Coffee Conversations | Misdefining Power

Yeah. We were talking about this morning about systems of govern government in the various forms that we know and how it's not actually applied rigidly in the way in way we classically understand it, like communism

I don't I don't know what the point is on the labels. I don't I don't know what the point is of any definitions of any political systems because none of them exist on earth in any society. Any theory any political theory doesn't exist anywhere in society. So I don't know what the point is except to actually obfuscate what your real existing system is.

To to to define your system as a democracy or

to define your system as communist or to define your system as socialist or to define your system as capitalist, or whatever the the case may be. Whether you're talking about a political theory or an economic theory, none of them exist in reality. Yeah. And no one seems to want to talk about what the real existing systems are.

Yeah. So what would be the real existing system?

Any power structure that that exists in any society, in any given society, usually is coming from the historical the historically existing. Existing. It's a it's a

Continuum.

Yeah. It's a continuation of whatever existed before, whatever just sort of organically was created in the society. And then it just takes different Forms. It's sort of tweaked over time. And then you apply a definition.

This is what the West has done. And they apply a definition to it and say, it's this form of government or this form of economic system or what have you. When it's not, the the theory that you're calling it isn't what it is. The theory, like like, America is not a democracy. America is

not capitalist. China is not communist. None of these things apply. Because because you're you're you're not

addressing what the real existing power structure is in your society. You're insisting on attributing a particular definition or a particular label or a particular category to define what your power structure is.

Yeah.

And at and at this point, all that does is serve to obfuscate what the real power structure is. Because you're making people continuously think that it's for example, that America is a democratic system.

Right. As if that as if the government is the main power Mhmm. Over people's lives in America, not

the private sector. You know? And the same we were talking about with Kerala.

Kerala is ruled by the so called communist party. Yeah.

But it's not a communist government. You have private ownership. You have private property. You don't have public ownership of the means of production or communal ownership of the means of production. That doesn't exist.

That doesn't exist anywhere. In any country, they call it self communist. That that doesn't exist. Meaning, the theory is inapplicable in real life. Just as the democracy is inapplicable in real life.

Even if it could be applied, it's not a good idea. It because it's just that too many things are required for it to even be workable. The requirements for a functional democracy to be effective and actually serving the interest of the people, serving the real interest of the people, the requirements upon the society itself, upon the population itself is too strenuous for that to exist in anything larger than a village. There's no way that that can exist in a whole country

Yeah.

Of 300,000,000 people. Impossible. Because the the level of knowledge and understanding and comprehension of of politics and economics and everything that you need everyone to have, if everyone is gonna have a say in what policy is gonna be, and who's gonna be the this is not this is completely unrealistic. This is delusional. This is really a utopian delusional thing that can only maybe exist, like I said, in a village somewhere.

Mhmm. You know, if if then. But the but the reality is that every every you know, we didn't none of us just got here on Earth. We all we all come from a history, and there's been power structures in society ever since there's been people.

There have

been some people who rose above others. There's been ranks. There's hierarchies in human society always. This is a permanent condition in human society. For us, especially for Muslims, but for everyone in the global South, especially all of the formerly colonized countries, currently neocolonized countries, most of them, you have to reject all of these definitions, reject all of these categories, reject all of these labels, because I I believe that they were always intended to obfuscate the reality of the power structure so that so that they can say, no.

You can't accuse us of this, that, and the other because we're a democracy.

Right. It's either that or they can use it against us and say that you're not applying democratic principles. Right. Or Yeah. Or what

happened. Right. Right. Right. It's just

you are insisting on applying a label that has no realistic dimension in its application.

Yeah. So

you're you're trying to, again, like you said, you know, to obfuscate and and not only that, there's a kind of an obsession with labeling.

There's an obsession with labeling. Yeah. Absolutely. Categorizing labeling.

It just informs me that you're not interested to actually understand the dynamics within a society that's foreign to you. So you need to just put a category to it.

Oh, I think it's I think it's even deeper than that. I think it comes from a general feeling of being overwhelmed by what you think is the chaos of life. Really, I think that that's what it is.

Big time.

So so yeah. So that we need to compartmentalize and we need to set borders on everything.

