and control of land became more dominant, to sustain the less productive inhabitants of the cities for essential resources, the monarchs were forced to expand their armies and seek new lands for these essential resources to bring back to the cities, with their aristocrats and elites, if they themselves desired to remain in control. This new necessity of supporting a growing elite class placed a new kind of pressure on the system to become more effective and efficient in the arts of war, e.g.: the Roman Legions.
Now a new economic entity sprang into existence as well. The knowledge associated with the building of war machinery and of the conduct of war. New technologies evolved to support the enterprise of war and conquest, including sophisticated communication technologies for the delivery and security of critical messages to and from afar – in this endeavor speed and utmost secrecy could mean the difference between ultimate success and utter failure. Yet, at the core of the massive campaigns conducted by the armies the issues of supplies, especially food, clothing and weapons, remained critical.
Supply Chains and Distribution As An Economic Cornerstone
Once again we can look to the Romans and their feats of engineering, specifically their roads. To a great extent the success of Rome can be directly traced back to its ability to build roads to distribute goods throughout the Empire.
This had two significant functions …
- Keeping the armies of Rome supplied so they could conquer and rule in foreign lands
- Providing the access to Rome necessary to bring back essential goods required to keep the Roman citizens pacified
In the world of the Roman Empire, Rome was the first mega-city with over a million people occupying it. This population was largely comprised of aristocrats and elites, their servants and slaves, the service providers catering to them, the craftspeople providing skilled labor, and the producers and traders providing them with the goods they desired. This population created far less wealth than they consumed, yet through the control of the surrounding lands they continued to refill their coffers and exert control on the ever deepening maw of Rome’s own resource hunger. This made for a very unstable position for a Caesar unable to keep the provisions coming … so the constant need for conquest and the drain on the essential resources from the conquered to feed the Romans.
Without the technologically advanced engineering required to build the roads that led to and from Rome, and the aqueducts that kept her supplied with clean water and water to wash away the waste of millions Rome would have never survived to build such an edifice to herself. In some ways Rome in her unsatiable hunger for goods created the basis for the modern age of business that depends on the movement of goods as its lifeblood today.
Mid-Course Conclusions And Corrections
Once this fundamental structure was established, i.e.: the acceptance of an elite ruling class, the blueprint for modern society, modern economic structures and modern business was firmly grounded. When we look through the lens of history at a particular angle what we see is that the elite, ruling class was built on the labor of the peasant class who accepted their rule in exchange for the illusion of safety, security, freedom and the potential to pursue a life of liberty and wealth themselves. What the peasant class never realized was the extent of the bargain they were making, or the reality that they were always playing by different rules than the aristocrats and the elites.
The lessons contained in history continue to show that only those who were able to exploit the limitations, weaknesses and gaps in the ruling class’s position were ever able to become part of that class themselves. Before they crossed the chasm of becoming aristocrats and elites, many of those working the chinks in the system to their own ends would have been by definition at best outside the borders of lawfulness and at worst criminals. Staying with this same lens what we can learn is that the most efficient way to cross the chasm from commoner to elite is to do the dirty work of the elites for them, earning you passage beyond the gates yourself.
Modern Banking And The Fleecing Of The Common Man
We can look at the modern banking system as an example in quick review. Beginning with the Medici’s who devised a way for the Kings and Queens of a Catholic European Empire to circumvent the rule of usury to the modern age of centralized banks and fiat money the bankers have aligned themselves with the ruling class to concentrate the wealth of the system at the top. The recent activity we’ve seen throughout South and Central America beginning in the postwar era of 1950’s through the 1980’s and on, in North America in the 1980s, 90s and most recently in the last five years leading up to a massive reformation of the banking industry with massive bailouts based on taxpayer indebtedness bloating the bottom-line of the failed banking institutions that fundamentally corrupted the system, and now the debacle threatening all of Europe with the same re-distribution of wealth upwards are perfect constructs of the mechanisms I’m pointing to here.
Essentially in a central banking environment, like those in most industrialized Western countries, and in the U.S. via the Federal Reserve System (which is neither Federal, holding any reserves, or a system in any real sense of the word), fiat money is created at the demand of a government (in the U.S. via Congressional request for increased funding outside of the requirement of raising it through direct taxation or tariffs), then the “banks” loan that money out at a ratio of many times the funding they hold in reserve (in the U.S. the ratio is about 10:1, i.e.: for every dollar a bank holds they can make a “loan” of ten dollars) and they are allowed by law to charge interest on the loan amount that is payable by debtor.
