philosophy

The Stupidity of Practicality and the Practicality of Stupidity

/ Bruno Martins Soares / Leave a comment

The latest sexy idea I’ve been hearing about the American economy is that it is running a K- shape-economy. And economy where the middle/poorest classes are losing systematically, but where corporations and the richest Americans seem to be flourishing. It seems that the American economy is constantly flirting with stagflation, but GDP keeps growing north of 2% with stock market indexes constantly in record highs. In my view, this is a complete illusion. Economic downturn is already here, but the illusion of growth and prosperity is maintained by two simultaneous short-term factors: the first is the massive transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest created by the advent of tariffs, tax breaks, and exploding public debt – arguably the largest of such transfers in American history – which, ironically, increases the velocity of money in a very Keynesian way. The second is the immense debt bubble of the AI tech firms who have been massively borrowing to the edge of collapse. I’m afraid this flailing illusion can implode at any moment.

I think the American are vulnerable to this illusion as they have been completely overrun by short-term pragmatism. For all its virtues, this pragmatism, this obsession with problem-solving and usefulness of action is fundamentally stupid. Intelligence demands not only problem-solving abilities, but an understanding of complexity, cause and consequence, and critical thinking. Otherwise, short-term action can often do more harm than good.

Controversial psychologist Elliott Jacques (ironically lauded by his service in helping to structure one of the world’s most successful organizations: the US Army), equated intelligence with the ability to project in time the consequences and effectiveness of one’s actions. As such, the more intelligent someone is, the more he or she is able to predict the future and think how their actions will play out. Geniuses as Budda or Jesus Christ, would be able to think in terms of a very long time, perhaps eternity. A very intelligent person would be able to think in terms of years or decades. A simpleton would only be able to foresee a day or two.

From a different perspective, Hannah Arendt, analyzing the personality and attitude of Nazy officer Enrich Heichmann, seems to link the emergence of Evil, even the banality of evil, to a determination not to think. Not to think in moral terms and in principled terms. Heichmann, in her view, simple obeyed orders and did his job to the best of his ability – never mind that his job was to plan and execute the Holocaust. Thinking if this was right or wrong simply was not useful to him.

Speaking of the Human Condition, Arendt reflected on how life splits into three kinds of action: labor (as it pertains to everyday actions to eat, bathe, grow, reproduce, etc.), work (pertaining to our job and function in society), and action (pertaining to political action) – which she believed demanded a decision to think. Beyond her approach to vita activa, Byung-Chul Han refers to vita contemplativa: that ability to contemplate, meditate, reflect, value idleness and the simplicity of life which supports our ability to learn, to create, to develop spirituality, to love, and to give space to the Other, connecting us, as he puts it: “to the experience of being in which what is beautiful and perfect does not change or pass”. More than overcoming our need to think and get involved in political action, according to Han, our blind dedication to labor and work tramples our vita contemplativa, leaving us in a state of perennial activity, in profound tiredness, total exhaustion, devoid of choice, prisoners to our self-servitude behind the bars of our own success. In other words, it leaves us stupid, drowned in pragmatism and practicality. And also, drowning in debt, consumerism, depression, and anxiety.

This stupid focus on the short term is also very useful and practical. It allows for realpolitik. We could even say that Donald Trump’s major talent is one of recognizing stupid, understanding stupid, and performing to stupid. This frees political discourse. Truth and facts are no longer an issue.  If we don’t win, it’s a fraud. If we are losing, we are winning. If we are convicted, we are not sentenced, or the judges are betraying us. If we don’t want files, there are no files. If we want Venezuela, we get Venezuela. If they don’t like us, they are bad guys. If they question, they are attacking us. No obvious consequence. Long term consequences are for others. If there is no plan, there is a plan. Paraphrasing one of the famous “Don Tzu” memes: if there is no strategy, the enemy will never discover it. Confusion and incoherence are normalized – our day-to-day needs are a priority that shall not be ignored – we will not focus on anything else.

For this, faith is helpful. In a particularly pragmatic American way, William James would state that if faith brings comfort, morality, hope or a sense of purpose, it is already useful. This, I would say, precluding the need for a connection to reality, objective facts, or critical thinking, let alone the ethical standard of scientific knowledge. Again, practicality as an absolute virtue.

In this panorama, technological innovations emerge that enhance the unbalance. Atomic bombs are not particularly practical. They are expensive, difficult, and you can allude them to cause fear, but you can’t really use them. Drones, however, especially AI operated drones, seem harmless until they’re not. And they’re particularly practical. War making will be easier and easier to start if all we are apparently risking is a piece of machinery.

The same with the Internet: it apparently brings us all the information collected by Mankind to the palm of our hand. But most people, maybe even all of us, are not equipped to deal with that. We either allow ourselves to become confused or we slouch in exhaustion as we revel in cat videos, car crashes, bicycle prowess’s, or people intentionally hitting their own genitals on camera. We let the algorithm manipulate our views on politics, economics, history, and science. Having the information, it turns out, is not the same as having the education. Discussion is good and discuss we should. We should have opinions and we should trade them. But criticism is not the same as critical thinking – which implies rationality, questioning ourselves and others, understanding facts, be able to logically link causes and consequences. Nowadays students of all ages spend less hours in the class, study less, and learn less, even though they have higher grades. Our education systems are so behind the curve, we have no idea how to prepare our children for the world of today, let alone the world of tomorrow.

