AN EXCERCISE IN COMMON SENSE








A Study in Thought

sa038



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

The problem of complexity; coping with confusing differences.
Emphasising common features.
A core of shared existential requirements.
The divergence between the rich and the poor, the powerful and those who are weak.
The question, why such a divergence occurs.
The inevitable corruption of absolute power.
Complex tasks for leaderships of large societies.
Successful leadership, creating a sense of benefit for all segments in society.
The lure of a single, strong, leading personality.
Competitiveness, and the problem of social integration.
Exploitative practices during the period of rapid industrialisation.
Ruthless scavengers of power and opportunities for exploitation.
The need for more explicit concepts of justice, and guidelines for generally acceptable behaviour-patterns.
The limits of our sphere of concerns.
Population pressures, and the possibility to exploit the lower strata of society.
Natural differences in attitudes and abilities.
The justified prominence of those, who deserve a position of prestige and influence.
Oppression and persecution are inevitable, if power comes into the hands of defensive, incompetent leaders.

Sometimes, I stop for a moment and I sit-down. I look out the window and think about all the people around me. I am very much aware of the numerous thoughts and aspirations I have, and, I am aware of the fact, that the people I know are different from me, each with their own thoughts, ideas, problems and goals. Now, I look even further away, and, I see countless people going-by on the streets, as well as the other streets I can not see. I remember a picture of the city I live in, taken from a plane, and, the city is vast; hundreds and hundreds of streets, thousands upon thousands of houses, and millions of peope live in our city and the surrounding suburbs.

It becomes confusing, because, if, I, as an individual, am already a highly complex being, how impossible is it, then, to fathom the complexities of a number of people, let alone the thousands or millions of people, who share the society I live in? Yet, my mind wanders even further afield, and, I am starting to think about the nations that surround my country. I remember the problems our nation had with some of them, and, even now, there are still points of friction and tension with other people who live in foreign countries. I have seen pictures of other nations, and, they have cities, streets, houses and people, just like we do. The people look not all that different from us. They may dress and talk somewhat differently, but they have their beliefs, their leaders, their problems, goals and aspirations.

There are far more nations than I can remember off-hand, and, when I am in such a mood, I may look at the globe that stands on my desk. The globe is rather small and does not do justice to the nation I come from, because it seems such a tiny and insignificant speck on this globe, and yet, I know, that I do not even know all the people who live in the same street as I live in.

This complexity is so confusing, because I emphasise in my reflections and thoughts the cumulative effects of our differences. Because I know, that my friends and relatives have different ideas and goals than I, it is logical to continue adding the multitude of different goals and aspirations, as I think about the millions of people I do not know. However, I also know, that we share many problems and objectives. I remember looking at a documentary film about people living in rural areas all over the world. It showed the farmers and peasants of many different nations, and I was struck by the similarities between them all. Yes, they talked differently, looked differently and they lived under vastly different circumstances, but, what struck me was the fact, that they all had to work hard to eat; to have a modest shelter, to have a little income from selling their produce.

Some people working the land were much better off than others. Farmers in wealthy countries had big machinery to do the hard work for them, and, with the help of these large machines, and a few people to help them, they could grow amazing quantities of wheat and other products. Other people had to struggle desperately, digging with their bare hands in the ground, trying to grow a few edible things to keep themselves from starving. Often, the struggle was futile, and a famine, so often aggravated by a ruthless strife between warring factions in their societies, would destroy the precarious balance between food-production and the number of people who had to be fed.

Indeed, the only way we can get a grip on the problem, how to grasp the essence of the thousands of millions of people living and working all over the world, is to see, that, they all have to eat in order to survive. They all require a place to sleep at night, and a little comfort to rest their weary limbs, because, many people have to work very hard, indeed, just to stay alive.

But, even those, who are prosperous, powerful and rich have their problems and worries, trying to maintain their positions of privilege and prominence upon which they have come to depend so much. In the final analysis, we all want to live and continue our existence. We all want to eat, and, we want to eat, until we have had enough. We want some free time to enjoy life and to educate ourselves, and, if we see that some people are able to lead a life of ease and affluence while others have to slave their entire life, we ask; why?

If we do not receive a satisfactory answer to this question, or, if we know, that the divergence between the rich and the poor, the powerful and the oppressed, is a question of chance at birth, or, a question of ruthless exploitation, then, we experience a sense of resentment; a deep and gnawing anger at the incomprehensible injustice of social circumstances, and, we have found, at the same time, one of the most powerful motivations for millions and millions of people, who are asking this same question; why?

Why should some people live in a privileged luxury, while others have barely enough to survive? Why should some be able to spend all their time enjoying themselves with the luxuries and privileges of a good life, while others have to slave-away their best years in a dull monotony of back-breaking labour, without the hope of ever breaking-away from their oppressing poverty? Why should some people be in a position of nearly absolute power, where they can order people to do this or that, and, why should such powerful people be able to imprison or execute others, just because they dared to resist their oppressors, or question the right of the privileged elite to be in power?

It is clear, that, anyone, occupying a position of absolute power, can squash all opposition to his will, and, such a personality becomes, inevitably, a source of innumerable incidences of injustice, sowing the seeds of a deep hatred and fear, regardless, how much an absolute ruler believes that he acts in the best interests of the people. An absolute ruler always becomes, eventuallly, a source of strong resistance, because the peoples of the world have learned about the concepts of democratic freedoms and rights. They have learned, that people should have a say in the way their societies are governed, and, in the way their leaders come to power.