The “trick” in the system is that they are collecting interest on money they don’t have, so any interest rate is exhorbitant, creating windfall profits. A further insult on injury is that those furthest away from the lending source pay the most for the money they borrow, so the wealthiest borrow as the best rates. When you add in inflation to the sequence it immediately becomes apparent that holding as much debt as possible, borrowed at the best rates possible, becomes a pathway to increasing wealth at an accelerated rate, i.e.: you are borrowing money at a cost that’s lower than the value of the money you will pay the loan back with, and if you are close enough to the lending source you will borrow at preferential rates and your costs can be passed onto those who have to borrow further down the line. In the meantime if you purchased real assets with borrowed money they appreciate while you are paying back the borrowed money with devalued currency … a nice little spiral of wealth creation if you can “get in on it” early enough. One of the best way to “get in on it” is to become a borrower and a lender, borrowing inexpensively and lending expensively, i.e.: become the bank. (Thank you for the examples Mr. Morgan, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Rothschild …)
The Modern Entrepreneur
Now we come to the crux of my tirade (you did realize this was a tirade didn’t you?). The story that continues to get sold about modern entrepreneurial success is that it is a function of insight, courage, wisdom, brilliance … and maybe some hard work. We also “know” that it’s being in the right place at the right time, and who you know as much as what you know. FWIW I agree with much of this … to a great extent it’s true … until you get to the point where you have to work the system. At some point in the equation you have to find the chinks in the armor of the ruling class and use them to your benefit.
In a modern entrepreneurial system the ruling class is made up of at least three segments:
- The political/governmental sector
- The financial/banking sector
- The existing commercial sector that you seeks to displace
To do this, and to succeed in a monumental way, you have to work the system … often at the edge of criminality, or downright stepping over that line. There are hundreds or thousands of books that document what I’m referring to here. Some of the favorite targets are mega-companies like Walmart, the mulit-national banks, the fiascos like Enron and World-Com. However, when you study the field you’ll find that there is no large business that isn’t tied in with the political and the financial players required to perpetrate their actions.
HOWEVER … this tirade isn’t about that … it’s about what you can choose instead if you so desire … BUT AT A PRICE!
I’ll lay it down simply … to use an oft quoted comment, “If you aren’t part of the solution you are part of the problem”
If you are making your bed and lying down with the players I’ve been decrying then you are part of the problem, even if you only occasionally suck at the corporate teat. You cannot claim you are only a small little guy/gal trying to make a living off of the leavings of the corporate giants and not be awash in the stench of the garbage they put out. Even if you are selective in your takings, and what you do with them – e.g.: charity and philanthropy, you are insidiously continuing the subjugation by the ruling class. Of course the lunacy is that the subjugation I refer to includes your own (I am assuming that Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and even Mark Zuckerberg are not reading this … although some Congressperson, Senator or even the Oval Office itself may have readers who keep an eye on things doing it for them).
So how do you opt out … where the lever to eject???
The way out of the debacle is to stop being part of the problem … become a problem for the problem.
Despite their ill-fated attempt the “Occupy” movement had the right idea fundamentally … what they left out was that they thought they were playing on a level field. What they might not have anticipated was that the folks who are much more “like them” then their masters would turn against them, i.e.: the police, law enforcement officials and legal system jumping through the hoops of the puppet masters on Wall Street and in City Hall.
Remember, once these folks get to City Hall they are no longer one of you! When politicians pass laws that discriminate preferentially for themselves they are declaring that they have entered the hall of the elites and you are not entitled to sit beside the table with them, e.g.: the healthcare bill in the U.S. that excludes Federal politicians … Congresspeople, Senators, Presidents … all get preferential treatment over the citizenry … and that was a Democratic initiative!
So you opt out …
You set up shop for the people directly … and you co-opt the resources of the elites. You use their distribution systems to get your goods to the people, you use their communication tools to spread your message, you take advantage of their financial systems to build your own position … just enough.
This last bit is critical … JUST ENOUGH … because when you cross the line to more than enough it’s very hard or impossible to come back. However, when you realize that JUST ENOUGH is really enough there’s no way to control you anymore. You don’t need or want the bigger house. You don’t need or want the prestige car. You don’t need to display your wealth to prove you possess it .. and you begin playing a different game.
The new game you play is riding the waves of the system rather than being caught by them. You set up and run your own thing. learning how to become a part of and to tap into communities of your own making … by invitation or creation. You decide independently, apart from the system’s approval, certification and licensing process, how you will run your life … and part of that is the kind of business entity you establish.
