Sovesti and how to ruin a good thing

Sovesti is a well known Russian word in Moldova with no exact translation in English. It is (in my opinion) a word oozing of communist mentality. You usually say “don’t you have any sovesti” – with the sense that “don’t you realize that sharing is the right thing to do (don’t you appreciate me enough to share something with me (even if you don’t, I’ve done a lot of stuff for you so I deserve it (and so if you don’t do this, I’m not going to do stuff for you anymore either!)))). Funny how quickly sovesti becomes a game of counting favors. I don’t mind counting favors, but I’d rather count them upfront – in the first set of parenthesis – not in the plotting, back stabbing back of my mind – in the fourth set of parenthesis.

But more generally - is morally enforced sharing a good thing? That is, is it really a good thing to create a society in which not sharing is a sin?

Back to America: I buy a candy bar, and you are standing next to me. In a “not sharing is a sin” world, I automatically feel bad for not giving you some of it. I, by the simple act of purchasing something for myself and wanting it for myself, have committed a sin. If you are bold enough to ask, I must give it to you. However, you probably won’t ask for it (since asking is presumptuous) and so I have to offer it to you – I have to give you something I want to keep, and I have to make you take it. If I don’t, you could scold me for my sin as our kindergarten teachers did when we didn’t share the glitter. WHAT CRAZINESS!

You might be saying that if I was a good person, a true sharer, I would not feel bad by giving some of my candy bar to you. I would, in fact, feel good, the sharing would touch my spirit of goodness and inject even more dopamine into my brain than would have been injected by eating that tiny bit of candy I gave away. Equally, I would realize that over time, my sharing and other people’s sharing would equal out, and we’d all be better off. Well, it’s true, I’m not a true sharer – but the world will probably not equal out because there will always be those who intentionally take more than they give (see my water bottle story). Worst part is, they usually are the most vocal sharers. They’re the ones who leave 5 dollars less when in large groups at restaurants, or do nice little tasks - like cleaning up a room – while expecting much more valuable tasks to be done in return, through the natural process of sharing, of course. They are such vocal sharers because they depend on the system to continue in order to take advantage of it.

It’s not that the people are inherently bad – it’s just that everyone figures out how to maximize their happiness, which often (though not always) means maximizing profit while minimizing work. But we should never create systems in which deviants – those whose actions run against the tenets of the system – can thrive without being detected. If we could easily detect and openly finger and correct those individuals who take and don’t give, the system could continue without being systematically taken advantage of (this has been tried – it didn’t work out). But we can’t, and so it goes on in the cheaters’ favor.

And so this is why I think the system of “not sharing is a sin” is fundamentally flawed. It doesn’t mean I’ll never give you a piece of my candy bar – I might. But I don’t have to. I will feel no remorse in not giving it to you, and you should feel no anger for not receiving it. So my act of kindness will be just that: a conscious, unforced kind act, a plain old good thing - not one forced on me by some societal idea of sharing, leaving me jaded and annoyed.

And so we will both have sovesti which we will count in every transaction seperately, and the back stabbing, favor-counting parts of our minds will have nothing to mull over because it will all be brought to the surface, where public thoughts and actions should be.

all hands in the cookie jar

I recently went to pick up some wood with my host father. We went to the local government nursury/forestry station which also sells wood. It was quite the ordeal, rather poorly organized though I heard that usually they had the wood cut and stacked for you, but we had to run all over the forest finding what we were looking for. They were running a little behind, I had heard.

In any case, I talked with the main forest ranger. I asked him what exactly he did, and what purpose the nursury served and the station in general. He expained the nursury was for trees that they replanted (either in other forests or parks) and was his main job. Secondarily, he obviously had to protect the forest that was under his jurisdiction. Finally, there was the saw mill which he oversees. After working for 10 years in the same position, he still receives only 500 lei a month (about 40 dollars). That’s not even enough money for gasoline for his car for a month. It is worthless. And so, like forest rangers all over moldova, he draws money out from the saw mill. He has 3 workers, who also get paid no more than 400 lei (32 dollars) from the state, and he steals enough to be able to double their salary. He steals by overestimating the amount of waste material (bark, unusable wood) and underestimating the amount of usable wood. So with that usable wood that actually remains, he sells at a 100 percent profit without the state knowing, and with that money he raises his salary as well as the workers’ salaries.

