Consider this a sequel to my previous piece The Future of Democracy.
I am not a George Soros fan, but I think in a recent speech ahead of the Beijing Olympics, he perfectly summed up the difference between “open” and “closed” societies: “In an open society, the role of the state is to protect the freedom of the individual. In a closed society, the role of the individual is to serve the rulers of the state.”
Ideologically, one can argue there is no right or wrong between these two types of societies. An individual conditioned by millennia of culture to believe the state is more important than the family, and the family is more important than the individual, may be perfectly happy with his/her role in a closed society — to unquestioningly serve the rulers of the state, first and foremost. Why sell unbridled individual freedom to him/her? He/she likely won’t know what to do with it!
Systemically, however, I posit each of these societies, when allowed to advance unabated, reaches a point where inherent weaknesses significantly outweigh strengths, thereby bringing it to the brink of failure. We have already witnessed failure of the former Soviet Union after decades of economic stagnation from mis-allocation of resources (under central planning which was insensitive to market needs) that resulted in shortages, price inflation and mass misery. Attempts by Gorbachev to transition to a semi-open society failed, exacerbated by the chaotic dissolution of the former Union into 15 independent states. Failure to reform/transform aside, the takeaway is, an autocratic and repressive closed society is unsustainable in the long run because it engenders a “yes man” regime (messengers of bad news get shot!). Market signals are filtered from the the ruler(s) in a timely manner to meet the people’s needs. When the people increasingly feel failed, they are much less inclined to “serve the rulers of the state”.
The $64K question then becomes “Are open societies sustainable in the long run?” “The American Experiment”, after all, is only a short 244 years old so the jury is still out. But cracks already appear. Yes, America’s open society unleashes immense creative and innovative energy. But unregulated, the energy has also given birth to a monster, — Big Enterprise (think of Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon et al as a collection of new age feudal lords) that dictates state policies (through lobbying) and engenders not only back-breaking wealth and opportunity disparities, but potentially an environment of culling, surveillance, control, and exploitation from which the populace cannot escape. The state will then be shown to have failed in its role to “protect the freedom of the individual” as the open society morphs into a closed society (controlled by some combination of state and Big Enterprise). It does so not by structural design but by human nature: Unregulated, sociopaths rise to the top in any kind of society — as modern history attests. And they have to maintain control in order to keep manipulating, exploiting, and repressing. If “soft” control stops working (i.e. invites protests and chaos) in an open society, then they’ll move toward “harder” control and a more closed society. Open societies find ways to deal with chaos, but preserve freedom at all cost. Closed societies always provide order as an excuse to take away freedom.
As noted in my past writings, the “democracy vs communism” meme is (intentionally?) misleading (the comparison should be capitalism vs communism anyway). There is no democracy per se. There never has been, since ancient Athens days. There is only plutocracy, — in both open and closed societies. In the American open society, plutocracy takes the form of corporatocracy, — where corporations control the state. In China’s closed society, plutocracy takes the form of autocracy, where the state control corporations. In the end, both are headed to the same place — systemic collapse due to sociopathic plutocrats “failing” the populace.
So what can be done for the American open society to avoid such fate? REGULATE! We live in Gilded Age 2.0 (read: a 4th Turning) now where sociopaths reign supreme (once again). We, more than ever, need another Teddy Roosevelt now to restore sound regulations that had been done away with since JFK, by a series of POTUS’s of both parties, — especially Clinton (he repealed the Glass-Steagall Act and systematically de-fanged the FDIC and SEC). The “fittest” in the animal kingdom is the most ruthless predator. The fittest in human society is the most charming sociopath. Both need to be curbed to maintain balance and ensure survival of the system.
