Accordingly a free (unregulated) market is the answer to everything, since it is the mechanism affording unfettered self-interested action that makes for the invisible hands to do their work.  What’s the solution to our economic crisis? Allow the self-interest of those with the most—the winners—to be enacted without constraint and in so doing it will help the rest of us be winners—ah the wonders of the invisible hand doing their trickle-down thing.  What’s the solution to our educational problems?  Enable profit-seeking organizations to provide an educational experience to society’s children.  What’s the solution to our healthcare system problem?  Put healthcare in the hands of profit maximizing insurance and pharmaceutical companies.  In general what’s the answer to how to provide society’s services (apart from national defense) to its citizens?  Privatize, because the business minded can solve it all!  That is except for the many recurring problems in business they themselves create and can’t quite resolve.

Only the foolish seriously expect to realize improvement by intensifying commitment and effort toward the very same thing that created or caused the current situation.  Doubling down on a losing hand is losing strategy—it is sure way to accelerate loss.  Or as the tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians asserts, “when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.” For example (staying with the Dakota Indian analogy) in business we get a stronger whip by raising standards, holding people accountable and exhorting others to get better results.  Since we are seeking to turn educating children into a business we employ the same but stronger whip—we double down.  We even go further and hire outside firms to ride the horse (we put education in the hands of profit-maximizing organizations).  Not surprisingly, with our market-based solutions to education we see no real lasting improved system of education.

It’s Heresy

Those who question capitalism—those who think critically about it and want to improve it—are heretics, heathens and worse socialists.  Unless you fall in line, you fall out of favor! If you can’t credibly argue the veracity of your belief—if you haven’t facts to support your argument—then the only recourse is to disparage those who bring it into question. Thus name-calling is clearly a reactive response in defense of an unsupportable position.

Who are the ones disparaging those who seek a better way?  Usually it is those who benefit (most) from the way things are.  So it is a good idea to challenge the real motive of those calling people who ask ‘what if questions’ heretics.

Be a Heretic

Yet because of the power of and propaganda from those benefiting from the way things are and not critically thinking about the why of things, our past continues to overtake our future. The habits of thought we’ve been following are no longer serving our collective interest—they are not serving society as a whole.  We must acknowledge that the fundamental set of beliefs and practices that we have embraced are no longer helpful toward guiding behavior and structuring life in society.   If we wish a better reality, then we need to enact a better belief system.

Where is it proven as an immutable fact that people are at base selfish?  If this was so, how do you explain people risking their life to save others—doesn’t this smack right up against self-interest? Where is it proven to be an immutable fact that markets require short-term profit maximization as the dominant motive? We can only change what is by changing how we think about ourselves. If we wish to experience a better reality, then we need to enact a better belief system.  Its time we change our errant ways.

Our economic system has no (explicit) concern for ‘we’ in its design, it is all about ‘me’ getting what I can for ‘myself’—it is best labeled an egoistic economic system.  The pursuit of material self-interest is the guiding principle for all action.

It promotes (and requires) a belief system about what being human means that is narrow and thus limiting.  That is, it rests upon people believing they are at base individualistic, selfish, materialistic and competitive.

As discussed in It’s the EconoMe, Stupid, society to the egoist is “nothing but the sum of the actions of each individual; it is nothing apart from what each individual separately contributes to it” and what one can extract from others.

Making Society In Service

While most acknowledge that democracy is of, for and by the people, it’s objective is also to afford individual freedom in life in the pursuit of liberty and happiness. Since democracy is about having a society of free individuals it is rather easy to mold it into a system in service to egoistic economics.  That is, given the focus on individual freedom and without a similar compelling vision of a collective ‘we’—everyone’s responsibility to each other, to community—democracy is easily hijacked by self-interest.  Everyone believing in self-interest is not the same as people having a shared common interest.

Happiness when viewed through the lens of egoistic economics becomes the egotistical ‘Me’ having ultimate freedom to maximize ‘My’ profit. The story is that if you do what is expected, if you work hard in striving to maximize your material self-interest then you too will realize happiness.  If you don’t realize happiness then it is your fault, after all as the story goes we are all independent individuals each seeking our own gain. You’re on your own and should be lovin it! (That is if you are among the few who can win.) While this is an alluring story, it is also a foolish story to believe.

Think Again, Critically

Just a little inquisitiveness and critical analysis with an open mind would reveal that no one ever got what they have without the cooperation and help of others.  Each individual would be lost without the support and help of  ‘We’.

Thus we understand that life in society is not simply a collection of independent individuals bumping into each other as each exercises their notion of individual liberty to have it all for ‘Me’. The fact is that we need each other for more than the satisfaction of our material desires. We are not simply instrumental to each other’s needs. While our economic system would have us believe this for the sake of maximizing our self-interested desire to consume we are not mere cogs in this machinery.

It is a fact that each is an individual whole person and just as factual each is part of the whole of human society. That is, while you and I are different individual ‘I’s’ we are not separate ‘Me’s’.  This ‘I’ that I am and the ‘I’ that you are are deeply connected. And by acknowledging and acting on this connection we can become a ‘We’.  In our society we can sustain the unity implied by us being in this particular society.