The whole “lifestyle business” movement is a part of this idea. The most basic expression of it however is a harkening back to the days of old in the marketplace, where you are serving a “local” audience that knows you and your personal credibility and mark mean something to them. Yet in the modern expression of this idea that local market is not confined by geography, but is instead comprised of islands of values, beliefs, philosophies and concepts in common. Like the first traders you become a “global” citizen belonging to many tribes, not just the one defined by and imposed upon you by the ruling elites.
Once you learn to surf the system staying on the boat just doesn’t make sense … maybe it’s time for you to consider what it will take to jump ship and take back the oceans.
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D., Princeton, NJ
Architect & Designer of the MythoSelf Process and Soma-Semantics
P.S. – If you want to spend some quality time finding the eject lever, opting out and landing well take a look at my page here, How I Work, check out the links for the practice areas I specialize in, and then let’s talk.
Thomas says
Excellent post Joseph.
Joseph says
Thomas – thanks.
Peter Wright says
Very interesting post Joseph. I am as anti big government as anyone, but are you not being overly harsh here?
Surely it has been a symbiotic relationship between the ruling class and the subjugated as you describe them. Without the infra structure and wages provided by the establishment (public and private) many of the working class would not have survived. Without the wealth that was siphoned off from the efforts of those workers, the ruling class would not have amassed the wealth it has.
Are we now at the stage, like a jackal with too many fleas, that the host or ruling class can no longer support an increasingly unproductive population, but actions by the fleas might just kill the jackal?As would happen if the “occupiers” were allowed to continue to trample on property rights, obstruct others and cause chaos.
Interesting times ahead.
Joseph says
Peter – thanks for the comments.
I’m not sure how much we agree and how much we may disagree. What I am pleased about is that we can choose to do either for now with little impediment to our communion or conflict.
To you point now, NO, I don’t think I’m begin overly harsh here. There are so many issues with the current modern governments of the world. When you see politicians enter office as modest men and women, and leave ten, twenty, thirty and forty years later after dedicating themselves to “public service” as millionaires I don’t think I’m being overly harsh at all.
I wouldn’t call the relationship symbiotic all, I’d call it parasitic. There is the larger parasite of the ruling class sucking the life from the working class. Then there is another parasite that the larger parasite – that is the ruling class – feeds, which is the non-working class (or the poor if you prefer) that has always been necessary to maintain when you stratify society. These folks are too dependent to undermine the system and by virtue of their dependence stabilize it further.
By example if we look to the history of Europe we can see the growth of the Church built on the “works” done in the name of the poor. The solicitation of the working class for the “maintenance” of the poor is a strategy to sustain the stratification of the system. Then the poor will rise against the working class at the beckoning of the ruling class when presented with a threat to the only way of life they have come to know.
Two more things Peter that I think are relevant to this discussion …
You understand that the greatest threat to a bureaucratic entity, like big government, is a a well organized populace with a loyalty to something other than the bureaucracy that overrides any loyalty to it. There is a saying in the elite military units that the loyalty of it’s soldiers should be, G-d, Army, Family in that order. When “family” comes before the bureaucracy then the stability of the bureaucracy becomes threatened.
For bureaucracies to exist and grow they need to become more important to their constituents than any other force in their lives. The undermining of religion, or more specifically, G-d is a critical undertaking in building a secular society. Then once you’ve dealt with the G-d issue you can address the dissolution of the family structure. If you plan it correctly you can get to a new Hitler-Jugend, Deutsches-Jungvoik and Bund Deutscher Madel, where the children become the pawns of the system before they even have a chance to have a mind of their own – and become the spies for the system preventing the adults from straying from the party line.
In the U.S. we are locked into a two-party system that has created a dearth of options moving forward, and establishing the easiest of all political systems to buy for corporate entities. The cronyism in U.S. politics makes it such that even those few politicians who truly hold good intentions to work for the people become corrupted by the process of becoming elected. Simple example, “How many of Obama’s campaign promises to limit corporate influence in government has he kept?”
Finally, my second point is that people point to the obvious discomfort and likely chaos that a major change in the system will cause, well history shows us nothing if not “Vive la Revolution.” Major change is seldom if ever “smooth” … it never has been in the U.S. … i.e.: our Revolution breaking free from England perpetrating the very thing we are now tolerating from our own government, the Civil War damn near tearing the fledgling country apart and killing more than 600,000 men – more than all other American wars combined! I grew up in the City of Newark, NJ during the Civil Rights era and the riots, with shots being fired in the streets and the glow of fires burning the city down flickering in the glare on my windows in the summer of 1967 as I tried to sleep.