And then, there is AI, threatening to make all education obsolete. Why would we need books and education if AI solves all the problems? Why learn when you can prompt? This naïve infantile question has been uttered, as Big Tech corporations buy millions of old books and blindly destroy them to train the machines. They salivate as they envision a world that would be The Matrix, Fahrenheit 451 and Orlwell’s 1984 rolled into one. By destroying old books that no one is reading, they are making these pieces of paper useful and practical. The same thing with the art and texts created by artists and writers – mere consumer products that can be imitated by machines, if you think pragmatically enough. Mere uploads. Never mind the human connection, the creativity that led us through History, or the future of ideas and ideologies. Never mind dreaming of other worlds and exploring the core of the Human soul. These are not practical elements at all. It’s all a question of feeding consumers and submit them to spend.

(Data Dr. Gloria Mark at the University of California, Irvine)

Already in 1957, Hannah Arendt worried about this advent of automation. She worried about the divorce between knowledge and thinking. We would become “defenseless slaves”, she wrote. And defenseless slaves we are becoming, defeated by burnout, Mental Health issues, and, most of all, by the practical and useful stupidity of everyday life.

What is Capitalism? The Baby and the Bathwater

/ Bruno Martins Soares / Leave a comment

I have the fortune to have a lot of people around me, friends, family, acquaintances, who are both intelligent and educated, and politically inclined. Both to the Right and the Left of the spectrum. And in the last few years we immersed ourselves in heated discussions or civilized conversations here and there about the value or oppressive nature of Capitalism. In so doing, I have been struck by a rising observation: we are not speaking of the same thing. Capitalism does not mean the same for the Right and the Left. It’s not that it’s valued differently, it’s that it is a completely different concept altogether. For the Right, it means everything market. For the Left, it’s what Marx said it is. Both views are mistaken. And that allows the populists to go forward and do whatever they will – drastically attacking Capitalism or defending it with tooth and nail.

Grosso modo, Marx defined Capitalism as an evolution occurring after Feudalism, propelled by the Industrial Revolution of the late 1700s and early 1800s, characterized by the rule of the capitalist, who owns the means of production, enslaves labor through wages and other means, and accumulates power and wealth through profit-taking. These hoarders of capital thrive in inequality and revel in the power they have over the working class – which should rebel and take power for itself.

My (and many other critics’) problem with this description is that it ignores a great deal of History in order to fit the theory – nitpicking what is interesting from what is not. Profit-taking, wages, long-distance commerce (for many, a crucial capitalistic practice), credit, interest-taking and banking, speculation, capital accumulation and many other capitalist-linked phenomena appeared all over the world over and over again throughout the centuries. Even the Industrial Revolution environment seemed to have happened before, in the Middle Ages (in what Marx called Feudalist societies), as say the likes of Gimpel, Pirenne, Duby and others.

There were labor disputes in medieval times and worker strikes for better pay in Flanders in the 13th century, or in Florence in the 1378 Ciompi revolt, for example. There were corporate wars about watermills in France in the 12th century – absolutely crucial for the economy of the time. Venice and Genoa’s maritime empires were famously fueled by their bankers and merchants – like the Grimaldi and the Doria. Even in the ruins of Pompey more shops and trade posts were found than actual residencies – many of these trading sites supposed to be managed and worked by actual slaves and entertain international trade. Later European empires, one after another, seemed to be supported by strong capitalistic structures that were typical of dynamic Europe. From the Portuguese, to the Spanish, to the Dutch, to the British, capitalistic structures were so powerful in mobilizing the people and creating innovation that they propelled European hegemony over the world, even with limited resources, limited demographics, and limited power bases.

Capitalism and the capitalistic way of life, in my view, are much older and much broader than Marx proposes. However, after the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century, Modern Capitalism was born and that’s what we still have in place today. This arguably brought centuries of prosperity and was closely connected to the Liberal Revolutions, as the French Revolution and the American Revolution and many others. These revolutions battled against the ruling tyrannies of the Aristocrats and promoted Democracy, Equality, the Rule of Law, and other innovations as the Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association, etc.

Now, as the Liberal Agenda settled, States, Governments and Legislatures could have steered Modern Capitalism in one of two ways.

The first, which I’ll call Market-Based Capitalism, would promote healthy competition, free markets, international trade, protection for consumers and small, micro and medium companies against unbalances and unfair practices, a fair Rule of Law, opposition to monopolistic and oligarchic powers, subsidies and security for individuals who fall through the cracks in the system, liberty, equality and solidarity, etc.

The second, which I’ll call Elitist or Aristocratic Capitalism, means empowering and protecting a new Aristocracy (Capitalist Aristocracy), allowing unlimited wealth, subsidizing large corporations and industrial bases, limiting the liability of investors, allowing off-shore accounts and tax advantages, tolerating shady banking practices and dishonest corporate behavior, promoting lenient bankruptcy laws, bailing-out those who are “too-big-to-fail”, advancing economic protectionism, protecting cartels and monopolies, and deregulating practices that are damaging for the citizens and consumers.