We see, then, how the common necessities of life shape, to a large extent, our life-style, and, we note, how the common biological requirements of our existence provide us with a very useful framework to see the common denominators in the behaviour and living conditions of millions upon millions of people. If we look, now, at the common features of people in each and every society, we see, that people have to have some sort of a leadership to guide them through a maze of contradictory conditions and demands.

If a leadership is successful, nearly all segments of society will benefit, and, there will be a marked tendency for people to increase the level of contact and cooperation between them. If the leadership is less far-sighted and concerned, an ever enlarging segment of society feels disappointed, alienated, frustrated or outright exploited. Resentment increases, the sense of injustice is sharpened, tension and mistrust are on the rise, until society becomes a stagnating and seething pool of anger, which is essentially ungovernable and ready to explode into riots and civil strife.

If we look at the history of our societies, we see, that, by far, the most common form of rule in the larger societies of the past was a leadership with nearly absolute powers. Most often, this leadership took the form of a monarchy, because the problems of multi-individual leadership with an orderly process of succession were almost impossible to overcome. Only very recently, has a representative, multi-individual leadership, elected by the people and made-up of a number of individuals, become possible, because the difficulties to govern, effectively, a large society of many millions of people with the help of such a representative and multi-individual leadership, are gigantic indeed.

We, the people, are still far from convinced, that, indeed, such a type of representative and accountable leadership is effective under all circumstances. There is always a strong tendency to rally around a single, strong, leading personality in times of crisis, and yet, in smaller groupings, a pluralistic, representative leadership is much more likely to be successful, and, many small but select groupings are, eventually, able to reach a great deal of cohesion without the need for a dictatorial leader. However, the larger the number of people in a social unit, the more difficult it is to rule such a unit of social cohesion, and, if we go back to our own observations as we look around, we are not surprised.

How difficult is it to communicate with all the people in a large city? How difficult would it be to convince each and every citizen, that it is worthwhile to listen to the speech of a leadership candidate? How difficult as it to find a common rallying point for all these people and to awaken their enthousiasm for the common interests of their society?

If people share, to a large extent, a similar life-style, this common rallying point is easier to find, because the problems of people who live in similar circumstances, are indeed similar, but, in a city, we all live differently, and, if we have different ways of providing ourselves with a financial income, and, if we all are in a state of competition with each other, competing for jobs, money, material goods, or a good place to live, then, it becomes much more difficult to find a common point of interest.

The problems of my neighbour may, then, become my opportunity to profit. If he goes bankrupt, I may be able to acquire his property for a small sum of money. Other people's difficulties and problems, even, the demise of an enterprise or the death of a fellow citizen, may then be to my advantage, and, as a result, I really care little about the problems of others, in particular, if I have a chance to benefit from the misery or misfortunes of the people around me.

You may think, that I am exaggerating the attitudes of the people within a competitive social environment. I invite you to study the tacit attitudes and practices that are prevalent in some of the affluent, Capitalist societies. From history, we know, that these attitudes were already apparent at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. While people would be reluctant to admit openly to such attitudes, and, while it is true, that, many people would be genuinely horrified, if you tell them that such is their attitude in actual practice, the exploitation of the labour force, including women and children at the beginning of the era of rapid industrialisation, showed, clearly, the callousness of people in a competitive atmosphere, and, throughout history, we see, how easy a dominant segment of society exploits the weaker sections, if it gets a chance to do so.

Indeed, the exploitation of a majority of the people in society by a much smaller, but ruthless, clever and powerful elite, is a recurring theme throughout the history of mankind, and, this trend is one of the main reasons, why the blessings of society for the members of an elite, become a burden or a curse, for many others.

Many leaderships in the past made serious efforts to counter-act this seemingly inevitable trend towards an exclusive elite of the rich and powerul, but, after one or, perhaps, two generations of benevolent absolute rule, power would again come into the hands of mediocre rulers, who would easily be pushed into a defensive and egocentric attitude, leaving the society wide open to the scavengers of power and exploitation.

In spite of the fact, that a majority of mankind has lived for the past ten thousand years in fairly large communities, almost never have these larger societies been to the benefit of all the members of society. As we have argued before, people had, by and large, no choice but to aggregate into large communities, because the number of people became too large to allow a nomadic existence for everyone. The fertile areas were relatively scarce. Competition for these areas became fierce, and, the intensified competitive struggle for the desirable lands led to the establishment of the larger communities, with their fortifications and armies, the techniques of agriculture and irrigation, as well as the storage and distribution of foods during the leaner seasons.

While the search for security led to an increase in the size of social groupings because of a rise in competitive pressures between social groupings, the need for security made it more difficult for people to break-away from society, whenever they were not happy with it. This inability to break-away from society made the lower hierarchical strata of society vulnerable to exploitation. These lower strata were often comprised of people who had recently been annexed or conquered, and, the stage was set for a perpetual round of oppression, injustice, resentment, revenge and rebellion, culminating into open warfare, whenever such an opportunity presented itself.

