The Sociology of Networks

I like studying the goings-on of the world, like the occurrences of democracy and capitalism. So I am interested in the phenomenon of social networking and what it means to the world. Much of it is trivial. But even in triviality social networks have created bonds between peoples that have transcended and transformed the world. 

The social networking craze, like Facebook and Twitter, started in the West. You could say it is a product of Western thinking. And like many Western social constructs social networking has become a worldwide phenomenon, like democracy and capitalism, two institutions that have been key in expanding social networking.

I’m thinking of another network that started earlier and has also permeated the world, railways. There is a similarity between the two in that they've had a liberalizing effect on human activity. They both connect people and afford a web of infrastructure from which to advance and progress. Both facilitate a mobility, railways a physical one and social networking a cognitive one. The modern world would not exit without either. Both have been instrumental in bringing a standardization and social cohesion to the world. They've made possible the cosmopolitan, integrated world we live in.  

Social networking, also known as exchange networking, is a phenomenon that chiefly grew and developed in the West. It came about as politics and business activity between individuals grew and expanded. It grew out of people's cumulative experience and the need to cooperate. It grew as a vehicle of communication and the exchange of data and ideas, a back-and-forth. It grew as a deliberative feedback system in business and politics, as a way of seeking improvement and solutions to problems. It grew as a mechanism of developing social capital and a means of social support. The more Western societies engaged themselves in politics and business, the larger and stronger exchange networks grew. They grew exponentially, feeding on themselves as a means of facilitating the process. By no means have social networks been the exclusivity of the West. Peoples around the world have always engaged themselves in such a manner in trade and commerce. But it is in the West where social networks differed and became all inclusive, secular and pluralistic, crossing multiple cultural differences and transcending social barriers. In the New World it became the glue that bonded the diverse people who came together from all over the world. Social/exchange networks build trust and respect amongst its participants. Without these networks and their cross-breeding it would be impossible to conduct the activities that bind and connect us today. They’ve helped develop our civility and the civil traditions that govern us today.

Facebook and Twitter are extensions of the earlier exchange networks people built doing everyday  business and politics. Without the development of those earlier systems the social medias of today wouldn’t exist. They are a further step in the continuation of getting people talking to each other and developing commonalities. People having things in common is a major step to world security and peace. It creates alliances. And it is due to networking on a grand scale, in politics and business, that Western nations no longer go to war with each other even though there may still be social and cultural divides. Networking creates a hub and a web of connections between people that transcends cultural and social divides. Two of the biggest networks we rely on today came to be after WWII, The United Nations and The European Union, as a means of cooperation in order to prevent future wars. This is something that the West has been trying to impart on the rest of the world, that if you build network capabilities and keep the channels of communication open a peace and harmony will follow.

A philosophy magazine I subscribe to has a Facebook connection. On it it posted a link to an article I had overlooked. And this I believe shows the necessity and relevance for social media/networking, as a parallel, back-up system, as a means of making one aware of what may have been missed or overlooked, as a reminder of something that could make a difference. And this is what networking through the ages has been all about - with the clustering and flow of information, to insure that things remain fluid and dynamic. It’s about putting and keeping information out there so that it will make a difference.

Recently we have been witnessing a lack of peace and harmony in many parts of the Middle East. I attribute this to a lack of networking and not having developed the solid lines of communication and exchange of ideas that transcend ethnic differences. Much of the Middle East has remained tribal and divided. And because of the lack of networking, this part of the world has not developed the political and diplomatic skills, or will, to avoid wars. The lines of communications that transcend aren’t there to help resolve conflicting issues. Moreover, a lack of individual freedom and participation in business and politics has held backed the development of networks that could bring stability to this part of the world. Without such networks people aren’t given or feel they have a stake in the system, so there isn’t that deep-rooted desire or concerted effort to save the system they inhabit. And without the networking of people being engaging themselves in the process things fall apart as they have in many parts of the Middle East. And as W.B. Yeats wrote in a poem, If the center doesn’t hold, things fall apart. But networks and people networking together helps hold the center together.

