Diomedes in the Rough: Landing Bridges at the International Economic Forum of the Americas

The International Economic Forum of the Americas was created to promote the role of the Americas in major decisions and reforms related to the current global economic context.  Its mission is also to facilitate agreements, offer business opportunities and provide access to unique insights from leading specialists.

 

The Forum's gathering in Toronto begins today; on the agenda are heady topics such as recalibrating the global economy, the global energy revolution and doing business with Russia.  Speakers include heads of multi-national corporations, advisers to Heads of State and former Vice Presidents.

 

While the Forum caters to senior decision makers, business leaders and world leading experts, they have also seen fit to invite a handful of folk like me. 

 

Count on me doing what I always do - identifying common ground, making connections between unlikely but complimentary partners and adding value to the conversation with some unique insight, always with a focus on developing shared solutions for our collective future.

 

It's going to be fun.

Vladimir Putin Reads WAKATA

The Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the official government newspaper, published the presidential decree Friday, listing an array of measures tightening security in the Olympic host city, including the ban on public assemblies. All "gatherings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets" that are not part of the Olympics or the Paralympics will be prohibited in Sochi from Jan. 7 to March 21, the decree said.

First, there was Martin Goldfarb.  Then came Stephen Harper.  I have a sneaking suspicion Bob Rae might have paid me a visit.  But this trumps 'em all.

The day after I post on the inevitability of LGBTQ protests in Sochi and how bad it'll be for Putin, he puts out a notice that protests are banned.  Yay for me, I've influenced Russian policy!  (It's at least a possibility - I have had 206 hits from Russia so far this week.  That's gotta count for something.)

Alas, even if I have inspired Putin to action, the poor fellow seems to have missed the meat of my advice - stifling dissent isn't going to work.  Not in a forum like the Olympics.  They'll never be able to screen out all protesters, nor scare everyone into submission.  With celebrity interest in the event there will inevitably be people of global profile poking the bear over gay rights and doing so in a public way, making Putin look like the tyrannical stick-in-the-mud he is.

How he'll respond to that communications crisis will be interesting, but even more important will be the international community's response to him.  We've had a lot of vague protests from Western governments against an increasing number of volatile, civilian-threatening situations in the world, but that's been about it.  Should, say, American or Canadian citizens are mistreated while defending human rights in Russia, they (and the IOC) are going to have to show some sterner stuff.  Their constituents will demand nothing less.

The simplest way for the West to head-off any difficult scenario around the Olympics would be to push for them to instead be held in Vancouver.  Russia would definitely respond to such a slight, though - and it wouldn't do anything to address the root cause of the conflict.  

The best long-term solution would be for Putin to have a Damascus moment, quit being a thug and start showing some true leadership by rescinding the law and promoting equality for all Russians.

If he keeps on reading WAKATA, I'm sure he'll find something to help him along his way.

UPDATED: Wrestling with Russia: There's Something Queer About the Sochi Olympics

The letter still leaves open the question of what would happen to Olympic athletes or fans if they make statements or gestures that could be considered propaganda.

It doesn't take a genius to see where this is headed.

The Olympics is an international event meant to unite the world in a spirit of friendly competition.  Everyone is equal regardless of where they come from or what they look like - it's all about skill.

International events like the Olympics draw international audiences.  People will stream into Sochi from all over the world, trying to take in the sports, go to the cool parties and just be present for something special.

As with other world-stage events - the Toronto G20 comes to mind - you're also going to get advocacy groups showing up, using the platform to raise their voice or to protest injustices like, I don't know, the suppression of LGBTQ people and allies in Russia.

Russia (though not Putin) has said everyone will be welcome to the Games and the IOC seems to be taking that assurance as enough.  Thing is, Russians are still going to be persecuted regardless of what happens to outsiders.  Russia may try to pull a North Korea (these people are our people - back off, International Community!) but if they think they can shut out all the potential rabble rousers around gay rights, they're delusional.

Sochi will be filled with Gay Rights activists.  There will be enough gay-friendly activity on display under the international spotlight that other people with a bent for human equality are going to get in on the game.  Without question, Russia's anti-gay law is going to be challenged to the max, putting the Russian government - ie, Putin - in a corner.  On top of this, you'll have the rabble-rousers, the carousers - and the anti-gay rights camp will be out in force, too.