Yet, we should also look at this recurring cycle of events from the point of view of the social leadership. This leadership was faced, almost continuously, with the need to defend the community against many hostile neighbours who were looking enviously at its territories. It is therefore fair to say, that these larger societies arose out of a need to shelter more and more people from hostile neighbours. As a result, the problems associated with ruling a large group were far more complex, compared to the leadership of a small group of relatives. After all, the forces of natural selection had prepared mankind for a successful form of leadership for the small, nomadic groupings of early man.

The need to settle numerous internal disputes in the larger and more complex societies, led to a more deliberate and conscious attempt to create a situation of justice and fairness, and, not surprisingly, the guidelines by which the members of a community had to live, became more explicit, but, also, more complex. The techniques of record-keeping arose, initially, because of the need to keep inventories and to facilitate trade transactions, but, quickly, this ability evolved into the art of writing and came into the service of the leadership to document guidelines for social conduct and the settlement of disputes.

All the functions of society became more complex. It required more thought and foresight to feed a large community, compared to a small one. There was a need for extensive planning, as well as the transmission of complex skills to make agriculture a success. Cultivation and irrigation techniques became crucial to feed the larger societies. It took more planning to defend against envious neighbours, and, it was always so tempting to slide from a successful defense into an opportunistic aggression. While guidelines of justice began to regulate the inter-actions between the members of a society, an alien or hostile society was fair game for aggressive and opportunistic instincts, and, the only questions asked would be, whether or not it was possible to conquer the enemy with relative ease.

The tasks of leadership became difficult. They became much more complex than ever before, and, these tasks required an ever more sophisticated attitude of cooperation between a large number of people. The viability of an entire society depended on a leadership that could weave the diverging features of different ethnic groupings into a more or less coherent and cooperative unit, and, it is not surprising, that the members of such complex and large social structures were often coerced to cooperate and contribute. Some would make their contribution as warriors or builders, others became administrators and bureaucrats. We see the emergence of a priestly class, which rallied the faithful to the Common Cause by conducting religious rituals and ceremonies, but, most of the people were just told what to do, where to work and how to work. They had to work hard, in the fields, planting and harvesting the crops, building the fortifications or irrigation canals, or the granaries, forging tools for the farmers and weapons for the soldiers.

People became active in a great variety of functions under the guidance and instructions of the leadership, which was evolving into a large, multi-individual structure. As we still observe in every social environment, some people would be conscientious, energetic and they would believe in the Common Cause. Their efforts, hard work and sacrifices for the common good would earn them respect and privileges. Others were more phlegmatic, following orders willingly or reluctantly, while taking life a little easier, and, then, there were those, who became resentful and rebellious, because they felt, that they were being treated unfairly. They would become agitators against the authorities, and, perhaps, against society as a whole.

It is inevitable, therefore, that every large society becomes layered into hierarchical strata, with different levels of power and allegiance to the ruling elite. As long as these strata are a reflection of individual merit, or occupational differences, they are natural and will be acceptable to a majority of ordinary people. The average person does not begrudge a position of privilege for someone he respects, or, even, worships. As a matter of fact, we automatically elevate to a level of prominence those we admire greatly, because these people become a beacon of inspiration for our own efforts. We do not begrudge a respected leader his privileges and authority. We need to believe in him or her, and, we will follow orders willingly, but, the leader has to be genuinely respected, and, he has to prove, convincingly, time and again, that he is a capable and concerned leader, who deserves the trust and loyalty of his followers.

Problems come to the fore, whenever the reasons for a particular hierarchical ordening, and the powers of a particular leadership, are not carried anymore by the spontaneous recognition that the status-quo represents a situation of justice and fairness. Once the members of society do not recognise, any longer, the fairness and justification of every position of privilege and power, the social order is in deep trouble, because the question "why" can not be answered with a measure of satisfaction or conviction.

True, most of the time, this question is not asked consciously until much later in the development of a social environment. Often, the hierarchical position of a class in society becomes sanctioned by religious beliefs and traditional attitudes, and, the hereditary classes of privilege and power become, then, a "divinely ordained" order that is not to be questioned. But, eventually, the defensive anxieties of incompetent people in positions of power start the inexorable build-up of resentment and anger, incomprehension and a wounded sense of justice. The powerful elite has, then, no choice, but to maintain its position with force; by suppressing dissent; by maintaining the status-quo with ruthless measures.

The oppression of dissent and the stifling of an attitude of inquiry are inevitable, whenever a leadership tries to maintain its status of power and authority, after the sense of justice for this status has disappeared.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

When social divisions become irrelevant.
The disappearance of the sense of justice.
Difficulties recognising similar traits and aspirations in our adversaries and ourselves.
The discovery of ourselves as a thinking individual.
The contradiction between the sense of uniqueness, and the fact, that this experience is shared by us all.
The art of mediation.
A handful of sand.
An essentially similar "anlage", but a great variety in emphasis and experience.
Was war necessary?
The weeping mother.
The limitations of settling a dispute by armed conflict.
Is it possible to make a code of ethics relevant on a global scale?
The importance of "attitudes".
Global integration through voluntary federation; not by conquest.
Few people are concerned with, or interested in, such ideas.
The reasons why; existential anxieties and pre-occupations.
A mobile society, and the limitations of a restricted accountability
The belligerent solution of Marxist objectives.
Limitations of a belief in an Absolute Truth.
Societies with a much more limited mobility of the population.
A high level of frustration and resentment is necessary to ferment a revolutionary struggle.
The unnoticed philosopher.