He said this is the case all over Moldova. In fact, it must be – no one can live on 500 lei a month.

This is a classic example of what the state does – it creates situations in which people cannot possibly survive, and then makes all possible escape from said situation illegal. Since people must survive, everyone does what is illegal and because everyone is doing it, the state must look the other way. As a result, laws no longer have value, and people learn that the state is not only weak, but false. Another result (which is must more sinister) is that those with political power can use this situation to their advantage. If the whole world is cheating, I will send the cops to bust only those who are cheating from the opposition party. And so police, instead of being a force which maintains justice universally, becomes a political tool.

In my knowledge, the same exact situation occurs in education and police work (underpaid workers seek money through illegal means --> state turns its head), and I’m sure it occurs in lots of other places that I’m not aware of.

Resolving the situation requires change not just for forest rangers or teachers or police officers, but requires a complete revamping of the system. People are not stoic, and shouldn’t be. They need a reason to work and work hard, and love of country is not enough. They should never have to cheat to make a buck – making a buck should be integrated into the system – and if the system has no money, they need to tighten their belts.

a thinking pride

In my lifetime, pride has always been defined as an attitude of meritless intensity. It has been made to mean, almost intrinsically, the setting of goals without rationality and the persuit of them without objectivity. These are the people who derive their pride from past events, before their birth, events that have effectively become myths, another world which we look at as if behind glass.

Pride, as I define it, is something which I choose to take responsibility for. I am as cognizant of the choice as of the weight of the responsibility. Pride of this type cannot be forced upon someone. It is purely merit based: when that merit is exhausted, so is the responsibility.

I am proud of the people and system of the United States of America as they work in this moment and for the moments in the future. Since I began my service in Peace Corps Moldova two years ago, that pride has grown as I realized the merits of my country of birth. Americans are self-dependent, trusting, and aren’t afraid to enjoy success; our system is based on opportunity and not punishment. It is deserving of my pride and love until it goes beyond saving – otherwise my pride will become that based on the past, on the myth, and it will serve values which I don’t believe.

This is what happened to so many people in Moldova and other former Soviet states: after the fall of communism, their pride flickered out. Since then, Moldova has given them nothing to be proud of, only a past so far gone (before WWII) that they could make not real connection to it. Stefan Cel Mare (a great Moldova/Romanian king from the 16^th century) replaced Lenin as the name of the main street in the capitol, but he could not have the same effect in the hearts of Moldovans: he represented the success of the past, while Lenin was calling for future greatness. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, trade borders were erected and Moldovan agricultural output, another source of pride, dropped like a rock as production returned to almost pre-industrialization levels. Realizing that the state would no longer assure their wages, people grabbed what they could and began to work, but they didn’t know what they were working for. They couldn’t work for money – money represented greed – yet they had to feed themselves and their family, and so they began living the lie of wanting something you have been taught to hate, resulting in self-immolation, depression, and alchoholism.

All the while, behind the glass in the myth world, communism remained. Politicians institute free-market reforms while stealing secret glances at a bust of Lenin, farmers complain of high taxes while wishing the state will buy everything they produce, producers demand the breakup of monopolies while pandering to politicians for no-bid contracts and government grants. Unfortunately, no one can have their cake and eat it too.

Though this example is focused on Moldova, it is in no way limited to it. You could just as easily make a case for how pride can just as easily drive as ruin the US or just about any country. I just happen to be here and so it’s easier for me to use what I have and experience. As I've seen Romania develop in the last 2 years, it's interesting to see how much of it is based on the promotion of pride. Recently they started a contest to determine the "most important Romanian". They have lots of traditional music festivals and other activities centered around promoting the idea of what it means to be a romanian person. For now, their pride acts as a motor built on the merits behind the glass - though not all of them are so ephemeral. When I was on the train, on the topic of Romanian development, some people said "you'll see in 10 years, romania will be a different country, a better country..." Now that's the stuff I like to hear.

