Hi Everyone,
This is the third post in my ‘Playbook’ series. Below are the first two.
The series focuses on explaining life as a series of games. The main areas it covers are competition and cooperation (introduced in the first post), perception (discussed throughout the series), planning and foresight, sustainability and preservation, controlling the narrative, learning from mistakes, and many more. The series takes a broad look at how success can be defined, but the main focus is on power and wealth and how they can be attained and maintained.
In addition to this series, I have posted three other posts that discuss similar topics but from a slightly different perspective. These posts are as follows:
This series takes an amoral approach to how the game of life is pursued. This is particularly true when discussing those who seek power and wealth.
For some countries, it is reasonably clear-cut. They have a consistent history of long-standing leaders. They might be royal families, dictators, or oligarchs. These people can be seen to be in control. They have titles and positions that match their influence.
Most are not absolute rulers. They comply to a certain extent with the wishes of other influential groups, but they do not cede any substantial power to these groups.
The systems in these countries are designed to keep leaders in power. Leadership is passed on to family members or selected successors by choice. The removal of unrelinquishing leaders is often done through force rather than by designed processes in the system.
For other countries, mostly western countries, it is much more complicated. They have intertwining political, economic, and social systems; they are often referred to as the establishment. The people with the most visibility often do not hold permanent positions. Therefore, they are vulnerable, as the system is designed for them to be replaced.
The lack of permanency and vulnerability of their position greatly diminishes their power. Some of the people with little to no visibility hold permanent positions; for example, public servants. The number of these people with permanent positions will vary considerably from country to country. Having a permanent role is good for protecting power. However, it does not necessarily grant power.
People who have power are people who strongly desire power. They would not be able to obtain it or hold on to it if they did not have this strong desire.
People who desire power often desire wealth. Wealth is a key enabler of power. It enables the ownership of private property. It grants access to other wealthy and often powerful people. It can buy political influence; this could be through donations, media, or other means.
People who desire power often desire fame. They desire recognition for their accomplishments in terms of leadership, philanthropy, or innovation. Fame is also a path to power. This is particularly true if leadership is determined by public voting. People are more likely to vote for someone they are very familiar with than someone who is less well known. Fame creates the illusion of competence, even if it does not exist.
People who desire power will also desire both wealth and fame. This is possible if the people of a country are tolerant of having dictators. The level of tolerance will vary significantly between countries. This tolerance often aligns with the extent and type of legitimacy that leaders use to justify their authority.
Legitimacy can be obtained in many ways. Leaders can claim they have been chosen by a higher power, they are saviours of their people, they are superior to their people, they are deserving through their accomplishments, or they have been chosen by their people.
Dictators need to maintain their legitimacy. Below are some of the ways they do this.
Some of the more successful dictators, oligarchies, and monarchies are Vladimir Putin of Russia, Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China (CPC), the Kim family of North Korea, the Saudi Royal family, and Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea.
Vladimir Putin has retained his legitimacy through strength and decisive leadership, patriotism, and convincingly portraying himself as a father figure to all Russians (News Week). For example, he has stood up to NATO, insulated Russia from emerging woke western values, and supported ethnic Russians in other countries.
Xi Jinping has retained popularity and preserved legitimacy by playing the role of a strong father figure who is deeply devoted to his people and country (The Guardian).
Despite creating and being able to maintain legitimacy among the majority, dictators face both internal and external threats. The extent of these threats will depend on a number of factors. These include the relative power (i.e., economic and military) of the country they control, relationships with other powerful or more powerful countries, influence over the citizens of other countries (e.g., unified through common religion), and standing in international bodies.
Internally, other people will seek the power of the dictator. They could do this through force or propaganda. A strong dictator is hard to topple if the opposition needs to rely purely on forces within their own country. However, powerful external forces can swing the balance against a dictator. They can use propaganda to undermine him or her. Social media has become a useful tool to do that. They can infiltrate a country at the grassroots level to spread opposing ideologies. They can even interject directly by supporting uprisings to remove a leader.
