7 Bn Entrepreneur World ? (unedited version).8 min reading
Summary
We may be in a 1% Vs 1% World. The 1 % gunning for status-quo and the 1% pushing for change.
Every human being is a micro-state, a micro-entrepreneur and a micro-society.
Corporations being somewhat like "private government"
No value exists in isolation…no value is an island unto itself
Fundamental ideas around value itself, and what is it and how it is created and how it can be shared in a more fairer way
Human being…who has been sometimes boxed as social animal…sometimes as economic animal and sometimes political animal…the truth is that we are all three and more
Francis Fukuyama-Stanford; Ian Shapiro-Yale; Elizabeth Anderson- University Michigan; Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Hungarian-American Psychologist; Marianna Mazzucato-University College-London
In the 1992 book 'The End of History and The Last Man", Stanford Scholar Francis Fukuyama claims, not that the events will stop occurring in the future, but rather that all that will happen in the future (even if totalitarianism returns), is that democracy will become more and more prevalent in the long term, although it may suffer "temporary" setbacks. Obviously at the time, he may have been largely comparing the American Model and the Russian Model with many other historical experiments, as possible routes for change and progress. But today, we have an additional Chinese Model.
All three have distinct ways in which the collective power is gathered or assumed, and is legitimized and operated through. And then there is the distributions of resources, opportunities and outcomes that are different in each of these countries.
In some sense, both state and the market could be tried to be seen as without going into saying that they are somehow very distinct, and seeing them as feedback loops for different forms of freedom/power. Each of them could have different instrumentality and intentions. Just as an example: money has a different fungibility than vote. The span-scale of the impact of decisions around money are different from vote.
There is a popular way in which we use terms like entrepreneur, employee, citizen and various social role-names. In some deeper sense, everyone is an entrepreneur already. In the sense, that each one has to figure out their own ways of dealing with reciprocal relationships (give and take) across political or economic or social systems. And figure out ways to grab or negotiate or part with resources, opportunities and outcomes. Every human being is a micro-state, a micro-entrepreneur and a micro-society. There is one way in which it is already the case. There is another way in which its ethos does not reflect in the lived reality. And that gap is at the heart of an invitation to reimagine. Also one is not oversimplifying the success and debacles of the past experiments of democracy and socialism-communism-fascism. And one is not ignorant to the question that does #7bnEntrepreneur then not sound like #DemocraticCapitalism? …and the answer is NO!. What we need is to examine the features of the past and the on-going, and experiment further, rather than incremental shifts in the status-quo.
However, this for another day...
As "democracy is to state", what is its equivalent to the "market"?
Let's try and nuance "democracy" a bit more.
In some raw sense, democracy popularly is seen as an idea that affords "power-through-vote" to everyone...distributed power or decentralized power. A more nuanced version could be seen as a shift away from maladaptive forms of concentration of power towards adaptive forms of de-concentration of power, in a way that enables adaptive forms of collection/creation of power, adaptive forms of transition of power from one to another (whatever and how many so ever), and adaptive forms of accountability of power.
In Ian Shapiro's (Yale University) lecture series on Political Philosophy, he remarks that we then give this power (through vote) over to a collective (government) so that they can assert this power over us, albeit adhering to a constitution.
However, the assertion can go stray and does go stray. This gives rise to "oppressions" and "unfairnesses" and related perception, or sometimes propaganda-izing of it...something on lines of what Max Weber mentioned almost a 100 years ago.
Revolution (toppling over), repression (subduing) and resolution (negotiated) then keeps moving in non-sequential cycles. There is constant tug-and-tinker of power between different interest groups, for allocation of various ideas/status/resources. There is constant tug-and-tinker within a group for allocation of various ideas/status/resources.
Lets turn gaze to the economic world now.
Some years back, while doing a social experiment we went upto 1200 persons, and had long conversations with them on various aspects of life and existence. There were only a few persons who were self-motivated and hopeful. Most others were burdened by the disengagement at work and dysfunctions in their various relationships at work and personal life. A substantial number seemed to have resigned to ever see big change. But there were others who had heightened expectations from some charismatic leaders or some masterstrokes that would somehow wand them into paradise.
What is this disengagement really?
On further nuancing, we feel it has to do with aspects of: not having adequate voice, alienation to work, unmanageable politics in personal/professional relationships, unfairness in opportunities and outcomes, lack of sense of mastery (or a wrongful sense of mastery) and many more.
So is it the case what Elizabeth Anderson, University of Michigan, describes the situation being the result of corporations being somewhat like "private government" ? Where employees feel oppressed, or small vendors feel bullied, or monopolies engage in anti-competition practices, and so on. And would it then mean that such forms of organization breed only various resentments over time for many, while flow experiences (Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Hungarian-American Psychologist) are only for a few.
The answer lies somewhere in the overlapping consensus of "i want to do everything as i want to do" and "i will do everything as you say or the collective say and want".
