Sultan Knish
There are two types of societies, production societies and rationing
societies. The production society is concerned with taking more
territory, exploiting that territory to the best of its ability and then
discovering new techniques for producing even more. The rationing
society is concerned with consolidating control over all existing
resources and rationing them out to the people.
The production society values innovation because it is the only means of
sustaining its forward momentum. If the production society ceases to be
innovative, it will collapse and default to a rationing society. The
rationing society however is threatened by innovation because innovation
threatens its control over production.
Socialist or capitalist monopolies lead to rationing societies where
production is restrained and innovation is discouraged. The difference
between the two is that a capitalist monopoly can be overcome. A
socialist monopoly however is insurmountable because it carries with it
the full weight of the authorities and the ideology that is inculcated
into every man, woman and child in the country.
We have become a rationing society. Our industries and our people are
literally starving in the midst of plenty. Farmers are kept from
farming, factories are kept from producing and businessmen are kept from
creating new companies and jobs. This is done in the name of a variety
of moral arguments, ranging from caring for the less fortunate to saving
the planet. But rhetoric is only the lubricant of power. The real goal
of power is always power. Consolidating production allows for total
control through the moral argument of rationing, whether through
resource redistribution or cap and trade.
The politicians of a rationing society may blather on endlessly about
increasing production, but it's so much noise, whether it's a Soviet
Five Year Plan or an Obama State of the Union Address. When they talk
about innovation and production, what they mean is the planned
production and innovation that they have decided should happen on their
schedule. And that never works.
You can ration production, but that's just another word for poverty. You
can't ration innovation, which is why the aggressive attempts to put
low mileage cars on the road have failed. As the Soviet Union
discovered, you can have rationing or innovation, but you can't have
both at the same time. The total control exerted by a monolithic entity,
whether governmental or commercial, does not mix well with innovation.
The rationing society is a poverty generator because not only does it
discourage growth, its rationing mechanisms impoverish existing
production with massive overhead. The process of rationing existing
production requires a bureaucracy for planning, collecting and
distributing that production that begins at a ratio of the production
and then increases without regard to the limitations of that production.
Paradoxically the rationing infrastructure increases in direct
proportion to the falloff of production as lower production requires
even greater rationing. This is what we are seeing now in the United
States, in a weak economy, there is greater justification for the
expansion of rationing mechanisms. And the worse the economy becomes,
the bigger government will become to "compensate" for the problems of
the economy.
In a production society, the role of government is to expand the
territories of exploitation and to protect those territories. In a
rationing society, the role of government is to control the available
quantities of production with a view to distributing them fairly.
Naturally, the rationers, as always, get the best rations. In a
production society, government is a means of protecting everyone's
ability to produce. In a rationing society, government prevents the
bigger from grabbing the rations of the smaller and protects everyone
from grabbing all the rations at once and starving to death.
The sort of society we have is fit for passengers adrift at sea on a
lifeboat parceling out their last crackers. It is an emergency society
for the lost and the starving. And perversely we are starving amidst
plenty.
The rationing society discourages people from farming and encourages
them to peer in each other's mouths to see who is eating more than his
fair share. In the rationing society everyone is certain that they are
not getting their fair share and eager to sign on to initiatives to get
their group's fair share. In a rationing society everyone is an informer
because everyone's livelihood depends on informing on others.
In a production society, people compete for production. In a rationing
society, people compete for entitlements. Everyone is always bitter and
suspicious in a rationing society, and when they aren't, they're
resigned and phlegmatic. They either accept that life is unfair or they
rave against it. They are either jealous or give up on material things
entirely making their society into a comprehensive failure.
I met a man once who told me that his greatest dream was to be feasting
at a full table while outside hungry people pass by and look longingly
through the window. This is the type of mindset that a rationing society
produces. Its denizens instinctively absorb the idea that resources are
finite and their competitiveness takes place at a zero sum level that
is incomprehensible in any open society.
In a rationing society, people are certain that if another has
something, then he came by it unfairly. And every group has an
exaggerated sense of the material prosperity of other groups. This is
not a bug, it is a feature. The rationing society deliberately
cultivates a sense of unfairness to make it clear that individual
efforts are meaningless and the only thing that matters is one's
connections to the rationers and the degree of mutual support from the
group for the rationers and the rationers for the group.
Individual initiative is discouraged by a web of bureaucracy to make it
difficult for individuals to act outside the plan. In a monopolistic
system, rules and permits make it difficult for the individual to move
forward. The permit regime also promotes corruption which makes honest
enterprise almost impossible. Through these means the system restrains
the micro, which is ordinarily too small to be properly controlled,
while focusing on the macro.
The rationing of present day America, which has the resources, the
wealth and the techniques to produce, is being managed in political
terms. The politicians still talk in terms of innovation and production,
even while enacting policies meant to discourage both. The dominant
political class has been dedicated to one form of rationing or another
throughout the 20th Century. The only difference between them is the
degree of radicalism and their understanding that the rationing is a
transition, rather than a safety net or an emergency measure.
When you listen to the larger message of the left, it is one of finity.
We have a finite amount of planetary resources and domestic wealth. This
finity represents a global and national crisis that has to be tackled
with rationing mechanisms. We are all on a lifeboat and some of us are
gobbling up more than their fair share of rations. Unless the rationers
step forward, seize everyone's rations and pass out limited rations,
then we are all doomed.
The essential 21st Century conflict is between the rationers and the
producers. This is not a class conflict, that is the fallacy that the
left has fallen into for over a century. It is a conflict between a
system of bureaucratic collectivism and a society of individuals. It is
not a conflict between the rich and the poor, the majority of the
rationers are either rich or close enough to it. Their charges may be
poor, but the representatives of their victim groups invariably become
rich. The rationer camp us funded by some of the wealthiest men and
companies in America who agree with its premise that we need to ration
everything from children to jobs to food to carbon emissions.
This is a fundamental philosophical conflict between those who believe
in a free society and those who believe in a managed society. It is not
simply a conflict between capitalism and socialism, many of the
capitalists are on the side of the rationers because they agree with
them or profit from the rationing. It is a conflict that predates the
American Revolution, a conflict that became inevitable with the rise of
the supercity and the closing of the frontier.
This is a struggle between those who believe that people should be
managed and those who believe that people should manage themselves. Our
institutions now depend on a class of managers who fill the ranks of the
institutions of the public and private sector, who produce little, but
whose goal is to make production completely predictable. And we are, in
short, being managed to death.
Scientific management, rather than predicting human variables, has done
its best to make everything predictable, and a perfectly predictable
thing is static. It has no ability to move forward. The drive to make
the behavior of people predictable has led to the institutionalism of
every aspect of life. And that has led to rationing programs that depend
on predictability, and when that predictability fails,respond with
greater efforts at control.
A production society defines achievement in terms of production. A
rationing society defines it in terms of control. In a rationing
society, it is possible to starve amidst plenty because the rationers
would rather see people starve, than lose control over them.
No comments:
Post a Comment