It seemed like things started to change in many parts of the Middle East with the occurrence of what became know as the “Arab Spring”. Individuals had risen up to challenge their leaders in Tunis, Egypt and Libya about massive corruption and how poorly they were being governed. Much of the uprising was credited to the social media of Facebook and Twitter, which allowed people to share information and inform one another about the next protest or demonstration. It was true networking for the purpose of changing things and improving life. But in the end it failed as a way to transforming society because it was a shallow networking since it hadn’t built on the existence of other social networks because none existed. The success of social networks to change and improve things occurs when there are multiple lairs of it so to have a complex hive of activity. Complexity protects the over all system. It acts as a safeguard to external threats. A multilayered networking offers safeguards and alternatives. If one approach to the network falls short another one is there to take over. This kind of experience or network complexity did not exist in Egypt or Libya prior to the Arab Spring, thus little or nothing was gained and thus a major reason why instability still continues in those countries.

I was watching a documentary about the famed photographer Erwin Blumenfeld. He said something relevant, that without a mirror he “would never have become a human being: no mirror - no art, no echo, no music”. Networking is like a mirror. We could not really be human beings without social networks. We would not develop our potential, progress or add value without the reflective or feedback mirrors networks provide.

Communism is another system of governance that failed because it didn’t develop the autonomous social networking that emerges and is cultivated in democracies. Networking requires an open, transparent society. Communism was a closed society. Individuals weren’t free to express themselves or exchange thoughts about how things could be improved. Thus communism didn’t build-up the immunity of feedback system or the sharing of information that Western nations did, which could have improved people’s lot in life. Instead, this lack of social networking made things worse. Because communist rulers weren’t challenged through autonomous information sharing networks like television, newspapers and just everyday simple unfiltered communications (like in democracies), they were free to covered-up their incompetence, thus further corrupting and ruining the system. Ironically, because people couldn’t network freely, it was an alternative social networking that eventually helped bring an end to authoritarian  communist rule, clandestine undergrounds network, which slowly undermined the authority of the state. 

One of the biggest agents for the creation of exchange network has been Health, through agencies like the World Health Organization. With the world’s population becoming increasingly interconnected the world’s collective health is a big issue. It is important that if there is an outbreak of an infectious disease in one country that the rest of the world knows so it doesn’t spread. International cooperation and the exchange of information is essential if outbreaks like SARS and Ebola are to be contained. Such interaction between nations has the effect of fomenting transparency and transcending antiquated social norms, which is good for democracy and the people of the world. The networking that develops with the exchange of medical information tends to spawn additional networking in other agencies and areas of human governance, where none barely existed before.

Networks are complex things. David Christian of “Big History” has something interesting to say about complexity, that it requires a lot of energy to sustain it. And to make energy, that requires work. So this gives us a tangible sense of what networks are. Not only are they people orientated and engaging but they are full of dynamic energy, ingredients necessary for vital, sustainable societies.

Putin In The Past

Vladimir Putin is living in the past. He said that the break-up of the Soviet Union was the biggest mistake in history. But history knows better. Its annals are littered with the remnants of failed states. No, he is on the wrong side of history, as president Obama declared as Putin annexed the Crimea.  

The Soviet Union broke up because it became a feeble, ungovernable state, unable to keep up with the emerging world of globalization. In the end it couldn't credibly feed, house or cloth its people without borrowing heavily from the West. The glue that held it together evaporated because it was based on propaganda, ideological falsehoods and not much that was practical or realistic. It broke apart because it became intolerably inefficient and corrupt, no longer able to keep up or compete with the emerging world around it, which was demanding more and more transparency and accountably. It also broke apart because it persisted in going against the grain of humanity and the currents that were calling for open societies, personal justice and freedom. The Soviet Union's financial indebtedness to the West was another major factor in its demise. It literally went bankrupted, in more ways than one.  

The incredible thing is that the Soviet Union collapsed on its own, from within. Oh, it was helped by pressure from the West, since the Soviets couldn't keep pace with Western knowhow or the West's ability to change and  modernize. The Soviets couldn't keep pace with the West's technological developments or its modern methods of governance and organization. However, it was finally the Soviets that did it to themselves. It was the inherent, internal weaknesses of communism, of cover-ups, cheating, manipulation and denial,  that ultimately caused the system to fail. This is something that Putin has obviously been blind to and ignorant about. 