When you say “occupiers” you mean people like Mahatma Ghandi, who sat on the beaches spinning thread and drying salt? Maybe you meant a more historical interpretation of trampling property like the Boston Tea Party. Of course you could also be speaking of the acts of Jesus in throwing the money-changers out of the Temple (who were acting within the full purvey of the law) or when he occupied the Mount to give his famous sermon. Of course there were other “occupiers” trampling on property rights and causing chaos in the past, but as long as we only reap the benefits and don’t have the discomfort we seem to be able to cast those folks in the guise of prophets, saints and heroes.
If we let the occupiers occupy, (which by the way is exactly what they were doing – I was at Zuccotti Park a few times when I was in NYC doing business during the occupation and never had my civil rights impeded, never was my freedom of movement obstructed or trampled upon — at best it created a minor inconvenience, e.g.: a taxi having to re-route for four blocks to get around the park, or sit in an extra twenty minutes of traffic because of back-ups — surely you don’t believe this is trampling on property rights more than the government claiming eminent domain or more chaos than is being caused by the TSA in their “security” measures at the nations airports?), we would have been honoring an essential American principal of civil disobedience etched into our countries collective history from Thomas Paine to Henry David Thoreau …
What amazes me is that people will sell out their liberty or the liberty of others to get to an appointment on Wall Street twenty minutes sooner, or for the illusion of safety in a fundamentally unsafe world. Yet, the speeches we reference and the movements we most claim to honor called for the sacrifice of lives to secure the liberty of those now living in the shadow of those acts.
Let me close with an anecdote that comes from the annals of Thoreau’s life:
Thomas says
So I am curious about the Bill Gates thing Joseph. Is it because his windows platform is liken to that of an addict hooked on maddog wine ? lol
Thomas says
Ahh, this post just keeps getting better and better, lmao
David Hamnett says
Well Joseph I concur with much of what you have written and yet the thoughts of using the system to break free wrankles a little with me. I thought it might be a solution myself at one point and yet it seems in the long run that it would require a huge amount of integrity in the individual to not fall into the trap of being in the same structure as those who established the structure.
I would like to believe it can be done yet observation leads me to think otherwise. The Thoreau quotation seems to me that he was pointing to Emerson that Emerson was a prisoner more so than Thoreau. The Bible says we cannot serve G-d and Mammon. We have been given Dominion over the earth by the fact of our birth and are not slaves yet we have certainly become slaves. I’m screaming much like Mel Gibson’s portrayal of William Wallace in the movie Braveheart, “FREEDOM”. Which of our voices do we take instruction from our “ego” or “Our Self”? We have freedom to choose one or the other and yet both require we follow instruction.
Joseph says
David – Here’s a quote from Nelson Mandela about Thoreau that he made when he was imprisoned for the second time in South Africa:
FWIW it wrankles me too. Your observation that it would take enormous integrity is astute. I don’t know many who can do it either … BUT … there is little choice in the world as it’s structured today. To eat you must find a way to create an income … even fewer people than would have the integrity to resist getting pulled in would have the wherewithal to live totally off the grid.
I think the key is getting to the “JUST ENOUGH” position I mention and realizing that it is the literally representation of “FREEDOM!”
Lea Sedan says
The human beinig is a social creature, but hes nuture is bad from birth.
We need laws for to possible the life and the servival of the sociaty and its setup organizations.In every sociaty or regime there are some corruption of morals.A stabile and organized sociaty has to be able to repair, fixing those
exceptions, irregular forms for to survive.
Joseph says
Lea – thanks for the comments. I’m assuming you meant that the human being is has a bad nature from birth. If that assumption is correct then we will agree to disagree. I think humans are just humans, neither bad nor good, just human.
It’s all the social/cultural judgement about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ that make humans seem other than ‘human’ through and through.
I spent many years training dogs. The owners would complain about their ‘bad’ dogs … “He urinated on the rug … bad dog.” … “She chewed my favorite shoes … bad dog.” … “He/She took food off the table … bad dog.” NO! … NO! … NO! … that’s just a dog being a dog. All of those behaviors are quite natural to a dog. The expectation that the dog would behave differently is absurd.
The issue is that we want dogs and humans NOT TO BEHAVE LIKE THEMSELVES … we want them to conform to an artificial and at times arbitrary set of rules and then based on how well they conform judge them as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ … is a lion who kills a zebra or antelope to eat ‘bad’? … how about if it kills a child? … I’d argue that it’s just being a lion … but I’d also agree that we wouldn’t accept that behavior … and from our social, human point of view couldn’t either … so the lion would be hunted and killed for being a lion … so who’s ‘bad’???
