A major problem
encountered by most politics, religions, and philosophies is the
stubborn refusal of the universe and its inhabitants,
in all their glorious variety, to conform, either as
individuals or as a society, to neatly preconceived
ideals. In their pure textbook forms,
capitalism, communism, democracy, libertarianism,
socialism and others, as well as assorted religious
value systems, might appear beyond question. But in practice,
they break down for various
reasons.
Each system has its
merits and faults, strengths and weaknesses.
The trick is to develop an effective blend of
disciplines, such that each is applied where it
provides the most benefit, while being
moderated—prevented from running out of
control—by counterbalancing forces.
Communism, for example, has much theoretical appeal
to the economically disadvantaged and exploited, but
rapidly stagnates for lack of personal incentive, and
in practice has had to rely heavily on coercion to
function at all. Meanwhile capitalism, for all
its benefits and incentives, lends itself easily to
abuse (depletion of resources, unchecked pollution,
disregard of public safety and health, exploitation
of workers, cutthroat competition, severe economic
fluctuation, exaggerated economic stratification and
resulting social instability, for example) if allowed
to run without restraint or regulation.
Simple
systems often look good on paper, and are thus
immensely appealing. Philosophies as diverse as
those of Karl Marx and Ayn Rand have attracted
adherents as fanatically devoted as religious
disciples. Indeed, some simple schemes actually
work quite well in practice for a while.
However, without compensation mechanisms, simple
systems tend to accumulate imbalances. Running
without adequate feedback, a tyranny (whether of men
or of ideals) becomes entrenched and unresponsive to
evolving conditions and human need. Despite the
widespread appeal of simplicity, the lesson of
history is that the regurgitation of a set of
rote-learned ideas is insufficient to address the
complexity of real-world human concerns.
On the other hand, many
people reject any degree of complexity as beyond
their comprehension, and hence regard it with extreme
suspicion and (sometimes deserved)
mistrust. An intricate arrangement of multiple,
counterbalanced disciplines is distinctly unappealing
to the black-and-white mind of the ideologue. A
complex, self-regulating system which actually works
in practice demands of its builders and administrators a
comprehensive understanding of multiple factors,
practical formulation and implementation of
processes, and thoughtful (and honest) evaluation of
results. Its principles will not fit neatly on
a bumper-sticker. Its ideals cannot be parroted
in a three-syllable rally chant. Its benefits,
conditions, and obligations cannot be explained in a
few broadcast sound-bytes. Furthermore, in
operation a complex system (especially one with human
machinery) tends to be disappointingly inefficient,
rarely exhibiting anything approaching perfect
synchrony. And when things go wrong it is not
always easy to figure out precisely what needs
fixing. But where people's lives and well-being
are concerned, the inefficiency of a complex yet
responsive system is preferable to the false
efficiency of a simple tyranny, which makes no
allowance for real-world problems, and which
consequently must undergo periodic episodes of
catastrophic failure and painful rebuilding.
A practical system that
actually works, which responds and adapts, and which
continues to work more-or-less reliably and fairly as
a result, is necessarily more complex and than a single,
simplistic, one-size-fits-all philosophy. But
so are people—the very beings who are presumably to benefit from
such a system. So, the question boils down to this: Do we want
systems that are simple, or do we want systems that work? In a
majority of cases, we cannot have both, and the ones that do not
work would seem a waste of our time and effort, and sometimes even a
threat to our well-being.. This is not to say that complexity
is good for complexity's sake. All other things being equal,
simplicity is preferable to complexity. The problem is that in
the real world, those other things are seldom equal. And when
simplicity cannot cope, it becomes part of the problem rather than
the solution.
=SAJ=