I don't know if Putin has noticed but the Russia he rules today is basically run on the principles of capitalism, even though it is heavily dependent on cronyism and fraud. The remnants of the old Soviet Union he rules today is nothing like existed thirty years ago nor would it exist today if it weren't for the fact that Russia has adopted Western capitalist methods, which has allowed his country to continue.  Russia sells it resources on the open market, unlike in the old Soviet days when the economy was tightly controlled and manipulated, which distorted the true cost of doing business. The economic controls that the old Soviet regime employed were a major reason why the communist economy collapsed, because such controls and distortions were what stifled and crippled the economy so that in the end it couldn't compete or sustain itself. And that is the passing Putin laments? 

 

Female mayor in Turkey

A news item I found especially interesting the other day was about a young women (27) who became the mayor of a small city in southeastern Turkey. She was born in Germany of Turkish parents. She was culturally German but had an affinity for Turkey and was interested to see where her parents came from.

What I found most interesting is that one of her first acts as mayor was organizing a voluntary group of citizens to go around picking up litter that was strewn indiscriminately in the city streets. This was significant to her because she grew up in Germany where people are very concerned about keeping things clean and tidy. It is a cultural thing, you now.

To the credit of the Turkish state it set up a quote for the number of women who should be in civic administration. This act of affirmative action is how Leyla Imret was elected as mayor of Cizre, a city of about 100,000 residents.  

Visit to London

We are in London for a week in the middle of June, 2014, having not done that since 2006. That year we stayed in a rental apartment. This time we are staying in a hotel at a much greater expense. And it's smaller. But the amenities are better.

In anticipation of our visit I watched videos on YouTube about interesting things in England and some of the activities we have done there in the past. I watched videos about canal trips, reminiscent of our canalling in England and Wales. One of the most memorable trips we did was on the Llangollen Canal in Wales, where at the beginning of it we crossed over a valley on an aqueduct a hundred feet above the ground, an unbelievable experience. And because of my interest in railways I also watched several videos on trains in Britain. Other videos I found just as absorbing were about the restoration of buildings in London.

There is a canal in London where people live on 'narrowboats', the Regent's Canal. It's also a favorite touristy area where people can ply the canals on tour and restaurant boats. One of the more trendy areas along the canal is called Little Venice, where at one spot there is a cafe/restaurant sitting atop a canal tunnel entrance where the canal continues undercover for several hundred meters. The view from there is not disappointing, looking down on the canal and the many boats moored along its sides. 

One of the railway videos I saw was about St. Pancras station in London, which I am anxious to see. It has been resorted, along with the glorious hotel attached to it. And now the Eurostar trains leave from there. From it also depart fast trains to the site where the 2012 London Olympics were held, a trip I'd like to make to see where it all took place.

On a series called Grand Design, originally aired on  BBC and then on YouTube, they did an episode on the restoration of a water tower, which was the remains of a Victorian Workhouse built in 1867 in South London. When I am there I would very much like to see it. But trying to find its location was difficult. On the show its location was vaguely outlined, I suppose on purpose in order to keep gawkers away. One indication as to where it might be located was the mention of it being directly above a tube line (subway), the Northern Line. Another indication of its position was a tall apartment building seen in the background. With those two positions I struggled with a lengthy GoogleMap search and eventually found its location. I understand the tower was put up for sale last year. Perhaps the purchaser overextended himself since there were many more expenses than he had originally bargained for. Nevertheless, it is incredible that one would take on such a project.

All these three subjects I watched on video about London have something in common, that none of them would exist or be of much use today if it wasn't for their restoration. And it takes money to restore things. Tourism is certainly a great source of money and London certainly generates a lot of tourism. But there is a lot of private wealth in London also, which has been a major factor in a lot of restoration taking place. For instance, the water tower that was restored wasn't done with public funds or monies from tourist. Nor do I think the restoration of St. Pancras Station and its hotel would have been possible or been sustainable without the income and business generated privately by it being the hub of the Eurostar and its service to the continent. Without the restoration of that station and its rail network I don’t think London would have been successful in hosting the Olympics, which in turn enabled the  revitalization of an the area that had been neglected for years. 

