We've had a look at education. Let's now turn to business.
There are few big corporations today that discriminate in the sense that they don't have any black managers or they don't have any women managers. They do discriminate in the sense that there's little scientific or systematic effort to reward productive workers.
Organization is from the top down and one's chances with the company are apt to depend heavily on one's relationship with one's immediate superior. I'm confident that many of those who work for big corporations would privately agree that there's a lot of "kissing up" that goes on at their institution.
For today's society with huge business organizations--some performing vital economic functions--such pyramidal organization is much too simplistic. And, as with the NBA, American corporations don't know how to distinguish and reward corporate team players.
While as a Tartar-American, I'm proud to note or speculate that the corporate orgnizational model prevalent in 2007 was basically the one invented by Huns and used by Attila, I must also sadly conclude that the time has come for it to be modernized.
But where did it come from in the first place?
Churchill said that the further one looks into the past, the further one can see the future. Perhaps the reader will indulge a little popularized history:
In that frozen land of opportunity, north of China, ciirca AD 200, leadership by one dominant male was just the thing. And it was there that Attila's ancestors lived.
While there was ample pasture, it was also true that there was little room for mistakes or waste. And teamwork was needed. In an illiterate society, experience combined with swift, coordinated action could be key.
So there was a pyramid with a dominant male at the top. That dominant leader lasted as leader as long as he could provide qualities necessary both for his own survival and that of his underlings. The question of political or, as we may say, "business" leadership was decided, not by written law, but by the primitive question of who was the strongest and smartest.
Questions of authority and submission became inbred and instinctive. They knew when to submit and when to rebel.
I imagine that eye contact was important.
I don't want to insult my ancestors; they were quite brilliant in their way and in their time and place; but their social stucture, which had evolved from that of chimps, still showed very clear indications of that evolutionary origin.
This rugged "ranching culture" which may have had the advantage of, so to speak, "only a limited investment being required," may also have been attractive to men because it provided a sense of freedom. Land was free to all--although their nomadic life discouraged individual land ownership. They had to move becaue their livestock ate all the vegetation, which was slow-growing.
That "nice" setup wasn't attractive to women, however, and there was a tendency to look to China to replenish the female human breeding stock.
This in turn led to unpopularity with the Chinese, to the Great Wall, and to westward migration across that great, icy, northern land of ranching opportunity.
Going west, they followed the earlier example of Abraham--who they'd never heard of. History is the story of movement generally westward. Both Hun and Semite left behind an older, eastern culture. In both cases, newer western life had some advantages and some disadvantages. In both cases, a divide was created between East and West.
The East was seen as effete by the pioneers--but the East was also more sophisticated, with a longer history.
If there was a gap between East and West, there was also a wide gap between Hun and Semite. In early periods, Semitic culture was much more advanced. But as history progressed, Tartar and Semitic cultures encountered each other in southern Europe. And the Jewish writer, Franz Kafka, may have helped to bridge that gap with his famous novel, The Trial. One of the most striking characters in the novel is a Tartar doorman.
Huns didn't always enjoy a perfect reputation. When they rode into a town for a few days of fancy living, they could cause trouble. But, as they assimilated into Europe, there were individual Huns who could be applauded generally by the western society they'd invaded: Dr. Karl Frederick Gauss and Mr. Thomas Nast are examples. Both are discussed on this site.
We might also include Mr. Gene Autry and Mr. Roy Rogers, because the cowboy culture of the American West was basically an extension of the nomadic life of the Huns.
There were other cultural interchanges. For example, Huns learned that it was sometimes advantageous to cook one's food. Europeans learned, for a change of pace, to prepare beef in the style of the Tartars.
While the westerly portion of Attila's empire is regarded by most European historians as having been brutally mismanaged, native Americans have made the same complaint about the management of their lands by Europeans who later also invaded from the east. But despite any and all complaints, history went west.
And the competitive Tartar fighting mentality, with its clear resemblance to that of chimpanzees, with overlords and servile followers, became the culture of western business.
Today, pioneering businessmen still invade realms which others would consider inhospitable and find a way to profit or survive thereby. In 2008 the most conspicuous of those inhospitable realms confronting the human race was space. Bleak and cold, it resembled the frozen lands north of China--but, like that ancient fontier, space can support life and provide clever, energetic men with a source of wealth.
While I think the outline, as just given is fairly accurate, I make no pretence of writing a scholarly treatise. But our the main point at the moment is that the business scene of today with shifting empires and vain, individualistic tyrants comes to us from the east.
Jews may say, with reasonable evidence, that they were the primary inventors of commerce.
Why is it then, I'd reply, is it that we call business leaders "moguls?"
"Mogul" is from the same word root as "mongolians."
Is Herb Simon (owner of Indiana Pacers, see above) a mogul?
The typical hierarchical business structure of today shows little improvement over that of a primitive maurading human band or of chimps and thus it could benefit from some of the suggestions in this article.
While the US government was saying, at the beginning of 2007, that the economy was doing well, my view at that time was that long-range prospects were badly clouded.
A pending, potentially disastrous, financial crisis regarding baby boom retirement was looming. Some unpleasant announcements concerning cuts in retirement benefits and/or a big increase in the payroll tax seemed to lie about five or six years in the future.
We (this is the editorial "we") don't think it would be a very good idea to expect the government to be the sole agency for solving this problem. After all, the social security crisis of the eighties came about mostly because poitical bickering and government incompetence had made long-range planning impossible. As is related on this site, I was privileged to be in a position to make a contributin to the resolution of that crisis (see left).
But what about the current crisis?
Continue
to read about the work and life of Karl Gauss