Why Capitalism (1): The Pre-Capitalist West

Religion, Business, Canada, ethics, Management, organization, politics, society Comments Off

Oct 292023

Capitalism as Religion is a serialization of a book-length argument that capitalism behaves like religion. And there's something to take from that.

The development—creation and evolution—of Capitalism was hardly preordained. But it is too easy to look backward and conclude that where are now was inevitable. Nothing is inevitable. So why then? The question warrants a look at conditions leading to the birth of capitalism.

We will eventually need to dedicate time to capitalism’s evolution to the present. But before we can begin that important journey, we must return to the context from which capitalism sprung as a response. As an added benefit to understanding something of the human imperatives behind capitalism’s birth, we may come to appreciate that it, too, was (perhaps) a momentary oasis of stability in a long tidal development of human organization, structure, and conduct.

So what were the conditions that incubated what would become capitalism? Before exploring that, a provisional description and definition of capitalism is in order. Provisional because we only need it now for perspective and will elaborate (maybe materially) when the time comes. Moreover, to keep things as contained as much as such a topic can possibly be, we will focus on Europe as the primary Petrie dish for the emergence of this new philosophical, logical, and—as best known and understood—economic ideology.

Capitalism

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the pursuit of profit through market exchange. It is a system in which individuals, rather than the state or collective entities, own and control resources, businesses, and property. This is the original definition. What constitutes a “collective entity” has shifted somewhat. (Yes, I’m looking at you NASDAQ or NYSE-listed share capital corporations.)

Private Property – Individuals and businesses have the right to own and control property. Private property rights allow “individuals” to use, trade, and transfer their property as they see fit, within the limits of the law.
Market Economy – Market mechanisms allocate resources, determine prices, and facilitate economic exchange. Supply and demand forces, not centralized planning, largely determine production levels and the distribution. Buyers and sellers voluntarily transact based on mutual benefit.
Profit Motive – Individuals and businesses are motivated to engage in economic activities to generate income, maximize financial gains, and accumulate wealth. Profit is the incentive for innovation, risk-taking, investment, and entrepreneurship.
Competition – Competition fosters efficiency and drives innovation. It provides consumers with choice and incents producers to improve quality and lower costs.
Limited Government Intervention – Limited government intervention in economic affairs means the state focuses on maintaining rule of law, protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and ensuring fair competition. Individuals and businesses are free to make economic decisions and engage in voluntary transactions unencumbered by government interference.
Profitable Investment and Capital Accumulation – Savings and profits are reinvested in productive enterprises, leading to increased productivity, technological advances, and expanded economic activity. Capital accumulation fuels economic development and higher living standards.
Economic Freedom and Individual Choice – Individuals are free to choose their occupations, enter into contracts, start businesses, and engage in trade. With such individual rights, including the right to own property, one can pursue economic self-interest and enjoy the fruits of one’s labour.

Note that today capitalism can take various forms, accompanied by different degrees of government intervention and regulation. Different countries and societies—and even tribes within societies—may adopt different models of capitalism, combining market principles with varying levels of social welfare policies and regulation. The implementation and characteristics of capitalism can vary across nations and over time.

The development and movement to the capitalism we know were gradual processes over centuries. Many factors and changes in economic conditions contributed to that evolution of capitalism. For now, we shall remain in the pre-capitalist period in Europe and focus on the original version of capitalism.

The Enlightenment

Specialization makes for isolation, which goes a long way to explain why the historical context for capitalism tends toward one that is improbably predominant: economics. I concede that viewing capitalism solely in economic terms is sensible. Capitalism is an economic theory and therefore the forces and conditions that spawned it must also be economic. This is, of course, right. Yet abjectly superficial and, thus, wrong.

In the academy, it apparently required both the development of “interdisciplinary studies” and pioneering work of psychologists that wouldn’t stay in their own lane to wrench economics from its self-exalted pedestal.^[1] All that work, and more, conclusively provided one insight if nothing else: to understand people and economics requires looking beyond economics. And so it should be in a consideration of this economic philosophy called capitalism. Particularly to understand how it came to be.

While there can be no serious dispute that capitalism was a recoil against mercantilist policies in post-Feudal Europe, that part of the story is far too pat. It is insufficient in the same callow way as pretending to understand a 15-round prize fight TKO based on the final round or appreciating Romeo & Juliette solely from Act V.

The big story is that capitalism was one of the final major intellectual outputs of the Enlightenment. This would necessarily support the oft-overlooked aspect of capitalism as philosophical foundation much broader than mere economics. Moreover, that it was built on, reflects, and owes materially to the long period of evolution in thinking that led to it. Any exploration of capitalism and its emergence that gives short shrift to the defining impact of the Enlightenment should be immediately suspect.

There is insufficient space or need, frankly, to interrogate the fulness of what constituted the Age of Enlightenment. For our purpose, here, much of it resolves to a few critical evolutions of “common” thought and attitude that made all the difference. So our survey of this era that arguably began with Descartes (ca 1637) or Newton (ca 1687) and persisted through the start of the French Revolution (1789) will be brief and focused.

Enlightenment Ideals

In hindsight certainly, and maybe even at the time, the dominant developments of the Enlightenment centred on certain obvious ideals. These were generally thwarted desires that bubbled to surface in nearly every aspect of life: political, social, personal, religious, scientific, artistic…

Enlightenment ideals included human happiness, knowledge—both by reasoning and experience, tolerance, fraternity, separation of church and state, constitutional government, progress, natural law, and so forth. So embedded are these in our (Western) daily thought, it is hard to conceive a time when they were impossible dreams and quests. Foremost among these ideals, informing not only Western culture generally but setting the table for capitalism particularly, was liberty.

Liberty can be a malleable word and concept, and served many purposes in this period—as in our own. It tended to be the catch-all expression of desire for freedom of some sort. Freedom from religious dogma; freedom from oppressive monarchy; freedom to rise and achieve; freedom to do as one pleased. It said, as many small children express it, “You’re not the boss of me.”

The millennia preceding the Enlightenment had been one of control and dominion of one sort or another, be that by religious or secular princes. The scientific revolution and both development and dissemination of thoughts and knowledge revealed the artifice of these structures. Liberty was the cri de Coeur that found a place or made a place for itself in all aspects of life of all sorts of people.

There are those who continue to propagate the bankrupt notion that there was a Dark Ages of effectively no forward movement for humanity; that this ended with the Renaissance, Scientific Revolution, and ultimately with the Enlightenment. They are wrong. But that’s for another time. Their underlying point, however, is that the centuries leading to the Enlightenment were a foundation for an evident explosion of thinking.^[2] Thanks in no small part to Guttenberg’s machine, these thoughts were broadly disseminated and fed even more thoughtful advance during the Enlightenment. It’s arguable that this, itself, was liberty and liberating.

Enlightenment Legacy of Ideas and Power Structures

Among the works and authors whose broad contribution to and expansion of Enlightenment ideals is especially notable for our purpose are:

David Hume, Treatise on Human Nature (1740)
Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, Reflections on the Formation and Distribution of Wealth (1766)
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776)

Notice particularly in this radically abbreviated list, two Scots disciples of Frances Hutcheson—Hume and Smith—whose foundational education is humanism not economics. Also, give credit to the many others not on the list that are undoubtedly known to you, but are too distant from capitalism specifically. Thinkers such as Diderot, Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau… All of whom were standing on the shoulders of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, and whose underlying purpose, treatise, and intent was yet generally foundational to capitalist thinking.

For instance, from Locke we inherit, “Life, liberty and property,” which is of a piece with Hobbes’s focus on individual rights. It was, however, Spinoza who undergirded the members of the “Radical Enlightenment” that fomented for individual liberty and democracy. Such was the temper of the time. By the tail end of the Enlightenment, governance and economics that did not harmonize with this burgeoning expectation would have been truly without credit: a wilful act of extreme and broad force to preserve a system or systems ready to be retired.

Conditions In Europe Before Capitalism

If the age of capitalism can be tied to a date, 1776 would be it. This conveniently, but completely independently coincides with the birth of the United States of America. Is there a connection? No doubt on many levels, if not only that they seem to be related outcomes of a universal social recoil.

“Recoil from what?” one might ask.

In a word: plenty. Europe during the 17^th– and 18^th-centuries was a fizzing Petrie dish of resentments and reactions, ambitions and antagonisms. There was a slow rolling change to the zeitgeist economically, geographically, technologically, in governance, in religious faith, industrially, demographically, and—perhaps most importantly, in ideas—or ideologically.

Circumstances such as the decline of feudalism, migration off the farm and its urban centers growth corollary, the emergence of a money economy, and advancements in technology were fertile ground for the development of capitalism. Layer atop that a legal and institutional framework supporting property rights, contract enforcement, and the rule of law to provide stability and security for economic transactions. There was bound to be change, maybe of a predictable type and direction.

This is, of course, not all. The Age of Discovery was barely over. The ideas behind capitalism and the establishment of the USA were children of the Enlightenment. Let us now briefly, thematically survey the most proximate and relevant features of Europe before capitalism.