Accordingly, we each must recognize our I-We nature and the dual responsibility that this implies.  Forsaking either one we forsake our self.  We have a very deep interpenetrating responsibility to each other’s unfolding, and therefore each of us is incomplete without each other.  As noted by Amitai Etzioni “the I’s need We to be” (The Moral Dimension). To treat anything collective with contempt is to disdain human society itself; the same can be said about the individual.  Moreover, with morality and ethics requiring a concern for ‘we’ a society of individuals where ‘me and mine’ is what’s important would find it impossible to avoid becoming an unethical society.

To hear people speak disparagingly about ‘those people who rely on society’s assistance’—you know the poor who have not gotten ahead on their own—you would think that they themselves took no help from society whatsoever.  They seem unable to understand that if not for society—especially the government policies written to favor their interests—the current gains they enjoy would not exist.  They wouldn’t have so much to love about ‘your on your own economics’ if the politicians they paid for hadn’t helped them to make the vast majority of gains derived from society their gain.

The collusion among moneyed interests and government—private business and political parties—is tantamount to injecting steroids into self-interested behavior.  It is nothing short of pure greed.  But in the context of egoistic economic society greed is good; the 1987 movie character, Gordon Gekko, and his 21^st century real life incarnates on Wall Street tell us it is so.  It is because of greed that the drive for getting and having goes forever unsatisfied ensuring a consuming and acquisitive society.  This has transformed what could have been a society of equals in regards to political power into a system for maximizing gain for a select group.

With money equating to speech, those with the most money overwhelmingly have the most say; the converse being those with the least money have the least say.  When money matters the people with money matter more!

It Can Be Better

In a culture that’s all about me getting it all for me, it is a bit naive to believe that those who rigged the system to serve their material self-interest will actually change things for the benefit of everyone.  You see the system is not at all broken, it is working just fine doing what it is rigged to do.  It is not that those in authority don’t know what to do to right the ship: It is that they haven’t the will to do what is right for the benefit of all.  We mustn’t forget that universal care and compassion is anathema to the greedy.

What we are facing is a self-imposed crisis of will.  We participate in the creation of our reality by acting on what we believe about our selves.  Having the will to change enables our ability to change. Where there is a will there is (always) a way also implies where there is no will there is no way.

Preserving What Is

In a self-interest based culture most people’s concern is a narrow (self-interest) concern.  Appealing to the general narrowness of concern among the citizens political parties readily gain support from various self-interest groups by creating fear among the people that their interest is at risk.  Such a strategy tends to be divisive (it creates an ‘us versus them’ mentality) which is exactly what those seeking to control the thinking of their audience requires.  If I can get you to think other citizens are detrimental to your interest and that I am on your side then you will support me, which is in my interest—after all my interest is what I really care about.  Facts must not get in the way of ‘me’ getting ‘mine’.

Political campaigns have devolved into medicine shows where each seeking election is selling his/her brand of snake oil while at the same time casting opponents and their supporters as the enemy as they play upon the fears of the audience’s narrow self-interest.  So election after election, congressional session after congressional session nothing fundamentally really changes.   It is the same wine in a different bottle.

So the assumption of egoistic economics (which guides the functioning of American society) that if you attend first and foremost to your self-interest—in the extreme holding supreme your liberty to do as your self-interest desires—then eventually and unintentionally everyone will benefit is at best clearly false and at worst destructive to society.  If America is the United States, then what is it that they are united about?  What is it that unites them?

The Root of It All

So what’s the problem with American democracy?  Egoistic economics is the problem! Self-interest can’t possibly unite!  Having only concern for me and mine is not the way to a well functioning sustainable human society—it is more the making of an unruly unethical collection of divisive groups.  Each seeking self gain does not lead to a unified effort toward a future better than the present.

Organizations that are sustainable are not designed and managed this way, so why would anyone believe society without a unifying vision that binds people together would have a chance of sustaining itself?  A wise businessperson would not even try to design and manage an organization wherein everyone is out for him or herself and where no one has concern for and commitment to the collective known as the organization.

It should be quite clear that a functioning viable society must advocate equally for individual and community—for the ‘I’s’ and ‘We’—since they are complimentary (and necessary) components of a wholesome society.

Clive Boddy (Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University) in an article in the Journal of Business Ethics defines the corporate psychopath as executives/business leaders “who have no conscience or empathy and who do not care for anyone other than themselves.”  As Boddy explains these type of people can be callous in their disregard for the needs of others in pursuit of their interests and their “own self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement.”

A Good Fit

How is it that such people can realize positions in the upper echelon of corporations? To answer this all we need to do is understand what the economic system and business culture find most important. In an economic system that advances the primacy of material self-interest and a results oriented culture, getting results irrespective of means is what counts!

Clearly the corporate world would be quite enticing to the socially friendly psychopath.  After all, it can be just as lucrative as the world of crime without offering a high probability of prosecution for crimes committed against humanity.  But not only is a world of self-interest with short-term thinking desirable to the psychopath, many of the traits of these people—calculating, charismatic, manipulative, materially driven, ruthless, unemotional—are embraced by a material self-interest oriented corporate world.

