By Bender Rize
What to Do? How to Go Beyond Simplified Models
Recently, I started wondering: can we divide the world into two camps—say, individualism with its freedom and low taxes versus socialism with its bureaucracy and control? At first glance, the idea is tempting: here we have libertarians with their “live and let live,” and there—socialists with “everything belongs to everyone, and the state will take care of it.” But the more I thought about it, the clearer it became: reality doesn’t like such clear-cut lines. And here’s why.
From Two Poles to a Spectrum
Initially, I saw this as a confrontation: small government—freedom, low taxes, voluntarism, everyone for themselves; socialism—big government, dictatorship, sky-high taxes, everyone under surveillance. Examples came to mind easily: the U.S. with its cult of individualism versus the USSR with its planned economy. But then I came across Scandinavia—high taxes, bureaucracy, yet freedom and no dictatorship. Or Singapore—low taxes but strict discipline. And it became clear: the two poles are too simplistic.
So I thought: what if, instead of an “either-or” model, we create a spectrum? Or even multiple spectrums—like coordinates on a map, where each country occupies its own unique point. That’s when things got interesting. Let’s explore which parameters we can use to describe the world more accurately.
Key Parameters and Their Spectrums
1. Role of the State (Size and Intervention)
From almost no government at all (anarchy or the libertarian ideal) to total control (USSR, North Korea). In between, there are many variations: Switzerland with its compact but effective governance, or Russia with its cumbersome yet not always efficient system.
2. Economic Freedom (Taxes and Regulations)
From “the market decides everything” (Hong Kong with its minimal taxes) to “the state decides everything” (Cuba with nationalization). In the middle—Germany or the U.S.: a market exists, but with many rules and tax complexities.
3. Personal Freedoms (Political and Social)
From countries where you can say and do almost anything (New Zealand, Canada) to places where one misstep lands you in jail (Iran, China). Then there are countries like Turkey or India—freedoms exist but come with caveats.
4. Collectivism vs. Individualism (Cultural Aspect)
From “I am on my own” (U.S., Australia) to “society is more important than the individual” (China, traditional societies). Japan is an interesting hybrid—collectivist in culture but with respect for personal freedom.
5. Openness to the World (Globalism vs. Isolationism)
From full integration into the global economy (EU, Singapore) to complete isolation (North Korea), Russia sits somewhere in between—exporting oil worldwide while maintaining a degree of economic separation from the rest of the world.
6. Religion (Influence on Society and Politics)
A crucial factor. From secular societies where religion is separated from the state (France, Czech Republic) to theocracies where religion dictates everything (Saudi Arabia, Vatican). There are also middle grounds: the U.S. with “In God We Trust” on its money but formal secularism, or India with its religious diversity that constantly intersects with politics.
Each country is a point in this multidimensional space. The U.S.: a medium-sized government, high economic freedom, many personal rights, individualism, globalism, secularism with religious influences. China: a totalitarian state, mixed economy, low freedoms, collectivism, selective openness, atheism with traditional elements. And so on.
Lessons from the Past: The Islamic Model
To test this idea, I looked at an old concept—how Islam divided the world. We often hear about two terms: Dar al-Islam (territory of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (territory of war). Sounds like another binary division: “us vs. enemies.” But if you dig deeper, it’s more complicated.
Medieval Islamic scholars developed a more nuanced system:
- Dar al-Sulh: Non-Muslim lands with a peace treaty—something like international law before The Hague.
- Dar al-Hudna: A temporary truce without long-term commitments.
- Dar al-Dawah: Regions where Islam could be peacefully preached.
- Dar al-Hiyad: Neutral zones, outside of conflict.
- Dar al-Shahada: A later idea—”territory of witness,” where Muslims demonstrate their faith through life, not war.
So even in the Middle Ages, people understood that the world isn’t just “us” and “them.” There were gradients, considering politics, law, and religion. What do we see today? More and more, complex ideas like this are reduced to slogans like “Islam or war.” Ironically, medieval philosophers were more flexible than many modern analysts.
In What “Space” Do We Live?
This brings us to the question: where are we now? If we use Islamic terminology as a metaphor, I’d say:
- Dar al-Binar (Territory of Simplification): We live in an era where complex systems—whether economics, ideology, or religion—are compressed into simple models. “Freedom or tyranny,” “West or East,” “market or socialism.” The media and politicians love these frames—they’re catchy and easy to digest.
- Dar al-Ignor (Territory of Ignorance): Nuances like Scandinavian socialism without dictatorship or Dar al-Sulh (peaceful coexistence) get drowned out. They don’t fit convenient stereotypes.
- Dar al-Shahada (Territory of Witnessing): This would be the ideal—a world where different systems prove themselves in practice: libertarians build their free zones, socialists create equal societies, religions coexist peacefully. But for now, this remains a dream.
Most likely, we’re stuck in Dar al-Binar with a dose of Dar al-Ignor. Complex spectrums—like the six I described—get lost in loud headlines and tweets.
Breaking Free from the Box
I believe we can do better. Instead of dividing the world into “black and white,” we should use these parameters—government role, economy, freedoms, culture, openness, religion—to map reality. Not as a two-pole model but as a multidimensional framework.
Want an example? Let’s take Brazil: a medium-sized government with lots of bureaucracy, a mixed-market economy (state-controlled oil, agriculture), personal freedoms exist but are marred by corruption and protests, culture leans towards collectivism (family, community), moderate openness (trades globally but retains a local identity), religion—Catholicism mixed with local beliefs, influencing politics. Where is pure “socialism” or “libertarianism” here? Nowhere—it’s a colorful mix.
Or India: a medium-sized government, chaotic market, inconsistent freedoms, balance between individualism and traditions, globalism mixed with nationalism, religion everywhere—from temples to parliament. Again, it doesn’t fit into one box.
What Can We Do?
So, what’s the takeaway? If we want to go beyond simplified models, here are a few ideas:
- Dig deeper: Don’t trust headlines—look at how things really work. Scandinavia isn’t “socialism”; it’s a hybrid. China isn’t just a “dictatorship”; it’s a complex system with market elements.
- Think in spectrums: Use multiple axes, not just “freedom vs. control.” It’s harder but more accurate.
- Ask questions: Instead of “who is right?” ask “how does this work?” Why do low taxes coexist with strict discipline in Singapore? How does India balance religion and democracy?
- Share insights: If we start discussing these models—in blogs, conversations, even comments—maybe others will start thinking too. And maybe, just maybe, the media will catch up.
Of course, this won’t change the world overnight. But if we can stop dividing everything into “us vs. them,” that’s already a step forward.