If you were to analyze human behavior and what we deem to be ‘good’ behavior and ‘bad’ behavior you’d find it’s completely culturally organized and historically sensitive, i.e.: what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ today is a different standard and uses entirely different metrics than would have been used 100 years ago … 1000 years ago … 10,000 years ago … and in some case, many cases, what is deemed ‘good’ today would have been ‘bad’ then … and what is ‘bad’ today would have been ‘good’ then … so again who has the right set of rules to follow?
I get that we want a society that works … but the rules keep changing. That’s not an issue as long as we remember they are just rules, and not cosmic laws. Along with that comes the realization that A) he/she who sets the rules wins, and B) since we made them up (the rules) we can change them whenever they are no longer useful to helping us construct and continue the societies we want to live in … and instead become constraints that limit us from living full, productive, wellformed lives.
Put another way … IT’S ALL JUST A STORY … SO PICK THE STORY YOU WANT TO BE TELLING AND HEARING, NOT JUST THE ONE YOU HAVE BECAUSE YOU HAPPENED TO INHERIT IT …
Peter Wright says
Wonderful reply Joseph, thank you for taking the time to elaborate so clearly. I believe we agree far more than we disagree.
I am proud to say that I am an ex-Rhodesian so have a far greater distrust of Western governments in general and those of the UK and USA in particular, than most North Americans. Their actions have cost me dearly.
Our peaceful, economically successful country with a miniscule government, survived very well until outsiders decided to interfere and support terrorism, despite our having been promised independence under an existing constitution several times previously. Interference purely to appease newly independent 3rd world countries, particularly Nigeria which was expected to become an oil producer significant enough to reduce the importance of those in the Middle East.
The disaster that is Zimbabwe today is testament to the foolishness of that interference. Before any one mentions “majority rule”, tell me why the same principles of indigenous government were not applied in the USA, Canada or Australia, but that is another subject perhaps under the heading “hypocrisy.”
My comments on the Occupiers were intended for the recent occupiers of public places not the historical figures you mention. My concern, and this is based more on what happened here in Canada, is that the authorities were reluctant to enforce the law when there clearly was interference to free passage by residents, damage to private and public property, drug taking and even a murder by the occupiers.
Compared to the enthusiasm with which those same authorities react to arrest a shopkeeper detaining a shoplifter or a law abiding home owner firing warning shots to scare off people trying to set his house on fire.
Your point that bureaucracy feels threatened by a well organised populace is exactly the reason that here in Canada they took action against the victims in the cases mentioned above. It is also why they are so rabidly determined to keep guns out of the hands of the population, particularly hand guns. It has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing gun violence by individuals against individuals.
Which is why I am a little surprised by the tardiness of the authorities on both sides of the border to take action against the “occupiers” is it precisely because they were seen as a disorganised mob that would eventually self-destruct?
With regard to occupations and revolutions in general, do we not view these as beneficial only if they are successful? And with the benefit of hindsight?
Taking the current sad events in Syria as an example. If the current regime had the support of say 60% of the population, (a majority) succeeded in stamping out all action by the opposition and continued to rule, would they be judged as having successfully defended the bulk of the population and winning a civil war? Or if the opposition should prevail, would they be seen as righteous freedom fighters overthrowing an oppressive regime?
What then Joseph is the answer? A return to a village system? Something like the Swiss canton system?
Joseph says
Peter – my pleasure, and also a pleasure to have your comments yet once again. Great points BTW.
I’ll jump way ahead … I LOVE THE SWISS SYSTEM. FWIW it’s the American constitutional system of a “republic” of free states (cantons) actually well executed – which I expect from the Swiss. It’s amazing that the country works so well and that they have three culturally and linguistically diverse populations and regions. So if you’re asking me if I think that’s a place to look to something that works well … HELL YES! If they gave me a passport and citizenship today I’d probably be willing to move to Lausanne or Lugano – but that’s another story.
I get your complaints about the whole imposition of the New World Order and the reach of imperialism that disrupts local stability. For instance I have no issue with Rhodesia changing naturally over time to a “majority rule” – which allows the system to reset and stabilize at at different level. This is unlikely to be entirely peaceful or without violence and chaos, but it’s organized organically by the people. These kinds of revolutions actually tend to work.
When you add in external influence and the agendas of foreign powers, that have potentially much to gain and little to lose (or so they think), then the ground rules change significantly. The biggest issue is that the foundational culture doesn’t have time to update and include the changes. There are no formative myths holding the society together, and in the conflict and chaos existing wealth is shifted into the hands of a very few and little to no new wealth is created for long time – if ever (which is a very long time).