Right. This is they're obsessed

with this, with this whole concept, with this whole approach, with this whole habit of of setting borders on things, setting definitions to things, categorizing things, calling things certain, you know

Boxing it.

Boxing thing. Yeah. We need to box reality into a bunch of

different categories. And that's the only way that we can cope. And the most rigid people are calling the rest of the world, you know, like, that that they're, you know, claiming that the rest of the world lacks freedom.

Right. Right. Exactly. And and you're obsessed with with categorizing and and ordering and labeling and restricting and defining everything. Uh-huh.

I mean, yeah, it's it's really absurd. And so there's no reason for for for especially again, for Muslims and for anyone in the global South to to to bother with this.

Yeah. There's no reason why you need

to say, oh, we're communist, we're socialist, or

we're democratic, or we're capitalist, or we're liberal, or we're

conservative. Have nothing to do with all of this. All of this is coming from people who are very deeply, profoundly, inherently confused about life. And so the only way they can make life make any sense to them is with all of these categories and labels and and Yeah. Definitions.

None of which are real. It becomes ridiculous. It really becomes ridiculous when someone says, like, example, well, I'm a I'm a democratic socialist, libertarian, socially conservative, privately liberal, that is what are you talking about?

Yeah.

You know? And that this is why I was talking about, like, like, I would I wish that actually in a in a in a state like Kerala, where I think it's a very interesting state, I wish that you didn't feel the need to call yourself communist. Not because I have any problem with this in and of itself, but obviously you're not. You're not by orthodox communism, you're not. By the theory, communist theory, whatever, you're not.

You have capitalism, you have private ownership, you have private property, you have elites, you you it's not an egalitarian society. You have the rich, you have the poor. Mhmm. These are all things that exist in your society, which is not a communist society. Yeah.

And What it means what it comes down to meaning is that we are a government that prioritizes as much as we can the actual interest of the people. Yeah. And we try to be as fair as possible on

a in terms of class issues,

in terms of class discrimination or class privilege versus disadvantage.

Correct. Like previously, you had the funeral system, you resisted that and you, for the lack of a better word, you dismantled the system and you came up with a system that represents that represents the interests of the people. And so you formed a hybrid form of governance. It's not an exclusive thing.

Absolutely. You know? And and and this is and and this is the thing. Every government is a hybrid government. Every government is.

Because America couldn't be more socialist. America couldn't be more socialist than it is, except that it's in terms of corporations. Mhmm. You're incredibly socialist in terms of corporations.

In terms of what? Bailing them out? The government has subsidized it and has enabled it

and has created these corporations. You know? And and they get everything they want.

It's it's a it's their absolute it's a corporate welfare system Mhmm.

In America. So you believe in welfare, absolutely, but for the rich. Which okay, that's your system. You can you can that's what

you've decided to do because that's that's consistent with your history. That's what

I'm saying. Every actual existing power structure in the world has some it's it's it's a it's an offshoot of their history. It's a continuation to one degree or another of their history. And it's funny, like in in Kerala, and not just Kerala,

but throughout the global South, people were quick people became communist or were labeled as communist, Either they labeled themselves as communist

or they were labeled as communist by the West. And that was in and of itself an indictment against you. Against the West. Because actually what we're talking about is people who care about their people. And who care about their own control over their own resources.

And they care about not being exploited and not being colonized and not being the subjects of

imperialism. So you you created a bipolar world where there's only two either capitalism or communism. Yeah.

So capitalism means subjugation. That's what it

means to the to these people, people in the global South. You made it you defined it for us that way.

Yeah. Because of your behavior. From what we see, capitalism means slavery.

Right.

It means subjugation. It means imperialism. It means colonization. It means the rape and pillage of our resources. It means our political subjugation.

That's what capitalism means as far as we know. And you've told us that the

only other alternative is coming is, okay.

Well, we'll take that then.

Mhmm. We'll we'll take that.

Even though in reality, that's not at all what you have. Mhmm.

And that's not even what you're advocating in reality. So it's hybrid. Yeah.

But like I said, all of them are hybrid because none of these philosophies, none of these theories can exist in the real world. So what's the point? These

theories cannot exist and applied in its isolation, in its rigid form. Mhmm. In the real world, it doesn't work. Mhmm. And and like I said like I said earlier, like, every country, every state functions, you know, in its own peculiar peculiar culture, and it's influenced by the whole of the geopolitics surrounding it.