Thus charismatic people who unabashedly focus on driving for results will do very well in such a world—a world where nice guys finish last.  Accordingly, with the maximization of short-term profit being most important people who can drive and deliver results will be deemed ‘leader material’ and accordingly developed by their organization for positions of increasing responsibility.

A Matter of Degree

Seemingly what the above is describing are quite self-interested people and possibly greedy characters.  But is greed different than self-interest?  Well of course they are different, but they are also foundationally related.

Greed is essentially unfettered self-interested behavior; it is self-interest on steroids. With self-interested behavior you could have people seeking advantage over others for self-benefit and with greed you could have people causing harm to others for self-benefit.  That is to say, people acting out of self-interest can lead to unfairness and people acting out of greed will often lead to fraud.

Greed as a behavioral trait is sought and developed.  It is because of greed that the drive for getting and having goes forever unsatisfied ensuring a consuming and acquisitive society.  Adam Smith argued the importance of the pursuit of material self-interest to the industriousness of the labor class and in turn to the wealth of a nation.  As he assumed (in The Wealth of Nations) “every man…is much more deeply interested in whatever immediately concerns himself than in what concerns any other” thus implying that the propensity for satisfying one’s self-interest is most significant in influencing profit maximizing behavior.  In a recent paper appearing in The Academy of Management Annals, titled On Greed, authors Long Wang and J. Keith Murnighan claim “the basic logic of capitalism…suggests that organizations and their members should do what they can to maximize their economic interest.”

People have taken for granted, without questioning, the notion that we are at base selfish beings.  Accordingly our societal culture embraces the notion that people are at base driven to maximize their material self-interest—what’s in it for me is not just cliché it reflects a general attitude, the American zeitgeist.  This unquestioned belief has been forged by the widespread application of the self-interest precept of our economic system, infiltrating life in society in so many aspects—business, government and education.

Accordingly rigging the system in service to one’s self-interest is just the way we’ve designed things to work—special interest rules the day.   Why else are there so many elected officials who become millionaires during their term in office in what should be service to society?  Why else are there lobbyists (many of whom served on Capital Hill prior to becoming a lobbyist) working to establish quid pro quo relationships with government officials? Why is it that those who are able to offer sizable amounts of money to elected officials (our public servants) given far greater access, credibility and opportunity?  Seemingly every thing is an economic exchange through which each is seeking to better his/her position materially.

According to Smith “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from the regard to their own interest.”  Substitute senator, congressmen and president and it no doubt applies. It is therefore no surprise that special interests dictate the discourse and much of public policy.

Insatiability of Material Gain

Moreover according to Wang and Murnighan “neoclassical economics’ focus on self-interest almost seems to glorify greed” (p 287).  British philosopher David Hume, a close friend of Adam Smith, believed greed to be both vice and virtue.  In regard to the latter Hume claimed it motives people and thus can be a positive force in commerce.  Smith clearly agreed since his theory of economics (of societal wealth creation) rested upon each individual striving to maximize his/her material self-interest.

As Wang and Murnighan noted “the negative social consequences of greed focus primarily on its uneven distribution of resources” and the growing gap in income inequality in the U.S. is a case in point.  In the period between the 1950’s and 1960’s CEO compensation was about 25 times that of the average worker.  Today it is 340 times that of the average worker!  As a result of the income trend lines going in quite different directions, some argue that we have two economies.

It would appear that the seed of material self-interest has grown into sequoia-sized greed.  It seems clear that everything for me and nothing for others—though a popular path for those seeking greater personal wealth—is a recipe for destruction and the eventual depletion of societal wealth.  It surely is not the way to progress, if by progress we mean the likelihood is good that our future will be better than the present.

As Lester Thurow noted in his 1996 book The Future of Capitalism, in capitalism “there is simply no social must.”  Moreover, capitalism honors competition, and winning in a limited resource competitive environment is auto-correlated.  In other words the probability of winning is greater for those who have previously won—winning begets winning—and the probability of non-winners winning increasingly diminishes.   As the gap between winners and losers increases moving from losing to winning gets more and more difficult.  Correspondingly, since a self-interest seeking materialist can never have enough, trickle-down doesn’t happen—the evidence of this is quite strong.

How does material self-interest become greed?  The pursuit of material gain has no natural satiation point, thus unless the individual is morally awake the desire for having more is unfettered and thus escalates without bound.  Moreover with egoic self-interest bounded by one’s own skin, in pursuing more and more a concern for one’s impact on others is essentially nonexistent. The concern for ‘me’ and ‘mine’ is all consuming.  The 2008 financial crisis is a case in point of the consequences of greed. In fact, Clive Boddy claims corporate psychopaths theory as an explanation of the cause of the global financial crisis.

Smith believed that human beings weren’t capable of self-control and thus people require external forces to keep them within the boundaries of fair play in their economic endeavors.  Smith wasn’t advocating regulation but enforceable laws.