I sent this to the daily show

I just watched the Daily show the other day in the PC office, and decided to write the following letter to Jon Stewart:

Hey Jon and/or person who reads Jon’s mail. I’m a Peace Corps volunteer from Moldova (between the Ukraine and Romania, currently run by an elected communist government), and yesterday I was watching your show (yes, I’m in Moldova, somebody’s dad torrented it and sent it to us on DVD) and you were talking with a woman about oil companies. You stated “I understand that demand is high and supply is low and that prices go up, but why are oil companies’ profits so high? That somehow doesn’t seem fair when all the rest of us are suffering”. You were not implying collusion, you said simply that since we’re suffering, they should be too. Why do they deserve high profits? Why don’t I get some of their high profits, I’m suffering! It’s their fault! Couldn’t they give us a break, I mean, without us they wouldn’t have anyone to sell to. I mean really, they’re producing for us, right?

WRONG. They’re producing for themselves, they’re producing for their stockholders and the folks that made the company big and strong and wealthy enough to see times when oil prices were 70 dollars a barrel. In case you ever thought otherwise, let me tell you a little secret: their stated goal is to make a profit. If you want to bitch about something, bitch to your neighbor about his decision to buy an H2, bitch to your government about their excessive tax breaks and subsidies of the oil industry, bitch to G. W. Bush about how he brought us into a war on some very shaky ideological and factual grounds which is stirring up fear among investors in crude oil. If your response is “wait, regardless of the stated goal of the company, it is still located in America, and it is our society that has created the conditions from which it has thrived. It should repay that society for the priveledge of living in it.” First off… now that you see it written, can you see how ridiculous it is? Second – this society is successful for the very reason that people are assured that they can make money without it being taken away. Third, he’s already paying taxes (if he’s not, you have the right to be pissed). Fourth, do you really want a government that says “it’s ok to make profits up to a certain point (which we determine), at certain times (which we decide), and in certain industries (which we name)?

Jon Stewart, I am really disappointed in you… I decided to forgive you because I’m assuming you didn’t understand the basic economics of it (even though I don’t think that’s really true and even though my forgiveness probably means nothing to you). You’re great at letting compliments roll off your back, but even so I’d like to say I really enjoy your show and I think you’re a pretty smart cookie, and would even go so far to say that you’re helping move this country in the right direction in your own way. I just hope that little trickle of the we-deserve-it, he’s-too-rich, society’s-needs-too attitude was a slip up and not the real Jon Stewart.

In any case, I appreciate all the work you do and hope you continue in the future.

Greg Austic

Peace Corps Moldova, group 14

When smart people strike

I’d like to forwarn people that I’m writing the following mostly for me… well, honestly, this whole blog is for me in a sense, but what I mean is that the following post was written so that I remember it and can read it later. That being said, read on, if you want.

I find Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged increadibly compelling at a personal level. It’s humorously similar to the Communist Manifesto in the way it affects you: you suddenly start looking at the world using a different yardstick. It even focuses on production and work and the value of that work as the basis for much of its arguments, just like communism. It even is centered around exploitation, but it is the exploitation of the businessment, not the workers. It is the exploitation of those minds and those individuals capable of efficiently running, and risking, their businesses in a modern industrial society. No one, it says, can be exploited if they willingly accept a contract. Those who want a society centered around values other than production yet continue to consume are people working towards death, not life. Those are the people trying to defy the statement A is A… they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Another big obvious difference between the theory in Atlas Shrugged in communism is that her’s is a completely egoistic argument. Every person is in persuit of his or her own happiness. Though where happiness comes from is never exactly defined, it can come from personal consumption, consumption of others, or following an ideal. The claim is that happiness is a sort of indicator for preservation of life, just as unhappiness is an indicator for destruction. And so, the persuit of happiness is generally also the persuit of life. Those who want to have their cake an eat it too persue policies of sacrifice and unhappiness with the guise that it is for societal good, when in fact by removing happiness as the drive for achievement and production they are exhausting us of the answer to the question “why should I work harder?”

I’ve simplified it a lot and missed a lot, but when you read it she’s pretty compelling. She also comes from initial assumption that life itself is worth living, and that in order to live you must produce. The value of your production, or your work and mind, is based on the market which is the most efficient valuation of any good. Money, therefore, is a direct representation of your work, and your work is an affirmation of the fact that you want to keep living. One of her main gripes is against those who claim that those who make money are indebted morally to those who don’t, by the very fact that those who do are successful. It is by virtue of their ability to understand the value of their own work and achieve that they must give to those who do not value their own work and cannot achieve. It is a system in which the highest moral priority goes to the moocher and the begger. Institutionalized moochers and beggers are, of course, governments… so those who spend their time milking governments become the best moochers, and those spending their time convincing governments that they are the poorest are the best beggers. It is a self-destruction system in the long run, and depends on the true producers themselves to be suckers: they must continue to believe (as a motivation for their work) in the ideals of production/value/money, while continuing to self-immolate for the sake of the “good of society” aka the moochers and beggers.