Unfortunately, States, Governments and Legislatures have systematically chosen to steer society toward Elitist Capitalism. Instead of assuming themselves as guarantors of the fairness of Capitalism, they have shown to be corruptible and promiscuous, allowing the wealthy to rule. As I have written before, modern Elitist Capitalism is also characterized by three inclinations: Aristocratic Thinking (the idea that those born/raised or made/risen in wealth are superior beings that deserve more than the others), Elitism (the idea that these elites should rule the world, and their opinions and positions are obviously better and more effective), and Corruption (including nepotism and cronyism).

In my humble opinion, what many criticize in Capitalism today is not Capitalism per se, but the modern practice of Capitalism, namely Elitist Capitalism. A practice that reflects the choices of Governments and Legislatures, as well as State interventionism, and which corrupts the Liberal Agenda and market fairness and integrity. But Capitalism per se, although a force of nature that should be ruled in, has brought incredible progress, social development, and growth. I argue that it is important to start speaking of it with some agreement of what it is, at least, so not to throw away the baby with the bathwater.

The Sell-Out of the Center

/ Bruno Martins Soares / Leave a comment

It seems, as everyone keeps telling me, that we live in an increasingly polarized world. The political spectrum seems to have turned right, extreme-right, and the only resistance remaining seems to be the once dying left, for some, the extreme-left. In the center, the spoils of the defeated are being distributed between the old, the corrupt, the scavengers, and the greyish lazy who believe in nothing. Because that’s what they convinced us of: that the center stands for nothing. That it has no ideology. But that’s a total lie. The center has an ideology – a highly successful and valuable ideology – and it’s time we recover it.

First of all, the center stands for the decentralization of power. Power is for the people. On the right and left, pundits claim the same. On the right, conmen and their billionaire friends have somehow convinced the many that they are working for them, benefiting them, while they feed the grift and become richer and blame the poor and defenseless. This structure was tried many times in Europe and South America and elsewhere in the past, and it led to the emergence of the Mussolinis, and the Hitlers, and the Salazars, and the Francos.

On the left, there continues to be a confusion that the State and the people are the same. And they are not the same. Much as leftist regimes start to be well-intentioned revolutions with progressive drives, the concentration of power in the State systematically gets hijacked again and again, spawning the likes of Stalin, and Mao, and Castro, and Tito.

These ideologies have been tried over and over again and failed tragically, but somehow show up once more as if they are shiny new, brilliant ideas. Concentration of power, be it in the Elites or the State, is a sure trap that leads to tragedy. The center believes in checks and balances, the Rule of Law, independent courts, public institutions, and liberal democracy.

The center’s economic model has arguably been the most successful model in History, creating well-being and wealth throughout the world, from Sweden to New Zealand, from Canada to Switzerland, from Germany, to Japan and South Korea. The center believes in or tolerates capitalism – but believes it must be reined in and moderated by a strong State. Too much regulation will stifle innovation and development, but too little will lead to abuse.

And abuse there is in droves. Entrenched in fat petty parties and obscure outdated bureaucracies, the politicians of the center have retreated to corrupt positions and allowed capitalists far too much power. We need to end limited liabilities, fiscal immunities, tax havens, public subsidies to large corporations, and hefty public sell-outs of our nations’ resources. Political intervention by large corporations and wealthy individuals has been clearly negative for the rest of us – there’s no other way to see it.

On the other hand, the center has been able to reach and realize many of the good ideas coming from the left, like healthcare for all, public education, social security, public transportation systems, and many other safety nets for citizens. It even championed pro-citizen ideas that the left louds as its own. But you won’t find LGBTQ+ rights or independent unions in communist countries. What you may find instead is rebellious unions like Poland’s Solidarity, facing and beating the communist regime and then dissolving into (mostly) centrist parties.

I am a Social-Democrat. I believe in private property and private initiative. I believe in capitalism and have seen it bring out of abject poverty billions of people over the last few decades. I also believe it has to be ruled in. That it does tremendous harm. That it is absurd and disgusting that 60 people hold the wealth equivalent to 50% of all the others. I also believe billion-dollar wealth should be banned. And anti-trust laws must be better enforced: only balanced economic competition makes the market healthy. And the market shouldn’t be everything – it shouldn’t be sacred and untouchable; sometimes the State has to take over. But I believe in free trade, and that it is the most direct path to peace in the world.

And I am a progressive, as I believe Humanity’s best days are in the future, not the past. And I am a social-liberal, as I believe only individual freedom can bring happiness. For all. And I believe concentration of power is dangerous and should be avoided.

This is my ideology, and that makes me a centrist, at the center of the political spectrum. I’m not of the left nor of the right.

I blame the politicians of the center. Not only in America, but in Portugal, and Europe, and throughout the world. They have abdicated their ideas. They sold out the center. All they stand for is obsolescence and corruption and cronyism. But the center is not them. The center is an identity. It’s an ideology. A valuable one. And we must claim it back before it’s too late.