Breaking the Iron Cage

Institutions all around us are in place to provide for us. We depend on them for livelihood and they depend on us to function. We are really simply a cog in this huge machine that is an institution and only few of us are really free and in control of the machine we are in. A metaphorical way to explain a typical metropolis setting is to vision ourselves as climbing a ladder. The ultimate goal is to reach the top, but yet reaching the top have so many limits and so many requirements that it is impossible for us to reach it. This type of system is enregistered in our own language and used to describe a typical white collared worker as “Climbing the Corporate Ladder.”

Only the chosen and select few would eventually be able to reach the top. The notion is encapsulated in a book I particularly like, The Great Gatsby. Who are these people? They are either the people who had already been at the top due to their inherited social standing, and is kept there due to the measures and structures that was already in place to protect them from going down or being part of the system, and the exceptional few who have gumption, talent and courage to achieve what is impossible. The Jay Gatsby’s of the world. The point is, the only way one can be free of the institutionalized bureaucratic ladder is to challenge it. Men do not have so much as a sniff of time to be able to achieve that, and that, ultimately is the infuriating nature of the system. You cannot succeed, just accept it. The good point is, the system do reward and provide us for what we give to the system. In that sense, we can survive, albeit barely. However, the more we receive and get and the more freedom we “achieve” with being higher up the ladder, the more crippling barriers and cages we will face.

An easy example is consumption. When your “acquired” (rewarded is a much better term) wealth increases, consumption increases. Debt increases. Debt is the modern devil’s invention to make someone pay for an obligatory right. It is a currency all on its own. You institutionalise land, you give a value to it; people pay rent and buy land. You institutionalize food, people pay for the consumption of food. You institutionalize labour, you pay for the labour. There are forces who are claiming and dividing up obligatory rights for personal profits or gains. Creating debt in housing and food and giving them value to fight for. That is what debt does and it is how the modern institution is based on. Everyone is in debt the moment they live in the society and to survive or to have better “living”, you join the ranks of the bureaucratic system to clear your debt in society. Everyone is owing someone else the moment they are born!

But the postive aspect about the system is that it appears to be the only way we can survive. By providing an urgency to “earn” your right to survive, we force people to work, sometimes unwillingly and in jobs they do not want. Every work or job do require effort such as building houses and finding food. Human nature, if given a choice, would not want to do work. Wanting so much yet wishing to do little is a perfect reflection of the bureaucratic system we now live in. Jason Silva mentioned this in one of his videos. He mentioned that what is inside our head, we create and what we create, in turn, creates us. We are our own demons, our own ouroboros. The old saying "Reap what you sow" hits home with its message; perhaps making a mockery of our current modern situation. We created our own iron cage. Ironically in this system, those who deserves to be at the bottom really do deserve to be at the bottom because they fail to grasp the challenges and barriers set by the upper echelons to determine the survival of mankind. However, the system also do unjustly discriminate and tend to create unproductive barriers which limits human potential and that is where the system should be carefully assessed and be corrected in order to serve its once reasonable purpose.

At this point, I would like to consider another perspective. Why should the upper echelons even care to stratify society in such a way? What inherent power were they bestowed which entails  them to judge mankind as they seem fit? Why must there be control and what happens when they are not in control? What I am trying to propagate is that each and every person have this potential to do whatever they want and be whoever they want. We can adapt to any challenges and situations. If mankind were to be left on its own, we would eventually learn to be more dependent and productive each as an individual. Yes, there are slackers and freeloaders who do not deserve the equal treatment of a progressive and comfortable society. That is why I would propose a segregration of Society into smaller units in isolated contact where the natural challenges one face would instil a need to be more dependent and work for their own survival, not as a cog in a machine but for everything else which makes the person a "human".