This is akin to the process of arbitrage when a financier buys a company for the value of the assets, typically built up over several generations, and dissolve the company into disparate pieces for the value of the assets, which often can exceed the value of the purchase. Of course there is an immediate return to the arbitrageurs … but at what cost???
The company can no longer produce additional wealth, as it has been dissolved and no longer exists. The families who worked in that company are now insolvent and can no longer support themselves, nor continue to contribute to the economy. The suppliers to that company can no longer generate the revenues associated with doing business with the company, and often suffer significant loses themselves. The community that surrounded the company and contributed to it’s growth in so many ways no longer benefits from the economic value of having that company present.
Yet I’d make the argument that all of these entities were essential to the growth and wealth accumulation of the company that was dissolved, and invested in it significantly. As long as the company existed and continued to be a vital part of the local economy these investments were warranted. In some way all of these extraneous entities I’ve mentioned, and likely others … e.g.: schools and universities that fed the company talent pool … were all investors with an expectation of a a return on their investment. In the U.S. and economies like it, e.g.: Canada, massive companies cannot exist without the entirety of the infrastructure that is the nation what allows them to come into being and grow.
However, with the arbitrageurs believe they are “entitled” to dissolve the company with abandon, and reap all the rewards that have been built up over several generations of investment by others, without any obligation or recourse. And, in fact the system allows this very behavior as it is today – in some ways it encourages this behavior, creating ever greater disparity between the “haves’ and the ‘have nots” – while in a saner world this behavior would be seen as criminal, in the same way allowing a company to reap benefits by polluting the land, water and air will IMO someday be seen as criminal (see Ray Anderson’s “Confessions of a Radical Industrialist” for a singular account or an industrialist who woke up and realized that from his grandchildren’s point of view his behavior could only be seen as criminal).
We have endless examples of these kinds of corporate, industrial, financial misdeeds from “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap’s ruthless disembowelment of large swaths of rural American industrialism, to Kenneth Lay’s manipulations of the energy markets, to Bernie Madoff’s completely misanthropic and malfesant behavior. BUT in each of these cases the system was structured to allow these despicable acts, and highly rewarded them (I know that Al was never “guilty” of any crime, but his actions were ruthless and caused untold amounts of suffering, much of which continues today, while he lives in a mansion in Florida on the loot reaped from his greed and the greed of his masters).
So I get your points about the “occupiers” … and I am currently in favor of some amount of controlled anarchy to counter the rampant and uncontrolled fascism led by the bureaucrats and criminals running our governments … what I can’t so easily abide are the masses of sheeple willing to standby bleating as their lives are sold for pennies on the dollar … human life should never be had so cheaply.
Andee says
Kudos Joe,
A wide and varied post.
I do think your skipping over “Hunter/Gather” to “Hunter/Horticulturist” to “Agriculturalist”societies is somewhat interesting. Would it not also be true to say that these societies and the corresponding business activities conducted within them defaulted in some important ways to whoever occupied or displayed the “alpha male” role? Is it also possible that from that role (using a presupposition that should such a position/role existed) that in such a stratified structure trade would have been linked to that role and its semantic embodiment?
This goes to the aspects of dominance and submission, that are hard-wired into all of us, and how these positions inter-act with our perceived role in any transaction/group. You referenced your interpretation and some of the research in this area, at the recent Denmark event. So elements like posture, proximity, eye-contact, hand movements, tonality amongst others were all raised and shared, as part of your presentation.
I am also intrigued by your “JUST ENOUGH” comment. You seem to me to be referring to an inter-locking set of values and beliefs that constantly flux and inter-act to define the individual and the actions they take and prioritise. The concept of “just enough” is great use of ambiguity and I applaud you for said.
I will end on that note, as in the words of Igor Ledchowski its “not wise to argue with a hypnotist, at least not whilst your awake and can hear him!” In this case, I suspect read, is enough. Lol!
Andee
Joseph says
Andee – thanks.
Ahhhh, a wide and varied response as well.
Regarding the idea of an “alpha male” it depends … we have evidence of matriarchal as well as patriarchal societies during both the hunter/gather and hunter/horticulturalist phases of evolution. In fact, it is probably fair to say that the evidence points to a greater likelihood of either a matriarchal society of egalitarian societies during some epochs of human evolution.
What also seems clear is that with the emergence of the high cultures of the agricultural societies there was a dramatic shift to virtually entirely patriarchal societies. Remember, there is a direct correlation of the escalation of war, and the technology of war, with the advent of specialization possible with agriculture. Also, as agriculture allowed for the possibility of cities, and their resource hunger, more land was needed to supply the city dwellers, necessitating war. When war became the dominant cultural determinant of power, then it became natural that the patriarchy would rise.