Mhmm. And every it's

And the history.

Yeah. There's a and and it varies from region to region. Mhmm. So you can't just apply even for the sake of simplicity, you can't just apply a label and you think you get you have understood it, or you can approach to even, you know, politically engage with it, with your fake labels.

Absolutely. The labels become obstacles. Yeah. The label the labels prevent you from actually doing anything anything properly because you you you think that you have to subscribe to this theory, and then therefore whatever that theory requires. When actually every society this is how it really works.

Every society has hierarchy. Every this is a reality in human society, always will be, always has been, always will be. That some rise above others, some are richer than others, some are more powerful than others, some have more influence than others, and so forth. And that's and and Allah has already told us that that's how human society is organized. So the the the the struggle is always to try to ensure that those at the top of the hierarchy, those with the most power, the ruling class, or what have you, don't exclusively serve their own interests to the detriment of the rest of the population.

So every political theory that's come down

the pipe has said that they have a way

of doing that, of ensuring that the the interest of the society will be part of the scenario. It will be considered, and they and and that those in in power will be there So exclusively self serving. Communism said that. Socialism says that. Democracy says that.

Even capitalism has their version of that. That it's good for the market and everyone rises, all boats rise on a, you know,

all this down effect

Yeah.

Or whatever.

Everybody has this. But at the end of the day, every single society, every individual society, even on a micro level, every society has to find their own way of how to interface with the power structure to ensure that their people that the population

Benefits. Is

included in planning, you know, is included in policy so so that they're not overlooked and they're not left disadvantaged and and that the power structure isn't exclusively self serving.

Everyone has to come

up with their way of of doing that. So we're not in favor of overthrowing any power structure, no matter what form it is. We're not pro or against any power structure. But we're just realistic in in in insisting that you correctly identify what the power structure is Yeah. In this or that society, who really holds power, what kind of power they hold, how much impact and influence they have on the society, and then you have to figure out ways of interfacing with them to ensure that they are not exclusively self serving.

It's unrealistic, it's delusional, and it's very counterproductive, actually, to try to insist on one particular form of engagement with the power structure.

Yeah.

And saying that one particular form of

government solves all of these problems. It doesn't. It doesn't at all.

Everyone has to come up with their own way.

It keeps you distracted. You're always being on the defensive, or you try to work around the rigidity of that box that you put yourself into. And and, you know, it really takes out the creative process in finding a solution.

Especially in America, when you're saying the solution is democracy and voting, when that's that's removed from the power structure entirely. Yeah.

And you don't even want us to look at that. You don't want us to look at BlackRock. You don't want us to look at

Larry Fink. Larry Fink has more power than the president of The United States. Larry Fink has more power than the president of The United States. You're telling me to vote and that solves my problem? What about Larry Fink?

What about the oligarchs? You're pretending that you don't have oligarchs because you don't call them that? Because this is what I mean. This is where the labels and and the definitions become just the purpose just for the purpose of deflection Yeah. Just for the purpose of covering up what the reality is.

You never wanna talk about what the real power structure is because you insist that I call you a democracy.

And you post that virtue because you attribute virtue to being a democracy. And so you surely, there shouldn't be anything wrong. If there's something wrong, then it's you. You're just not working hard enough or you're just not trying to find the opportunity or what Yeah.

And and you can say, like, for example,

like, I don't know,

The UAE, Saudi Arabia, The Gulf States, and I mean, I hate to always mention those ones. But in in in in those countries, the government is responsive to the population, to the actual citizenry. Yeah. The government is responsive to the citizenry. They have their means.

They have their channels. They have

their system. It's not a democracy. But government is much more responsive because you have this old existing, pre existing authority structure embedded in the society, embedded in the civilization throughout history.

Yeah. That's a that's a decorum between the the ruled and the rulers. And if you cannot recognize that, you would call it a monarchy dictatorship. Authoritarian. Authoritarian.

Desperate. Yeah. That that yeah. Desperate. And what have you.

It's it's one of two things. You are either not interested in actually identifying the reality or the nature of the system, or you just want to, again, cover up.

Yeah. That's that's what it is.

Yeah.