Unfortunately human behavior can’t be legislated, especially greedy behavior.  Unregulated material self-interested behavior transitions readily into fraudulent behavior.  What’s better for society, to reign in such behavior before the fact or to seek retribution for the behavior after the fact?  Is it better to prevent theft or to enforce the law (i.e. prosecute) against theft?  [It seems, at least thus far, we’ve done neither in regards to the actions of Wall Street.]

The issue is not whether greed is part of human nature, but whether greed is an unavoidable part.  We could say the same for morality.  Both are in our potential.  However we are not destined to be moral actors any more than we are destined to be greedy.  Just as a sense of morality must be developed, so too must greediness.   In regards to the latter, our current system of economics is doing this quite well.

As with most dimensions of human development, we are guided and facilitated in our development by the societal context—the zeitgeist—within which we are raised.  In the U.S. the societal context facilitates the belief that we each are self-interest maximizing beings—self-interested behavior is expected, it is our ethos.  It is no wonder that many of our corporate executives are far more calculating, far less empathetic and ruthlessly political/manipulative; there appears to be no concern or regard for the impact of their self-serving actions on others.  [We are even seeing this in our elected officials.]

Just because the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court concluded that corporations are people and thus it is legal for corporations to have an opaque and dominant voice in the election of our representatives doesn’t mean that corporate executives should act on this.  Those who are morally developed—whose sense of self doesn’t stop at their own skin—and who are not solely guided by the legality of an action understand that can doesn’t imply should.

What if we believed we are not just self-interest maximizing beings? What if we weren’t so consumed by (i.e. addicted to) having more and more as a way of being and establishing our personal identity? What if having a concern for ‘We’ is just as important as a concern for ‘me’? What if we are deeply connected?  [As noted by Amitai Etzioni “the I’s need We to be” (The Moral Dimension)]. What if our sense of self didn’t stop at our skin, but included all of humankind?

Acknowledging our ‘I-We’ nature puts us in touch with the individual and collective aspects of being human and in turn to the simultaneous responsibility we have to each other.  Accordingly life in society is not simply a collection of independent individuals seeking advantage over others as each strives to have it all for ‘Me’. We are not simply instrumental to each other’s wants.

If we wish those who lead—corporations and government—not to be so self-serving then we must change how we as a society not only choose but also shape them.  This requires us to change what we believe about ourselves, and in turn to change the system of economics, and correspondingly the conduct of business, that has infiltrated so much of life in society.  After all we do shape the reality we experience.

They are symptoms of an enacted belief by the majority of society, which has become institutionalized in society’s systems, that self-interest (which includes special interest) is paramount and correspondingly success in life is measured by the size of one’s material gain.  That is to say, they are symptoms of a wrongly purposed economic system becoming infused into every aspect of life in society, most notably government, education and of course the conduct of business.

In regards to the system of government, when wealth becomes so concentrated and elected officials become so money dependent then the conduct of government unavoidably moves increasingly in favor of the wealthy.  In effect, the very wealthy become the overlords of society.

Today we are clearly operating according to a set of beliefs that are antithetical to the advancement of democracy and the development of people.  The fact that we have elections—that we are allowed to vote—though necessary it is not sufficient to ensure democracy is operative and thus ensure freedom from oppression.  Voting when you have little choice does not equate to participation in choosing who will represent you.

Occupy Wall Street could provide the finger-snap that will awaken people in society from their hypnotic sleepwalk through life.

Oh you say people are awake, they aren’t sleepwalking.  Really!  As noted by Charles Blow, “most Americans now say that the fact that some people in the U.S. are rich and others are poor does not represent a problem but is an acceptable part of our economic system.” This is a manifestation of the unquestioned belief that material self-interest is paramount.

How often do people think the same thoughts in the same way they’ve always thought about them?  How often do they listen (without judgment) and seek to understand? How often have they actually explored perspectives that are not consistent with their view of how things are without filtering that of the other through the beliefs they hold so dear? Thinking is not merely a rearrangement of thoughts!

How often do you actually critically think about your thinking?  How often do you explore and challenge the beliefs and assumptions that are the foundation of your beliefs, thoughts and actions? How often have you actually improved the way you think and what you think about?

Those protesting the injustice and unfairness of the way things are in society are providing a wake-up call to everyone—just as the Vietnam and civil rights protesters did before them.  The Occupy Wall Street protest must keep the focus on changing the system and not follow the suggestion of what many pundits and news anchors offer, fixing on ‘a simple demand’ and/or forming or becoming aligned with a political party.  Either one of these would limit the scope, make for colonization of the message and turn the conversation more divisive.

The way things are is the result of a system of orientation that has ordered life in (our) industrialized society for quite sometime.  Thus its underlying assumptions and beliefs are hidden well below the surface of everyday experience. Since these have reached their extreme and have become massively destructive, they need to be brought to the surface for conscious exploration by an awakened critically thinking mind. To detach our self from our thoughts, which as Mahatma Gandhi said “is the prerequisite for effective involvement.”  Gandhi noted that attachment to our opinions often distorts our thinking—it keeps us from engaging the power of critical thinking.