Russia or the IOC could take a page out of Apple's playbook, play on this emerging social zeitgeist and pull a brand-building win out of doing the right thing.  Trouble  is, Putin is a bear-wrestling tough-guy who doesn't like to be challenged.  It'll be mighty tempting for him to enforce his reputation and bring down the hammer.  That would not be a pretty scene. 

The IOC, focused solely on their Games and brand, need to take a step back and make a thorough assessment of what to expect and what repercussions they are prepared to own - because, at the end of the day, the Olympics are their party, we're the guests. 

Or, they can decide there's nothing to be done to change what will come and stick their heads in the sand.  That's a conundrum for them to wrestle with.


UPDATE:  The scuffles started after anti-fay protesters tore a rainbow flag out of a woman's hands.  The St. Petersburg City Government had sanctioned they rally despite the Russian Government's June passage of a contentious law outlawing gay "propaganda." Gays in Russia have faced increasing pressure and threats of violence from homophobic vigilantes.

That scuffle has left us with this ionic image of the sort that comes to define the stories of our time; they are the ones that matter, because the folks in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't.  They kept going.  Because there were holding on to something...

With one of those iconic images that comes to define the stories of our times - the ones that matter.  Folks in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't.  They kept going.  Because they were holding on to something-

The notion that ideas are bullet proof.

Trust, Leadership and the Future of the Global Village

Two articles caught my attention tonight.  This one, about trust, loyalty and leadership:

5 Leadership Behaviors Loyal Employees Trust

"Loyalty is built on relationships, shared understanding and trust. Engagement and commitment require loyalty, shared goals and fair treatment."

- and then this, about the perilous state of the global economy, in no small part due to prevalent attitudes:

In Economic Deluge, a World That Can't Bail Together

"Moreover, there seems to be little willingness - or perhaps lit-tle ability - for the major countries to act together again. Squabbles have grown, some countries are in fiscal distress, and others face daunting domestic problems."

I highly doubt deluge was chosen as a metaphor by accident.

When we're uncertain of the way forward, when it's hard to know how to trust, it's worth remembering the words of someone else lost at sea:

"If we can't live together, we're gonna die alone."

This is What Creative Destruction Looks Like

“Bringing in temporary foreign workers to displace Canadians is not acceptable . . . when we have Canadian skills and talent that could be at work,’’ Finley said.

But her department’s own figures indicate the jobs that are being filled by foreigners are not skilled positions.

They really don't know what they're doing here.  They are taking a society with an increasing riot culture and giving them more reason to take to the streets.  Team Harper is paying lip-service to training and innovation, yet is focused on marginalizing increasing numbers of Canadians and forcing them into a reality that discourages value-add.  That's no way to strengthen our economy - instead, it's trying to recreate the Dirty Thirties.  There are other parallels on that front, too - just look at Europe. 

Why?  Why would they repeat history when the lessons are there to be learned?  It's easy - they're fixated on power and control and think that, because they're in charge, they can defy social gravity.  They are reacting on instinct - not proactively planning.

So, let's look at history and see what else is there to be learned.  The Tories are going to pay for this at the polls, eventually, but in the meantime, with only two viable political parties at the forefront, people are going to be looking elsewhere to see their concerns represented.  This could be a renewed Liberal Party, or it could be a series of somethings new.  I hate to say it, but I would keep an eye out for a party further to the right of the CPC gaining some presence, too.  Where success will emerge, though, is from the Centre. 

While Team Harper might not have learned the lessons of history, there are others that have.  Society, as a whole, has completely changed from what it was then, in ways that are irrevocable.  Case in point - the Internet.  We are all much more connected, just as we are more urban.  It's hard to get away with marginalizing your neighbours when they are still going to be your neighbours - there's no way governments can get away with labour migrations today.  Now, multiply that worldwide and you'll see where we're at.

Where are the new, progressive political movements going to come from?  The same place they always do - coffee shops, pubs, places where people gather to share ideas.  While Occupy and students are taking to the streets (there's that protest movement, again) civic engagement movements like Why Should I Care or former MP (and visionary thinker) Gerard Kennedy's Democracy Renewal Nights are discussing policy in the context of reality and coming up with tomorrow's social solutions.