Watching these videos on canals and railways in England and around London got me thinking further, this time about the environment. The canals and railways were built in Britain to service the  Industrial Revolution, which started in the Midlands around 1760. The Industrial Revolution, with the canals and railways that enabled it, caused a lot of environment scars, degradation and pollution throughout the land. And I am sure that many at the time thought the countryside would never recover from all the environmental damage that had been perpetrated in the name of commerce. And it was quite extensive. But it's amazing how well it has recovered. The canals are now an integral part of the landscape and have even enhanced its beauty. Ironically they now generate tourist dollars that help maintain and sustain the environment. Moreover, the railways are no longer the polluting force they once were because of technical advances. And with all that in mind I am am thinking that if London, England and Britain managed to change things environmentally for the better, from the days of mass pollution of rivers and air, then there is hope that the rest of the world will follow suit and clean up its act in a similar manner.

One more place I’d like to visit while in London is Selfridges, the department store that was recently the focus of a BBC drama series by the same name.  The store opened in 1909 on Oxford Street and as the series portrayed it it changed the nature of retailing in Britain and as a consequence changed social attitudes enough to help advance the rights of women. However, by the 1990s it almost went out of business like so many other department stores. But it managed to reinvent itself with a new formula that changed the face of retailing yet again. And this seems to be the connection between all the things I find interesting about London and its nation, that they - canals, railways and buildings, have gone through a process of reinvention and renewal that keeps them vital and appealing.

Capitalism and Railroads

I am thinking that capitalism and railroads go hand in hand. Capitalism builds them.

Some will argue not so, pointing to the state owned railways throughout Europe and Asia. For instance, they will continue, look at China where it has been the state that's been responsible for building and running its railway network, which is the envy of the world. Capitalism didn't build that. Furthermore, look at the railway system the Japanese state built before that, starting the high-speed passenger train revolution that is occurring around the world.

True, true I'll say. But, I'll add, these state systems were built with an eye on facilitating capitalism. And in the long it is capitalism that will sustain them. Moreover, capitalism has been behind the scenes in building them. The spirit of capitalism and its free markets is what made possible the ingenuity and production that made railways possible. For instance, the first railway wasn't built by the state. It was conceived and built by a collection of entrepreneurs. It was later, in many cases, that the state took them over in order to make the railway networks more cohesive and less chaotic. The state also got involved because often railway companies overbuilt and went bankrupt, creating unruly situations.

It is in America where capitalism and railroading were really joined at the hip. It was capital and the free market system that built the railroads that connected America. But even there, some will argue, the transcontinental railroad couldn't have been built without government help. The government facilitated the building of the railroad. It assembled the land the railroads build on. Nevertheless, it was the railroad companies in the first place that gathered the resources and knowhow to build and manage them.

The capital and financing to built the high-speed railway network in authoritarian China came from the exploitation of capitalism, from China selling manufactured goods to the rest of the world and profiting from it. With the surplus capital China made from exploiting capitalism it was able to afford a fantastic high-speed railway system. And in order to sustain and maintain it China will have to continue to expand on capitalistism, an economic system it once reviled.

"Bullshit"

I am writing this in reaction to a caption I read the other day, “The Ever Expanding Kingdom Of Bull”, bull meaning bullshit. 

There are all kinds of bullshit. Most of it is harmless but useful. Most so-called bullshitting is done innocently, just to convey ideas, albeit exaggerated. But it is done unintentionally, without malice. Some declarations may seem like bullshit because they sound over the top, like the embellishments made about the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in the press, like the whole world is interested in them, like we are all hanging on their every move. But for the most part it is just entertaining. For others, though, it is an affront to their intelligence, hence the reason why it's viewed as bullshit.

Speaking of embellishments, I am just reading a novel and the writer has used many embellishments to describe things, like the appearance of a room or a feeling. Some might consider such gilding as bullshit. But without such gilding a text can be dry and boring. Writers embellish and readers soak it up. This kind of bullshit keeps things interesting. 

