The Burgeois Theory

In much of the world intellectuals seem to be stuck in an ideological dead-end. In the power triad money, violence, knowledge, they only generate ideas using the first two. Some see see a fight between repressive militaristic regimes and “rising burgeois” class or, an extension of this tired rhetoric, a fight between globalization (international money!) and violence.

The fall of the Berlin Wall apparently did not help clear matters; people are quick to point to neoliberalism as the winning side, but fail to see how a few photocopy machines installed at critical places in these ex-iron curtain countries could make a difference, or in larger terms, dissemination of knowledge among the populace. Marxists, true to form, provided more confusion in this world than explanations, after the Berlin Wall collapsed on their heads, the ones who “smartened up” quickly identified “the winner” and migrated to this new side. Based on their previous faulty ideology the other side could only have been the burgeois, then globalization (this word had the added benefit that it sounded similar to internationalism) so they simply changed their position in the formula.

But the formula was wrong.

Let’s start with the burgeois themselves: they “produce” and “sell” things right? Unfortunately the old formula does not make a difference between product types. According to it, a person gets rich by selling bananas, shoes, or … iPhones. Then they gain “power” through this newfound money, and they magically start changing their country’s power structure, causing it to be more democratic. Of course each citizen is better for it.

But neophytes do not realize bananas are different from iPhones and I cannot believe I have to state this explicitly. When a consumer eats a banana, he does not change much. His place in the power structure is no different; only he is little fuller. When someone buys an iPhone however, this consumer becomes a different person, he has different place in society. Technology is an enabler, it extends the reach, capabilities of a regular person. Especially a multipurpose tool like a smartphone, allows people do much, much more.

“Producing” a smartphone causes changes on the enterpreneurs, on the production side as well. A smartphone has much more intellectual property in it, as opposed to bananas, or steel, hence you need a different kind of company to make these products. The difference between Steve Jobs and Andrew Carnegie is so large that it could metaphorically be equated to the Grand Canyon. Earlier “rich people” were very different from their underlings for this very reason, but you would have a hard time distinquishinging their knowledge based counterparts apart from their engineers. My worldview is not much different from Bill Gates’. And if you project from here, then you can understand the reasons for all recent turbulence, “systemic” shocks seen around the world, especially since 1960s because Bill Gates has different demands from the system he is in.

He does not want mindless, stupid automations to be employed on an assembly line. He needs smart, creative people who can take risks, learn from their mistakes, and improvize. Such people need a different educational system. It does not stop with Bill Gates either, everyone working for him, or for people like him think the same way. The number of such people have steadily increased since 1960s, will keep increasing. Cynics can argue all they want that it makes no difference to own a phone, log on the Internet, or be a fan of a Facebook page.

But it does. Haven’t we seen enough proof of this already, in Egypt, and other Arab countries?