Business & Ideologies

One of the most important issues completely ignored both by managers and the general public is the role of ideologies in business or the role business plays in spreading very specific ideologies.

Ideologies do play a central role in the organizational aspect of companies – something that is also almost completely ignored or is fully confused with mechanical processes. In fact, thinking that artificial, mechanical processes, that are merely the fantasies of unqualified specialists, constitute the organization, is an absurdity that speaks volumes about the dominating weltanschauung that serves as a foundation for the ideologies and actions of managers. The absurdity lies in the fact that a mechanical organization contains an inner contradiction: it’s an impossibility. Companies as they subsist today, are simply not organizations.

Philosophically we can depict two polar positions: naive realism and subjective idealism, the former serving as the de facto weltanschauung of all managers, the latter as the weltanschauung of the greatest leaders in the history of mankind. Naive realism has managed to produce companies only – a grotesque parody of organic organizations. Subjective idealism has produced organic states and societies; empires that have lasted for thousands, later, as the quality of people deteriorated, “only” for hundreds of years.

A characteristic specimen of naive realism is the celebrated manager Elon Musk, or the transhumanist Ray Kurzweil; although we could have picked practically any manager from Silicon Valley firms or from global corporations, we picked these two because of their “leading” role in selling naive realism as an ideology.

False ideologies are only able to support false agendas and they relate to the Truth with corruption. They lie even when they’re honest and they can’t escape an inner contradiction that is recognizable in everything they do: they claim to be pacifist but they are combatant to an irrational degree, they aggressively demand tolerance and diversity but they ruthlessly marginalize or eliminate different views, they hate the concept of elitism (their own necessarily grotesque concept of it that is) but they arrogantly marginalize everybody outside of their own bubble, they “value” intelligence but they confuse it with IQ, they “value” people but humiliate them as assets, resources or capital; the list continues.

The recent jerk – reactions from the managers and investors in Silicon Valley to Trump’s specific moves or to Trump simply being elected is a testament to all of the above.

We won’t deal with Trump here, but can’t not notice the irony of the situation since Trump represents the same weltanschauung as his opponents, ultimately both of them serving ideologies that, without a well-articulated world-view, neither of them understands, or want to understand: rolling up the sleeves and getting busy INSTEAD OF thinking, or as they say, instead of “philosophizing” is characteristic of both. By serving ideologies they don’t understand, they, unavoidably, are serving interests that are using such ideologies, without being aware.

One last note, offering for those interested, a 180 degree different view on organizations in the business domain: a company’s purpose is to offer the chance of self-realization for people. Once this is accepted and “done”, all absurd statements about people in business will become superfluous and political deviations will lose their foundation.

Advertisements

You don’t have people, little man!

The problem of Business behaving as a psychopath is not new; yet: nobody cares.

Psychopathic behavior is subtly encouraged in business talk; it’s quite surprising that instances of “accepted arrogance” don’t get challenged. One such instance is when self proclaimed leaders talk about their people.

You don’t have a team, you don’t have employees and of course, you don’t have any people. Period!

You must change this mentality before you talk about organic concepts like culture or values.

Authentic thought vs thought leadership

There is a clear deficit of authenticity in the intellectual domain. We see the devastating consequences of this deficit in politics, in arts, in the business domain and of course in academia.

How to fix this:

  • don’t read stuff you’re not interesting in!
  • write about stuff you’re interested in, before you read stuff on the topic; in other words think without support!
  • once you stand on your own feet, check others’ opinions and take

Following this approach you may re-evaluate your initial position a couple of times, but you’ll always remain authentic.

What has lead to the wide spread authenticity deficit in the intellectual domain is the opposite approach:

  • pick a profitable domain
  • study what the most successful people are saying
  • repeat what they say (even how they say it)

The repulsive thing about this is not the approach per se, but how those who propagate this approach usurp decision making positions.

Read more on this (if you’re done your homework) in Critical Thinking?

Feel free to get in touch if you want to talk!

 

Aslop, Musk – quantitative power foreplay

model-x-live-stream

“Most people are infantile until about the midpoint of their lives, that is until the age of thirty-six, and immediately after that from one day to another grow senile” (Andras Laszlo, Solum Ipsum).

Perhaps the quote above captures best the spiritual and intellectual (not in an academic sense) state of affairs of our times. Celebrities -who took the place of heroes of previous eras-, being ahead a step or two, may be observed as indicators of where the mass is heading.

The mass is undifferentiated and highly conditioned; it culminates in the bizarre phenomenon of consumers (that replaced the “vulgus”, which had previously replaced the “populus” in a process of involution) : they want the same things and they want them the same way. The differences between the individuals are purely quantitative: some want more, some get more.

The reason why we deal with this stupid story (Aslop is an investor who wants to buy a new toy. He gets invited to an event where they present the toy. At the event things don’t go perfect and consumer egos get bruised so he blogs about it. Musk is the toy-maker who probably gets offended and decides not to sell the toy to Aslop) is because it shows some subtle, but important “developments”.

Aslop, the hurt consumer is actually kissing Musk’s ass in his blogs, trying to show quite desperately that he’s still a fan; the note has an “I am so sorry” undertone, that – in lack of any other points expressed- seems to be its actual purpose. Of course consumerism is possible precisely because principles are missing, so it would be curious to see poise and pride in anything that is related to consumers both on the sell and the buy side (think about black Friday or boxing day for example).

The subtle new development is the emerging power play. Aslop isn’t submissive because he wants the toy that bad but because he’s afraid of Musk. Musk has more, and more (quantities) dominates. He could have run with the ball damasking the infantile character of Musk’s move and emphasizing that it’s not money (including the achievements preceding it) and toys but virtues that deserve respect. Instead, he went the opposite way, not exceeding the level of a customer who complains about bad potatoes.

The mass is incapable of recognizing qualities and the toy-makers appeal precisely to this void (can you make an Iphone? Then shut up and buy a new one). The I have more card is being played more and more often. It’s worrisome to think about what would happen if the spoiled tech kids would follow Trump’s move and stepped out of the background and crossed over to politics openly.

Realistically speaking this move must be anticipated in the near future.