Agricultural Changes and the Enclosure Movement

This process, which accelerated from the 16^th to the 19^th-centuries, forced small farmers and peasants off the land, concentrating land ownership and helping propel an eager labour force into employment in emerging industries. It also played a crucial role in breaking down the feudal system.

The agricultural revolution in Europe started in the early 17^th-century and brought unprecedented advances in agricultural technique and productivity—certainly in England. Crop rotation approaches, soil restoration and drainage, and husbandry techniques such as selective breeding, as well as other means of expanding arable land were all developed and put to use during this period. The first major wave of mechanization also shook up agriculture during this period. Ploughs, for instance, were advanced materially. The seed drill, too, was advanced by the Europeans. And, in 1786, the threshing machine was invented.

All of this led to increased food production. More food had an accelerating effect on population growth. And, ultimately, surplus labour became an issue on the farm. Surplus labourers, no longer needed for agricultural activities, moved to towns and cities to (eventually) form a new class of wage labourers. Urban migration supported, if not propelled industrialization. (More about this dynamic later.)

Feudalism and The Power of Land

In the European context, Feudalism was the dominant socio-economic system prior to the emergence of capitalism. Feudalism was characterized by a hierarchical structure where land and resources were owned by a small noble class, while peasants worked the land in exchange for protection and a share of the produce. This system weakened as trade expanded and new economic opportunities arose, but it persisted.

The feudal system had its heyday from the 5^th through 12^th-centuries, arising during a period of weak central authority and nascent (at best) legal structures. The fiefs held by local lords were petty “kingdoms”. In the 17^th-century the actual feudal construct was developed. These property-centric seigneuries made the fief-holder (the peasant) an extremely dependent man. Not a slave, but one unfree beyond the bounds of fidelity owed to the landlord. Or at the very least, one whose liberties were truncated and opportunities limited.

In England, the feudal system was laid to rest by Parliament in 1645 and subsequently by Charles II in 1660. In France, however, the system persisted until eradicated by the National Assembly ca 1793.

Enclosure

Returning to the Agricultural Revolution, a key driver was the so-called Enclosure Movement. Predominantly in England, this involved consolidation of common lands and their transformation into private property. While at first blush this would seem to be a boon to feudal landlords, one need focus on the precedent for property privatization.

The Enclosure Acts, in England, spanned the period from 1604-1919. At least in the earliest of its period, Enclosure can be said to have been an unwieldy and misguided attempt to address the Tragedy of the Commons^[3] by attempting to eliminate the Commons. No commons, no tragedy. People being people, however, the tragedy persisted (and persists) anywhere there is a commons of any sort. Enclosure, it can be argued, had unintended, unanticipated consequences. Nobody could have or would have perceived that these decrees tilting toward private property would (partially) catalyze the advent of what would be called capitalism.

The Urban Shift

The shift to urban living was pronounced in the time leading to the breakthrough of capitalism. There were various, interrelated reasons for this change. The privatization of the commons, mechanization and industrialization, trade and discovery, and money all played a part. Ultimately the shift was from rural and agrarian to urban and industrial. To put a finer point on it, many people were driven to a situation that did not lend itself well to independence and self-sufficiency of any sort. Rural people are, irrespective of scale, producers. Rather, urban dwellers were to be a factor of production, or wage labour, as it would come to be known.

Irrespective, the pre-capitalist urban shift was only the start of an ongoing change. People moved off the farm to survive; urban-centred industry survived because of labour; discovery and trade continued—or accelerated—with the availability of people. The arrows of causality are unclear except that they point the same direction generally. It was, in any case, sufficient to be an obvious factor in the pre-capitalist circumstance.

Commercial Revolution and Mercantilism

The fullness of the Commercial Revolution is arguably from the 11^th through the 18^th-centuries.^[4] It is a period of significant import to us because through this period commerce became a fundamental expression of human desire or ambition; or at least a primal conception of the game of life. The period witnessed a surge in (overseas) trade, colonization, and the growth of merchant capitalism. One after the other, European nations sought to amass wealth and power through exploration, colonization, and the establishment of overseas empires—colonies providing access to new resources, markets, and investment opportunities. Mercantilism, the economic doctrine dominant during this time, was geared to maximize a nation’s wealth through government intervention, protectionism, and the accumulation of precious metals.

Much less well publicized than its more recent sibling, the Industrial Revolution (see below), the criticality of this development—for our purpose, anyway—can’t be overstated. It is here the ideas of commerce, money, wealth, and the power that flows from it all took hold. This is not to say such motivations did not exist before. They did: Croesus was not a Florentine banker, after all.

During the Commercial Revolution the structures to support a non-militaristic expression and pursuit of these desires fell into place. For a number of reasons: from technological to social innovation that would tame the seas and defray financial risk; from demographics to geopolitics, the stars aligned and commerce did not just flourish—it rooted deeply. To explore all aspects of every element is worthy of its own volume(s). Moreover, many interdependent drivers such as the rural flight to the city are noted in other sections. So we will satisfy ourselves with a survey some important facets of this revolution, noting how they express if not amplify the human propensities that led to capitalism.

That the Commercial Revolution began in the Italian (maritime) city-states of Venice, Genoa, Florence, and Lucca, etc. would suggest two things. First, trade over the Mediterranean was instrumental and created wealth. The disequilibrium and chaotic tentativeness of the petty feudal lords—or the absence of central (monarchical) government—was surely causal to some extent. Throwing off overlords requires means, which trade afforded. Second, the petty anarchy of the small protectorates (mostly dedicated to protecting the protector’s position…) is naturally subject to entropy. It falls apart—fast.^[5] Abject poverty with no protection is undesirable. So what would make a false equilibrium on that foundation crumble? In the Italian and European experience, the answer is regional government and power: the city-state.

Mercantilism

Mercantilism may be the single-most important and obviously-connected element in the environment that spawned capitalism. That it is an economic system is evident. What it says about the people behind it and the environment it helped spawn may be more instructive.

Mercantilism emerged during the transition from feudalism, which was characterized by a rigid social hierarchy and an agrarian-based economy, with wealth primarily derived from landownership. At least two significant forces in Europe at the time contributed to the shift from feudalism into mercantilism. First was the development of city-states and then nation-states. These larger, more complex, and wealthier political entities required a non-agrarian means to maintain and grow wealth. Second, (recent) growth was built on trade that flourished because of discovery, financial tools, and entities that could accept trade risk at the necessary, growing scale.

As capitalism, in the hands of Adam Smith anyway, is a recoil from mercantilism, one would be safe assuming mercantilist policies were bad. But not all of them. In fact, characteristics of mercantilism were seminal to the development of capitalism. The capitalist response (from Smith) was arguably one of:

ideas that exposed failings and shortcomings, such as zero-sum trade, and consumption-driven economics; and
objection to a system tuned to sustain existing wealth and power, while inhibiting others.

Consider these key features of mercantilism with an eye to where and how they echo in capitalism.

Focus on Trade and Accumulation of Wealth – Mercantilism emphasized trade and wealth accumulation as essential elements of economic prosperity and national power. Capitalism preserved the general sentiment. Alas, mercantilist policies aimed to maximize exports and minimize imports for a positive balance of trade. A trade surplus was believed to result in the inflow of precious metals, especially gold and silver, which were then considered the basis of wealth. It was the zero sum notion: “our” loss was “their” gain and vice versa. Governments implemented protectionist measures—tariffs, quotas, and subsidies—to foster domestic industries, protect them from foreign competitors, and secure markets for their own goods. The goal was to safeguard local industries, create employment opportunities, and reduce reliance on foreign goods. Though generally considered poor policy (at least publicly), this focus on trade and economic nationalism laid a foundation for developments in international commerce and economic theory.
State Intervention and Regulation – Mercantilism relied heavily on state intervention and regulation in the economy. Governments played an active role in promoting and protecting domestic industries, often granting monopolies, subsidizing and privileging favoured industries, and implementing regulations to control production, trade, and colonial ventures. They established guilds, controlled production methods, and enforced quality standards. Again, the aim was to protect and promote domestic industries, maintain a favorable trade balance, and increase the nation’s revenue, wealth, and economic power.
Colonialism, Exploration, and Resource Extraction – Mercantilism coincided with the era of colonial expansion and exploration. European powers sought to establish colonies and extract valuable resources from overseas territories. Colonies provided access to raw materials, cheap labour, and captive markets for goods. Establishment of colonies and exploitation of their resources were key mercantilist policies. The wealth generated played a significant role in the accumulation of capital.
Accumulation of Bullion – As noted above, mercantilism emphasized accumulation of precious metals, particularly gold and silver. Possession of bullion represented a nation’s wealth and power. Policies were designed to increase exports and generate a trade surplus specifically to bring more precious metals into the country. This emphasis on bullion reflected the prevailing economic thinking that metals were the primary form of wealth.
Economic Nationalism – Perhaps most significantly, mercantilism was marked by economic nationalism. The interests of the nation-state were prioritized over individual economic freedoms, full stop. The aim was to strengthen the nation’s economic power and self-sufficiency.

