This in no way detracts from the value and existential necessity of works such as Lelievre's. However.
No amount of analysis and insight will solve anything without action.
Action does not require majority support or validation. Societal change is achieved by committed (often very small) minorities. We are surrounded by living examples.
Quite a few dead ones too. Tobacco-smoking used to be the best example but in Britain, people can't poison the public with impunity any more. The fascist electoral system is the other obvious example.
As a long retired clinical social worker I have many experiences from my time working within large institutional structures that flashed before my conscious memory while reading this fine essay. One memory in particular came to mind, perhaps because of the sense of Orwellian disequilibrium it created at the time. While working for a very small rural Alaska hospice program we (our team) were being "surveyed" by an accrediting agency in order to maintain our certification to receive the Medicare funding that pays for most hospice care. Our tiny program was staffed by literally a handful of people, all of us wearing multiple "hats" for the various "roles" we played in providing service. I will never forget the smiling, congenial attitude exhibited by the surveying team from somewhere in the lower 48 states as they explained all of the "improvements" to our services and service provisions that they were officially recommending in their report in order for us to remain "accredited" and able to bill Medicare. Forget the fact that as a tiny program with very little in the way of staff or financial resources we had absolutely no way on earth to meet these "new requirements" that supposedly were the latest in new measures of the "quality" of the services we provided. Also keep in mind that I had already worked in three different much larger hospice programs in the lower 48 states - large programs that could not hope to match the actual - "quality of care provision" - that our small program provided our local community, but that with much larger budgets and staffing allotments could more easily "jump through the hoops" of these new "standards" and "protocols."
I will always remember the Orwellian, truly almost Kafkaesque scene as our tiny team sat down for the exit interview with the team of surveyors and they explained to us all of things we would now "need to do" in order to be "approved" - most of which we had already told them we could not possibly comply with given the small size and limited resources of our program. I remember how their smiling faces and upbeat demeanor in that meeting completely clashed with the "reality" of the situation as myself and the rest of our team experienced it. It was if while torturing Winston, Big Brother was kind, upbeat and congenial as he was asking the traumatized Winston - "how many fingers am I holding up?" The disconnect was stunning. A group of well meaning, organizationally rigid, "by the book" functionaries from a large institutional structure that was used to surveying large hospice programs in the lower 48 states - simply seemed to have no idea how to in anyway accommodate the very different on the ground reality's faced by a very successful and important, but very tiny hospice program in rural Alaska. The surreal nature of that scene has always stayed with me. Along with the realization that large ossified institutional structures can act in ways completely counter to their stated "goals" (i.e. - improved patient care) - and not only not miss a beat - but also manage to seemingly filter out all important information they might have difficulty incorporating institutionally. No malice, no harm intended. "Just following orders" - as it were. : /
"Just following orders, " the standard cop-out of all assorted apparatchiks and other parasites, facilitated and empowered by our collective and individual spineless submission to their "authority" instead of exacting individual, personal accountability with actual consequences.
I took my orders from the officially-labelled service users and was never forgiven. Quite how I lasted for so long after the Community Care Act 1990 (in Britain) is a question I can only guess at.
Lately, I’ve been taking some downtime. I'm now planning a follow-up essay to this one that will explore how institutions can gradually drift toward becoming cold, self‑referential forms of closure, but this closure remains fragile because human beings do not tolerate dehumanizing systems indefinitely. Structural rigidity may advance, yet the psychological, social, and practical creativity of ordinary people continually pushes back. Irreversibility is never absolute: the human need for dignity, meaning, and autonomy eventually reopens what institutions try to seal.
I forwarded your essay to my brother who several months ago now was elected to the board of a small, but very long established NGO. One that seems a bit stubbornly resistant to any new input. He told me he had many "ah ha" moments reading your essay which rang very true to him. So he in turn forwarded your essay to the board president in the hopes that in doing so it might stimulate some thought and discussion. I've always maintained that it is impossible to "deal with" a problem - until you first acknowledge that the problem - "exists." Thank your for your work Luc. Looking forward to your next essay on the topic.
"The institution continues to communicate, but communication no longer leads to correction. It continues to receive information, but information no longer leads to adjustment. What looks like engagement is, in practice, a mechanism of neutralization. The system absorbs everything and changes nothing."
I thought of the over 225 "public health" institutions that the great Christine Massey has contacted requesting ANY evidence of the existence of "viruses" (as commonly defined). They all told her 'No' but took no action whatsoever!
