Dear Orgeanlearners,
Simon Buckingham <go57@dial.pipex.com> writes on the subject "Competition"
in LO16681:
> The problem with many economies and the reason why capitalism is not
> working is that there is too little competition and not too much. The fact
> is that too few people share too much wealth. We need to move to
> technological capitalism in which everyone can participate and markets are
> contestable by anyone with a good innovative solution.
Simon, your statement "The fact is that too few people share too much
wealth." has caught my attention. Allow me to reformulate it as the
proposition "Too few people share too much wealth". Whereas a statement
concerns a fact, a proposition is a sentence which can either have the
value true (a fact) or the value false (a farse), but not both.
As with all propositions, there are two sides to this proposition. The
one side is how will we determine the truthvalue of this proposition
beyond any doubt. Basically, we have three avenues: empirical
measurements, logical argumentation and phenomenological eidetics. The
other side is to trace the consequences of such a proposition depending on
its truthvalue.
But, as is the case with most propositions, we always get into trouble
with what has not been formulated in a proposition. For example, the
proposistion "Too few people share too much wealth" have not made it
clear what wealth has been refered to. Is it material wealth, or spiritual
wealth or both?
What if this wealth refers to spiritual wealth? Is the proposition true or
false? Think, for example, about the pharisees 2000 years ago.
On the other hand, think about Karl Marx. For him it refered to material
wealth. He considered the proposition to be true of the real world, but
that it should become false in his proposed transformation of the real
world. His solution to falsify this proposition was dialectical
materialism. In practice it eventually became communism. Others, who was
not in such a hurry as the communists, designed socialism as a solution.
(Here is something to think about. One learning dissability of learning
organisations is the "parable of the boiled frog". If the water containing
a frog is heated very slowly, the frog will not notice it and thus remain
in the water. Communism can be viewed as socialism in a hurry. Communism
is the the quick heating of the water. Socialism is the slow heating of
the water. The downfall of the communistic countries is that they became
socialistic after their communistic revolution. This is why Stalin had to
get rid of Trostsky - the eternal revolutionary. Is our mild invoking of
socialism not an example of the "parable of the boiled frog?)
The point which I wish to make now, is that some people (for whom this
proposition is true) wants to falsify this proposition in their proposed
world while other people (for whom this proposition is false) wants to
make it true in their proposed world. What? Yes - "let fewer rich people
get richer and more poor people get poorer"! What we have to observe is
that or more milleniums ago few people, rich or poor, would have found
fault with such a practice. But now, at the end of this millenium, the far
majority of humankind abhor such a practice, finding it to be downright
criminal. Thus something peculiar has happened to the mental models of
most humans.
What is this peculiar thing? Let us go back to Simon's proposed solution.
If we analize "We need to move to technological capitalism in which
everyone can participate and markets are contestable by anyone with
a good innovative solution." very carefully, the solution contains
three facets:
technological capitalism,
competitive markets,
innovative solutions.
For me "technological capitalism" means capitalism which is driven by
technology. What is capitalism? What is technology?
Philip Coggin (1979, Pergamon) wrote the book "Education for the future:
the case for radical change" which seems to have caught little attention.
Coggin was involved with technology and education at various levels for
most of his life. He became more and more aware of one burning problem:
why is it so difficult to get people educated in technology at large? He
then magnificantly argue that CREATIVITY is the basic prerequisite for
education in technology to become successful. The radical change he
champions for is that eduction has to become creativity orientated,
something which has not yet happened.
We are now in a position to see that in the three facets to Simon's
solution, creativity is the common factor. Furthermore, it is the
heightened awareness of humankind to creativity which is responsible for
the fact that humankind now finds the practice "let fewer rich people get
richer and more poor people get poorer" a criminal activity. Thus it is
this very "heightened awareness of humankind to creativity" which we must
use to transform reality such that the proposition "Too few people share
too much wealth" will become false.
What drives me up the walls, is the proposed transformation"take from the
few rich and redistribute it among the many poor". It is, from a creative
point of view, foolish. However, few people are sufficiently aware of
creativity that they are able to recognise it as a possible solution and
probably the only solution. Unfortunately, by saying it is a foolish
solution from a creative point of view, the overwhelming remainder of the
people remember only the "foolish" part. From this they conclude that
there must be a hidden agenda to condone the practice "let fewer rich
people get richer and more poor people get poorer". What a terrible
conflict of mental mondels!
We have to observe that the proposed transformation "take from the few
rich and redistribute it among the many poor" or its equivalent "let the
few rich people get poorer and the many poor people get richer" is not
something new. It is merely a condoning and continueing of the practice
"taxation by the government to render services" which occurs in every
country of this world, capitalist, socialist or free market driven. What
is even worse, its outcome in most cases happens to be"let fewer rich
people get richer and more poor people get poorer".
My friends, I cannot stress enough that the observation "let fewer rich
people get richer and more poor people get poorer" is the actual foreplay
to all major political revolutions in the known history of humankind. It
is again becoming the foreplay of yet another political revolution, but
this time a global one. Are you ready for it? Do you, as managers or
consultants, prepare your organisations to become ready for it? Of the
three facets to Simon's proposal, the last one "innovative solutions"
becomes most important. We have to think creatively, otherwise we will not
become prepared.
This is my contribution to the creative thinking needed. When I write "X
incongruent to Y is the actual foreplay to all major political revolutions
in the known history of humankind", this incongruency between X and Y
constitutes a force for entropy production. Entropy is produced by
force-flux pairs. The force (few rich vs many poor) exists, but does the
flux exist? Yes, it is the daily economical activities, the flow of money,
goods and services. Thus entropy is produced. The increase in its first
manifestation as chaos of becoming is observable - see the papers,
magazines, TV bulletins and Internet - human societies are in turmoil. The
foreplay will end when the saturation or bifucation point is reached. Then
an immergence will result, unless we prepare ourselves for the emergence.
I have said that reducing the incongruency between X and Y by taking from
X to give to Y is foolish. Why? X and Y are not only beings, but also
becomings. Note that X = "the few rich who gets richer" while Y = "the
many poor who gets poorer". The becoming X is the result of superior
creativity while the becoming Y is the result from inferior creativity.
Taking from the riches of the few rich and giving it to the many poor will
do nothing to the differences in their underlying creativities.
Furthermore, taking from the underlying creativity of the few rich to give
to the underlying creativity of the many poor is equally foolish.
Creativity can never be transfered in such a manner BECAUSE CREATIVITY IS
PRINCIPALLY SELF-ORGANISATION.
What must happen, is that the creativity of the many poor must increase at
a rate much faster than that of the few rich. This will result in faster
rate of accumulating wealth among the many poor than the few rich so that
the gap will decrease rather than increase. Thus we will avoid this
horrendous political bifurcation. But we cannnot avoid the bifucation as
such. It will still happen, but not on the political terrain any more. It
has to happen on the terrain of learning.
On thing is crucial: we cannot any more try to force by external work and
control this increase in the creativity of the many poor - it has to
happen spontaneously. Why? Irreversible self-organisation happens
spontaneously. In other words, we cannot increase the creativity of
others, they have to do it themselves. This is exactly where learning
organisations come into the picture. It provides the kind of
organisational environment which enhances the irreversible
self-organisation of its members - which allows them to create the future
they desire.
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>