In the small, nomadic unit of socially integrated individuals, there is a need for a hierarchical order, but, in the larger societies, the mechanisms of hierarchical differentiation become quickly irrelevant, because they become inherited and essentially unjustified differences in power and privilege. From a widely recognised and deserved status of leadership, the rulers in a large and closed society become, eventually, cruel and defensive potentates, who are only concerned with their own security and well-being.

The sense of justice is satisfied, as long as the social order has not been stifled by sanctions and traditions which make natural adjustments to the hierarchical order impossible, but, interestingly, the exploitation of an alien society does not arouse a sense of injustice as yet. The recognition, that the members of an alien society, or a former enemy, may have similar aspirations as ourselves, and, that they are people, human beings, not very different from ourselves, is slow in coming. Even now, we still find it difficult to recognise the similarities in aspirations and living requirements between ourselves and the members of an foreign or hostile society, yet, look, how similar we are.

All of us, wherever we live, whatever system of government we live under, and, whatever beliefs and attitudes we have absorbed, we all find ourselves existing somewhere as an individual. We think and reflect, now and then. We ponder the essence of this existence, and, we are overwhelmed by the number of people around us. We fight with our play-mates when we are young, learning to stand-up for ourselves in the rough and tumble of natural inter-actions, but, we also learn, that we should not always bully those who are weaker. We want to learn in school, because, we know, that we have to find a job, later, and earn a living. We have to fit into society, somewhere, and, we appreciate, slowly, the ever-expanding horizons of human existence and complexity. We also glimpse, here and there, the remarkable similarities that exist between human beings all over the world.

When we experience this remarkable discovery of ourselves as a fragile, yet wonderful, living entity of existence; an entity that is aware of being alive; that can say "I", and think, we are experiencing a sensation that gives us a feeling of uniqueness; of being ourselves; of being the center of our world of perceptions and ideas, but, we fail to realise, that we all go through the same process. While experiencing one of the most basic and uniform sensations during the period of childhood and adolescence, we are subjectively aware of a unique sense of importance; "me".

We struggle all our lives with this essential contradiction; when I am aroused, because someone else is infringing upon my rights or my territory, I behave in a way, that is shared, not only, by all human beings, but, I behave, to a large extent, in a manner that has been shaped by the forces of natural selection over millions of generations of living existence; long before the human species originated in that dark and nebulous past. Yet, I feel, that I am right, and, that the other is wrong, and, my emotional feelings prevent me from clearly analysing all the reasons and factors in the conflict. If I see two people quarrel, I have a better chance to evaluate the happenings and events that let us see, clearly, why the conflict is unfolding itself the way it does.

As a general principle, we can say, that all our emotions, feelings of anger, aggression and resentment, but, also, those of love, compassion or sympathy, are experienced as uniquely our's, but, in reality, we all are subjected to roughly the same emotions, evoked by similar circumstances. Certainly, we all differ in our experiences and beliefs, as well as the environment we grow-up in. We vary in the extent to which we are emotionally aroused by our experiences and anxieties. While each one of us may have a unique combination of features and circumstances, the building-blocks of our personality are the same, the world over.

You may pick-up a thousand times a handful of sand from the beach. Each time, you will have a handful of sand, but every time, the number of grains will vary. So is it also with us, human beings. There are four or five thousand million people on earth, and, each one of us can be distinguished from the others by a large number of differences, but, each one of us reacts to the environment and behaves in relation to his needs and wants, very much like the others. After all, the construction plan for the human body and brain are very similar from one individual to the next, because we are all viable combinations of a single gene-pool; the gene-pool of the human species, and, as a result, we resemble each other far more than we differ.

True, because of the marked cultural and linguistic differences between societies, we have great difficulties communicating with each other, but, we also come to the conclusion, that the similarities in our reactions and emotions are truly astounding, if we make an effort to learn each other's language and culture. Just as I get upset, if someone tries to take advantage of me, so will every human being react essentially in the same manner to an attempt at being exploited.

Certainly, we all may react very differently to a specific situation, because we may interpret a particular situation in so many different ways. What one individual considers to be horrible and an insult, another will laugh at and may not find it to be of any importance, but, this does not mean, that people will therefore react differently, if they receive a stimulus that has been interpreted in essentially the same manner.

Yet, even then, there are some differences, because a similar experience or interpretation will still have a different "quality", because we differ in the content of our past experiences, and, we differ in the beliefs we have absorbed from our cultural environment. We all have been taught to react in different ways to a large variety of specific circumstances, and, all these differences account for the nearly unoverseeable variety of human behaviour-patterns. The point we want to make, here, is the fact, that we all need food to live, a shelter to rest or get warm, a family to love, as well as a beneficial social environment in order to secure, collectively, an easier way of life.

We may believe differently, but, we all react with resentment, if we have been deceived, and, we all feel humiliated, if our pride has been hurt. We are bewildered, if we do not understand, and, we are frustrated, if our goals are thwarted. We all experience a sense of injustice, if we feel that we deserve more than we got, or, if our position is exploited by someone else. We all like a good fight, at times, and, we all despise our enemies, because we believe them to be responsible for most of our troubles. Yet, we all have the ability to feel a sense of compassion, if we suddenly recognise, that the foe we have defeated, and, who is now in utter ruins, suffers deeply and expects the worst. Then, we may ask ourselves, why. Why was this necessary? Perhaps, next time, we will be the one, who has suffered a defeat, and, then, we will suffer intolerable hardships, just as our enemy suffers them now at our hands.