This essay presents a brilliant description of how systems are in the process of dying, but in the mean time becoming more and more useless and harmful. Extreme systemic change is needed but it must also include, perhaps even more essentially, ATTITUDINAL change. The CULTural values of society are upside down which play out in increases of delusional thinking and blocking access to our hearts' understanding via intuition, inspiration, insights, creativity, morality, honesty, SINCERITY, and PURITY. Without a heart AWAKENING, individually, and collectively, chaos and confusion, helplessness and hopelessness will keep humanity stuck in the mire of ignorance of ignorance.
I’m planning a follow‑up essay that will look at how institutions can slowly drift into cold, self‑referential forms of closure, yet this closure is always fragile because people won’t tolerate dehumanizing systems forever. Even as structural rigidity grows, the psychological, social, and practical creativity of everyday people keeps pushing back. Nothing is ever completely irreversible—our need for dignity, meaning, and autonomy inevitably reopens what institutions try to shut tight.
A bow to Kafka seems deserving in this well argued essay. Coming from a medical perspective, I find that two metaphorical paradigms come to mind: ossification and hyporeflexia. Ossification captures the sense that the system can bear weight but is inflexible and incapable of adapting. Hyporeflexia captures the fact that the messages are heard but the reflex response expected is muted or absent. Of the two, I find ossification most appealing, as it conveys the hardness and immutability of the structure, whereas hyporeflexia seems to allow for the possibility of neural regeneration. The notion that "the science is settled" is symbolic of the ossification process.
Living systems are dynamic, organic and adaptive. When a system loses the ability to evolve, change, and adapt, it is on the straight and narrow path to extinction. No need here to demolition the system, it is quite capable of making itself obsolete all by itself. As we watch this self-extinction process progress, it behooves us all to conceive of new, dynamic, and vibrant systems that speak for the beating hearts of humanity. In this vein, I highly commend all to John McGregor's excellent vision of political reform - third wave democracy - described nicely in his book "The Mechanisms of Changing the World." It is but one example of what a living thriving political structure might look like.
No. Lately, I’ve been taking some time to relax. I’m working on a follow‑up essay exploring how institutions can gradually slip into cold, self‑focused patterns of closure, yet that closure is always fragile because people won’t put up with dehumanizing systems forever. Even as structures become more rigid, the everyday psychological, social, and practical creativity of people keeps pushing back. Nothing is ever truly irreversible—our need for dignity, meaning, and autonomy always finds a way to reopen what institutions try to keep closed.
It’s funny that CS Lewis depicted the demon hierarchy as a bureaucracy,in The Screwtape Letters. But even his demonic bureaucracy still managed to get things done. But for all of his horrors, Satan is a strong leader. I think that is why CEO’s are paid so much, and presidents, kings and other leaders are valuable. Each system needs an overseer who keeps the main goal of the group in mind and who has the power to move the group in that direction. True hell is what you describe- when you are unable to change anything. Of course, we only get a foretaste of that in in this life, because reality means consequences, and even evil consequences- such as bureaucrats and politicians heaping more and more laws and regulations on workers, still produce change. I’m not one of those foolish people who say, “It can’t get any worse!” Of course it can. Maybe in hell it can’t.
A young man was complaining to me about God. He said, basically, “Why can’t God just bless us no matter what choices we make?” I said that in many ways he does. “The rain falls on the evil and the good” (rain in Bible lands was regarded as a blessing). He gives breath and opportunity and the offer of new life and forgiveness to the basest sinner. However, what the young man was asking for was something very like hell. He was wanting his decisions to have no consequences. That is not freedom. There is no hope in that. When God blocked sinners from eating of the tree of life (living eternally), it was not a punishment, it was a mercy. This life He has given us is a quest, a divine treasure hunt. The consequences of bad choices and the specter of death often turn people back to Him- the source of Life and Light. He has given us room for accomplishment and achievements, as well as failures. He loves us and wants our love, but love requires a choice.
Everything described here is a consequence of the ideology that created these institutions in the first place, and most of these consequences are intentional.
Our medical system in the US is a prime example fitting this analysis. It is very slow to recognize the health problems it has frequently caused, and simply continues to recommend the same failed protocols (more surgeries, more pills!). We consequently have the highest per capita expenditures and worst health outcomes of any developed nation, yet very few inside the system appear to care.