Over time, the limitations of mercantilist policies and the desire for economic progress led to a gradual shift towards the principles of free trade. Mercantilism’s emphasis on state intervention and protectionism was increasingly challenged by thinkers advocating for the benefits of open markets and international trade. Modern economic thinkers branded and challenged the heavy-handed protectionist aspects of mercantilism as unproductive “rent taking.” All the centrally-accumulated wealth and human desire projected by mercantilist thought was arguably the ideal set up for a truly revolutionary push back. As we will see.

Money and The Commercial Source of Wealth

The Decline of the Landlord and Ascendance of the Commercial Baron

In these city-states, where power was based on wealth detached from land ownership, there was a degree of liberty unknown to the vassal of a landlord or king. The city-states were decidedly commercial. From Italy to the Netherlands and Belgium, Germany, and Spain, trade (in goods and knowledge), banking, and finance were the primary endeavors.

All the discovery, innovation, liberty, and ability to endeavor was enabled and fueled by… money. In the simplest sense, the gold and silver from the New World and the trade that went along with it created a large and growing “middle” merchant class. This striving centre propelled change by the force of base desire.

Financial Innovations and Institutions

Money! The Commercial Revolution formalized and institutionalized money unlike and well beyond anything since the Roman Empire. Modern banking took hold in the 16^th-century when the (Catholic) Church became satisfied that charging interest was not, in fact, sinful. (No doubt, swelling tithes and the grace of banking families helped.)

Dramatically oversimplifying: if you are the Jeff Bezos of your time, eventually it dawns on you that there is a limit to the pace and scale of wealth generation by (mostly) exploiting gold/silver acquisition directly. And, you may have that limit in sight. But others have ideas to explore, exploit, trade, and create wealth. Moreover, they are willing to undertake the dangers that go with it. Critically, they need (investment) money to make money. Since yours is doing nothing—except supporting artists and building churches—it makes sense to invest. But investment in this kind of venture is a long-odds bet. The better choice is to lend at interest. It’s much safer and almost as lucrative.

Banking and the institutionalization of money as an exchange medium and moreso as influence on the Commercial Revolution cannot be understated. Except, of course, when compared to that other Leviathan of the period: the joint stock company.

The joint stock company developed as one of two ways to manage (financial) risk during this period. The other was insurance. The risks these institutions were created to offset or mitigate were legion, nearly all arising out of discovery and trade. From the natural risks of travel on the sea, mostly owing to weather and ignorance, to risks of war and piracy, trade on the high seas did not always pan out. But when it did, it worked out very well. The monied and striving needed means to defray the risks and pursue the spoils.

The idea of sharing risk, like the idea of money, was not new. During the Commercial Revolution it was, however, institutionalized. Discovery and trade rapidly evolved to be the purview of the wealthy that financed a founder’s company for a (substantial) piece of the action. (Sound familiar? Today we call it venture capitalism.) Its beginning is often tied to the London Royal Exchange, founded in 1565 and becoming a stock exchange by 1801. But trading exchanges, called bourses, actually date back to the 13^th and 14^th-centuries depending on the geographic location. The Amsterdam Bourse (stock exchange) is dubiously honoured as listing the Dutch East India Company, the first company to issue stocks and bonds, in 1602.^[6] As for insurance, Lloyd’s of London was created at a coffee shop in 1688. Its underwriting and new service systematized the notion of risk quantification for sea venturers and others.

Colonialism and Trade

Ironically, not unlike our own time, it was a climate change at the end of the 13^th-century that forced innovation. This happened geopolitically, in technology, and in the drive to discover. The ensuing Age of Discovery helped shifted the economic centre of Europe farther west (toward the Atlantic) from Rome and the east end of the Mediterranean. When the Turks took Constantinople in 1453, overland trade route to the east became cost prohibitive at the very least. Once again, voyages of discovery were propelled on the back of trade and commerce.

Which came first: the explorations and discovery or the technological advances that supported and sustained them? Capitalism would phrase this as demand v. supply-driven. On the waters alone, sail rigging designs and lighter weight hull crafting were matched with the navigational tools and techniques that were directly the result of Isaac Newton’s (Leibniz’s) calculus. It’s arguable they were complementary—as always. A discovery of some sort opened the way to an innovation that could fulfil a developing but struggling demand. Or, seen through the other end of the prism, a nascent demand being proven sets off a race to discover/innovate a means to fully exploit it.

Industrial Revolution and Capital Accumulation

The Industrial Revolution, by which we’re referring to the British experience of industrialization through the second half of the 18^th-century and most of the 19^th, was another essential catalyst for the development of capitalism. A common description is that the Industrial Revolution was the time and process of changing an agrarian and artisanal world to a mechanized one. By good fortune or as an unremarkable next step to the ideas and progress that preceded it, the Industrial Revolution supercharged what was begun by the Commercial Revolution.

The change in production at the time—both how and what—pushed forth a profound change in economy. That change in economy, in turn, altered society and individuals even more profoundly. As noted earlier, money and greater opportunity for individual advancement unleashed desires held down by the landownership-as-wealth structure. That was largely the Commercial Revolution’s doing. It took the Industrial Revolution to give those desires form and purpose beyond seafaring trade.

Invention and Innovation

Accepted wisdom is that the Industrial Revolution began with Hargreaves’s spinning jenny (1770), Watt’s steam engine (ca 1780), Cartwright’s power loom (1785), and even Whitney’s cotton gin (1793). That’s not wrong—limited, but not wrong. There were many other, less notable but equally purposeful uses of mechanization that began appearing about this time. These bellwether inventions—and the others—created the means for and proved out 5, 10, 50X increases in productivity, directly driving industrialization and economic growth for British fabricators. Development and expansion of the basic ideas of mechanized work was applied to drain mines, build a railroad transportation construct, and alter the pace and scale of locomotion on land and by naval routes, and so much more.

But to focus solely on mechanization or even industrialization is to expose only part of the story. The Industrial Revolution was a piece with the temper of the times. For instance, consider the rural-to-urban shift. Did industrialization incite migration from country to city, or was it merely a sop for all that newfound labour? Did mechanization contribute to starting that migration or was it merely an accelerant atop Closure and mercantile policies? The machinery invented was obviously the outcome of a long period of technological innovation. It did not arrive fully formed as a gift from God—maybe Mammon. Something else was elemental to those those inventions, derived from initial mechanization that advance over decades, caused them to bloom at that particular time? One has to at least speculate that it had something to do with the many other changes during the 18^th-century.

Dissecting the Industrial Revolution is an effort worthy of shelves of space. Let us, however, make emphatic the point that the Industrial Revolution did not stand alone. The Industrial Revolution was a fact of and outcome from the crucible of intellectual, spiritual, moral, economic, and political (social) ferment of the preceding centuries: the Enlightenment and Commercial Revolution for instance.

Efficiency and Productivity (and the end of the Artisan)

Evolution to the factory system, a natural outcome of bringing workers to one place to support mechanized equipment that prefaced orders of magnitude greater output than they ever could, was a more material outcome of the Industrial Revolution than mere mechanization. (Again: whether this started, resulted from, or merely accelerated forces of urbanization is a parlour game.) Factories could be even more purposeful alongside “industrial” modes of transportation such as rail and steam ship. Productive facilities no longer had to be adjacent to raw materials or the market. Both the inputs and outputs could be readily delivered from/to locations much farther afield. Factories led to specialization of labour skill, further over-matching and undercutting artisanal production capacity and cost.

Of course, the Industrial Revolution would displace some and create horrible inequities that might take as long as a century to sort out (i.e., labour exploitation) every bit the same as the Age of Discovery had done before it (viz. slavery). This is not to diminish but, in fact, to extoll the value and impact on progress. But because it is not our central point here, we’ll leave that be.

Capital Accumulation

Perhaps the most continuous and significant aspect of the Industrial Revolution, together with mercantilist thinking, trade, and the full panoply of Commercial Revolution impacts, was wealth accumulation. The descriptions provided for each show the cumulative and exponential impact of how:

trade and trade opportunities led to a non-agrarian merchant class;
discovery and colonialism created wealth for explorers and plunderers;
the Commercial Revolution, particularly the concomitant Closure laws, reoriented the notions of success away from the landholding precedent;
mercantilist policies created trade winners from venturers and pooled wealth; and
industry solidified the shift from land assets to money and capital assets of all sorts as the basis of wealth accumulation and investment.

The Industrial Revolution fueled capital accumulation, as entrepreneurs and capitalists invested in new industries, machinery, and infrastructure. As we noted earlier, capital was essential to full discovery and trade at increasing scale without state intervention (control).

The Birth of Capitalism

The “birth” of capitalism is complex… and debated. There was no particular crystalizing moment. It developed gradually over several centuries as an outcome to the prevailing circumstances that included not only conditions at hand but forces of change as presented previously.

To the extent that capitalism was born, it was an idea made manifest by events and the actions of numerous people. It was, as the contrast between its fundamental principles and the circumstances of the day would prove out, a recoil marked by increasingly powerful individual and societal forces for individual freedom and rights, by exploding desire to acquire and amass wealth, by the search for political power and autonomy that had been withheld but obviously driven by wealth. It would be justifiable to say capitalism was not so much a new ideology as the codified unleashing of primal desires in an economic context.

Even for a long hatching such as I suggest, there are events, ideas, and individuals to mark the moment. This section surveys only a small few of those.