We learn, as an outsider, that a conflict between people can nearly always be mediated, if there is an intelligent and forceful third party, who can argue sensibly with the belligerents. We may see a parallel, here, and say to ourselves; perhaps, the conflict we just fought, or are in the process of fighting, can be mediated by a third party; perhaps, we can solve our differences, and, perhaps, we do not have to destroy each other's societies and kill each other's soldiers and civilians, men, women and children. If we see a mother weep over the death of her son, who has been killed by us in a battle, we all should be able to imagine, that it very well could have been our mother, weeping at our death.

There was a time, that a battle was the only method to solve a dispute, and, it was a valuable way to add to the glory and power of an empire, but, we live in an age, now, where a widespread armed conflict can lead to utter chaos and destruction on both sides, without anyone benefitting from the violent confrontation. We are beginning to outgrow the possibility to settle a conflict in the violent ways of nature; where the strongest party triumphs. However, our own insights have not kept pace with the changing circumstances, and, time and again, we forget, that we can not fight to the limit. Time and again, we are tempted to embark upon this mutual suicide of an all-out war, and, sooner or later, we will, indeed, destroy ourselves to the point, that we can not make, anymore, a full recovery from our self-inflicted wounds.

Yet, the question is simple. If we have learned to live fairly peacefully together in nations that have many millions of people, why then, can we not live together, peacefully, in a global nation of a few thousand million people? If we have learned to give each other a measure of respect, dignity and justice by adhering to a code of law and ethics within our societies, why, then, would it be impossible to extent this code of law and ethics, until all people on earth are governed by essentially similar laws, codes of conduct and living conditions? Would such a development not circumvent, to a large extent, the ever-present danger of an all-out war between some of the more powerful nations on earth?

If it is indeed true, that our attitudes towards each other determine, whether or not we form a peaceful and unified society, we should have good reasons to believe, that the integration of nations into a world federation also depends on our attitudes. On the other hand, we have seen, how enormously complex the governments of large societies have become, compared to the government of a small clan or tribe, and, we should not underestimate the difficulties associated with the enlargement of a social unit from a few hundred million people to a few thousand million people.

Yet, there is no reason to believe, that it can not be done, but, before we can convince a large number of people that it can be done, (without falling into the old trap of accomplishing such an empire by conquest and annexation), we have to show, first of all, a number of good reasons, why it has to be done; why, eventually, man has to merge into a world federation, and, why it is an idle hope to wish for a peace that is merely a stabilisation of the status-quo, or, why peace can not come with a world-wide war against "the Capitalists", or "the Communists".

If we survey the attitudes and opinions of people about the nature of life, the meaning of society, or, the desirability to fuse, eventually, into a just world-society, we come to the somewhat disappointing conclusion, that, very few people seem to care; at least, very few people seem to have cared enough about these questions to give them serious thought. Rather than jumping to the elitist conclusion that most people are too dumb and unconcerned to take part in the political process, and, that the leadership of every society, has, therefore, to be in the hands of a few, competent and intelligent people, we should examine the reasons, why only a handful of people seem to concern themselves, actively, with social problems on such a large scale.

The simple truth is, that most of us are too busy with our personal problems to care about the problems of other people, especially, on such a large scale. If I grow-up in a relatively large and affluent society, where there is a fair level of justice and a large variety of possibilities to make a living for anyone who wants to work hard, I will become absorbed, completely, by the complex maze of hurdles that have to be overcome. One may want to become an engineer, a skilled technician, a scientist, or, one may want to pursue a career in sports or the arts, but, in each case, there is a long period, where the individual has to work hard and patiently along the path one has set for oneself. The more ambitious the long-term goals, the more effort the individual and his supporting relatives have to put into these goals, and, the more committed one becomes.

Under such conditions, the social conscience remains a somewhat glibly accepted set of values and guidelines, which has been taught by the most visible leaders in society. Most careers need help and require significant financial sacrifices, and, as a result, successful career people in countries where the society takes an active part in fostering the careers of talented youngsters, are highly skilled and specialised people, with pleasant and modest, if somewhat bland personalities, who are happy to achieve, finally, what they set-out to do. They remain politically largely unconcerned as their energies have been absorbed, totally, by their career and the struggle to make a living.

We have sketched, here, briefly, a fortunate society, where there is a great potential for mobility throughout the entire population, and, then, the level of resentment will be relatively low. Most people have to work hard; even those who are interested in a political career have to work hard to gain acceptance and prestige in a political Party, or, to advance in a government bureaucracy. These societies are, usually, large and complex, and, some of these societies are involved with the gigantic task of planning and regulating many of the economic activities taking place within and between social groupings, in addition to the many other functions the State has to carry-out in order to ensure a reasonable standard of living and education for its members.

In the drudgery of a huge, unoverseeable governmental bureaucracy, it remains difficult to become concerned about other societies, and, there is a logical tendency to accept, without questioning, the wisdom of such a centrally planned and egalitarian society, where everyone has a chance to unfold his or her talents, and is expected to contribute to society according to capabilities and circumstances.