(Compare this to Russia or Moldova if you’ve been to either). When times are good, moochers and beggers have to put on a good act to get money from people. They must use excuses, short enough to understand but rational enough to believe (if you don’t put too much thought in them), and say nice things to the right people. This would be lobbyists or beggars on the main streets. When times are tough, however, moochers and beggars can’t hide their acts any longer – they need the money and the people who have aren’t willing to give it up, so the façade of blame-shifiting righteousness just doesn’t work. They turn to stealing and upfront lying. This would be the Moldovan government or thieves on the back streets. They have left the system and become deviants, their self-worth is no longer based on societal values that they can’t (or don’t want to) live up to.

There are a few things that I wonder about this whole idea. First, let’s say that the world was indeed a true meritocracy, and people earned the exact value of their work, and their happiness was based primarily on what that work was and not something else. Happiness related to achievements comes almost always from pride, and pride is almost always a competitive measure. That is, I cannot be truly proud of my work, regardless of its quality, if I know that I am not near the top among my peers. But someone will always be at the bottom. Am I saying we should take a lot of pity from them? No, but they still have to live and take pride in something. A man with pride in nothing will necessarily become a deviant, in order that his actions become successful (in only by a different scale). And so, if our lives are based on our work, and we are not the greatest workers, how can we live? What happens to these people? They might have legitimate excuses – maybe they are beginners, maybe there are part-timers, maybe they have handicaps and are happy to be achieving any sort of work. But there will always be those who are simply not good at what they do. Can we say that there are people who are, at an ideological level, worthless? Should we care if that’s true, if the theory is sound? I don’t know yet, but that’s a good question.

She does not mention that both the producer and the moochers and beggars can both come from competition.. A moocher or thief can win by cheating the system faster than a producer can win by doing things efficiently, and so why produce? Only if everyone has a strong believe in the value of fairplay does the system work.

I think our world today is a mix. Most people do take pride in their work and as a result their self-worth is connected to their productive capacity (at least in the US). Yet those who fall through the cracks tend to switch to the excuse/blame mechanism that destroys the world in Atlas Shrugged. Also, many less than moral people become moochers and live off the system. It’s always a fight, but I think the system reinforces the good ones, not the bad. Especially now that we collect so much data on world growth, the market and competitive systems are proving to be the right ones. It is sad, however, when smart people get tricked into the moocher/beggar attitude.

Moldova's Mukesh?

I just finished a great article in Newsweek about the head of Mukesh Ambani (July 17, 2006), certainly a little known name in the US, but he is in fact the wealthiest businessman in India. His company, Reliance Industries, has had amazing growth in areas where growth takes effort: refining, textiles, agriculture and retail. You can’t have a funny idea, post it on the internet, convince thousands of people to visit it and make money in the petrochemical industry – you have to hire large amounts of skilled and unskilled people, buy billion dollars worth of equipment, work closely with state and local governments, and have a good mind for economic strategy. The article claims that this man and his father have created something out of nothing: a oil refining industry in India where it did not exist before.

Something out of nothing… that must take some effort.

His quotes make him sound like a man with a plan and a vision, someone who enjoys the challenge as well as the reward, and has no qualms in taking pride in either. Speaking of a plan to bring large supermarkets to poor rural India he says “there will be mistakes, but we are not scared. We will correct our mistakes fast and move on”. He talks in terms of “conquering markets”, even though he’s proud of the fact that he’s providing a good service that will help people. He wants to get into the rural energy industry, something that most countries have subsidized through its early development, selling bio-mass generators in thousands of remote villages, all “sold and serviced by Reliance’s rural network”.

Sitting here in rural Moldova, I sometimes forget that lots of people work because they want to achieve something. Lots of people work to get ahead, not to get someone else behind. Lots of people work so they can earn what they deserve, not deserving to work in order to earn what they need. Here, most people work for all the wrong reasons, and those without work use all the same excuses.