In His book "On Bullshit" Harry Frankfurt discusses several kinds of bullshit. One involves a great philosopher. He talks about Wittgenstein's reaction to a friend, Fania Pascal, who characterized herself as feeling 'like a dog that was run over by a car' after she had an operation. Wittgenstein took exception to that statement, thinking it was nonsense, a kind of bullshit, because she couldn't have known how a dog feels like after being run over by a car. It sounds as though Wittgenstein overreacted to her innocent, exaggerated statement. It was just a metaphorical statement of conveyance, to give an idea of how bad a feeling can be. Perhaps, though, Wittgenstein took exception to the use of a dog in such a disparaging manor.

Pascal had made a metaphoric statement to describe how she felt after her operation — sick as a dog. For her there probably was no other way of conveying the idea. (Instead she could have said she felt like a pipe had been rammed down her but Wittgenstein would have found something wrong with that too.) Perhaps all metaphoric references should be view as bullshit, a la  Wittgenstein, because they don't exactly and perfectly describe what is being meant. If that is the case, almost everything we say is bullshit because everything is a metaphor; nothing is exactly what it is. So if that is the case, Shakespeare's writings should be consider bullshit, writ large, because they are full of metaphorical ideas.

Essential Wittgenstein was a nit picker, always examining the meaning and truth of things. So it’s not surprising that he pounced on Pascal and her idea of being sick as a dog because to him it was nonsense, bull, because she had never been a dog. But dogs and humans have similarities. They both belong to the animal kingdom and have similar innards. Ironically, humans relating to animals in this way has helped instill in us an empathy towards them, that they also have feelings and should also be treated humanely. And that's no bull.

Personally I think Wittgenstein’s ideas are bull, his ideas about language and meaning. Mainly, though, that’s because I am not interested in his ideas. I find them difficult to understand. But that's only my opinion. Others don’t think so. Thus, the idea of what constitutes bullshit is for the most part, arbitrary. One person's bullshit might be other person's treasure, so to speak.

Philosophy and its abstractions are often consider bullshit, especially by lay people. But, then, there are philosophers who disagree with other philosophers and call their works and ideas bullshit. So the expression of bullshit doesn’t necessarily mean it is but instead is just a term of disagreement.

I was just recalling a time when I said bullshit to an employ of mine. He told me what I though was a ‘tall story’. I call it a tall story because it seemed like Pinocchio’s nose on stilts. It didn’t make sense for his age of 19. If it was all true, what he told me, about all his experiences, he would have been much much older than he was. I told him that here was only one person I met that bullshitted more than he did and that was his father. Perhaps they did so to draw attention to themselves or had to embellish their lives because they felt worthless or insecure. 

Railways and The End Of History

I was rolling a model railway car over the cover of Francis Fukuyama's book "The End Of History". I wondered what it meant, if anything. I had just repaired the car and was running it on the book's cover to see if it was working smoothly. 

It may sound mischievous of me thinking that a model railway car and The End Of History could have something in common. It sounds absurd. But as I stared at them both, wondering what possible connection they might have, it came to me that it had to do with an order, a railway order and a world order. Looking at the railway car I  began thinking of all the railways in the world.  And I thought, without railway systems and the networks they established throughout the world there would be no end of history as Fukuyama postulated. What he postulated is that humankind has arrived at a final world order in human governance. And as I see it, that final world order could not have come without the initial order railways brought to the world, which was quite significant and revolutionary. The railways brought an organization and a standardization to the world that had never existed before. Without that organization and standardization occurring first it is very doubtful we would have reached the end point in human governance Fukuyama believes we’ve reached today.

The railway ushered in the modern world. For one, it increased human mobility, thus facilitated democracy and individualism, fundamental building blocks of modernity and progress. It was the first form of networking, starting off the complex and feedback systems that would run and connect the modern world. It introduced the world to new methods of communication and the time zones that would help things run more smoothly. It expanded the management skills essential for large enterprises to maintain and sustain our future. In all it helped bridge the differences between nations in a common activity.