FWIW we are still living in a totally war driven metaphorical culture today – politicians “win” office after tough political “campaigns” to “conquer” votes that they created “strategies” for achieving in their “war rooms” with their “staff and aides” all paid for with funding from their “war chests” … and of course we all know that to the “victor go the spoils” so we’re actually not surprised when our societies are “pillaged and raped” by those we elect to “serve” in office.
We’ll have to pick on dominance and submission another time … I like the topic too much and I’m afraid I’ll get carried away with myself.
Dagfinn Reiersøl says
Very interesting and too much to digest in one sitting.
I’ve never seen the function of the non-working class described in quite that way, and was skeptical for a moment. But thinking about it, it’s obvious. Politicians, here in Norway at least, keep saying that the only feasible way to combat poverty is to get people employed. This is basically logical in isolation, without considering the rest of the system. And the politicians keep “trying” to make that happen. (“Trying” means appearing to try, whether or not there is any real intention achieve anything.)
However, the systemic problem is that if unemployment rates fall too low, it becomes more expensive to hire people. This is just basic market dynamics in the labor market: low unemployment means low supply and therefore a higher price. So in that sense you could say the unemployed are doing something useful by being unemployed.
Joseph says
Dagfinn – take your time, read it again 😉
What you say has great merit. The poor and the working poor always play a role in complex economies. Here in the U.S. there is a great debate … that is actually all “sound and fury signifying nothing” … about immigrant workers and migrant workers. It’s clear that the cost of produce would be dramatically higher if there wasn’t any of this kind of labor, but the politicians play this card again and again for votes claiming that they are “taking away American jobs” TOTAL B.S.!!!
There are few to no American who would take those jobs for those wages … and even less who would do so twice! Then we’d see unions organizing the workers and immediately tripling the costs of the growers who often struggle to create a profit today with the low costs they carry for this labor. Then there would be no choice but to pass along the cost to the consumer, opening up the potential for economies of scale even more than are present today … almost guaranteeing the complete elimination of the family farmer here in the U.S. and basically giving away the remaining agricultural industry to the corporate growers.
This would lead to a diminution of quantity of quality food available … and what might be available would then become even more expensive for the consumers who are yelling the loudest about losing American jobs. In philosophy I think they call this a ‘vicious circle” …
Alain says
I like this very florishing post, and its conclusion. Some of my fellows Canadians made a very important documentary ” The Corporation ” . The premise is this : we made Corporation a moral person. And if we judge this person by its acts he is a psychopath.
One of the best way to be the problem to the problem is exposing all the lies
( without passing for a loonie)…
Joseph says
Alain -crazy as it seems I’ve begun to think Canada has some attributes worth considering again …
Alain says
Crazy, yeah 🙂
I am reading The Hunger Games right now… and all the play of submission and power, also the “The way out of the debacle is to stop being part of the problem … become a problem for the problem. ” Is very well illustrated there IMO.
Taso says
So your saying the Graves 3&4’s have and will always be (perhaps) the elite?
Joseph says
Taso – no, not at all actually.
I have to begin with an admonition:
There are no “Graves Types” in the Graves Model … just value sets, which apply more or less to individuals at moments in time … and much more so to cultures/societies directly.
In a nutshell what Dr. Graves said was that individuals have access to the value sets they’ve evolved through and to at any given time afterwards (after they’ve evolved to that level of values in the model).
So while an individual will tend to be most comfortable in a particular Graves value set, they are not locked into that value set – they can always “de-evolve” to a more appropriate value set for a given situation. Not all people have as much flexibility to move through the Graves levels as others, one of the most valuable things I think a person can do is develop the most flexibility possible to access the most useful value set for the moment they are experiencing.
Now here’s what I’ve found (and I haven’t found that Dr. Graves suggested this, at least not in the writings of his that I have – which are many FWIW) … since individuals can a do ‘de-evolve’ and ‘re-evolve’ in ways that are useful, I’ve been looking to how this tends to happen. I’ve found that Graves “Evens” and “Odds” tend to de-evolve and re-evolve along even and odd lines most fluidly, i.e.: individuals who are most comfortable in an “Even” Graves value set tend to de-evolve to a lower “Even” value set, and visa-versa with “Odds.”