I’d like to offer this explanation. Łobaczewski warns us that once established, pathocracy is very difficult to reform from within, because it naturally selects those who resemble it and excludes those who still possess an ordinary moral conscience. But he also adds a realistic hope: normal societies always end up rejecting this type of power because it is contrary to fundamental human nature. The process may be long and painful, but natural resistance eventually emerges. Closure advances because unempathetic logics have taken hold in our institutions. But it remains fragile because the vast majority of human beings cannot long endure living in a heartless and unfree world. This episode confirms a central insight of James C. Scott: life is always more inventive than administration. When institutions attempt to impose closure through rigid categories, people respond with improvisation. They adapt faster than the system can react. They find openings where the state sees only rules. And in doing so, they reveal the fundamental fragility of institutional closure. The late Soviet Union offers a textbook example of how social life outmaneuvers institutional closure. In 1985, Gorbachev launched a campaign to restrict alcohol sales, believing it would improve productivity and restore social discipline. Instead, ordinary people immediately turned to home‑distillation. Informal networks spread across the country, producing far more alcohol than the state had ever sold officially. The result was paradoxical: consumption barely declined, but state revenues collapsed. The policy weakened the fiscal foundations of the regime and contributed to its broader loss of legitimacy. The episode illustrates a core principle of James C. Scott’s work: administrative simplification cannot suppress human inventiveness.
It’s funny that CS Lewis depicted the demon hierarchy as a bureaucracy, but even in his depiction, his demonic bureaucracy still managed to get things done. I think that is why CEO last are paid so much, and presidents, kings and other leaders are valuable. Systems need an overseer who keeps the main goal of the group in mind and who has the power to move the group in that direction. True hell is what you describe- when you are unable to change anything. Of course, we only get a foretaste of that in in this life, because reality means consequences, and even evil consequences- such as bureaucrats and politicians heaping more and more laws and regulations on workers, still produce change. I’m not one of those foolish people who say, “It can’t get any worse!” Of course it can. Maybe in hell it can’t.
A young man was complaining to me about God. He said, basically, “Why can’t God just bless us no matter what choices we make?” I said that in many ways he does. “The rain falls on the evil and the good” (rain in Bible lands was regarded as a blessing). He gives breath and opportunity and the offer of new life and forgiveness to the basest sinner. However, what the young man was asking for was something very like hell. He was wanting his decisions to have no consequences. That is not freedom. There is no hope in that. When God blocked sinners from eating of the tree of life (living eternally), it was not a punishment, it was a mercy. This life He has given us is a quest, a divine treasure hunt. He has given us room for accomplishment and achievements, as well as failures. He loves us and wants our love, but love requires a choice.
There may have been a time when institutional architecture was set up in good faith but then drifted into dysfunction. But now it’s hard to imagine that it hasn’t stayed in place without reform exactly because it lets the overlords give the little people a lifetime assignment of raging against the machine. It keeps us busy seeking unhealthy and unproductive solutions. We strive while they are entertained by the shaking of our tiny fists.
I think that it's a mistake to see this process and exonerate the people in it. Top-down, right-wing Stalinism is not accidental or coincidental. One purpose of institutions like this is to manage scarcity, often scarcity that is fictional, with massive over-management of finance and indifference to the ostensible central purpose of the institution. The real users are the ones who reap the greatest rewards, central management, local and central governments. They've got to find savings somewhere for those nuclear bombs and missiles without disturbing the enrichment of the Eloi.
I thought about communism too. This is not a problem just of western civilization. This is a sin problem. And I agree that the human cogs in the machine bear some responsibility. But they usually don’t see the big picture. Or sometimes they need the job, and they know they can’t change anything by not taking it anyway. At times the job is clearly wrong, but usually it isn’t.
It took me time to come to conclusions and despite being an occ’ard sod, I participated in the status quo, until I didn’t. When we take the money we compromise ourselves. When we keep taking the money having come to know the game we are the people who pass by on the other side.
Lately, I’ve been making time to unwind. I’m working on a follow‑up essay about how institutions can slowly drift into cold, self‑centered patterns of isolation.
This in no way detracts from the value and existential necessity of works such as Lelievre's. However.
No amount of analysis and insight will solve anything without action.
Action does not require majority support or validation. Societal change is achieved by committed (often very small) minorities. We are surrounded by living examples.
Quite a few dead ones too. Tobacco-smoking used to be the best example but in Britain, people can't poison the public with impunity any more. The fascist electoral system is the other obvious example.