This is not a left-right issue or a political party issue but a very human issue! We must break away from the habit of thinking in either/or terms—such thinking leads to fear and diminishes understanding.  It is time that we wake up to the fact that we are all the same: human beings seeking to live a fulfilling and meaningful human life.  It is not the time—and it is not clear when it ever is—to recoil against ideas intended to help everyone. We are so deeply connected that when others are unjustly treated we all suffer.  Yet because of an attachment to individualism as our guide we are unable to understand our interdependence and connectedness.  We must cease believing that it is all about me having mine so to hell with we.

What is a sure fire way to keep things as they are?  Continue to reinforce the primacy of the individual over the collective—keep people thinking in either/or terms.  Incite people to fear the bogyman by creating stories about those who aren’t members of their group. This keeps people fearful and reactive thus stopping them from thinking and actively listening (without distortion and judgment) to the ideas of others.  So the focus of attention turns toward demonizing others and most importantly away from collaborating with others toward fundamental system change.  Yes this is all part of keeping people from coming together to solve the problem thus ensuring things continue as they are.

It is time to let go of the thought that you are of this party or that and to embrace the fact that you are at base a human being and to acknowledge that each and every ‘I ‘ needs a vibrant ‘we’.

What we need is to develop as a society of people toward becoming a human-centered society—a viable society.  This requires a viable citizenry, which can’t be realized as long as the system fundamentally remains as it is.

To continue saying that it is broken suggests that all that is needed is a little repair when in fact what is needed is critical thinking: It is a fundamentally flawed system that has infiltrated the very workings of democracy.

In the existing system our choices range between unfairness and fraud, from a little greed to a lot of greed.  Greed won’t allow itself to be regulated: Such an idea runs counter to its very essence!

Thus, if the Occupy movement allows itself to be colonized by a political party—beware of the demagogues—then it will render itself ineffective toward calling for and facilitating fundamental change.

If we are to have a serious conversation, then that conversation can’t begin with the aim of fixing a broken system, it must begin with the intent of revolutionizing the system.  What is required is a majority that continually challenges the status quo by asking what if things don’t have to be as they are.

You see no matter how corrupt the system, it does require the cooperation of the people adversely impacted for the system to continue as it is.  So squelching or disparaging protesters increases the likelihood that cooperation will continue.  However, once a critical mass stops going along with the way things are, then what can be becomes probable.  Hence the power of non-violent movements!

A ‘what if question’ is the key to unlocking and opening one’s mind to other possibilities.  So those participating in Occupy Wall Street are calling for new thinking that will lead to a better future for all, and not just a select few.

There are people who benefit from the way things are, so ideas that require change will always have resistors.  Consequently there are those who can’t think anew, who can’t or won’t entertain the possibilities of what thinking anew might bring.  Why?  Likely they can’t bear the thought of giving up what they gain from the way things are, even if the new idea will benefit everyone in the long run.  So they pursue thoughts of why we can’t change what is, thus diminishing the likelihood of things changing.  Further, those who are really consumed by fear disparage and demonize those calling for change in an effort gain support for their resistance.

This is often experienced in organizations.  Many never even recognize the need to change because those in authority become so attached to the idea of what they’ve been that they can’t think (imagine) about being anything else.  For example Kodak, the leader in film photograph, could not think anew so now it is an icon of an outdated idea, film photography.

Invariably, what if questions challenge assumptions and beliefs underlying the generally accepted reality of the way things are.  But reality is not something out there, it has its beginning in the mind of people.  If this were not the case then the United States would not have emerged and organizations that seem inextricably part of life in our society would not exist.  That is, reality is not something we merely react to it is something that we actually participate in creating and sustaining.  Simply put, reality requires our cooperation!

For example, our elected officials require people to elect them: why else would big business and other special interest groups invest so much in a candidate in the election process?  In effect we don’t choose whom we would like as our elected officials, our choices are restricted to whom the money backers want.  We can’t expect those who control and benefit from what is to change what is.  Evidence of this is seen in the inability of politicians to even limit contributions to political campaigns. Just think: What if there was an election and nobody showed up to elect them?

What’s the implication?  If you don’t like the reality you have then cease your cooperation with the system that it rests upon!  If you don’t like the reality of your experiences then act according to new beliefs that will provide different experiences.

As discussed in a previous article, if we want a different reality then we must actually enact it. Reality won’t change if first we don’t change our thinking about our selves! Wanting change is not sufficient; we must change our mind—changing the ideas and beliefs we hold—in order to embody the change (in reality) we desire.

At base the intent of a protest is to communicate the need to change what is by raising the awareness of the need and building a critical mass of people for the change. As long as people do not challenge what is assumed unchangeable then what is will remain as it is.  In short, our past will be our future! Why should anyone or any group be given the power to require this to be so?  So there must always be what if’s and we must seriously engage with those who raise them!

What if our system of government was a democracy and not a plutocracy? What if we’ve been structuring society and (our) life according to a fallacy?  What if we aren’t as materially driven as the system of economics has led us to believe and live? What if maximizing your material self-interest was not the way to joy in life?  What if your job was a joy?  What if flow of money throughout society meant something other than trickledown from the wealthy elite?   What if the way things are didn’t have to be as they are?  What if those in authority didn’t recoil against challenging ideas?  What if we all were critical thinkers?  What if you actually gave serious focused attention to these questions?

