Known as the “sage of the Andes” and the “best-kept secret
of the Andes”, the philosopher Silo is probably one of the most elusive and
enigmatic thinkers of our time.
Contemporary humanism seems an appropriate title for his school of
thought. His work reflects a strong leaning towards traditional Marxist notions
such as the valorization of the collective over the individual, a deep distrust
of capitalism, and faith in the power of revolution. While professing to
possess no specialized knowledge of politics or economics, Silo’s work contains
some interesting insights about human helplessness and disappointment in the
face of deprivation created by free market economies, and the possible ways in
which people can gain more control over their lives through increasing
consciousness and initiative. These ideas are conveyed in his collection of
letters, of which I would like to focus on ‘First Letter to My Friends.’
The power of human initiative is one of the cornerstones of
Silo’s work. He is averse to pessimistic notions about human beings’ incapacity
to act in the face of regressive change. He refers to George Orwell’s 1984
and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, admiring the brilliance of these
works but criticizing their portrayal of human beings as being subdued and condemned
to a mechanistic existence. He claims that these notions are the result of attributing
too much power to the “bad guys”, perhaps a reference to the hostile forces at
play across society. These “bad guys”, he says, are drowning in their own greed
and are stultified by their lack of learning and inability to foresee and plan
accordingly. Their shortsightedness, therefore, prevents them from exercising
any tangible influence over the course of human history.
Silo goes on to provide a general overview of the modern
global predicament, founded on a structure wherein power and wealth are
concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the vast majority in a state of
deprivation. He asserts the right of every human being to fundamental
necessities of existence, the right to secure living during old age, and the
right to envision and provide a better future for their children. Once this
foundation has been established, Silo proceeds to a sharp criticism of the “natural”
progression of society.
He is highly critical of the notion that “natural economic
laws” will result in automatic regional integration and social progress,
wherein advanced countries shall get richer while their developing counterparts
shall “naturally” attain higher standards of living for their people through a
free market economy. To begin with, human actions and endeavors are not natural
in the same way that the forces of nature are. They are deliberate and
conscious attempts to obtain greater control of the world, while reducing other
people to a marginalized status. Hence, any rules or laws that they formulate
are predicated on nothing but opportunistic irrationality.
Silo also contests the misconception that societies have
progressed despite widespread economic disparity. Instead, he proposes that
advancements in human society have taken place when groups of people have
battled for their rights. And as far as the perception of advanced nations
being naturally wealthy in terms of talent, hard work and virtues, Silo claims
that such notions obscure the manner in which these societies were formed: through
the conquest and destruction of other lands, enslavement, forced labor, and the
exploitation of labor in developing countries in the name of mass production
and industrial progress. So, nature’s prerogative is limited when compared to
the human potential for action.
Through his critiques of modern society, there seems to be a
subtly alternative view being presented of evolution, not in the biological but
in the psychological sense. A blind adherence to evolution leads to a certain
kind of passivity about the inevitable course of human society. We grow to
believe that all change that takes place has been sanctioned by nature, and is
hence, “good.” But Silo wants us to challenge this automatic acceptance of
change as “good” and gain more control of our world.
And this can be accomplished through increased global
solidarity. With the growth of the “company” and increased competition, people
are more connected than they ever were and yet experience a sense of loneliness
unlike anything experienced in human history. Through kindness and benevolence,
we can re-establish the traditional bonds, which once governed us. However, Silo
does not suggest a “back to the future” model of social progression; he acknowledges
that new forms of challenges require new strategies of survival. But he does posit
ancient forms of unity as satisfactory alternatives to modern alienation.
And modern people are not suffocated in a state of infinite
action, says Silo. They are already beginning to realize the need to treat others
as they would themselves. They are struggling to prioritize their desires and
attain proportion and coherence in their lives by reconciling contradictions to
formulate rational modes of thinking and living. They are incessantly planning their
strategies to cope with local and global challenges through discreet planning
of when to advance and when to retreat. And they are seeking adaptive evolution
by choosing a more sustainable form of evolution rather than remaining
entangled with minor concerns. This is how people are already crafting out
rational patterns of living. In doing so, they are transforming mere criticism
into tangible action, and this is the only route towards attaining healthy and
sustainable change in human society at a global level.