As a long retired clinical social worker I have many experiences from my time working within large institutional structures that flashed before my conscious memory while reading this fine essay. One memory in particular came to mind, perhaps because of the sense of Orwellian disequilibrium it created at the time. While working for a very small rural Alaska hospice program we (our team) were being "surveyed" by an accrediting agency in order to maintain our certification to receive the Medicare funding that pays for most hospice care. Our tiny program was staffed by literally a handful of people, all of us wearing multiple "hats" for the various "roles" we played in providing service. I will never forget the smiling, congenial attitude exhibited by the surveying team from somewhere in the lower 48 states as they explained all of the "improvements" to our services and service provisions that they were officially recommending in their report in order for us to remain "accredited" and able to bill Medicare. Forget the fact that as a tiny program with very little in the way of staff or financial resources we had absolutely no way on earth to meet these "new requirements" that supposedly were the latest in new measures of the "quality" of the services we provided. Also keep in mind that I had already worked in three different much larger hospice programs in the lower 48 states - large programs that could not hope to match the actual - "quality of care provision" - that our small program provided our local community, but that with much larger budgets and staffing allotments could more easily "jump through the hoops" of these new "standards" and "protocols."
I will always remember the Orwellian, truly almost Kafkaesque scene as our tiny team sat down for the exit interview with the team of surveyors and they explained to us all of things we would now "need to do" in order to be "approved" - most of which we had already told them we could not possibly comply with given the small size and limited resources of our program. I remember how their smiling faces and upbeat demeanor in that meeting completely clashed with the "reality" of the situation as myself and the rest of our team experienced it. It was if while torturing Winston, Big Brother was kind, upbeat and congenial as he was asking the traumatized Winston - "how many fingers am I holding up?" The disconnect was stunning. A group of well meaning, organizationally rigid, "by the book" functionaries from a large institutional structure that was used to surveying large hospice programs in the lower 48 states - simply seemed to have no idea how to in anyway accommodate the very different on the ground reality's faced by a very successful and important, but very tiny hospice program in rural Alaska. The surreal nature of that scene has always stayed with me. Along with the realization that large ossified institutional structures can act in ways completely counter to their stated "goals" (i.e. - improved patient care) - and not only not miss a beat - but also manage to seemingly filter out all important information they might have difficulty incorporating institutionally. No malice, no harm intended. "Just following orders" - as it were. : /
"Just following orders, " the standard cop-out of all assorted apparatchiks and other parasites, facilitated and empowered by our collective and individual spineless submission to their "authority" instead of exacting individual, personal accountability with actual consequences.
Those who need to be led will be bled.
I took my orders from the officially-labelled service users and was never forgiven. Quite how I lasted for so long after the Community Care Act 1990 (in Britain) is a question I can only guess at.
Check your brain at the door.
When I worked in residential care, it was ethics that weren't an approved paradigm.
Lately, I’ve been taking some downtime. I'm now planning a follow-up essay to this one that will explore how institutions can gradually drift toward becoming cold, self‑referential forms of closure, but this closure remains fragile because human beings do not tolerate dehumanizing systems indefinitely. Structural rigidity may advance, yet the psychological, social, and practical creativity of ordinary people continually pushes back. Irreversibility is never absolute: the human need for dignity, meaning, and autonomy eventually reopens what institutions try to seal.
I forwarded your essay to my brother who several months ago now was elected to the board of a small, but very long established NGO. One that seems a bit stubbornly resistant to any new input. He told me he had many "ah ha" moments reading your essay which rang very true to him. So he in turn forwarded your essay to the board president in the hopes that in doing so it might stimulate some thought and discussion. I've always maintained that it is impossible to "deal with" a problem - until you first acknowledge that the problem - "exists." Thank your for your work Luc. Looking forward to your next essay on the topic.
"Yeah, I know that feelin'."
When I read this:
"The institution continues to communicate, but communication no longer leads to correction. It continues to receive information, but information no longer leads to adjustment. What looks like engagement is, in practice, a mechanism of neutralization. The system absorbs everything and changes nothing."
I thought of the over 225 "public health" institutions that the great Christine Massey has contacted requesting ANY evidence of the existence of "viruses" (as commonly defined). They all told her 'No' but took no action whatsoever!
This essay presents a brilliant description of how systems are in the process of dying, but in the mean time becoming more and more useless and harmful. Extreme systemic change is needed but it must also include, perhaps even more essentially, ATTITUDINAL change. The CULTural values of society are upside down which play out in increases of delusional thinking and blocking access to our hearts' understanding via intuition, inspiration, insights, creativity, morality, honesty, SINCERITY, and PURITY. Without a heart AWAKENING, individually, and collectively, chaos and confusion, helplessness and hopelessness will keep humanity stuck in the mire of ignorance of ignorance.