The rise of capitalism was not driven solely by economic factors but also by social and political transformations. As noted above, the Enlightenment, an intellectual and cultural movement of the 17^th and 18^th-centuries, emphasized reason, individualism, and the pursuit of progress. Enlightenment thinkers challenged traditional hierarchies and called for social and economic reforms that aligned with capitalist principles, such as equality before the law and the freedom to engage in economic activities.

Throughout the preceding assessment of conditions and forces of change, the shifts in thought and thinking play an outsize role. This brief section is a synthesis of those effects on the moral, internal, and external perceptions among the masses.

Philosophical Elements

Philosophical or moral shifts are important because they inform everything else. These moral sentiments of what is “right” and “wrong” operate sub-sonically. That is, they tend—especially as they become more ingrained—to frame the more obvious and noisy thinking and debate. Among others, these particular philosophies informed the environment that led to and that has existed for capitalism.

Individualism – Individualism emphasizes the value and autonomy of the individual. John Locke among other contemporary and later thinkers of the Enlightenment championed individual rights, including the right to own property and pursue one’s own interests. Individualism recognizes individuals as the central agents of economic activity and supports the idea that they should be free to make choices based on their own self-interest. We, in the capitalist West to be sure, take this as a natural law.
Liberalism – Liberalism, as a political and philosophical ideology, underpins capitalism. Liberal thinkers advocated for limited government intervention, protection of individual rights, and free markets. They argued that individuals should be free to pursue their own economic interests and that government interference in the economy should be minimized. Again, today we argue about degree, never about the inherent rightness of this proposition. Principles of liberalism, including individual freedom, equality before the law, and the sanctity of private property aligned with the core tenets of capitalism.
Utilitarianism – Utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory associated with thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, influenced the development of capitalism. Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing overall happiness or utility in society, which obviously aligns to the forces of the Enlightenment. Capitalism, with its emphasis on individual self-interest and competition, is usually seen as compatible with utilitarian principles. According to utilitarianism, capitalist pursuit of self-interest, can lead to greater overall social welfare and well-being. Utilitarianism lasts.

Psychological Elements

For our purpose the prevailing psychology of the time is (as always) a clear expression of the dominant philosophical tendencies. Two particular feature of the changing psychology under capitalism are worth noting.

Self-Interest and Rationality – Capitalism assumes that individuals are primarily motivated by self-interest and act rationally to maximize their own well-being. This psychological assumption aligns with classical economic theories, such as those developed by Adam Smith. According to this perspective, individuals in a capitalist system are expected to make rational choices based on their own perceived benefits.
Incentives and Rewards – Capitalism relies on the psychological principles of incentive and reward. The pursuit of profit and the prospect of economic reward (aka, greed) serve as powerful motivators for individuals to engage in productive activities. The belief that hard work, innovation, and entrepreneurial risk-taking can lead to financial success and social mobility serves as a critical driving force in a capitalist society.

Sociological Elements

Capitalism recognized and amplified weak or constrained imperatives such as the naked desire to throw off the real and figurative shackles of servitude. Such sociological developments became codified in the Western (economic) ethos. Consider only three of these changes that are fundamental as air today but were unheard of pre-capitalism.

Division of Labour

Division of labour, a fundamental aspect of capitalism, is associated with the work of Adam Smith. Smith specifically illustrated the efficiency of making pins with several specialists doing a part rather than the artisan creating from start to finish. It speaks directly to increasing overall productivity and efficiency. Capitalism implicitly is about advancing productivity as a means to succeed, grow wealth, secure freedom, etc. This sociological legacy spawned the assembly line, personal improvement, and so forth. Moreover, the division of labour promotes interdependence and the exchange of goods and services, fostering economic growth and the development of market systems.

Market Exchange

Nothing is more central to capitalism than market exchange. Smith memorialized it with his butcher and baker. Voluntary transactions between buyers and sellers based on (hopefully) mutually beneficial agreements serves all good from allocation of resources to comparative advantage. It is of a piece with the concepts of freedom and liberty, meritocratic success, and wealth accumulation. The market, an impersonal arbiter of value—instead of a king or state—opened the door to imagination and innovation by anyone. Identification of and supply to an unserved demand founds capitalism and removed opportunity from the stranglehold of the landlord and regent.

Market exchange is an understanding of markets as social institutions, where individuals interact and play. Its “rules” become institutionalized democratically because participants are free to join and play by the rules or break the rules and be ostracized. This is a legacy notion we hold dear even as it wears thin.

Capitalism offers the potential for social mobility, allowing individuals to move up or down the socioeconomic ladder based on personal economic success. In the feudal and even mercantile society this was rare. While “merit” can be argued and there is a long debate to be had over what basis of success is rewarded, there is no denying that under capitalism it is feasible and has at times been common. The prospect of upward social mobility, achieved by individual effort and merit, has been an important element supporting the legitimacy and acceptance of capitalism.

Capitalism, of course, harnessed the Enlightenment cause of freedom and liberty in which economics so fundamentally plays a part. Freedom of the sort most people want is in no small part enabled by wealth. Accumulation of wealth is a core principle of capitalism. So in effect, capitalism harnessed this ideal of freedom and liberty by attaching it to wealth accumulation—and farther backward to individual merit and success.

Proto-Capitalist Thinkers and Writings

Many prominent thinkers and writers contributed to the development of capitalist ideas. Some we have already encountered in our survey of the Enlightenment’s relevance. These thinkers, among so many others, challenged prevailing economic doctrine to lay the intellectual foundation for capitalism.

Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619-1683) – Colbert was King Louis XIV of France’s finance minister. He implemented mercantilist policies to encourage domestic industry, trade, and export promotion. His advocacy of government intervention and protectionism influenced economic policies across Europe during the early modern period. And, while purists may argue that this is mercantilist not capitalist, the focus on industry, trade, and wealth creation would cast a long shadow for this protocapitalist.
John Locke (1632-1704) – John Locke, an English philosopher, contributed mightily to political theory and the ideal of individual rights. His writings on property rights, including Two Treatises of Government (1689), laid the foundation for the concept of private property and protections for individual ownership. Such ideas were critical to the emergence of capitalism, which would be hollow without private property rights.
Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) – Mandeville, a Dutch-British philosopher and economist, published The Fable of the Bees (1714). He proposed and argued that individual vices, when combined, can lead to overall social and economic benefits. Mandeville’s ideas challenged traditional moral and ethical assumptions, highlighting the role of self-interest in economic activity. It would not be a big leap to Smith’s market forces and the self-interested butcher and baker.
Adam Smith (1723-1790) – Adam Smith, a Scottish philosopher and economist, is often referred to as the “father of capitalism.” His seminal work, The Wealth of Nations (1776), provided a comprehensive analysis and postulation of the value and relevance of market economies. Smith emphasized the importance of free markets, division of labour, and self-interest, arguing that the pursuit of self-interest, guided by market forces, ultimately leads to the betterment of society as a whole.

Free Trade and Liberal Economic Policies

The development of capitalism was closely tied to the advocacy of free trade and liberal economic policies. The concept of laissez-faire economics, championed by thinkers like Adam Smith, argued for minimal government intervention in the economy. This shift away from mercantilist policies toward free trade and liberal economic practices created an environment conducive to the growth of capitalism. Trade and liberal economic policies tilted toward private owners as opposed to being the domain of states. Without state power to compel mercantilist desires, capitalists changed the focus to allow for more benefit from the elemental give and take of trade among market players. The repeal of protectionist measures, the dismantling of trade barriers, and the promotion of open markets demanded—then rewarded—greater competition, innovation, and the expansion of economic opportunities.

Capitalist Empires and Colonialism

The growth of capitalism was intertwined with the expansion of colonial empires. European powers, such as Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, France, and England, pursued colonial ventures for economic gain. Colonies provided access to valuable resources, including precious metals, agricultural products, and labour. The exploitative economic systems established in colonies, such as the plantation economies in the Americas, generated immense wealth for the colonizers and contributed to the accumulation of capital that fueled capitalist development.

The birth of capitalism was a multifaceted process driven by a combination of economic, intellectual, social, and political factors. The Enlightenment, Commercial Revolution, and Industrial Revolution were key catalysts. The principles of individualism, private property, and free trade were its core underpinnings. In any case, the temper of the times made some sort of evolution inevitable. Arguably, capitalism best served thte needs and desires.

This is part of a series of essays exploring the idea of Capitalism as Religion.

Transformation of Capitalism, an introduction

Religious About Capitalism

Timothy Grayson is a Canadian (digital) transformation consultant, coach, and writer. Among other things, he has provided thechangeplaybook.com as a practical resource for change and project managers. Find him at institute-x.org.

^[1] I am referring to Tversky and Khanneman, and all those that followed their path to flesh out the field of behavioural economics.

^[2] The only disagreement being the degree of discontinuity represented by this “enlightened” period.

^[3] This tragedy represents a common circumstance where a number of individuals acting in their own self-interest, on an open and apparently infinite resource, where no individual act would seem to have material impact, end up collectively depleting and/or destroying the resource for everyone. Originally the commons were public grazing lands for sheep. As a side note, this tragedy overlays nicely to one of the most typical oppositions to climate change action in the West: Our actions will have no effect compared to China and India (ergo, carry one carrying on).