Possessing power, wealth, and fame is very rewarding for the leaders. It gives them what they most crave. However, it has risks. They need to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of their people, and they need to prevent external threats. For some countries, obtaining legitimacy to be a permanent leader is not even possible to begin with. For these countries, the powerful are forced to remain faceless.
The cultures of some countries will not tolerate a permanent leader (i.e., dictator, monarch, etc.) of any sort. The people of these countries believe they should rule themselves instead of being ruled by elites.
Direct decision-making by the public is argued to be impossible. Instead, a compromise is offered. This involves the public selecting their own leaders. Systems are put in place that enable people to choose who leads their country for a particular period (e.g., 4 years). At the end of this period, people can choose to keep their leaders or choose new ones. This is referred to as ‘democracy’ or, more accurately, representative ‘democracy’. People are choosing the face they want.
A few different political systems can facilitate representative democracy. Some countries utilise the two party system, where the system is designed to offer the public the choice of just two parties or candidates (e.g., presidential). They might use a first-past-the-post voting system. There are systems in some countries that facilitate more parties (e.g., proportional representation systems), but these parties are divided based on just two ideologies; left-wing and right-wing. The parties that have the ideology with the most support win and form Government (coalition). The leaders of the largest winning party are normally awarded the highest positions within this Government.
Representative democracy is an illusion of choice. Most representative democracies involve choosing between political parties; often just two. The leaders of these parties are the focus of the campaigning.
Campaigning often relates to two key areas. The first is the promotion of the character of the candidate. The second is the criticism of the character of the opposition and some of the aspects of their policies.
Actual policies and key differences in policies are covered in very little detail. Maybe one or two flagship promises are discussed. This is mostly because the differences between the parties’ policies are minimal. There are bigger differences in the personalities of candidates. Therefore, they are highlighted. This creates the illusion of broader differences.
The eventual winner/s has the fame and prestige of being the leader/s of the country. They also have some power. The extent of this power can vary significantly depending on the purpose this leader serves. If the leader is just continuing to pursue the majority of the same policies both major parties support, this leader has very limited power. If the leader is going against many of the main policies or pursuing very different policies, this leader likely has more power.
We can see this stark contrast between US Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Both are in the same system but have different power. Joe Biden almost mindlessly follows instructions from within his party and the teleprompts displayed in front of him. Donald Trump has the freedom to shape his own policies and push back against typical establishment policies. Donald Trump’s power is still limited. There are things he cannot do or say because his role is to distract from them (controlled opposition).
The people with the most power in representative democracies are often the ones we rarely see. They do not need to rely on elections for any of their power. They have power from their wealth, connections with other wealthy families, and, in many cases, historic ties to powerful organisations.
The wealthiest and most powerful families include the Rothschild (Celebrity Net Worth), Wallenberg (CNBC), Rockefeller (Forbes), Cargill-MacMillan (Forbes), Walton (Forbes), Du Pont (Forbes), Johnson (i.e., Johnson & Johnson) (Forbes), Lauder (Forbes), Quandt (Celebrity Net Worth) and many others. These families have enormous influence in many important industries, such as financial, energy, healthcare, media, and food production.
The wealthiest who reach perceived positions of power do so for personal vanity. In many cases, they do not hold the highest positions in Government; they might be mayors or hold positions in the executive branch. The wealthiest rarely take centre stage, as they would not be tolerated in these perceived high positions.
The people nominated as candidates for positions of leadership often have strong ties to the wealthiest. They come from certain families; they have certain family backgrounds; they have attended certain schools; and they belong to particular social clubs. They are not just anybody.
These people do not mind forgoing the full power suggested by their position, as it is more than what they would have otherwise. Leaving office also includes many lucrative perks (e.g., being paid to give speeches and endorsements).
Being a proxy leader may also offer protection from prosecution for crimes that may have been committed during or before taking office. Corruptness may also be seen as a positive trait, as they might be more inclined to support the elites in unethical ways that more honest people would not. Political leaders are more akin to actors than actual leaders with significant power.