I’m planning a follow‑up essay that will look at how institutions can slowly drift into cold, self‑referential forms of closure, yet this closure is always fragile because people won’t tolerate dehumanizing systems forever. Even as structural rigidity grows, the psychological, social, and practical creativity of everyday people keeps pushing back. Nothing is ever completely irreversible—our need for dignity, meaning, and autonomy inevitably reopens what institutions try to shut tight.
A bow to Kafka seems deserving in this well argued essay. Coming from a medical perspective, I find that two metaphorical paradigms come to mind: ossification and hyporeflexia. Ossification captures the sense that the system can bear weight but is inflexible and incapable of adapting. Hyporeflexia captures the fact that the messages are heard but the reflex response expected is muted or absent. Of the two, I find ossification most appealing, as it conveys the hardness and immutability of the structure, whereas hyporeflexia seems to allow for the possibility of neural regeneration. The notion that "the science is settled" is symbolic of the ossification process.
Living systems are dynamic, organic and adaptive. When a system loses the ability to evolve, change, and adapt, it is on the straight and narrow path to extinction. No need here to demolition the system, it is quite capable of making itself obsolete all by itself. As we watch this self-extinction process progress, it behooves us all to conceive of new, dynamic, and vibrant systems that speak for the beating hearts of humanity. In this vein, I highly commend all to John McGregor's excellent vision of political reform - third wave democracy - described nicely in his book "The Mechanisms of Changing the World." It is but one example of what a living thriving political structure might look like.
Corrected title: The Mechanics of Changing the World and author Macgregor. Looks interesting
Thanks for the correction, Jacqueline!
The descent into fuzziness.
Have you looked at the role of something quite different - REGULAROTY CAPTURE?
WHAT IS GOING ON? ON THE FORCES BEHIND THE FORCES. AND AN ESSENTIAL STRATEGY: REGULATORY CAPTURE.
https://truthsummit.substack.com/p/puppet-masters-regulatory-capture
My sources are the work of Rima Laibow and The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
No. Lately, I’ve been taking some time to relax. I’m working on a follow‑up essay exploring how institutions can gradually slip into cold, self‑focused patterns of closure, yet that closure is always fragile because people won’t put up with dehumanizing systems forever. Even as structures become more rigid, the everyday psychological, social, and practical creativity of people keeps pushing back. Nothing is ever truly irreversible—our need for dignity, meaning, and autonomy always finds a way to reopen what institutions try to keep closed.
It’s funny that CS Lewis depicted the demon hierarchy as a bureaucracy,in The Screwtape Letters. But even his demonic bureaucracy still managed to get things done. But for all of his horrors, Satan is a strong leader. I think that is why CEO’s are paid so much, and presidents, kings and other leaders are valuable. Each system needs an overseer who keeps the main goal of the group in mind and who has the power to move the group in that direction. True hell is what you describe- when you are unable to change anything. Of course, we only get a foretaste of that in in this life, because reality means consequences, and even evil consequences- such as bureaucrats and politicians heaping more and more laws and regulations on workers, still produce change. I’m not one of those foolish people who say, “It can’t get any worse!” Of course it can. Maybe in hell it can’t.
A young man was complaining to me about God. He said, basically, “Why can’t God just bless us no matter what choices we make?” I said that in many ways he does. “The rain falls on the evil and the good” (rain in Bible lands was regarded as a blessing). He gives breath and opportunity and the offer of new life and forgiveness to the basest sinner. However, what the young man was asking for was something very like hell. He was wanting his decisions to have no consequences. That is not freedom. There is no hope in that. When God blocked sinners from eating of the tree of life (living eternally), it was not a punishment, it was a mercy. This life He has given us is a quest, a divine treasure hunt. The consequences of bad choices and the specter of death often turn people back to Him- the source of Life and Light. He has given us room for accomplishment and achievements, as well as failures. He loves us and wants our love, but love requires a choice.
Everything described here is a consequence of the ideology that created these institutions in the first place, and most of these consequences are intentional.
Absolutely right!
Our medical system in the US is a prime example fitting this analysis. It is very slow to recognize the health problems it has frequently caused, and simply continues to recommend the same failed protocols (more surgeries, more pills!). We consequently have the highest per capita expenditures and worst health outcomes of any developed nation, yet very few inside the system appear to care.