‘The end of the line’ is a railway terminology. It refers to a terminus, a train station at the end of a rail line. There is a similarity with Fukuyama's The End Of  History and its idea that we have reached a terminus in human governance. However, Fukuyama is not saying that because we have reach an end point we’ve come to a finish and there is no more to accomplish. We can still journey on. The railway terminus, like the end point it human governance, doesn’t mean we have come to a complete stop or reached an absolute but to a reference point from which to expand. What the terminus at the end of history is saying is that we reached an end but not an end end, for  we can improve on what we have ended up with.

   

Just to explain, Fukuyama's end of history treatise was predicated on the collapse of communism and the downing of the Berlin Wall in 1989. To him it meant that the battle between East and West was over and the West had won. For years East and West, Communism vs Democracy,  had been in a power struggle to determine what form of human governance the world would most benefit from. Today, after centuries of experimentation with many types of government, Fukuyama has observed that we are now left with one, the liberal democracy, not a governance that just materialized but that has been fomenting in the West for centuries. 

Globalization has been integrating and unifying the world for centuries, at least since the time of Christopher Columbus coming to the New World. And throughout the centuries many forms of human governance have been employed, from monarchies to authoritarianism to the liberal democracy that is in ascendency today. One thing that Fukuyama argues about why liberal democracy triumphed is because it has proven best at maintaining and sustaining our modern world, and best at meeting human needs and aspirations. But one thing he didn’t delve into was that as the world has integrated and become more interdependent under globalization there was need for a standardized system of doing business. For efficiency and continuity it could no longer do with competing systems that tended to obstruct the other. The world has been on a trajectory of consolidation. It’s hard to imagine History having a trajectory, an aim, such as devising means of sustainability, like railways and liberal democracy. 

A further connection between the two is duality. With the railway it is obvious, there are two parallel tracks on which trains run. And the end of history culminates with a dualistic form of human governance, liberal democracy, liberal satisfying human material needs, democracy, idealistic needs. If there is a difference it’s that with railway tracks the twain shall never meet since that would defeat its function. But with liberal democracy the twain often meets and clash, challenging the other so that they remain vital and legitimate (which is another story). The rigid steel tracks of railways are meant to stay separate while the to strands (double helix) of liberal democracy have evolved to mingle with each other.

I don’t thing it’s an accident or coincidence  that the railway and liberal democracy were invented in the same nation, Britain, a nation that was at the forefront of building the modern world. 

                                                                             xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'd like to mention the Trans-Siberian Railway, a video of which I watched the other day. Tsar Nicholas II really pushed for it to be built, for the honor and glory of Russia. I am thinking that by building this railroad, which was devilishly difficult because of the terrains it went through, the Tsar may have sown the seeds of  his own demise. Without that railroad it would have been very difficult for the Bolsheviks to bring the forces of revolution together in such a vast country. The railway was a network that played right into the hands of  the revolutionaries. Furthermore, the Tsar spent so much money on the railway that there was little money left for social programs, programs that may have ameliorated the discontent among his people, thus preventing the Russian Revolution.   

   

Liberal democracy

I was asked "How does companies like Monsanto, Bayer, big oil, etc. fit into the picture of liberal democracy?  There is nothing democratic about the reach of their power and their influence over our society. "

One thing that got me interested in human governance is the contradictions we live with, that we espouse democracy but yet we don't always practise it. Liberal democracy is a great example of a contradictory system. And what caught my attention is that the world is contradictory by nature and would not function  well without it. As the ancient Greek philosopher Hericlitus observed, you do away with contradiction you do away with reality. Hegel also understood this and followed with his dialectic.  What is significant to me is that liberal democracy captures and harnesses this contradiction so that it acts in a positive way, and be as mutually beneficial and inclusive as possible. But this contradiction invariable brings with it flaws and perversions.

Human nature is inherently flawed and perverse. The flawed part goes without saying but the perverse aspect is not so easily understood. By perverse I mean the irony of things, like we do the wrong thing for the right reason or most often learn by doing the wrong thing first and then doing the right thing after. In a sense we learn by doing the opposite or in a backwards fashion. It's the same thing with liberal democracy. But liberal democracy doesn't deny its existence or tries to abolish it like authoritarian regimes have tried (in attempts to create utopian societies) but tempers and contains it in order that it work for the betterment of the whole.  