In the US, many political leaders come from families that are deeply entrenched in politics. For example, the Clinton, Kennedy, and Bush families. The Bush family has had two US Presidents (i.e., George H. W. Bush 41st and George W. Bush 43rd) as well as other family members deeply embedded in US politics. The Bush family's power did not come from their presidencies. It came from the family’s wealth and ownership relating to banking and oil companies (Business Insider). However, being in office proved to be quite lucrative. The Bush family, along with many of the other elites, greatly benefited from the two Gulf wars that were started during their presidencies (Counter Punch). Such boldness may have been ill-advised.
The most powerful people might be those who control the largest asset management firms, such as BlackRock and Vanguard. These two companies control almost US$20 trillion in assets (Financial Post). They have large stakes in many of the largest companies in the world (BlackRock Vanguard Watch). They have the power to strongly influence the strategic decisions made by these firms. Hence, it gives them enormous power.
It is not clear who has the most influence in the decision-making of these two companies. They have significant ownership in each other (Omkar Chitnis). Over 60% of BlackRock’s shares are owned by other institutional investors (Capital.com). It is likely the executives of these companies are acting on behalf of the wealthiest people and families. It is unclear which people and families these might be. Anonymity offers great protection for their power.
I would strongly argue that the faceless powerful are considerably more powerful than the most powerful dictators, such as Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. This is because their power is not confined to just one country. They are able to control most of the world.
The powerful greatly desire wealth and fame. However, this comes at a risk. Fame makes a person or family a target. They can be stripped of their power or even killed. In some countries, it is not possible to have all three, as society would not tolerate anyone or any group of people holding permanent leadership roles in a country.
The powerful and wealthy forgo some or all possible fame attached to leadership. Instead, they have proxy leaders representing them. These leaders pretend they are accountable to the public. They give the public elections so they can choose between pre-selected representatives of the wealthy and the truly powerful. The powerful fund media that spread their propaganda but do so under the guise of scrutinising elected leaders and Government.
Most of the powerful and wealthy settle for forgoing fame and prestige for the security of their power and wealth. However, they still want all three. For this to be possible, there needs to be a cultural shift away from western liberal values. The solution might be to replace people with these values for those more willing to accept dictatorship style leadership that offers doctrine instead of freedom. For example, Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, has displayed admiration for China’s type of dictatorship (CTV News). The constant charade of democracy is a frustrating inconvenience for the elite.
For more context around the workings of the establishment and the power systems in place in western representative democracies, I recommend reading the following posts.
I have published an ebook on Amazon; it is titled ‘Sapien Loop: End of an Era’. The book is fiction. I do not normally write fiction. However, I felt it was appropriate considering what is happening in the world today. Freedom is the most important thing we have, but we are gradually losing it. I have covered this in many of my posts.
In the story, most citizens do not understand the concept of freedom because they have never really experienced it. In essence, the story is about an alien world that might represent our not-so-distant future. There are many other elements to the story that are an abstract and exaggerated version of our reality. I believe this book to be an important read, and I believe it has the potential to change the way you think.
This story is based on the fictional planet Sapia and its sole country, Sapey. Sapey is portrayed as a form of utopia for all its citizens. No poverty. No war. Almost no crime. Opportunities for all.
This was enough for most citizens, but not all. In one of the small regions, some of the citizens had become discontent. They felt something important was missing in their lives. Their discontent did not go unnoticed. Some of the Sapey elite wanted to weaponise this discontent to gain more power. This created more chaos than they anticipated. This led to further widespread social unrest.
On top of the chaos, ambition and greed provoked another enemy. This enemy was on a mission to settle both new and old scores.
If you want to buy a copy of the book, below are links to the relevant Amazon websites for each country it is available in. The book is priced at approximately US$5.08.
I am also running monthly contests where participants are required to answer questions based on the book. The prize is 30 Hive Power plus upvotes for the first twelve entries. You can recover the cost of the book with just one win.