This need for wanting to have freedom and/or have fair share of the economic pie and/or make an impact or impression or expression in some way, have been at the hallmark of many a persons plunging into forming their own startups. However, caution here is whispering to us again, "are startups paying adequate awareness to not becoming the breeding ground for more resentment much like many corporations they disenchant?" Or even people who keep jumping companies to companies in search of a dream boss or dream team or just enjoying the dreams as they straddle along.
This need for a new debate for fair share is also echoing through the works of Marianna Mazzucato, Founder and director of the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. She is trying to make the case that the various individual successes in businesses, being so much on the back of tax-payer paid basic research and various government programs. And the fundamental resources and public infrastructure without which nothing can even begin.
And actually to add to all this, how do we even begin to measure the ease with which the so called disruptors are trying to displace the various markets and various processes and the various experiments of millions of humans over years or centuries. What about the individuals and teams that experimented with previous products and services. And how their involvement as employees, as citizen, as customers kept the underlying platform (in the physical world, and then in the digital #Web1.0 or #Web2.0) of various experiments alive.
And if those experiments wouldn’t have happened, what would the disruptors disrupt in the first place today? In the name of “better product” or “convenience” or “progress”? are we not saying that we value this more than that? And who would have an objection to it? But you see, no value exists in isolation…no value is an island unto itself. Values have trade-offs too. One is not proposing the halting of the innovation bogey, but one is exhorting for turning the engines on to explore its impact on the values bogey. …the various #ValuesDissonance.
At this point, the Darwinist warriors might go for my jugular. Pulling out their bumper sticker of survival of the fittest and you are on your own and its a dog eat dog or scratch my back world.
And my only question to ask is if there is a difference between animals and humans? And if we want to harness that in some manner and purpose? And maybe i do not know something. Maybe I am wrong. And maybe you could say that all the progress and its fruits that’s enabling/disabling differently different individuals/groups are already a difference between animals and humans. Animals, after all, haven’t gone to space…not that we know of. They have certainly not made a written constitution…not that we know of. And so on. But then, are these the right questions? or there are better ones? Or there is fundamental flaw in pitting animals vs humans ?
The thing is that questions and answers have a span-scale of impact. Impact over individuals, groups, and various units of observations. Some questions and answers might require a different way of asking-answering them, but our ever-pacing treadmill might not be affording those conversations.
We can only hope and wish that various existing instruments of power concentration and power-in-check will have some discontinuity of the brutal.
I am reminded of Peter Thiel’s invocation about little progress that he sees in the world of atom, while blockbustering in the world of bits. I would reframe it to suggest that our arrangements in social systems are operating at Social Systems 1.0 while both bits and atoms are brisking to create Economy 4.0 or Web 3.0 or #Metaverse.
And its an invitation to reimagine. We may be in a 1% Vs 1% World. The 1 % gunning for status-quo and the 1% pushing for change. Of course, both the 1% have their own internal competitions and co-operation games, that may differ in the ways and extent to maintain status-quo or change. And then, of course, the rest of the individuals fall into various interest groups or cause groups led by these 2%….theoretically.
As Mariana says that economics has surprisingly ( i read surreptitiously) moved the concept of fundamental values out of the Econ 101 or the introductory courses. Where people could have otherwise contested the fundamental ideas around value itself, and what is it and how it is created and how it can be shared in a more fairer way? One of the most lamest or the canon argument that one hears as a pushback to this is as follows: perhaps this is the best we could do…perhaps the alternative is just some fictional romantic utopia…perhaps we are good at some decision making that has somewhat reliable and valid measurability and then we should leave the rest to people and groups to negotiate…
The heightened level of disengagement with work, the growing distrust in leaders and institutions, the thickening of echo chambers, the various pending and ever-growing contestation of rights, are all boding towards an inflection point.
And yes of course, one is aware of the arguments made by Steven Pinker in #TheEnlightenmentNow , the case for reason, science, humanism and progress. There are certainly many indicators of progress.
And yes, one can look at the #StevenPinker camp versus the #ThomasPiketty camp. Piketty, among other things, making the case for the rise and rise of inequality.
And these argumentation in favor of one or the other, the questions or the camps are not just fiction or propaganda. While there are too, many. But, there are also genuine believers. And they are experimenting in different ways.
Some see progress or growth as given or the arc, and then believe in the power of human enterprise and technology to solve the challenges. Some challenge the whole notion of progress or growth itself. Some believe in the idea of self-moderation or purpose or meaning. Some promote the idea of human potential through experimentations and augmentations. And so on.
#7BnEntrepreneur is a Moonshot idea. More of a metaphor. And so is #7BnMonk. And then some would come along and ask, why not #7BnMonkEntrepreneurs or #7BnMonkWarriors …
We need #SearchDialogueAction around various aspects of a human being…who has been sometimes boxed as social animal…sometimes as economic animal and sometimes political animal…sometimes as potential…sometimes as just a blip in evolution towards transhuman…
the truth is i believe in pursuing further #SearchDialogueAction…and meanwhile hold my understanding and actions guided by it, with humility, gratitude, forgiveness, awe. And this by no means is a compromise or a unique proposal.
...to be continued