It is difficult for the bureaucrats of such centrally planned societies to remain flexible. They are often not scrutinised by nosy journalists, because the media are strictly controled by the ruling Party. Accountability becomes entirely an internal Party responsibility. Dissent is often ruthlessly suppressed as "counter-productive", or, as a "threat" to the State. Bureaucratic bungling, a stifling inertia, and a gradual but secretive emergence of minor privileges for the Party-faithful, erode, continuously, the credibility of the bureaucracy and its leadership, and the members of these governing institutions become, slowly, almost imperceptibly, a class of Party elites.

The major problem in societies that are organised along strict Marxist ideas, is the fact, that the Socialist doctrines are considered unassailable and absolute truths, which are understood fully and completely by the ruling elite. Everyone who disagrees, is an enemy of the State, and, certainly, all the privileged classes in other societies are, almost by definition, enemies, who have to be defeated, eventually, by a war of the classes. However, we know, now, that a political doctrine can not be imposed by force, because the act of force always creates resentment and suspicion. Even a divinely revealed Truth from God can not be imposed, anymore, by the sword.

Certainly, in the past, the vagaries of war and conquest also dictated the extent of religious beliefs and cultural trends, but a simplistic faith in an Absolute Truth just will not work in our times, and, we have to provide a much better portrait of the human individual, before we can convince people about the potential for a rational solution to social problems.

While very few people will deny the desirability of this ideal situation, where man contributes to his social surroundings according to his capabilities and receives according to his needs, we have seen, that the practical results of every creed, regardless, how idealistic or enlightened, led to oppression and injustice, if this creed or doctrine was brought by the sword. The confusing and contradictory nature of man, behaving defensively when fearful, or, opportunistically when in a position of power, will negate the purest wisdom of the most exalted religion or philosophy, because, any individual, regardless, how good his or her intentions are, will, eventually, commit an injustice; either by ignorance, or, because of the need to defend existential interests.

However, many of us are not growing-up in such a fortunate society, where there is a great mobility of the people. We may be growing-up in a relatively affluent society, where the classes of wealth and power are inherited and much more isolated from the common people. There is often a measure of mobility for promising youngsters of the lower classes, but, in order to receive financial assistance and the acceptance of the upper classes, these youngsters will have to accept, wholeheartedly, the status-quo. Any questioning of the rightfulness of the established social order will shut the doors of advancement completely, and, these talented youngsters will find themselve cast back into the strata they came from; shunned by those who tried to help them before, and looked upon with suspicion by those who never left.

Again, we see, that nearly everyone becomes absorbed by the daily recurring problems of making a living, and, any thought about the justification of a social status-quo becomes a luxury. As long as there is some hope of advancement for us, personally, and some hope for our children to lead a better life, people will have too much to lose to think, seriously, about their society and the need for radical change. Only, when a significant portion of people have lost everything, and, are living from day to day, from meal to meal, then, the energies of anger and frustration may translate into a heightened social awareness, as well as a desire for political or revolutionary change.

Despair has to reach a stage of high intensity, before it fosters a serious attempt to rethink and change social conditions. Certainly, young people, in the poverty of their youth, the freedom of their bachelorship and the congenial atmosphere of a University environment, have a tendency to debate the merits and problems of society till the small hours of the night. Occasionally, they become, indeed, instruments for a revolutionary change, as the greater awareness of past and present injustices mobilises their youthful energies and abandonment.

Then, there is the occasional eccentric; this lonely maverick, who deliberately sets as the major goal in the later years of his life, to retire early, and live a modest and frugal existence, somewhere, in a forgotten corner of his social environment. There, in the quietude of his home, freed from the mad rush to make a living, he thinks, wonders, ponders and writes. Occasionally, a philosopher may be born in such circumstances, but, most people never have the time, nor the inclination, to take notice.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

Thoughts, born ouf of frustration.
Likely sources for the refinement of Socialist Ideals.
The family-unit is the basic social structure.
A restless disposition; the need for a broad exposure to develop a wide-ranging point of view.
Questions and more questions.
The ability to learn and compare.
The fallacy to consider local security determined exclusively by local factors or concerns.
Why should we be in a position of power and privilege?
A look back at nature; natural hierarchical relationships.
Awareness, and the possibilities for a "social contract" of essential equality.
The emergence of social classes.
Limitations of "test-fights" between social classes.
The inability to break-away; its consequences.
People have become each other's greatest source of danger.
The need for majority support for any form of leadership.
Civil war in dead-lock; a never-ending story of misery.
Is it justified to go to war?
There must be something wrong with our reality perceptions.
The fallacy of an unquestioned faith in an absolute truth.
Deceptive leaderships.
A suicidal lunatic, and the ghostly earth.
Suppressing images we do not know how to handle.
A large variety of leadership functions.
Beware of the fanatic!

Thoughts are often born out of some kind of frustration, and, it is therefore not surprising, that the seeds of Socialism came out of the inequities of the early phases of the Industrial Revolution. Similarly, refinements to the principles of social justice are much more likely to come from the somewhat chaotic and frustrating Capitalist societies, than from the Socialist societies themselves. Certainly, whenever individualised thinking is suppressed, we may see, occasionally, a magnificent display of, and an apology for, individualism, but, it will be difficult for people who react emotionally to the stress of suppression, to see, clearly, the need for a balance between individual rights and communal needs.

However, let us go back to the many different circumstances people find themselves in, as they grow-up and become ready to take their place in society. The immediate and most important social environment for most of us, is the family we have been born into. Some of us never learn to look much further than the horizons of our family-circle, which may have become a microcosm of the world around us, especially, if the family is large, with many relatives living in varing degrees of conflict and harmony. Others have a limited and fragmented family, and these people are then thrown, from an early age, into a more confusing and less sheltered world.