Another way to think about it is that it’s not so much that ideas aren’t what they used to be, but rather it is that the context within which the ideas are presented isn’t what it used to be. That is to say ideas make sense in relation to the context within which they are presented.  Today our societal context is replete with ideological views and an entrenched life deadening view of what’s important.  In this context when ideas challenge the system of belief and go beyond current habits of thought of a large number of people (particularly those in authority positions) they are dismissed out of hand.  Since ideas make no sense in relation to the ideology or accepted view they are seen as nonsense.

Even Gabler spoke to the widely accepted belief that material gain is the primary standard for value assessment of behavior when he stated “thought-provoking ideas that can’t instantly be monetized are of so little intrinsic value that fewer people are generating them and fewer outlets are disseminating them, the Internet notwithstanding.”  Seemingly we care only about what’s in it (materially) for me!  Correspondingly, since the things acquired we call mine never seem to be enough, we can’t help but to be consumed by thoughts related to acquiring things of extrinsic or outer value. We don’t care so much about an idea, unless we can use it to turn a quick profit.

It appears that we’ve expunged everything intrinsic from life with our adherence to material self-interest maximization as the guiding principle of behavior. Living in a societal culture that holds material gain as supreme, we lose touch with our creative spirit. We are so attached to and paralyzed by the (old) thoughts we’ve been pursuing that of course ideas don’t provoke new thinking, they just cause most to recoil and defend the old!

So what we have is a self-imposed crisis of will.  Unless the assumptions and beliefs that we’ve tacitly learned, to which we are uncompromisingly attached, are subjected to critical thinking in the face of new ideas we will forsake all opportunities that lie before us.

Information is not Knowledge

The news industry, or is it the newstainment industry, is not so much interested in maximizing the delivery of valued news toward improving the people’s understanding as it is in maximizing profit through entertaining eye-catching headlines that feed the idolatry bent egoistic populace.  As Gabler noted, “we have become information narcissists, so uninterested in anything outside ourselves.”  Correspondingly, we are concerned primarily about inflation, of our wealth, our self-image, and even the number of Facebook friends.

Gabler claimed “… we live in a post-Enlightenment age in which rationality, science, evidence, logical argument and debate have lost the battle in many sectors, and perhaps even in society generally, to superstition, faith, opinion and orthodoxy.”  However he argued, “the real cause may be information itself” suggesting that we are inundated with information and thus choking on it.  But information is just that, information.

Even though we may have oodles of information at our fingertips this does not mean we are interested in developing understanding and challenging what is assumed fact.  Transforming information into knowledge requires critical thinking and an associated interpretation. If we unable to critically think about assess and evaluate information then of course we would choke!  It requires chewing on the information for a while and not simply swallowing whole what is given.

In fact having the ability to think critically and having access to a wealth of information would increase the likelihood of ideas emerging.  More accurately, thinking critically is an antecedent to creative thinking and the emergence of insight and ideas.

Correspondingly, another view of this is that we’ve devolved into an incurious  society of people with a general undeveloped ability to think critically.   This inability is likely because we’ve developed such a habitual-way-of-being that we are incapable of letting go of the very thoughts/beliefs to which we’ve become so attached.  Detachment from our thoughts is necessary in order to explore ideas that might challenge the very thoughts and beliefs we faithfully hold.  In this sense belief trumps fact and fresh (new) thinking is quelled!

So it is not that people are choking on the information thus decreasing the spark of ideas. What we have is habit of thought inhibiting critical and creative thinking and shutting out the opportunities that lie in other new ideas.

Our current economic system aligns with the following underlying precepts: 1) maximize one’s material self-interest; 2) pursue material growth without limit.  Accordingly, a private business enterprise seeks to maximize its material self-interest, and when formally connected to Wall Street it is compelled to do so quarter-to-quarter.  Or more simply, the business of business is profit.

Who Matters

The fundamental belief—that is the governing assumption—from which these propositions are derived, is that at base, human behavior is explainable through the pain-avoidance/pleasure-seeking self-interest dynamic evident in all animals.  As Adam Smith asserted, “every man . . . is much more deeply interested in whatever immediately concerns himself than in what concerns any other.” That is, the propensity for satisfying one’s material self-interest is most significant toward influencing (and explaining) an individual’s behavior.  The economic translation being: homo sapien is in reality homo economicus.  In other words, we are to think about our self and each other as selfish and economically driven.

Smith further explained, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from the regard to their own interest.”  Moreover Smith introduced an almost mythical governing mechanism often referred to as the invisible hand that saw to it that all would be better off, when we allow self-interest to reign unfettered.  The underlying belief is that people are unknowingly—and quite mysteriously—led to improve the welfare of society when they act in their own self-interest.  In short, the concern for what’s in it for ‘me’ (somehow) miraculously best serves the collective ‘we’.