^[4] Only on a geologic time scale could anything that took 400-700 years to fulfill be considered a “revolution” and not an “evolution.”

^[5] Or, more probably, consistent with Hemmingway’s maxim: “Gradually, then suddenly.” (The Sun Also Rises.)

^[6] Again foreshadowing today, the Dutch also pioneered short selling, options, debt-equity swaps, merchant banking, and other speculative instruments.

Transparency demands are transparently opaque

society, Privacy, stupidity Comments Off

Mar 232023

Radical transparency is in demand; that much is obvious. Anti-vaxxers and the “Fredum” thugs, anti-business anti-government anti-[insert what bugs you here] and conspiracy theorists all demand greater transparency just in case (or because) somebody’s trying to pull one over on us.

Of course, none of them actually believes the information provided. So there’s that.

Transparency is the new black

I got to thinking about this again seeing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene reveal classified information during a public committee meeting. Her unabashed reasoning was that she thought Americans should know [operational boarder information]… On another front, I’ve been seeing a lot of Sarah Kendzior’s book, They Knew (mostly as she promotes it). I believe—as I haven’t read the book—her theme is: you’re not paranoid if they’re really out to get you, and I have the receipts. By her reckoning, there are provable (government) conspiracies in the USA with different, complicit participants in each instance. The conclusion is apparently that (a) “they” knew a tragedy was coming and (b) it was largely to “their” gain and at “your” cost.

I’m not a fan of either. It goes without saying there will always be groups with privileged information they keep to themselves. In business, it’s called “trade secrets.” Investors hoard and use information for trading advantage and profit. In affairs of state there are countless reasons for keeping things opaque, shall we say. Military and defense activities among an alliance, such as NATO, is a good example. Justice is another.

There are good reasons for this behaviour, which is perfectly reasonable and normal. Besides, information typically requires context to be meaningful and tracts of it requires skills, training, and comprehension that eludes most of those “doing their own research.”

(Valuable) Information can resemble a Rorschach blot: (a) sure to be misunderstood; (b) revealing more about its analyst than the underlying subject; and (c) raw material to manufacture disinformation—rarely for a good purpose.

Information transparency is like a Rorschach blot, revealing more about its analyst and the subject.

What good is transparency if what it reveals is at best meaningless and at worst combustible?

Secrecy, Conspiracy, Collusion…

Information itself and conspiring to hold it from others is not in and of itself untoward. It can be sane and sensible. We can’t all be polymaths and expert at every esoteric area of expertise. (Except, of course, Elon Musk and Donald Trump.) We don’t all have a direct say in how the government operates. We get our say periodically to elect representatives to represent us. We certainly get no say in the human resources and processes by which modern states operate any more than one-share stockholders can demand a say in corporate structure and operations. It has never happened before; it will not happen now, and; it will not happen in the future.

The division of labour, a foundational Capitalist principle, compels us for efficiency and effectiveness to leave tasks and the necessary carrying out of those tasks, including choices about information (disclosure), to nominated or designated people.

This bedrock principle upon which the Western, democratic world (and arguably every other part of the world) bases itself and its affairs is dependent on one of two things. In North America anyway, these are rapidly changing.

The first is trust the second is fear. Fear, in this context, is much to fraught to tackle here, so let’s focus on trust. In a social context this is trust in institutions and the people that populate, particularly lead them. Social trust is in tatters on its way to being shredded.

For some justifiable reasons, the populous has lost trust in the institutions of government and the representative politicians (of the other tribe). In the USA, the political tribes have fully separated and certainly the Republican party has done everything it can to actively drive mistrust of not only Democrats but government in general.

Side note: Probably because it spends much more and has accumulated better PR, “business” luxuriates in higher levels of social trust. This is bizarre when a substantive record of how and why trusting “business” has failed the masses. But, whatever.

Absent trust, credibility is an early relationship casualty so every institutional error is perceived as having ulterior motive. That leads to genuine withholding of information for good reasons. Thus the doom cycle commences and continues.

Sometimes it behooves leaders of all sorts—business, government, families—to withhold information for the broadest benefit of the whole. Using a tired philosophical saw, yelling “fire” in a crowded auditorium results in pandemonium. People—in herds—responding to information they may not understand or have the tools to effectively address, are known to panic… regularly. The crowd will stampede and many will not make it out.

(This used to be axiomatic: given today’s level of “doing my own research” rejection of authority, who knows how many would rampage—perhaps for altogether different reasons—anticipating more palatable facts to surface.) A leader may not mention the fire, using a ruse or some other oblique rationale for orderly withdrawal. More people are unharmed. Is that so bad?

Transparency on what’s more cancerous than benign: Corruption

One of those justifiable reasons for trust diminishing I mentioned earlier is the overwhelming evidence of corruption and (their tribe’s, of course) self-dealing. Withholding information, even as a syndicate, should be expected. What may also be expected but is definitely beyond the pale is self-dealing, benefitting unjustly, and harming others—those others who have given their faith to the “good faith” of those empowered. (Let’s also not restrict ourselves to politicians and governments; this applies to businesses and other organizations be they charities or labour unions or…)

We have stumbled into the area of corruption, not conspiracy or secrecy or withholding information. The legal phrasing generally contains, “…conspiracy to….” The word “to”—not “conspiracy”—is the operative one here. The conspiracy part merely refers to a group; “to” leads to a crime.

The issue is not conspiring or colluding or anything else until they become instrumental to implementing and executing a crime. At this point the rabble rousing and transparency demanding has a crisis: the choice forces many to create the artifice of crime out of whole cloth.

When bankers, oil & gassers, other industrialists and oligopolists collude to maximize movement of wealth from the masses to the few, that warrants uprising. When chemical companies conspire to influence regulation or cover-up lethal toxic impacts of their making to avoid culpability, that might warrant pitchforks. When the government and the political leaders (of their tribe) self-deal by pocketing hundreds of thousands or billions of dollars by virtue of their privilege, that warrants blowback.

Competent, employed professionals entrusted with a particular division of labour, making good-faith decisions for the greatest good based on imperfect and shifting information, probably is not. Certainly anyone or any organization holding operational information without a criminal intent has no obligation to disclose all of it just because “one shareholder” wants to see it. Even government bodies.

If there is a crime at hand, pursue the crime. Prove it. There are rules for information disclosure with provable probability of crime. (Caveat: Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s a crime. Corrollary: Just because you do like something doesn’t mean it it isn’t a crime. You know who I’m talking about.)

Incidentally, Sarah, none of this suggests or recommends NOT being vigilant about potential crimes—especially coups d’état, which are inarguably social harms… and crime. But yeah, “they” probably or maybe definitely knew! They’re there and you’re not. And Marjorie: some things don’t need to be radically transparent just because you—loosely said—think so.

Get over it.

Contributing to the cyber security conversation

Business, Canada, IT Security, politics Comments Off

Oct 162016

My firm, Institute X, responded and provided a paper to the Canadian Government’s Consultation on Cyber Security. It’s a considered white paper that assumes government should do what it’s supposed to do (public safety and security; and support Canadian industry). We suggest that an “unreasonably” high standard for cyber security and directed support toward the Canadian cyber security industry (e.g., national security-protected procurement) will benefit Canada on multiple fronts.

Download it here: institute-x-cyber-security-consultation-submission-oct-2016.

Intrapreneurshit

Uncategorized Comments Off

Jul 132016

Like long forgotten songs on a K-Tel compilation, Intrapreneurship, the notion that employees of large organizations can hustle and scramble like entrepreneurs to create innovation and radical growth, is back! Of course, its day in the 1980s sun was a failure. But today’s promise is the success of Silicon Valley’s disrupting wunderkind.

Should intrapreneurship actually catch on, again… it will fail. Again. Smart executives of targeted enterprises and government departments ought to remember why it failed before and take a pass this time. The flawed assumption is that entrepreneurs thrive in any environment. Except, everything that makes entrepreneurship admirable is suffocated in the low oxygen atmosphere of the large organization.

The entrepreneurship allure is palpable: a dream of agility, disruption, and outsized growth leading to dominion over new and even undiscovered frontiers. With unicorns on every horizon, it’s hard to ignore. But for large organizations, it’s a mirage that will squander resources and frustrate everyone.

The larger the organization, the more its strength weighs upon it. It can no more be an entrepreneurial entity than the growth business is a colossus bestriding the world. The pitch to turn an eighteen wheeler into a Tesla is ridiculous and counter-productive.

Large organizations need not ogle enviously at the upstart entrepreneurial organizations rapid, often false growth that captures market and media attention. Appreciate your own qualities. Large organizations are mostly slow and steady. They have to be. Oscillating around opportunistic pivots would rend the behemoth from seam to seam. A material mistake by a small business constantly changing anyway is bad but recoverable. A material mistake for a large organization could prove mortal (without government intervention). Demands of governance and responsibility befitting its stature command the organization to be circumspect. One role of large organization is to stabilize tempestuous seas.