These pub nights are supplemented by the growing Social Entrepreneur movement - a term we should all get used to hearing about.  Places like MaRS and the Centre for Social Innovation are nurturing a generation of Conscious Capitalists, society-minded individuals that want to earn a living making the world a better, more inclusive yet diverse place - generating legacy in the progress.  Call it specialized collaboration.  These are the true conservatives, focused on efficiency not just of dollars but of our natural resource use as well.  For them, success is about sustainability.

It's ironic to the extreme - in trying to obtain ultimate control and establish a Conservative dynasty that will last a thousand years, Stephen Harper's Conservatives are actually serving as social brushfire, burning off the the accrued detritus of past social models and clearing the way for what comes next.  They are playing the role that society has engineered them to.

Welcome to the 21st Century; welcome to the Conscious Society.

The Story of Labour: The Demise of Capitalism, the Rise of the Knowledge Economy and the Evolution of Society

Income disparity.  Accountability crises leading to economic crises.  Leaders of business and government uncertain about the long-term sustainability of the model that brought them success and general populations demanding more equality and opportunity.  With the modern system of capitalism under duress, the question people are naturally turning to is “what do we do next?”  For some odd reason, less asked but equally relevant: “what does the demise of capitalism have to do with genetics and social evolution?”

History provides the answer. 

While it is natural for the deterioration of an economic model (and the disruption that decline entails) to be frightening, we must never forget that when one door closes, another opens.  If we linger too long on the door that has shut, we miss the opportunity revealed by the new one opening.  Capitalism, like feudalism before it, will slide from dominance.  Just as there are still feudal societies in some corners of the world today, some people will continue to cling to capitalism as the majority reaps the benefits of the new model, whatever that might be.  The question we must ask ourselves now is, which side of the divide we want to fall on.

The general decline of feudalism was instigated by the growth of cities and the specialization of labour (which is likely why modern-day feudalism is connected to rough terrain, less innovation and lower lifespans).  The shift from title to wealth as a means of determining social status was accompanied by the shift in priority from owning land towards owning the means of production.   This shift of power from kings to the bourgeoisie – the transition from feudalism to capitalism – brought with it mechanization, the industrial revolution, public transport, public health care, etc.  To function properly, capitalism required a more democratic society which, hopefully, we can all agree is a good thing. 

Today, we are living within the latest iteration of urbanity; we still have the city, the state, the nation, but we’re also part of this thing we call the global village.  Just as the city drew people together and allowed for increased opportunities for collaboration, specialization and innovation, the internet is bridging the gaps between people everywhere on the planet.  Where feudalism focused on land ownership (to grow crops and house labour) as a requirement of title and capitalism made ownership of the means of production (the means by which labour creates products) the ticket to fortune, what gets people ahead today is access and the capacity to harness cognitive ability – including knowledge, creativity and critical thinking.

Just as single-celled organisms slowly evolved into more complex creatures that are still made up of single cells, the evolution of society simply builds on what came before.  We still need land to live on, grow food and for housing the means of production; we rely more than ever on tools, ranging from irons to microwaves to cars to blackberries.  Society engages in a kind of social cell division; the result is that where we live is no longer the same place our food comes from, nor where our tools are built or used.  Now, with video-conferencing, online databases and useful tools like Google or Wikipedia, we are separating work from the places where we live.

Feudalism, capitalism, whatever’s next – the one thing that has remained constant is the need for labour.  Nothing gets done without someone doing it; people work because they gain benefit from doing so.  This is as true of the human animal as any other.  In all social animals, collaboration allows for the highest possible gain with the lowest possible risk.  For it to work, collaboration requires equal measures of trust in others and altruism, the desire to help them in turn.  Those who collaborate have higher rates of success, i.e. resource access and accompanying good health.  The corollary to this personal health and resource access is stronger offspring that are more likely to reproduce and have healthy offspring of their own.  This is why stable democracies have greater quality-of-life outcomes (including longer life expectancies and lower crime rates).

Collaboration, working together to achieve a goal, is at the deep root of all interaction.  It’s connected to mutation; it’s why species like ours reproduce through sexual rather than asexual selection.  I bring this up not as a tangent, but rather to bring home a point – while genetics is all about survival of the individual gene, nature has evolved collaboration as the best mechanism to ensure a gene, or an individual, or a society not only survives, but thrives.