Hegel talked about keeping things alive and awake, preventing them from atrophying. Liberal democracy is a governing system based on two philosophies, materialism and idealism ( authoritarianism is unipolar), liberal being the material part and democracy the ideal. They are two ideas about how people should be governed.  They clash. But they clash in a positive way. Together they constitute the DNA or the double helix of human governance. They challenge each other in order to stay alive and awake so that they don't atrophy. This does not make for a perfect system but for a working system  because of the networking and  feedback system it employs. This networking helps people keep in touch and communicating, thus enhancing the deliberative process of democracy. 

The corporate world is the liberal part of liberal /democracy. Liberal also stands for 'capitalism', which the corporate world is part of. In many respects it does not act democratically because of  its entrenched self-interests. But perversely and ironically it keeps the democracy aspect of liberal/democracy alive and awake, as does democracy in turn keep the liberal aspect from completely taking over. Each aspect keeps the other from going overboard and completely dominating the system or our lives. The corporate world also gives democracy something to work with. It introduces issues of democratic importance that would otherwise not be raised. But most import, it keeps things churning so that the system does not succumb to entropy and collapse like communism did. The relationship is all about renewal and rejuvenation, through the antagonism each directs at the other.

Democracy was never given to us on a silver platter. It has had to be fought for and won, mostly by material means. The  material, liberal aspect  has helped us gain and keep it. But it is like a tug-of-war. And it's always a balancing act to preserve the gains. The corporate, capitalist world acts in a selfish manner and does things that gets the ire of democrats. But without this irritant democracy would most like languish and atrophy. Corporatism also brings a discipline to the proceedings that democracy would not likely have on its own.

Ironically corporatism and big companies has helped entrench democracy. They have developed many of the communication tools that have expanded democracy, like newspapers, television, movies and computers. They have expanded work forces all over the world thus empowering people by helping them with material gains and thus giving them a voice in the community. (We can see this happening in China, as happened in South Korea and Taiwan) Corporations have expanded people's choices and therefore democratic rights. They have helped break down social barriers towards employing women, gays and minorities, which has translated into broader social changes. 

Corporations haven't done any of this out of the goodness of their hearts but for pragmatic reasons, that it's good for business and the bottom line. And this highlights the perverseness of the democratic process, that you need  selfish, undemocratic institutions in order to rightfully gain and entrench democratic principles. For instance, the end of segregation in America would not have occurred if African-Americans were not first employed by corporations. The material gains they received from corporations empower and embolden them to demand equal rights. From this legislation followed, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Democracy is always a work in progress and capitalism is one of the perverse mechanisms that keeps it proceeding and progressing.

Complacency

The Economist wrote an article about 2014 being the hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of WWI. Its main conclusion was that the war was a result of a complacency that festered in Europe, mainly the complacent attitude among politicians and business leaders that the commercial ties that existed between Britain and Germany were grounds enough to stave off war. Who would want to go to war and endanger all that money making? was the prevailing consensus. But this complacency blinded leaders to the many underlying issues that weren't being addressed and causing major riffs between nations and societies. Yet, European leaders continued to think to the end that the extensive business and commercial ties between Britain and Germany would prevent war, and if there was a war it would be a short one. How wrong they were.

Complacency is the scourge of Civilization. Nevertheless, it continues to occur. It naturally occurrence in societies that believe they have arrived and made it, thinking they have accomplished everything that can be accomplished and have triumphed over humankind’s major problems. Complacency takes things for granted. It is a form of arrogance and naivety. It engenders a false and dangerous optimism. It’s a corruptive force. A stagnation transpires as a result of it, which is why Civilization abhors it. It’s a death knell. It leads to unfortunate circumstances as the world saw in 1914.

The Economist sees signs of a parallel complacency in the world today, similar to the one that caused the first world war. It believes that world leaders are entertaining complacency in the same way, thinking that the geopolitical frictions that exist in the world today will never lead to a major conflict or a world war because of how interdepend and connected the world has become through business. 