As I continued to work with the model I began to notice that people tended NOT to de-evolve to next lowest in their live, e.g.: someone at “Five” doesn’t de-evolve to “Three” … the skip a level in the line and de-evolve to “One” more often and naturally, and seem more comfortable there than at “Three.” So at the higher levels in the model, de-evolution/re-evolution looks something like this in my observation:
Eight-Four-Eight
Seven – Three – Seven
Six-Two-Six
Five-One-Five
Coming back to your comment, the system we are operating in is primarly organized at the “Four” level institutionally, e.g.: political, judicial/legal, financial/economic … and at the “Five” level socio-culturally, i.e.: the values that are most valued and lived in society and culturally.
“Five” values in this case included the recognition and realization of opportunity in the interest of achievement leading to the acquisition and accumulation of material wealth. IMO people who are limited to “Five” values are stuck in the pursuit, acquisition and accumulation of material wealth out of fear. The presumption that “Five” values implies is the the system is limited, i.e.: “There is only so much stuff, and everyone needs stuff … and if I don’t get my stuff first you might get it and I won’t have enough stuff, so any stuff you have is stuff I don’t have … and since I don’t know how much stuff I really need, or might need, I have to get as much stuff as I can … and there’s never enough stuff.“
It’s only at Graves Six that there’s a realization that there’s enough “stuff” to go around and there’s a dual pursuit … to get enough “stuff” and to help others that are within the purvey of your interest to get enough “stuff” too … even if that means taking some of the “stuff” away from people who have too much “stuff” – and that includes giving away some of your own “stuff’ if that applies – IN EXCHANGE FOR THE GUARANTEE THAT YOU’LL ALWAYS HAVE ENOUGH “STUFF” YOURSELF … BECAUSE YOU (LIKE EVERYONE ELSE) ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE ENOUGH “STUFF” – so you get societies organized to take care of people, e.g.: Scandinavian societies, often through aggressive redistribution of wealth, i.e.: heavy taxation.
The challenge at Graves Six is that you can largely only get there via successful Graves Five societies creating the enormous wealth required to support a Graves Six society. The leaves folks who live in Graves Six societies that there really is enough “stuff” NOT just to go around, but to allow everyone to live at high Graves Five levels, even if only a small portion of the total society is producing the wealth required to support the aspiration they hold. People born into Graves Six societies are often delusional about what it takes to generate and sustain the wealth required to create and support Graves Six societies.
Individuals living primarily from a Graves Five value set do so well in societies that are organized at the Graves Four level has to do with the fact that they are always noticing for the opportunities that arise in a society limited by structural constraints that naturally come with a Graves Four society. They are also more flexible than individuals limited to Graves Four values. (Remember that anyone limited to Graves Four values will only be able to recognize up to those values and not beyond them, so a person demonstrating Graves Five values will be perceived as using Graves Three values.)
Many of the individuals we’ve seen succeed greatly in our current Graves Five culture are actually using Graves Six values to organize Graves Five values players, i.e.: Steve Jobs, Richard Branson …
Taso says
Interesting phrase right at the end
“..using Graves Six values to organize Graves Five values players”
Thanks.
Alex says
Uauuu. Congratulations. I recognize every sentence separately describe my own experience and engagement with the world. And yes, this knowledge allows me to build my own “valve” in to the system.
Joseph says
Alex – thanks, glad you’re enjoying the blog.
Alain says
“So you opt out …” re-reading this post and the comments, it comes to me the radical way to opt out is to be debt-free !
Thomas says
“There is only so much stuff, and everyone needs stuff … and if I don’t get my stuff first you might get it and I won’t have enough stuff, so any stuff you have is stuff I don’t have … and since I don’t know how much stuff I really need, or might need, I have to get as much stuff as I can … and there’s never enough stuff.“
Is that the linear logical rational mindset in action, lol, don’t answer that Joseph I got a kick outta that description for sure. Do I dare say, cute. lol
Dagfinn Reiersøl says
I’m reminded of the expression “stuff and nonsense” in which stuff is “used merely as an intensifier for the word nonsense” http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/stuff-and-nonsense.html
Thomas says
At the rate that humanity is running this maze it will all be gone. I’m reminded of certain scriptures that say, everything in moderation and yet that moderation has been upgraded and modified to a point where all of that original garden of eden is being replaced with a mecca of concrete and steel. An endless cycle of proliferation that in many ways reminds me of the dinosaurs that once roamed the earth. I can understand that animals simply do as they are programmed to do, but since humans proclaim to be at the top of the food chain with the ability to “think” and “reason”, what’s their ( humans ) excuse ?
Joseph says
Peter – thanks, for the kind words.
Interesting, rambling thoughts, interspersed with some insights … from losing your teeth, to dealing with the Canadian medical system, to being self-employed … all the way up to a recommendation to check out Blognostra … NICE!