While collaboration is not uncommon in the animal kingdom, tool-use is less so.  Tool-use requires the ability to envision an outcome that does not yet exist, the capacity to design and create that outcome and the patience and will to follow-through.  It’s a complex ability requiring a complex, specialized brain to realize.  Humans might do this best, but we aren’t the only tool-making animal on the planet.

It’s the combination of these abilities – collaboration and tool-design/use – that really make humans stand out, though again, we’re not unique in innovating and sharing our learned skills.   While chimps might be able to crack open nuts with rocks and teach other chimps to do the same thing, what we don’t see in a group of chimps (or at least, we haven’t recognized yet) is the ability to specialize.  Planet of the Apes being prescience instead of fiction.  If there’s anything that makes people special, then, it would be just that – the capacity to specialize. 

Our unique mixture of capacities – to innovate, to envision and realize, to work collectively in a specialized manner and to pass on this knowledge, allowing the cycle to repeat – is the history of human labour.  In search of individual benefit, we have gathered into collectives (family units, tribes, cities, states) and developed increasingly specialized roles to do the various things we need – grow/harvest food, build shelter, provide security, provide coordination, etc.  These abilities manifest themselves physically, but they originate cognitively.  To fully manage these processes, our grey matter has been evolving the capacity to take conscious control of them.  As Joseph LeDoux has pointed out, “an absence of awareness is the rule of mental life, rather than the exception, throughout the animal kingdom.”  As Descartes declared, “Cogito ergo sum.”

Marx and Engels had it wrong – "the history of all hitherto existing society” isn’t “the history of class struggles".  Class struggles, racism, sexism, all forms of dominance facilitated by stigma are by-products of evolutionary, selection-of-the-fittest drive; it’s what we’ve been evolving from.  The history of society is the gradual integration of disparate elements into a cohesive whole with specialized functions.  The evolution of a human, social organism – networked intelligence – probably mirrors the process by which complex gene networks, or biological organisms, evolved.  The specialization of labour, facilitated through communication, is the  social equivalent to RNA.  Cognition and, therefore, conscience have been a by-product of this process.  As Steven Pinker has pointed out, humanity is becoming less egregiously selfish the more social we become, which only makes sense. 

The capitalist model has done its job; it has fostered socialization better than any model that came before it.  Capitalism shifted our focus from property to financial wealth, with land becoming a subsidiary benefit.  Means of production have allowed people to work together, expanding diversity and fostering innovation.  Our capacity to network our intelligence has now shifted focus from wealth to knowledge – the capitalist model simply isn’t adequate to support this reality.  What we need now is a system that better harnesses the cognitive potentials of our species by fostering an increased social consciousness and a greater leaning towards ethical behaviour on the part of all society’s members – from top to bottom. 

Such a system will be more altruistic, supportive and involving; as such, it will be more innovative, able to plan even further ahead yet respond more flexibly and rapidly to the challenges of the moment.  This system will organically build on the groundwork that capitalism laid down before it.  It will also employ the “teach a man to fish” approach to empowering the individual rather than taking from them, foisting upon them or selling to them.  This system isn’t going to be a social outcry against capitalism, or socialism, or any isms; it’s simply going to be a matter of efficiency and expedience. 

We have moved from feudal kingdoms, where individuals led, through capitalism, where the bourgeoisie  control access and are now on the cusp of a kingdom of conscience where the people shall lead more directly than in any social model that has come before.  Social media and all the communicative technologies and networks we’ve busily created over the centuries will serve as the synapses of this networked intelligence.  What this means for leaders is that power rests firmly in the hands of the people, so existing institutions need to serve them better if they're to gain maximum benefit from available people power. 

Fortunately, the general populace will provide the labour by which these connections happen with online, open-sourced information networks for education, training upgrades and peer support; wikis; corporate collaboration and altruism; etc.  They're going to want to work with the system and pieces of the systems that will help them realize the quality of lives they want.  Government will streamline its focus towards the role of executive function.   Again, this isn’t naïve hopefulness, but rather, rational optimism.  It’s all the rage these days – you should try it.  In fact, I’m pretty sure you will.