But the world today is very different from the one that existed before WWI broke out. It is much more complex and sophisticated than it was back then. There is much more going on and far more agitating forces occurring, leaving far less chance for the type of complacency to develop that set of WWI. The atmosphere before WWI was more rigid, clubby and deferential, and the reins of power more tightly held, creating an atmosphere that was vastly more conducive and ripe for complacency than it is today. Today we have far more diversity and vested interests competing and grating against each other so that if any complacency does set in it is soon an issue. It’s a far more fluctuating, corrosive world today, thus making it very difficult for complacency to gel or last for long. Moreover, because of history, entities work harder to avoid complacency because they know from experience that it is a spoiler. 

Civilization abhors complacency. But even though complacency still rears it head Civilization has developed better means of keeping it at bay so that we don't find ourselves in a WWI situation. The atmosphere today is far different from what it was before the first world war. The tools to combat complacency back then were  weak or didn't even exist as they do today. Even though there was a globalization prior to WWI it wasn’t anything like the robust, competitive force it is today. It was a more stayed world back then and it wasn’t so easy to displace the complacency that set in among the nations and businesses of the world. Today the world is of such relenting change in its politics and economics that entertaining any idea of complacency is done at ones peril. The relentless stream of social and business forces that continue to batter away in this world leaves little room for complacency to settle in for long.   

Before WWI the world was a more unjust place than it is today. Even with all its faults, there is far more justice and recourse for injustices today than there ever was back then. The injustices that existed back then were like a complacency because they were mostly ignored by the centers of power. Back then there was very little talk of human rights and no global institutions like the UN to help enforce them. There was definitely more of a class system and discrimination around the world then as we’ve seen in the blockbuster television series "Downton Abby", where the class structure was par for the course. Downton Abby exuded complacency. But some of  the characters in the show understood that the complacency was not sustainable and that things had to change if they were to survive and continue.

One reason why Civilization abhors complacency is because it leads to stagnation and entropy. At the beginning of the twentieth century and prior to WWI that’s what happen to Britain and its Empire. Britain believed and took it for granted that the sun would never set on its Empire, that it could just sit back and live off its achievements. The same thing happened to the Soviet Union and communism. Communism as a governing system eventually collapse because it also believed itself absolute and didn’t make any effort to change or improve, while the world around it was moving on. What ended the glory of those two former powers was the complacent notion that they had reached an end point in human progress and represented the ultimate in human governance.

A similar complacency almost brought down capitalism with the financial crises of 2008 and during the Great Depression. Arguably, a factor that led to the 2008 crises was the complacency that set in after it triumphed over communism as the world’s dominant economic system. With that victory over communism capitalism felt invisible, believing it could do no wrong. As a result the practitioners of capitalism took risks and gambles that caused untold damage. But why it didn’t collapse as did its form rival, communism, is because there was something unique about. It’s capitalism’s paradoxical nature, which the economist Joseph Schumpeter defined as “creative destruction”, that kept it afloat. Though this contradiction is what almost did it in, as Marx thought it would, it is also what saved it. Capitalism’s paradoxical nature is not only destructive but it also develops the mechanisms and resources to rebuild. This is what makes capitalism the exception to the rule, that even though it falls into complacency it also has the wherewithal to jolt itself out of it,  to combat the inevitability of complacency and its destructive forces. In contrast, communism’s singular nature didn’t have the inner challenges or alternatives to rebuild itself. This is why capitalism survives, because of of its ability to overcome its own complacency and renew itself.

It is also past history  and the lessons we’ve learned that makes the world less complacent than it once was. Today we have deterrents to complacency, especially when it comes to world wars. As The Economist pointed out, the existence of a nuclear weapons - the ultimate weapon, may very well be the deterrent to world wars. The nations of the world  can no longer afford to be saber rattlers as they once were because of the threat that hangs over their heads - the likelihood that if the world was to go to war today of being completely annihilated by the nuclear weapons that are in the hands of many. 

And that is probably the best way to combat complacency, having things in the hands of many, through diversity and broad participation. In diversity there is a lot of activity and agitation, keeping things alive and awake, preventing things from atrophying  and falling into complacency.