Sounds banal compared to the romantic entrepreneur. But, this gummy stateliness belies vast virtue. Large organizations have the power to change markets and industries. That they may choose not to because they’re comfortable has nothing to do with intrapreneuring. The taxi industry did not have to actively ignore its suzerain being upended while focusing on rigging regulation. Moreover, a start-up did not succeed in digitizing music nor create the consumer smart phone industry. Apple did. Ultimately, large organizations control innovation and disruptive change.

Your favourite innovation guru will have written that when industries heave with revolution, some venture-backed entrepreneur has used a technology or method to disrupt a cozy environment. But even where that is the case, it’s because the large incumbents were sleeping. As often as not, industries are turned inside out because competitive, large organizations acquire or introduce changes to the competitive environment and evolve the marketplace. In effect, they reinvent themselves and their worlds.

This has little to do with being entrepreneurial. It has everything to do with being observant, smart, and courageous. These mark the entrepreneurial character but are not exclusive to it. Most organizations require innovation of some sort, not all need the peculiar and destabilizing qualities of the entrepreneur.

This intrapreneurship fad is but a means to a desirable end: innovation, which in turn leads to growth (and maybe reinvention). A large organization does not have to weaken its chances pretending to be something it is not and cannot be. Of course, large organizations should do things to remain vital and purposeful. But they should play to strengths.

Large organizations should get and be strong at anticipating changes to their world as has Royal Dutch Shell. They should strive to innovate. That will necessarily keep them apprised of near and distant (technology) innovations around them. Large organizations have the resources to do something better than be entrepreneurs: they can buy entrepreneurs—at the right time.

Large organizations have been known to get fat and lazy, ferreting out challengers, buying them, and burying their technologies to maintain control of their worlds. The world no longer allows that. Enterprises need to tack: don’t buy the start-up or growth company to shelve it; buy it to grow it and, maybe later, internalize it. I say maybe because the choice could be to shape the smaller organization to benefit from and provide benefits to the large organization. This is a different skill, but one a large organization could more probably create.

Many enterprise organizations would be better off creating a farm system of minor investments and expertise at observing real entrepreneurial action. Supporting and keeping them alive, all the while creating the internal conditions to ingest entrepreneurial output and do what enterprise organizations do best: serve scale.

Large organizations have to be stable, not ossified. An aircraft carrier is no PT boat. It is built for stability in even the roughest waters. To be the indispensible centre of many critical operations, ths largest of naval vessels must be stable. Necessarily, it doesn’t move nimbly. It would be absurd to expect it to operate like a frigate. But even with the responsibility to provide a dependable platform, the aircraft carrier and its personnel are always prepared and vigilant for stormy seas or competitive attack from the sky or under the waves—from other navies or even pirate flotillas.

Think about that. Maybe the idea of a carrier group fleet would serve large organizations well in structuring themselves to do battle in their own corporate oceans.

Innovation Nation? More like Pontificate State

Business, Canada Comments Off

Jul 132016

Innovation will not get better in Canada. Sorry Minister Bains, we will not become “Innovation Nation” because we are not a start-up nation. Not that being a start-up nation is necessary. But without start-ups, innovation has to come from the enterprise level. In Canada, it will not, except from a few egoless businesses still run by the originator that ignore and avoid “professional” managers/consultants in important leadership roles.

Sadly, the rest of enterprise size organizations will not be helpful though essential. It will not be for a want of desire and intensity. It will not be for want of noise. It’s because the biggest fraud and disservice the media and management gurus have perpetrated on gullible MBA-class and younger business executives weaned on two rounds of Internet unicorns, is to make it seem like innovation is easy and immediately accessible to those that want it.

Enterprises can put attention and resources to the challenge. And yet it doesn’t happen. So, what’s wrong? Obviously, it must be misguided tax (incentives) and industrial policy. No, there is a brain drain. No, it has to be inadequate support and early-stage financing. That’s not right. There’s a scaling capability shortfall. Or we need an entrepreneurial startup culture. Or maybe, everybody’s just not wishing hard enough.

Certainly, based on prevailing problem identification and solutions, it couldn’t be because real, noticeable innovation is hard, infrequent, and more demoralizing than cold call door-to-door sales. More than that, it’s not simple. In fact, innovation is typically complicated and complex (and if you don’t know the difference, perhaps that’s part of the issue…). None of which sits well with enterprise executives of the sort described.

We appear to have been convinced that everything at every stage should be simple. And some things are—at some well-trod, detail-defying level of description. Innovations, by definition, are not that. Even when, under the adoring glow of market success, the essence of the innovation is ridiculously over-simplified (think Über or iPod or Amazon) for broad consumption, the true measure of non-simplicity is easily scratched out of the polished surface.

Simple is fine. So long as you, behind the wheel of your car understand start (with biometric voice command), engage (GPS-enabled destination command), and let the car do its thing, you’re good. We’ve described simply the innovation of the self-driving automobile. Of course, it’s absurd. Such a “simple” innovation is unattainable without somebody—the business people purveying it perhaps—knowing the much less than simple (creative) thinking just beneath this placid surface.

Yet too many executives—with an unrelenting commitment to the latest whack-a-doodle pronouncements on professional management technique—have no real clue about innovation. If they did, they would know that asking for product concepts, business plans, and so on for innovations to be simple during that period between fanciful conception and practical realization is neither helpful nor valuable.

Focus not on the first part, but the last three words of what’s called Einstein’s Razor: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

There is skill and art in communicating the essence of innovation to different audiences at the appropriate level of complexity. Overwhelmingly that is where the thinking and difficult work falls into the “simplest possible description” trap never again to get back to the necessary level of difficulty that innovation demands. Too many of these professional managers are educationally and temperamentally unprepared to root in the not-simple, not-easy, muck of innovation from which the eventual simple story will eventually emerge.

An innovative idea starts with a simple proposition. But, if achieving it were that simple and straight-forward, it would be done already. That simple proposition, whether a business model innovation or technology development, meets the challenge created by the very recombination or change that makes the simple idea so appealing. Through a lot of trial and error, failure and heartbreak, a Eureka moment may happen. It is viable! Only then can the whole endeavor be once again regressed to an easy-to-consume PowerPoint graphic or 20-second elevator pitch or advertisement or what-have-you.

Those who haven’t or don’t work on innovations regularly have no idea. Until more enterprise (senior) leadership owns and understands (or grudgingly tolerates if not gets mucky themselves) the messy complexity of the process, and accepts that nothing gets simple without being very complex first, innovation will not be a strong suit of Canadian business. Our go-to move will remain able administration.

It doesn’t have to be this way. And it doesn’t have to be the future. Leaders, especially those phalanxes senior professional managers need to learn to love wallowing in the guts of their businesses—especially if their business is innovation.

That grinding noise at Westminster Abbey? Charles Darwin rolling in his grave

Uncategorized Comments Off

Feb 192015

A PowerPoint slide being “shared” and “liked” within LinkedIn says: “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” This is a corrupted Darwinian notion I first saw first in a Globe and Mail op-ed piece entitled, Why leaders must take a different tack when managing change, contributed by Symantec Canadian General Manager, Sean Forkan. His first-person counsel is not especially enlightening. But there is that one sentence at the end: “As the saying goes, ‘it is not the strongest nor the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.'”

So people appropriate and massage powerful thoughts for their own purposes. Why quibble with variations on the theme? It’s just convenient and relevant cribbing of inspiring words.

How can I be so nasty—or petty? To start, the phrase has no greater provenance than some unnamed hack contributor to a Web quotations page or creator of a PowerPoint slide. Try to find anything remotely like this quotation in Darwin’s writings, especially in On the Origin of the Species. Even Herbert Spencer, who actually coined the phrase “survival of the fittest,” never used this language. That smart people are willing to quote inspirational nonsense suggests a troubling lack of rigour. But I digress and, frankly, I don’t really care about that.

This plagiarism does, however, raise an idea that could rock what we, the chattering classes, hold dear about change (management) and innovation. If you read to the end, you might even re-evaluate what you’ve been told about innovation and innovators, such as Steve Jobs. Maybe you’ll just ignore it or malign me, which might be easier. Your call.

Start by really understanding the idea commandeered for this motivational meme. Darwin referred to evolutionary adaptation. In Darwin’s observation, species did not initiate change. “Fitness” was what best suited prevailing conditions through a process of selective adaption, admittedly over generations. And Darwin was silent on any propensity to or ability for managing the change required to adapt, as was Spencer.

This is critical because as we know them, the words “change management” or “fitness to change” or any other variation lend themselves to the opposite interpretation. The implication being that a good executive, or one following our published guidance and pursuing the motivational direction of the imitation Darwin, could positively conceive and purposefully direct change IF (s)he and the organization were fit to make such change.

That’s quite materially different.

To use this counterfeit quotation to give weight to change management “fitness” and still be true to Darwin’s brilliant idea, one is obliged to accept that change management is about adaptation. But adaptation is responsive not directive. In nature, those fit to survive are those that best adapt not those that are most fit to create change.

To recap, modelling on natural evolution via pseudo-Darwin is an excellent idea: evolution has about a billion years of successful experience. But it demands one appreciate that change management must be about adaptation, which is to say accommodation toward prevailing conditions. Prevailing conditions because nature does not evolve toward what doesn’t exist. It can only adapt to what does exist.

