It’s not the system but the leadership

It has been said that the communist system was a complete failure, both socially and economically. In my line of research we very often target the corporations for illegitimate or socially damaging practices. Along time many institutions or social systems have been blamed for their inability to treat individuals in a fair manner, even if this was for a greater goal. Feudalism, imperialism, mysticism, agnosticism, the church, the government, the judicial system, the army, almost everything imaginable, at some point in time was stigmatized.
But the truth is that if one takes a broader perspective, none of these were ultimately bad or ultimately good. Certainly, every social system or institution can be described by a various degree of success in pursuing individual or society welfare. Some are more successful some are more prone to failure. But the problem arises when a particular individual confiscates and misappropriates the system for its own individual, egoistic needs.
Every time in history we notice the same pattern. This is true regardless of the particular age or the particular institution or the particular purpose of that institution. In other words, whenever an individual was able to raise himself as a leading driving force for the ultimate purpose of a particular social system, a disaster was inevitable.
Perhaps this is the real strength of democracy. Not the fact that people’s voices can be heard or that the majority imposes its rule. But the fact the decision makers continuously change. Passing leaders know this and adjust their decisions accordingly. The ultimate power and the purpose of the system cannot be confiscated for the interest of a particular individual. Of course, along time, there were deviations from this rule, but the spirit of democracy does not allow deviations to become rule.
Whenever an individual is able to raise himself as the ultimate decision maker, he will ultimately deviates the purpose of that particular system or institution towards his own egoistic needs, no matter how nicely packed they are, and this will in turn be catastrophic for the others.
I am afraid this is true even for the most illuminated or revolutionary minds. When they become sole decision makers, disaster is inevitable. It’s the human nature.
Hence, it’s not the system but the leadership.

Who doesn’t need pollution?

There is a saying: every bad thing has a brighter side. Pollution is one of the greatest challenges that humankind yet faced. We most likely have not even experienced the heights of its devastating effects for the planet and for us. The brighter side is that for the first time nations have to sit together at the same table and act honestly in the pursuing of a common goal. For the first time developed countries look at the less developed countries as equal partners. For the first time citizens and nations stand up for a cause that crosses borders, cultures or religions. My hope is that this solidarity will last and will lead to a new age for the humankind, an age were globalization will mean more benefits than shortcomings.

Who needs pollution?

Seldom has an individual been able to create more that a complex corporatist organization could. Firms are vital for creating synergies that boost innovation and progress. In the process of innovation and production companies focus on the consumer. Consumer’s tastes and preferences are the main driving or shaping force for the firms’ innovating efforts.
In the process of innovation and production, however, companies generate negative externalities. Pollution of the natural environment is a major concern today. Firms do not intrinsically seek to pollute. They do not directly benefit from it. Pollution is a side effect in the race to better fulfill consumers’ needs.But when the firms will see the natural environment as one potential customer, an important one, the negative externalities will be alleviated through the simple mechanism of competition.