 Those in the lower rungs of the current society would first feel the difficulty in this kinds of society as they have been a specialised unit of production most of their life. Eventually, I assume, there is only two ways in which they would end up. One, annihilation of the population due to their own hands and two, the sudden urgency to change things for the better. The second is the ultimate goal. Once this awakening of urgency to work for yourself emerge, then it is time for innovation and welfare building. A prehistoric community can emerge out of just this will to survive and as people find different ways to adapt to their unique situations, a community culture will develop. Outside help will then be able to intervene and assist them to bring the emerging society to a higher standard of living with the implementation of new technologies. To create an egalitarian society, everyone must be on an equal footing and desire at the start thus people have to be left to their own communities. They have to build their own communities and have a sense of ownership of their own commmunity and this would prevent meaningless "identity" and "superiority" disputes. We should not compare and control more than what we “care” for. In this way, I believe people should exist in a Socialistic small-sized Communities.

This new system would rely solely on altruism, what Adam Smith, the economist of Invisible Hand fame, had always envisioned. The only way men can live is really to work for and with his own people. Bureaucracy may provide structure, but so does dependence on a "community". The current bureacratic system have a heavy reliance on power and competition. This sometimes turn people against the other which accounts for many unproductive disputes. We can turn that drive instead for the progress of the community as a whole. For example, there is the ongoing arms race with every countries having a need for a military "just in case" of a potential outbreak of war. This waste of technological advances can be put instead into furthering the quality of living of mankind. For us to do that, we must be able to rely and trust ourselves. Another reason why a community way of living is better than the bureacratic system is that there would be a lot lesser disputes. People who have the same history and face the same type of problems on a daily basis are in a better position to decide for themselves how things should be managed in their own community thus there would be less diverse ideologies and unapplicable and unorganic methods to impose onto the community. Lesser differences among people would result in lesser disputes. Lastly, on the individual scale, each individual would have an unrestricted role as to how they can contribute to society and live their own lives without the pressure of debts or influence.

How could a Community based Society exist in the world? Firstly, we have to dismantle the bureacratic systems in society. That also means we have to forgo the structure of countries, nations and governance and even cities. People will then be allocated into isolated communities all around the world and made available to them resources and expertise for self-sustainability. I read an interesting viewpoint from a book "What is your dangerous Idea?"  which is a compilation of interesting ideas from various experts, that Earth is really big and comfortable enough for everyone. While global warming might change landscapes to be inhabitable, it is a human obligatory right to move away from these inhabitable sites and settle on greener pastures. The Earth is big enough for us to share. Thus, we can allocate people into habitable Communities.

Secondly, an organisation must be available to keep these communities in check (to ensure compliance to the spirit of the Community and no revival of forms of Subjugation or "superiority") and to ensure the communities be able to function as a whole on its own (sustainable). The communities would first remain isolated until an organic independent structure is established. Once the community is established with their own culture and way of life, outside advocacy will come in to equip these communities with the technologies and upgrades we already find in the comfort of our metropolitan states. They can then become integrated as dependent societies not bound to a global system, a type of nationhood identity but without the need for diplomacy. All the rapid expansion of the Industrial and Technological era is not for waste for they are used to serve a better system in the future. We now have organic sustainable societies which are technologically advanced! As a Community, though there must be restriction to migration and limits to travelling (to prevent such ill traits of the current bureaucratic system), there must still be allocated time to travel to other communities. This would benefit the communities and individuals as it soughts to widen each individuals horizons and in turn, they might appreciate and  be respectful of the different communities abroad. They may even want to introduce practices innovated by some other communities (on their own initiative, not by force) into their own communities.

All this would be impossible to take place in an instance. The huge buildings in cities would be rendered obsolete and so will the huge factories. It would take time to disperse people. There might also be the case of time-consuming debates about forgoing globalisation or the morality of isolating cultures. There are endless ways of how things can grow awry. One way to implement this system is to perhaps first allocate people into trial Communities and then see the success of these communities. The systematic cleansing of cities and urban slums would be the next step of the process. With this, the essence of bureacracy would be demolished.

People will live to their potential, not as cogs and specialised robots, but as humans. That is the new reality of change towards an altruistic system.