My take on the drift of Institutions - the traits of the individuals who are in key positions of power in these institutions matter the most, versus other things ( like the size of the organization , procedures, documents etc. ). As another commenter (https://palerider778967.substack.com/?utm_source=substack-feed-item&utm_content=comment_metadata) stated:
"No amount of analysis and insight will solve anything without action. "
My own take on the subject: https://quberoot.wordpress.com/faq/partners/#organizations
I’d like to offer this explanation. Łobaczewski warns us that once established, pathocracy is very difficult to reform from within, because it naturally selects those who resemble it and excludes those who still possess an ordinary moral conscience. But he also adds a realistic hope: normal societies always end up rejecting this type of power because it is contrary to fundamental human nature. The process may be long and painful, but natural resistance eventually emerges. Closure advances because unempathetic logics have taken hold in our institutions. But it remains fragile because the vast majority of human beings cannot long endure living in a heartless and unfree world. This episode confirms a central insight of James C. Scott: life is always more inventive than administration. When institutions attempt to impose closure through rigid categories, people respond with improvisation. They adapt faster than the system can react. They find openings where the state sees only rules. And in doing so, they reveal the fundamental fragility of institutional closure. The late Soviet Union offers a textbook example of how social life outmaneuvers institutional closure. In 1985, Gorbachev launched a campaign to restrict alcohol sales, believing it would improve productivity and restore social discipline. Instead, ordinary people immediately turned to home‑distillation. Informal networks spread across the country, producing far more alcohol than the state had ever sold officially. The result was paradoxical: consumption barely declined, but state revenues collapsed. The policy weakened the fiscal foundations of the regime and contributed to its broader loss of legitimacy. The episode illustrates a core principle of James C. Scott’s work: administrative simplification cannot suppress human inventiveness.
It’s funny that CS Lewis depicted the demon hierarchy as a bureaucracy, but even in his depiction, his demonic bureaucracy still managed to get things done. I think that is why CEO last are paid so much, and presidents, kings and other leaders are valuable. Systems need an overseer who keeps the main goal of the group in mind and who has the power to move the group in that direction. True hell is what you describe- when you are unable to change anything. Of course, we only get a foretaste of that in in this life, because reality means consequences, and even evil consequences- such as bureaucrats and politicians heaping more and more laws and regulations on workers, still produce change. I’m not one of those foolish people who say, “It can’t get any worse!” Of course it can. Maybe in hell it can’t.
A young man was complaining to me about God. He said, basically, “Why can’t God just bless us no matter what choices we make?” I said that in many ways he does. “The rain falls on the evil and the good” (rain in Bible lands was regarded as a blessing). He gives breath and opportunity and the offer of new life and forgiveness to the basest sinner. However, what the young man was asking for was something very like hell. He was wanting his decisions to have no consequences. That is not freedom. There is no hope in that. When God blocked sinners from eating of the tree of life (living eternally), it was not a punishment, it was a mercy. This life He has given us is a quest, a divine treasure hunt. He has given us room for accomplishment and achievements, as well as failures. He loves us and wants our love, but love requires a choice.
There may have been a time when institutional architecture was set up in good faith but then drifted into dysfunction. But now it’s hard to imagine that it hasn’t stayed in place without reform exactly because it lets the overlords give the little people a lifetime assignment of raging against the machine. It keeps us busy seeking unhealthy and unproductive solutions. We strive while they are entertained by the shaking of our tiny fists.
Bureaucratic inertia
I think that it's a mistake to see this process and exonerate the people in it. Top-down, right-wing Stalinism is not accidental or coincidental. One purpose of institutions like this is to manage scarcity, often scarcity that is fictional, with massive over-management of finance and indifference to the ostensible central purpose of the institution. The real users are the ones who reap the greatest rewards, central management, local and central governments. They've got to find savings somewhere for those nuclear bombs and missiles without disturbing the enrichment of the Eloi.
I thought about communism too. This is not a problem just of western civilization. This is a sin problem. And I agree that the human cogs in the machine bear some responsibility. But they usually don’t see the big picture. Or sometimes they need the job, and they know they can’t change anything by not taking it anyway. At times the job is clearly wrong, but usually it isn’t.
It took me time to come to conclusions and despite being an occ’ard sod, I participated in the status quo, until I didn’t. When we take the money we compromise ourselves. When we keep taking the money having come to know the game we are the people who pass by on the other side.
Yes, Stalin's Article 58 in full swing!
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.
Lately, I’ve been making time to unwind. I’m working on a follow‑up essay about how institutions can slowly drift into cold, self‑centered patterns of isolation.
And , these institutions have no idea that this is where they are much less how they got there.