The unprecedented widening household income gap between the top 1% and the remaining 99% is clear evidence of the fallacy of this claim.  The only thing that can be said with certainty is the top 1% is seeing to it that their self-interests are being served.  Trickle-down doesn’t trickle and the rising tide can’t possibly lift all boats when there are two separate seas!

Clear Evidence

Basing an argument upon these erroneous assumptions leads to a logical fallacy that has people disregarding each other’s as well as one’s own humanity.  And as explained in It’s the econoMe stupid, grounding a system of economics on this fallacy can’t help but to negatively impact humankind.

All that is required is one counter example to disprove or invalidate a theory.  So, at the risk of being a bit redundant, I offer two examples as empirical evidence against the validity of the idea that private enterprise ensures the highest quality.

• The growth of agri-business along with the management-by-exception/crisis approach on the part of regulatory agencies has enabled profit maximization to diminish our ability to provide a safe food supply.
• The American automobile manufacturers pursuit of maximum quarter-to-quarter profit had them caring less about quality and more about the efficient production of a quantity of automobiles.

In organizations where the business of business is profit, products and services are a cost to the business of producing (maximum) profit.  Moreover the value of people in this system is purely instrumental in service to revenue for the enterprise.  These are contrary to the spirit of quality.

Justifying Belief

However, even though there is overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary, there continues to be a faith-like belief that appealing to material self-interest inspires quality and serves the greater good.  Even though the theory and practice for producing quality has long been established, most choose not to learn maintaining that the theory of quality—which is inextricably connected to our humanness—is against what they believe.  But, we mustn’t forget belief often rests more on justification than fact.

If following the egoistic economic precepts won’t ensure quality, why would anyone argue that privatization of social services will ensure the highest quality? It must be that those advocating that privatization—placing everything in the invisible hands of private profit maximizing enterprise—is the universal solution to society’s problems, are doing so for self-serving reasons.  They have so committed to the doctrine of self-interest (especially their own) they can’t see beyond it!

Even the effectiveness of government has been adversely affected by this misleading belief.  Though government should be about serving our common interest, the generally accepted belief in the fallacious assumptions that underlie the egoistic economic system has led us to create a system in practice that places private/special interests above our common interests.  Even Smith’s words (recall, “every man . . . is much more deeply interested in whatever immediately concerns himself than in what concerns any other”) foretold what happens when life in society is guided by selfish concern: what’s in it for me trumps the needs of others (i.e. the collective ‘we’ of society).  This is clearly contrary to the fact that people exist as collective beings as well as individual beings.

The Choice

The longer that we continue to order life according to the precepts of egoistic economics the closer we move towards self-destruction.  The more we act out of selfish concern the more we do harm to our selves by not enabling the development of our humanness.

Being human is not a given at birth, as it is only through the process of living that an individual can become what they potentially are (at birth).  According to Erich Fromm, “man’s life is determined by the inescapable alternative between regression and progression, between return to animal existence and arrival at human existence.”  Because of this dialectical essence of human existence, we are faced with the choice of either progressively realizing our humanness or regressively reclaiming the uncomplicated and alluring self-serving pain avoidance and pleasure seeking habits of our animal nature.

So, associated with the dichotomous choice to privatize or not is whether to continue acting as if we are selfish and economically driven.  Erich Fromm said it best, “If we were consciously aware of what we really know about ourselves and others, we could not go on living as we do, accepting so many lies.”  There is no better time than now to change the way we bring order to life in society.

As Arie de Geus reported in his 1997 book, The living company: Habits for survival in a turbulent business environment,  “the average life expectancy of a multi-national corporation—Fortune 500 or its equivalent—is between 40 and 50 years…A full one-third of the companies listed in the 1970 Fortune 500, for instance, had vanished by 1983—acquired, merged or broken to pieces.”  Based on what Arie de Geus reported regarding the lifespan of companies versus people, we can’t help but wonder why individuals (on average) can expect to live into late 70’s and human activity systems (which corporations are) are lucky if they make it to their 40’s.  In large part the answer lies in the fact that humans can last longer than machines, because people can learn and correspondingly adapt.  Consequently, managing corporations as profit machines limits the survivability of the enterprise—it diminishes viability.

A Leading Indicator

As Lohr stated “not so long ago, I.B.M.’s corporate survival was at stake. In the early 1990s, it nearly ran out of money. Its mainframe business was reeling under pressure from the lower-cost technology of personal computing.”  Seemingly what this statement conveys is that money is the leading indicator of survivability or that profitability ensures viability.

As explained in a previous post, of course many tout the importance of money advancing the notion that ‘cash is king’.  No doubt cash is a key factor, but it is not the only factor! Nor is it the leading factor!  Profitability does not ensure viability.

In an ever-changing environment—where the future is not the past in some repetitive fashion—it is essential to sustain ones’ viability.  Yet most place their focus of attention on maximizing near-term profit, as if the long-term is simply the sum of a series of short-terms. The fallacy of this profit-above-all-else thinking is illustrated in the failure of yet another pillar of egoistic capitalism, General Motors.  A corporation—like so many others—wherein the long-view was the wrong view!  GM put profitability before viability and inevitably had to be placed on government life support to avoid death.