So, therefore, fitness or willingness or ability to change is nonsense at least as far as invoking quasi-Darwinian thought as support. These are a separate matter entirely and warrant a separate non-Darwin shrouded discussion. Of course, the premise for those discussions has to start with responsive adaptation instead of directive change.

That’s change management; but innovation compels change to a product, process, or people so it must be implicitly about change. We have to accept that. So the Darwinian notion of adaptation to prevailing conditions, as indicated above, has to hold for innovation as well. Buckle up. It means the innovation myth of your favourite business leader or guru may be in for some rough treatment.

Consider the evidence. IBM nearly went extinct until Gerstner’s adaptations made it fit to survive. Branson cannily adapts Virgin’s ethos to the conditions of various prevailing environments, experimenting to see where its adaptations best fit. For a long time, Nokia adapted successfully, transforming through industries and technologies. It stopped adapting and has all but gone extinct. Microsoft, which has prolonged some of Nokia’s “genes,” has a well-documented record of obstinately refused then aggressively conceding to adapt. Blockbuster is the archetypal non-adapter. The quality of the management of change or the willingness or ability to change in all of these instances was necessary—maybe—but not sufficient. The adaptations were the thing.

IF you’re still with me about fitness to survive being based on the success of adaptations to prevailing conditions, then we have to concede that an innovator does NOT create or step into some imagined future. The successful innovator actually adapts best to the prevailing market conditions. In other words, any start-up and Steve Jobs do nothing more(!) than adapt to conditions that already existing. Steve didn’t see the future; he saw the present whether that was Apple II, Mac, iPod, iPhone, or iPad. It is a present that everyone else simply can’t see the way that some people can’t see the symbolism or the theme in a book or movie, or the way that extinct species couldn’t “see” that they weren’t optimal for prevailing conditions.

For those that got this far, I apologize. Every metaphor fails at some point. Lesser people, and gurus, continue ramming home their notion as though it’s not happening. I won’t. Evolution and organizations changing or innovating are very different things that don’t track together at a certain point. But, my point is that the idea at the outset ought to be understood and followed. It can lead to fascinating revelations. Here are merely two:

Adaptation is going on all the time. All people always adapt naturally. Those who don’t adapt are artificially denying nature. Adaptation is not a theory or a strategy or a plan. It is action. If it works, you succeed. If you don’t, you adapt again. If it still doesn’t work. You become petroleum eventually. Therefore, in the big picture, change management is about allowing prevailing conditions to cause pain, letting natural adaptation happen, then doubling-down on those that show the most fitness.
If you want to innovate, and evolution is your model for survival, you must be rapidly responsive not creative. You must provide, for a price, a means for your customers to best adaptations to prevailing conditions—because they may not.

Optimism and technology

Uncategorized Comments Off

Feb 042015

[Some old thoughts, which may be “published” on other blogs, etc., notably Politik-Substance]

It turns out that at least among technologists there is a clear, nearly religious moral divide on the subject of Edward Snowden and his revelations of government electronic snooping. This I found out by provoking the issue while discussing privacy at a technology conference in Banff. There are fundamental ethical and legal questions about whether governments should be allowed to acquire data that seems private, and under what conditions. But I suggest that some of the “Snowden is saint/satan” and “government is villain” reaction comes from the same sense of betrayal felt by a spurned lover or an NRA regional president the day after a mass shooting in a day care centre. Let me explain.
It shouldn’t be a wonder that technology advancement, particularly if it affects consumers’ lives, happens most actively in the United States. Americans are, by-and-large, an optimistic bunch: always looking for another sunny “Morning in America.” That perfectly harmonizes with technology and innovation’s very nature of optimism. It is, in fact, impossible to be pessimistic and work effectively in a field of technological advancement. The whole point of technology and innovation is to make a better tomorrow—to the extent of whatever the technology promises.
Although I tend toward what I believe is being realistic, which some of my colleagues refer to as cynical, I think optimism is wonderful. It is sustaining through the inevitable troughs of bad luck and setbacks in this life. Optimism wilfully ignores the probabilities stacked up against you. And by this conscious refusal to accept the possibility of defeat—even when it is overwhelmingly self-evident, optimists sometimes achieve the seemingly impossible.
Be it gunpowder and nuclear energy, synthetic painkillers, or mobile “social” applications, neither their creators nor their enthusiasts expects anything but good from such technological advances. Within tolerable, typically commercial limits and subject to consumer happiness, it’s all good, good, good.
The dark side of being optimistic about technology, however, is blindness to the risks of undesirable, yet highly plausible uses and outcomes of those good technologies. It is all too easy to see the bright side because that is the intent. Clean, infinitely available nuclear energy begat the atomic bomb and protective firearms kill school children and other innocents. Likewise, technology that implicitly knows where you go and that you are communicating generates vast deposits of privacy-threatening metadata and other information for marketers and governments to assay.
The recent revelations of Edward Snowden expose states, overzealously perhaps, doing what they do to fulfill a higher level societal need: safety and protection. These unveilings also reveal another instance of hopeful inventors coming face-to-face with the dark side of their creations. From my seat, it’s a bit hard to know which is more troubling to them.
Like everyone else, technologists feel violated by governments inferring private information from digital exhaust. And while there may be a heavier weighting of civil libertarians in the group, never mind a clash of democratic ideals—specifically, privacy within and security of the nation—I surmise that part of the reaction is creator’s guilt. How could our wonderful child do such a thing? Or, more to the point, our creation is being used against us: and we don’t like it.
So Edward Snowden is canonized despite being a thief and traitor now suckling from an “enemy” state’s graces. Western governments are (justifiably in some senses) vilified. The consumer/citizen is maltreated at least as far as privacy goes; and that’s as far as the citizen wants to go because venturing farther into these grey places would affect the pleasant state of consumerist narcosis. But nobody talks about the inherent corruptibility and affliction of the technology.
Alas, the genie is out of the bottle… again. Society will eventually metabolize these new conditions, catch up, and adjust both ideals and practices to account for these technologically driven realities. Innovators will create solutions to the problem they themselves created. And balance will be restored… before the cycle repeats. Because that’s the great thing about optimism: it’s sure to be better tomorrow.

Innovation Fads, Fashions, and Trends

Uncategorized Comments Off

Sep 142014

So much ink; so much paper! So many pixels! So many task forces! Thank God for the bottomless pit to mine for answers to Canadian innovation challenges. The proposals are as many as there are lobbies and hobbies. And every one of them has merit. But every one of them is doomed by narrowness and inadequacy. That’s because, as the girl said to the boy: “It’s complicated.”

The focus of well-meant public musings and counsel tends toward specific, actionable, and obvious drivers of the problem. The result? There ought to be more public and private investment at every stage; better training and skills; government intervention; coordinated geographic clusters; stronger commercialization; more creativity and risk taking; a focus on entrepeneurs; or a focus on enterprises. And on and on.

Less considered, probably because they make crystal clear causal arguments cloudy at best, are the softer facets of the ecosystem. There are one or more steps removed from the direct “this-then-that” connection between action and outcome. Also, innovation tends to be diagnosed discretely from other economic and social challenges, such as productivity decay. This is the result of a schooled reductionism that segregates systemic problems into constituent parts as if complex problems can always be solved in pieces and work when reassembled. But that’s not how complex systems work.

Setting aside my cynicism about the motives of those voicing positions, each contribution adds valuably to the discussion. But that discussion remains isolated, technocratic, and mired in detail. Consider only the example of innovation and productivity as a holistic pair.

Everyone who has sat through an executive discussion of new revenue contrasted with reduced cost knows that the latter goes straight to the bottom line. CFOs fall all over the second option. And yet, productivity is in decline in Canada. Why? Among the reasons is a “waste not, want not” ethic that would make a Puritan blush. There is also the discount sticker given to Canadian businesses by our chronically weak dollar. Let’s not forget government subsidization/protection. All of this cuffs the market’s invisible hand that might otherwise force competitive price drops, in turn demanding greater productivity—perhaps through innovation?

Weak demand for productivity innovation weakens the drive toward technologies, processes, and business models that address these challenges. Only among a few exceptions, such as mining, are businesses innovating—or investing in innovation—for productivity gain. In other cases, such as oil & gas, their cups have spilleth over so much that being unproductive is inconsequential.

That leaves the glory of consumer-directed innovations. Consumers want cool technological toys that may (the jury is still out) make them more productive. It’s true—or at least it’s said, which is the same thing apparently—that mobile devices make business people more productive. It’s also true that many consumers are also business people. But is WhatsApp or FaceBook or the iPod creating productive commercial capacity? The argument for “yes” is dubious at best.

Consumers reward these innovations though, or the successful ones anyway, explicitly with revenue or use; less explicitly through the idolatry of consumer products and the business people associated with them. Investors reward such innovations with easier and more valuable rounds of financing, and grand payoffs at Initial Public Offering. This all despite many of the longest-lived and profitable technology businesses, such as Microsoft and Oracle and Salesforce and SAP, innovating around commercial/management productivity. But they’re not Facebook or LinkedIn are they?