Those of us who have been born into a stable family with a reasonable level of security and stimulation, are lucky, in particular, if we live close to nature in a rural area. Such well-sheltered individuals tend to become well-integrated, if somewhat unimaginative citizens, because their sphere of concern remains localised. Their contacts and interests are centered around the immediate environment of their up-bringing, and, these people tend to become staunch defenders of a local culture.

Those of us, who develop, eventually, an interest in the broad trends of human existence, must have looked far beyond the place of our origins. We must have experienced a sufficient measure of security and stimulation in our home environment to have developed a reasonable number of skills and talents, but, we must also have been somewhat restless and dissatisfied with this local environment, because we felt the urge to know more of the world. Yet, regardless, where we went, we were vaguely aware of the remarkable similarities between the aspirations and emotions of people wherever we found them, and, if we looked back in history and learned to appreciate the many ways in which we can interpret reality, we came to the conclusion, that similarity and diversity go hand in hand.

Those of us, who have thought a little more deeply about our common biological needs and the shared heritage of our genetic blue-prints, have learned to see, that an individual's interests and sphere of concern are, primarily, a result of these biological needs and genetically encoded instructions, but, these needs and instructions are expressed in a way that is determined by cultural influences.

If a man is quite content with a simple but secure existence, his concerns and attention will rarely be drawn much beyond the local culture. However, if he is young and restless, spurred-on by a curiosity and a confident vitality, he may foresake the security of his home and travel the world. Yet, he could not tell you, why he travels, but, he is learning. He is learning about the world and himself, and, inevitably, he will come in contact with baffling disparities between wealth and poverty, painful experiences of personal suffering, and, he will witness the miseries of people, who have been caught by the vagaries of misfortune and war.

He will start to ask questions; why is this happening? Why do some societies or communities live in peace and prosperity, while others are torn-apart by dissent and hatred? How long is our own prosperity and security going to last, and, to what extent is the poverty of other people and societies a result of their own inactions and short-comings, or a result of misfortune, ignorance and exploitation beyond their control.

It has become so easy for us in the affluent world to travel and meet other people, or, to learn about them through our mass-media, provided, that our radios and television sets are not completely dominated by commercial propaganda. More and more, we learn about peoples in other countries. We learn about the variety of ethnic communities within our own nation, as well as the many problems and tensions that arise between them. We learn about the contradictory pressures to which the leadership of every complex society is exposed, and, we are beginning to compare the performance of our leaders in relation to each other. We are becoming aware of the rights we have, or should have, as citiziens of our societies, and, we kow, that we should have a say in the way our societies are governed. A little more slowly, we become also aware of the obligations we have towards our social environment, if we want it to continue to function to the benefit of everyone.

We are slowly becoming aware of the fact, that our security, our job, our social order, as well as our relationships with neighbours, do not depend, only, on these neighbours, nor, do they depend exclusively on the circumstances and conditions of our local environment. The foundation for the security of our local social environment depends, increasingly, upon the assistance and guidance from a large variety of social entities and institutions, which are often far removed from our particular location. We rely, e.g., upon the transportation systems of roads and rail-ways, as well as the transfer of electrical power or energy over great distances. We rely upon the export of our products, as well as on the ability to buy products from far-away.

Increasingly, we realise, that it is wrong and short-sighted to keep looking, only, at our immediate surroundings. We know, now, that our lives will be influenced by happenings in the rest of society, far away from where we live. Events, happening half a globe away, will, eventually, affect us in the way we live and work. Slowly, we learn to see, that, we, in our particular community, can only feel truly secure and happy, if our living conditions are considered to be fair and just by the numerous communities and peoples, who know about us.

It we try to protect a position of privilege which has not been granted to us in recognition of merit or universal rights, we will have to answer, sooner or later, to a small group of determined, and, perhaps, well-armed revolutionaries, why we should continue to live in such a privileged position. Just because we have occupied this position for so long, will not be a valid reason for them to leave us alone, neither will be the argument that our assets and privileges stem from our own territories. They will take these territories away from us, claim ownership and apply the same arguments.

The arguments of ownership of natural resources are shallow. Not only, are they shallow in so far as they apply to the ownership of land and other natural resources, but, to any position of power and privilege. If we find ourselves in a position of power, we will have to be able to answer the question, why we should have this power. If we look back at nature, we see, that, in all animal groupings, where the members of a flexible species participate in a social organisation, this question is already being asked, be it subconsciously.

Sure, these questions of justification are not asked in a literal or conscious manner, but, any young and vigorous individual, who feels, that it can challenge the leader, will do so. The leadership position of the dominant animal of a social entity can always be challenged, and, the relative position of each member in the hierarchy is determined by a process of trial and error, in the form of "test-fights".

Test-fights, or the process of matching strength and resolve with a position in the hierarchy, determines, who can dominate whom. In this way, the primitive "sense of justice", (if we may speak for a moment about a concept that is actually limited to the human sphere of awarenesses but has an "anlage" that precedes the origin of the human species), is automatically justified by the hierarchical position an animal occupies. The moment an animal "feels", that it is "worth more ", or, that it should be in a higher position, it challenges those above it, until the animal finds its "natural level" in the hierarchical order.