In regards to IBM, it is not that the idea of computer technology ran its course it is that IBM ran out of ideas regarding future technology.   They held onto the idea that maximizing profit through mainframes was ‘the thing’.  The leading indicator is not that they ran out of money, it is that they ran out of ideas long before they ran out of money!  They ceased being a company focused on the improvement and innovation of both product and process—as known as quality—and turned attention to solidifying the organization as a mainframe-providing profit maximizing machine.

Seemingly those in authority believed that because they were reaping so much from the mainframe idea of the company they hadn’t the need to learn.  Little did they realize that time was running out on the idea they were holding onto—they didn’t know that (business) ideas have a finite life span!

In other words, those in authority at IBM limited the organization to being a mainframe company. This impeded their ability to perceive of a future industry beyond mainframe computing.  As Lohr noted, “Evolving beyond past success is a daunting task for companies in all industries.” As the saying goes nothing fails like success!

Since change/learning shapes our tomorrows, doesn’t it make sense to be open to the possibilities sooner than later?

It is not inevitable that corporations must face death before recreation can occur. Nor is it the way of quality leadership.  If management is focused on quality then they will have a company poised to improve and to innovate both product/service and process.  They will have a company committed to progress not one blindly bent on maximizing short-term profitability.

Future is a progression of Ideas

Had IBM focused attention and commitment to quality—improving and innovating computer technology rather than maximizing profitability of mainframes—they likely would have avoided a near-death-experience.  The former creates an entirely different mindset than the latter, prefiguring a capable culture.  Consequently they would not have tied the enterprise to the (limited) life of one idea.

Sustaining competitive advantage is not about attaching oneself to the current profit-generating idea but about maintaining and improving the capability to create and then innovate the next idea while at the same time delighting customers with existing products/services.

Since in a dynamic world order and change are complementary, not mutually exclusive, it is the wise leader that effectively and simultaneously can sustain both order and change toward enhancing the organization’s viability.  Holding both order and change in mutual relation requires vision.  Doing otherwise, the organization will find itself in a world wherein it is incapable of existing—it no longer is a viable enterprise.

If a person is not committed to ensuring that the organization is capable of meeting the yet to be determined challenges of tomorrow then can he/she be the person who should lead? Those who wait for a crisis to emerge before thinking about a future different than the present lacks the thinking abilities—systems thinking, statistical thinking, critical thinking, strategic thinking—to insightfully lead.

It appears that we’ve become powerless over our own creation; we serve it, rather than it serving us. We perpetuate the situation, not because we need to, but because we feel compelled to—our success, our socially mediated meaning in life is at stake.

What choice do we have! The pressure of conformity to continue this way is enormous. If we have more, society will approve of us, but if we have less, or choose not to seek more, then disapproval will, most surely, follow. We will be thought of as irrational, weird— not normal! Yet we are told to think of ourselves as free individuals.

Fully adapted to this socially patterned having mode of being in the world causes us to reject alternative ways of relating and living.  Most are unwilling to give up their illusory freedom.

As long as we maintain this habitual way of living—as long as we continue to follow the maxims of egoistic capitalism—we are headed in the direction of dissolution, not evolution.  We cannot possibly progress as human beings when we are increasing our ego-strength and, correspondingly, relinquishing our uniquely human powers in service to the invisible authority of the economy.  Being consumers, not people, of society makes us mere cogs in the machinery.  The egoistic economy does serve, but it serves only those pulling the strings; it subverts progress.

A New Economics

We need an economics with the intent to support human progress not merely material growth. It would be an economic system that affords each individual the opportunity to realize his/her human potential.  Hence progress, in the sense that I’m using it, is concerned with the present relative to the future. It is about a future that presents a higher state of human existence—a better life for all, not just the few.

It is about forward movement and enabling the birth of something new and beneficial.  Instead of an egoistic capitalism we need an ecological/evolutionary economics, one that rests on understanding our total ecology—having a concern for how we use both material energy and human energy.

From an material energy environmental perspective, our economics must rest on the fact that Nature’s processes are cyclical not limitless: We can use it up if the rate of use exceeds Nature’s rate of renewal and/or if the form to which it is transformed is for all intents and purposes unusable.  From a human (i.e. psychic) energy environmental perspective, our economics must rest on the fact the development of the self is greatly dependent on the human productivity of the experiences afforded each person in living his/her life. When energy gets dammed up— whether it physical/matter-energy or psychic/human-energy—it can’t help but become toxic.  The resultant pollution is unwholesome, and it can’t help but adversely affect life. What we are speaking to is a concern for the total ecology of life.

Such an ecological/evolutionary economic system would recognize that every person survives by exchanging goods, but each truly lives by engaging in activities and interacting with others in a way that contributes to his/her development as a human being.  We each need activities and interactions that are vitalizing, not just wealth producing.  It’s time to think beyond the bottom line and about business of a different mind!

If there is to be a future that is better for everyone then it must be enacted in the present moment. Just wishing for change isn’t sufficient to realize change.  Our reality won’t change until we change how we think about ourselves and about the purpose of business.