Defocus consumer innovation! Blackberry (RIM) lost its edge and lead not primarily because of threats in the consumer space but because it chased that space and forgot that its lead and advantage was due to its impact on industrial productivity. Also consider that while it’s true Henry Ford made the automobile a mass consumption product, his enduring legacy is the conveyor belt: the productivity innovation that allowed for the consumer delight.

So what’s the point? Simply this: all of those many answers to the innovation problem could be instrumental elements of a successful change to Canada’s innovation trajectory. Maybe… in some combination… or in some sequence…. But merely refocusing toward innovations that genuinely address how to make Canada’s businesses more productive, first at the edges then at the core, would set the stage for solving multiple economic challenges, including productivity and innovation, and fabricating a virtuous cycle updraft to raise all parts of the economy.

I use “F-Words”

Uncategorized Comments Off

Sep 122014

I use “f-words” in mixed company. Well-bred professional, management, and executive types recoil in disgust. One might think that they would be inured to f-words. But they seem to hold themselves above all that.

Of course, the most troubling f-word is not the one on the tip of your tongue now. This one sounds “eff” but starts “ph.” Try saying philosophy in the company of busy career people; just be prepared for rolled eyes and that piteous expression that says you just don’t get it.

Those blank faces better “get it” soon themselves. Our privacy and maybe even democracy could depend on it. After all, not every tectonic shift is as blatant as the revelations of Edward Snowdon or as arrogantly, publicly contemptuous as the Fair Elections Act. Pay attention to the every day stuff!

Today’s transactional immediacy of business and government work is not an historical novelty. There was no time when these practical people were more inclined to think deeply about what they were doing. What may be different now is the measure of disdain for anyone who challenges business or government plans and actions more deeply than what the pervasive “value proposition” pap answers.

If we refrain from contemplations of epistemology and such, and stick to ethics and the sunnier(!) side of existential questions, philosophy is about purpose. That has to be clarifying for professionals, and is about as close as most organizations get to schwerpunkt (a typically consonant-ridden German word that means concentration point or main effort).

When I say philosophy in this company, I often mean, “What do you believe?” Not as in, “We believe the world wants a device that will allow them to…” That’s actually, “We think…” Rather, as in, “We believe that people need to remain connected to other people; we believe our purpose is to provide devices that…” Despite reading and abiding by directives such as Start With Why (Sinek, 2011), this kind of descent to expose the core assumptions of “Why” is one nobody really wants to take.

So why is that kind of philosophical pondering held in such disregard?

First, it’s hard. It requires rigorous thought, due consideration, and alternative points of view. None of which is acceptable in an environment of HiPPO (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion) rules or unconsidered braying of partisan vitriol.

Second, it’s still hard. It demands a sense of right and wrong. That then presumes you might stand for something, ideally something that can be argued rationally from some principles. Rampant specialization and narrow awareness does not lend itself to this capacity.

Third, it’s unnecessary. After all, whether its Mill, Burke, Rousseau, or Jefferson, there are philosophies a plenty to choose from and no need to waste time on such things now.

Fourth, well… it’s hard. Given the preference for action—any action!—to indicate ability, quality, and value, taking time to muse over that action gets indicted as regressive to say the least.

It’s true that some fundamental underpinnings of philosophy are timeless—give or take a millennium, otherwise we wouldn’t still look to Plato. But other philosophy is more set in a time and place—give or take a millennium or continent, so it needs to be refreshed from time to time.

Given the rate society is evolving in technology’s wake, we need to take a little time to continually consider whether our core values remain operative in practice. At the very least, we should give a modicum of respect and an ear to those who do it professionally, casually, or within the confines of their daily toil.

The problem with not thinking about these things and, worse, discouraging those who will, is that these things are affected by rapid innovation and change anyway.

The seemingly outrageous privacy invasions by governments is not the product of a sea change in method. It was a steady dripping of unconsidered change that allowed the method to metastasize into what it’s become: something odious. And, it all took root in so many innocuous “consumer benefits.”

The outrageous bill that is to be the Unfair Elections Act (2014) is only possible because over time we have largely become so blasé about hyper-partisan drivel and the corruption of governance by politics that many people see nothing especially egregious about the bill’s content. And so it now threatens a foundation of our society. That represents six years’ effort on the part of Canada’s New Government.

So let’s all throw around the f-word until it’s so common that everyone does it. We’ll all be better for it.

IT Security and the rise of the Data Chemists

Uncategorized Comments Off

Sep 072014

The days of perimeter protection for online security and privacy are dwindling. Those tried-and-true approaches for safeguarding data and ensuring organizational and individual data security are destined to the quaintness of punch cards. Relying on them as the paradigm of security for extensive or elaborate IT implementations that have a future is not wise. There is a better way.

The concept of perimeter security is inspired by the notion that if you put all your eggs in one basket then you have but one basket to guard and protect. It is a castle, high on a hill with thick stone walls and drawbridges over impassable moats. The stuff inside is safe because the bad guys are kept at bay. Until it’s not.

One problem with perimeter security is that it depends on meeting force with force. So attempts to breach firewalls and ports are met with clever shields and redundant blocks. That is not a bad thing; it’s just a recursive cycle that probabilities suggest will always end in breaches. Moreover, it hardly matters how strong the perimeter is: once there is a crack, everything is in jeopardy. Since things have to move across the perimeter to function properly, the perimeter is porous by design, raising the odds of compromise.

To deal with the hole-y perimeter and make it reasonable for individuals to pass we take cues from the Old Testament. The Gileadites augmented their perimeter, keeping out the Ephraimites by demanding everyone crossing the border say the word “Shibboleth.” To make an old story short, those that could not were obviously trespassers and were dealt with in a decidedly Old Testamentary way. The concept introduces the demand for secret password identification.

In prevailing IT security, a previously established password presented at the perimeter gets compared to the one held behind the perimeter walls. This system can be compromised on the outside by capturing the password or matchable token from the individual to whom it belongs. Alternatively, the store of passwords/comparables inside the perimeter is, in fact, a geometrically more valuable treasure.
This approach is ever-less effective. In fact, it is practically a law that the value of perimeter protection is inversely proportional to participant sophistication.

So, what is the viable alternative? In Introductory Financial Management many years ago, I was introduced to the concept of diversification. It refers to investing in assets of varying risk profiles so that the aggregate risk would be more readily predictable. There is a lot of calculus and probabilities math behind this, so it must be scientific. Those who avoid scientific language might be inclined to describe diversification as spreading the risk or not putting all your eggs in one basket.

Critically, the risk is inherent in the value of the asset itself. If data is the valuable asset and the risk is that its acquisition by unauthorized parties can result in privacy or confidentiality breach which could have significant financial impact, that sounds a bit more like securities. In which case, managing risk more like a financial wizard becomes sound policy.

This challenges a core assumption of today’s IT security, being that one can prevent breach from happening. In other words, we presume and measure from zero, trying to keep the needle there (like airline safety). After all, if there is a lot of valuable data in one spot AND breach will affect lots of data and people, ANY breach is catastrophic and must be prevented. This base notion results in a course of action that takes us along the path that IT security has followed thus far.

What if that presumption were inverted? Instead, accept that there will always be (many) breaches. Then the goal cannot reasonably be to prevent them all, but rather to make them small, unprofitable, and essentially meaningless. In other words, diversify the risk away. This different starting point will result in a different approach. (That is the intent of encryption, but it should be quite evident that encryption alone is necessary but not sufficient in the cyber-security arms race.)

Take this idea further. What if there were no stores of meaningful aggregated data? It would not be worthwhile to penetrate the challenging security of an online service if there were nothing useful to acquire. Nobody would bother to break into a bank vault for one bar of gold. The crime doesn’t pay. Such a circumstance would require CIOs and security specialists to become “data chemists.” It is nothing less than alchemy—in reverse. Take gold and turn it into lead (or its elemental components). The real magic is in the owner being the only one able to reconstitute it into gold—when needed.

So, where does this leave us? Unfortunately, without specific answers; but with an idea for alternatives in the post-perimeter IT security world. The next wizards of security and privacy will succeed when they courageously change the metaphor and the starting point for their practice.
Start soon though: Our privacy and confidentiality depends on it.

Older Entries

Table of Contents

Capitalism

The Enlightenment

Enlightenment Ideals

Enlightenment Legacy of Ideas and Power Structures

Conditions In Europe Before Capitalism

Agricultural Changes and the Enclosure Movement

Feudalism and The Power of Land

Enclosure

The Urban Shift

Commercial Revolution and Mercantilism

Mercantilism

Money and The Commercial Source of Wealth

The Decline of the Landlord and Ascendance of the Commercial Baron

Financial Innovations and Institutions

Colonialism and Trade

Industrial Revolution and Capital Accumulation

Invention and Innovation

Efficiency and Productivity (and the end of the Artisan)

Capital Accumulation

The Birth of Capitalism

Social and Political Transformations

Philosophical Elements

Psychological Elements

Sociological Elements

Division of Labour

Market Exchange

Social Mobility

Proto-Capitalist Thinkers and Writings

Free Trade and Liberal Economic Policies

Capitalist Empires and Colonialism

Transparency is the new black

Secrecy, Conspiracy, Collusion…

Transparency on what’s more cancerous than benign: Corruption

Enjoy this? Tell a friend. Thx