top of page
  • Jo M. Sekimonyo

What is "ethosism"? Interview with Author Jo M. Sekimonyo

Do you think someone could be a writer if they don’t feel emotions strongly? It depends if they don’t feel strongly about the subject matter, not just a drama king or queen. But without it, writing turns the book into an art instead of an experience for both parties, the author and the reader. As I said in the book, “I write what I love,” said Steve Biko. On the other hand, I write what I deeply hate. In a way, we both denounce with a strong passion the same shit: socio-economic injustice. When readers understand the degree of emotion the writer wraps in the point of view, it tends to stick in their minds and they tend to engage with the message. Moreover, a book written in a neutral and emotionless way is often boring to read. Granted, there are times like school books or instruction manuals where a flat tone is perfect.

What does Ethosism mean? There is no doubt that socialism and communism failed horribly, but now humanity’s stubbornness to stay on the path of capitalism is strangling us. Humanity seems blocked on one of these old systems which are based on arguments that have become fallacious as if we were denying the paradigm shift of the 21st century. Ethosism is an economic and political system in which all participants in the generation of the surplus share it in percentage terms.

Do you think ethosism addresses the cause of the problem? Capitalism, like communism and socialism, is for a nation of the developed world and the third world which stands firmly beside them a child whose parents brag in public, but reprimand in private. However, some of the strongest old bastions of communism and socialism have embraced the frenzied antics of capitalism. As capitalism is crowned the winner, another consensus has emerged. In the United States, billionaires like Warren Edward Buffett and Carl Celian Icahn agree with some communist-style senators like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Ann Warren that the huge wealth gap should not exist. Sadly, when looking at billionaire Bill Gates’ initiative of the wealthy to pledge the majority of their wealth to solve what they see as some of society’s most pressing problems or the call for equity or increase for the wealthy, one realizes that the remedies prescribed by these capitalist vultures or activist investors as well as from the political arena are more or less fixed to preserve the status quo. The real problem is the inherited Enlightenment packing order deeply rooted in a now despicable but capable argument for billionaires to spring up all over the world. People don’t get madly rich because they are geniuses, as it is glamorously portrayed, but because the system is superbly flawed. It all comes down to Capital, or should I say what is defined as Capital. For the wrong reasons, Capital is still defined as the part of wealth which was devoted to obtaining further wealth, as Alfred Marshall stated. That’s why people like Wall Street and moneyers in any part of the world earn huge incomes, mostly as a percentage of profit, relative to what they contribute. And the rest who are fundamentally necessary for the success of an enterprise or a business compensate with a wage, a nominally fixed number. But I point out that in the twenty-first century, ordinary mortals acquiring and possessing their means of engagement, participation, or involvement has become a global culture. Instead of a large reserve army of labor, the robber barons and captains of greedy plot industry has actually produced surplus privateers or ready-entrepreneurs. When we analyze the nature of trade today, we can see that there are more enterprises than businesses. Economies are shifting from the industrial sector to the service sector. Faced with this new reality, Capital is that means which is interlocked to obtain wealth through interaction with others in an enterprise to produce a commodity or provide a service, ergo, money is not the sole source of all surplus. Labor is not, either. Henceforth, surplus distribution ought to be from each according to his or her means, not to each according to their needs. The double standard reward arrangement in nominal term for the ones labeled as labor and percentage of the surplus for the moneyers is obsolete. Everyone should be getting a piece of the loot in form a percentage. The intermediary that is the state and the notion of wages are all thrown out the window.

What part of the book did you have the hardest time writing? The first chapter, what is love. The approach to writing this book has been to force the reader to slow down and think or backtrack. But in this chapter, I’ve poured some of the most excruciating experiences into the cerebral pursuit of common sense.

Do you Google yourself? Ten years ago, when my first published book “economic jihad” was out there, I googled a lot. One could say search for affirmation. But the thrill of feeling like I exist because Google said so has long lost its potency. Now I don’t google myself unless I’m in bum mode while trying to get my point across to someone who needs Google to affirm that I somehow know what I’m talking about or exist.

Sakura Publishing Official

Interview with Author Jo M. Sekimonyo April 19, 2022

Recent Posts

See All

The Metaphysical Theory of Egalitarian Economics

What is the catalyzer of the ballooning the social, economic, and social gap between the gang of robber barons and captains of industry and the rest? By the end of the twentieth century, every social,

Interview by Editions Dedicaces

Jo M. Sekimonyo an be best described as a realist, a philosopher of socioeconomic inequality, a humanitarian, and a person that is not afraid to speak his own mind.


bottom of page