Rusted Sky

Every so often, I lose one of the tools I carry around for work. Then I've got to replace it - and although it's not difficult to find replacements, it does carry an annoyance factor. (Nope - the company doesn't provide tools, nor is there a tool allowance. But hey, $10 or so every year I can live with...)

I don't carry much - I can get by pretty well with just a standard 12-bit multi-tip driver with extension, a flashlight, and a 6" adjustable wrench, and a small wirecutter for zip ties. But the driver's got to be a certain length, about 7" or shorter, and the flashlight the same length. I don't use all the tips - a #2 and #0 Phillips, a medium flat screwdriver tip, a T15 and T20 fit most of my needs, but occasionally the other tips come in useful.

Recently, I misplaced the driver I carry around and hit a local hardware store for a replacement. Their selection was pretty much worthless - I can appreciate the utility of a 12" scrrewdriver/multi-tip set, but it's not suitable for my needs. On the other end of the spectrum, they had a small 4-bit multi-tip with extension that was TOO small... but I could make do with it until I found something better.

"Better" was found later in the day at Home Depot - a 6 bit multi-tip... but no extension. Well, it kind of irked me to carry two screwdrivers around, but I could cope.

Saturday I found something ALMOST perfect. Sturdy, heavy-duty, and with the bits and extension I needed... and even in a color I liked. But note the solid aluminum construction - if I'm working on the innards of a printer and have to have the power on (rare, but it happens) I don't like the idea of the tool I'm using being a great conductor.

Every one of the tools I could get had drawbacks. None really insurmountable, but annoying and aggravating. None of them anything I'd want to be FORCED to use - but sufficent until something better comes along. And what I think are good qualities for something I'll be carrying around might cause the items I carry to be rejected by someone else. There is no 'perfect tool' - it depends on the needs of the user and the job to be done.

Now - take a look at the major political ideas of the last century. There was Democracy in the West. Marxism in Russia, Socialism in China, the Aryan ideology of Hitler, the militant Shintoism Japan, various cults of personalities scattered here and there - and aside from Democracy, none of them worked worth a flip in the long run. They had appealing characteristics which got folks to try them - but the drawbacks kept them from working well. And a lot of the parts couldn't be interchanged - you took the whole package and it worked as it was designed.

Of course, 'worked' is kind of on the variable side. You have to consider the purposes of the people attempting to administer the ideologies involved - I doubt seriously the leadership of the Sopviet Union actually cared much about the people outside the ruling circles, but you've got to consider THEIR point of view. THEY had what they wanted - the perqs opf the office were pretty darn sweet. And if they had to put up with Stalin and Beria, and the KGB, and all the fun and games THAT implied, well, there's drawbacks to everything. They could at least tell themselves they were in the forefront of human social evolution... even if other countries were outproducing them like crazy. Who needs consumer goods when you've got ideology? Or in the case of the various cult-of-personality dictatorships - if you're at the top of the pyramid, as long as you get your goodies, who cares if your peons starve? Consider it feudalism writ large - you've got the baron of the castle, and the peasants who make life good for him. Everything else is irrelevant, unless it keeps you at the top.

Democracy, however - that's a different matter. At the risk of confusing political and economic systems, it's pretty safe to say that capitalism is a financial hallmark of a social structure that's willing to let the people decide their own path, while the centrally planned economies that were emblematic of the Marxist brand of socialism were not designed to let the people pursue what would make them rich - or even well off. (In fact, the conditioning of the people was such that any attempt to get 'rich' (which could be defined as having anything more than what everyone else had) was automatically seen as evidence that you were cheating people around you.)

The other ideologies (indeed, some of the social proposals in the US today) consider the pie to be a fixed size -- there's only so much pie, so get what you can however you can. But in a capitalistic democracy, you don't have to step on someone else to get a larger piece of the pie - you can, instead, go off and make a new one (if you have the talent and drive to carve out a niche for yourself.) and add to the amount of pie available to all.

Socialism and Marxism/Communism in Russia and China attempted to tell people what they needed, and provided what the central planners thought best for all - sort of a 'one size fits none' solution that got the job done in an unsatisfactory manner. The State made the pie, and when it was out, that was that. The people couldn't make more pie - because the State wouldn't let them.

The various dictatorships and cults of personality - well, Cuba's a dirt-poor country, Haiti likewise. Uganda, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and to a lesser extent Burma/Myanmar and Venezuela aren't shining examples of economic success, but you can bet their leaders aren't starving. In that case, the ideological and political tools they're using are quite sucessful - at least for them. The peasants? No, but they can have the satisfaction of knowing their barons aren't hungry. Small pie, lots of people - hey, as long as the misery is shared, that's all that's important.

But why have misery in the first place? Surely the ideals espoused, the bright and shiny promises of Communism/Socialism/Marxism or the inherently more stable situation of having one man in complete charge of a country MUST work better than that old Democracy. Right?

Judging by the record - apparently not.

A tool might appear bright and shiny, the salesman selling it extolling the virtues of that particular implement for your particular purpose - but you've got to be pretty selective in your evaluation in order to get the right tool for the job. The folks who sold Communism sold an iidea - not the actuality. Looking at what happened long-term in the USSR, can you argue that it was a 'better' system for the people than living under the Tsars? (Actually, from what I've read, you very esasily can. However, the Tsar Nicholas II was working at reforming the system, and given time, the nobility would have been rendered much more peasant-friendly. Time, however, was not on their side, and the pace of change was not sufficient. Getting things 'better' is not necessarily 'good enough'.) The tool of the Communist ideology was ALMOST good enough - but it didn't have enough range of utility. It was better than the feudal monarchy it replaced - but it had some pretty severe inherent limitations and imposed restrictions on the people that were almost as bad as the days of the Tsars, and it was much more resistant to change.

Capitalism itself has limitations, as does Democracy. However - so far there hasn't been a more versatile combination that works on both the management and financial sides of a fairly technological society with a large population. I could be wrong - but you're going to have a hard time persuading me of that. Capitalism has some pretty flexible qualities to it, and works well under a variety of social conditions. Communism is pretty inflexible, and requires particular social conditions to work long-term.

In the end - ideas are tools that shape culture, much as a chisel and rasp shape a block of wood. The shape of the culture reflects both the tool and the material - but with the wrong ideas even a thriving and prosperous culture can be brought to ruin.

(I reserve the right to refine the above - my phrasing could be improved...)

J.