In my in my view. Because they're obsessed with I mean, you can't actually separate. Even though they they think that they're being very intelligent with this organizing habit of labeling and defining and categorizing. They think that that's a very intelligent way because they're organizing everything. Because again, they're terrified that the world is just chaos.

Okay.

And I think that they're terrified. And you can see like a like a

Jordan Peterson, mister western supremacist, he's obsessed with the idea of chaos.

He's he's haunted by the idea of chaos. And to him, the opposite of the opposite of chaos is rules.

Uh-huh. I see. Okay. Hold on.

Not morality. I see. But doing that, you are unavoidably simplified. You need everything to be simplified. Because you can't you can't categorize something without simplifying it.

Mhmm. There's no way that you can stick a label

on something except that you have completely simplified it. Yeah. And and and and you slap that label on top of all possible nuance. Yeah. You make it very simple.

All intricacy. Yeah. You make it very simplistic. Simplistic and it's

it's different from being simple.

Yeah. Well, okay. No. Yeah. Simplistic.

Yeah.

And and in simplifying, you're losing the meaning, actually. Mhmm. You know, you're you're you're you simplify to the point of deception.

Mhmm.

It's just simplifying to the point of deception that you're not being you're not telling the truth. You're not telling the truth about your society Yeah. In in America. You are not telling the truth to yourselves and to everyone else. And you're also not telling the truth about us to yourselves.

You know? But we we at least we should know better than Tavistra then.

Yeah.

But but we were talking about the fact that these and and this is why you see some of the some of the societies, like like even in Malaysia and what have you, especially in the Muslim countries, how quickly they've really bounced back from colonialism. Yeah. How how quickly they really bounced back? Because their inherent embedded authority structures were never broken down. They remained.

That's how they survived even colonialism. That's how they survived their periodism. Even if even if they went through periods of being corrupted or being compromised because of elites collaborating with with the colonizers, what have you. The point is the the the the value of that authority structure never was diminished.

Yeah. So

that can has continued, you know.

Yeah. There's a there's a high regard for all of the I mean, you can call it ceremonial or whatever it is. There's a formality. Again, between the rulers and the rulers that they appreciate and understand structure. And they have no interest in discarding it because, again, it's a form of it creates a form of decorum in the society.

Those old cultures, the old ancient

actual civilizations, actual civilizations, meaning that they were civilized, are now rising. In some ways, I mean, I have to do that for everything. But in some ways, I really wish that I was from the young generation. Because you're going to be or, Lahir, you're gonna live in a much better world than than than I've lived in for fifty years. That that that for most of my fifty years was unimaginable.

Because the adults are going to be taking over control from the adolescents. Because the adults are the ancient civilizations. The Muslim civilization, Asian civilizations, African civilizations, the global South. They will have authority globally. And they have a completely different way of approaching the world.

Just the same way that a grown adult person has a different way of approaching the world

than an adolescent. Than a teenager who doesn't know what they're doing and who has something to prove.

You know? That's how that's how

the West has acted because you you never were supposed to be in the driver's seat. And you because you don't know how to drive.

You just

what you're doing. You have no idea what you're doing. You're going through the motions of of driving. You go through the motions of leadership. And

and it's the it's the

view of leadership of really a a child. It's the view of authority of a child. It's the view of power of a child. And and and the actual authority is shifting back to the ancient civilizations.

I mean, you had a moment there where you had leadership that had that that was of some consequence, of brutal consequence where it made colonialism possible and everything else that follow possible.

Well, that's what I mean. You have the view of power and leadership of an adolescent, which is to be a bully, which is just force, violence. Not not you you you haven't as an

as an adolescent, as a teenager, as a child,

you haven't grasped the concept of earning respect, of actually earning respect. Everyone in the

West talks about respect. They talk about it.

Uh-huh. But they don't give any regard to being a respectable person.

Of being qualified to be a recipient of respect. Yeah.

Yeah. And we're living in a in a a in a transition. We're living in a period of transition that from from the majority of my lifetime seemed impossible. I can honestly say this is this is the first time in my life, in half a century of living, when I can genuinely, truly, legitimately, honestly say that I'm hopeful about the future. And there's no reason not to be hopeful and optimistic about the future because control of the planet is being given back to the grown ups.

I believe that. I believe that.