At the same time, a member who is getting older and weaker, or loses strength and prestige for one reason or another, may be subjected to a test-fight and may slip down the hierarchical ladder. We see, then, that a hierarchical position in nature always depends upon natural abilities, and, not on the arbitrary strength that comes with the possession of arms or the intrigues of a conspiracy.

The human society has the same biological background and must have functioned, initially, along the same principles, and, we still see in the social mechanisms of a gang of youngsters, some evidence for such a natural, hierarchical postioning. However, as the human group enlarges in size, detailed hierarchical positioning becomes cumbersome and confusing, as more and more individuals occupy an essentially equal position.

Eventually, a momentous break-through in awareness took place, when this essential, de-facto, equality became a deliberate and conscious "social contract" upon which our sense of justice came to rest. However, the conscious acknowledgement of the possibilities and advantages associated with a contract of essential equality, does not mean, that such a principle is easily translated into practice. Neither does the social contract of essential equality invalidate a differentiation of the members on the basis of personal merit and individual capabilities, resembling or restoring, at least, to some extent, the hierarchical ordening of the smaller social units of mankind.

In the larger societies, essential equality of position was slowly replaced by a system of sub-groupings, or "classes", which were clearly arranged into a hierarchical order. These different sub-groupings emerged, initially, as a result of task-divisions or specialisations in function, but, quickly, the divisions became more permanent, as the youngsters of the various sub-groupings were absorbed, by and large, into the class in which they had been born.

While there are many exceptions to these trends, it is nevertheless a useful idea to keep in mind, that, large societies tend to differentiate into hierarchically stratified classes or sub-groupings, which are predominantly, but, not exclusively, limited to those, who are born into a particular class. However, test-fights between the classes is not tolerated by any social leadership, because it is not a useful method to effect hierarchical adjustments. A struggle between social classes becomes, inevitably, a highly destructive process of "civil war".

Leadership also tends to become an inherited position, in particular, when the society becomes large and the leader assumes the prestige and power of an absolute monarch. This is, usually, an expression of the search for social stability. However, all classes, the merchants, the nobility or the land-owning aristocracy, the peasantry, artisans, and, to some extent, the clergy, tend to perpetuate themselves along hereditary lines. While such a structure of traditional or hereditary classes gives a measure of stability to society, it does interfere with the sense of natural justice, and, it easily leads to complacency, especially, amongst the more privileged members of society.

In animal societies, the lowest placed individuals are at the periphery, and, those, who are strong and dominant, yet, unable to break-through into the leadership, may be tempted to leave with a number of followers and set-up their own little social grouping in a neighbouring valley. These mechanisms must have played an important role as a social escape mechanism in the nomadic societies of early man as well; at least, until there was no more room to expand the number of groupings.

With the establishment of the larger and more settled societies, the competition and strife became much more intense, as the available fertile areas became relatively scarce, but, the lowest placed strata of these larger and more complex societies had nowhere to go, and, inevitably, their lot became harsh. Exploitation lurked around the corner, and was inevitably practiced, as soon as the lowest strata could not break-away anymore, or, if these lower classes came from a conquered tribe or an annexed territory.

Slavery and exploitation were the inevitable by-products of the larger society and its soaring population pressures. Slavery became a valued means of building-up the "economy" of a society, e.g., with an ambitious building program, or, it became a method to power a fleet of warships, when an unending series of conquests and defeats produced a plethora of captured warriors and peoples from defeated societies. Probably, only during the period of recorded history, and, perhaps, a few millennia before, became man truly a scourge to his fellow-men, and, only during this period, did man become the most serious and devastating danger for another human being.

Leadership could, and did, become more ruthless, as the societies grew larger. Leadership had to become more ruthless, as the diverging trends of the larger societies required a greater co-ercive force to hold them together. Frequent internal fighting to settle disputes, or questions of dominance, would fatally weaken a society, unless forcefully suppressed and replaced with a system of arbitration and an imposed settlement.

Even in our modern societies, we do not receive a clear answer in many cases, whenever we ask those who are in power, how they came to be in power, and, why they should have power. True, there will always be people in any society, who only grudgingly acknowledge the right of a leader to be in power, or, who will quarrel with the virtues upon which the loyalty of the majority has been based, but, then, there is indeed an important question; should every leader not have the support of, at least, a majority of the people of a social entity, and, if we agree about this principle, we should ask ourselves, how we can make sure, that, indeed, a majority of the people does support a particular leader or leadership?

Too often, even, in our modern times, the factions within a nation or community are so suspicious of each other, and they are so hostile and uncommunicative, that they can not even agree about the wisdom of majority rule, and, the only solution seems, then, to be a dictatorhsip of one segment of society over the rest. Then, the conditions are ripe for the coup d'etat; the military take-over; the assumption of a position of leadership by sheer force.

However, if the coup d'etat is not carried-out swiftly and decisively, a long and bloody civil war is inevitable, especially, if a society or nation fragments into groups with a nearly equal military strength. We do not have to elaborate upon the misery, suffering and devastation resulting from a dead-lock in the power-struggle, and the all-out warfare that goes along with it. Throughout history, and, even, in our modern times, we see many examples of such developments, and, we see, also, the atrocities, the utter despair, the hardship and starvation, which are associated with a primitive struggle for power.

We can reduce this problem, intellectually, to a simple question, which we can ask ourselves time and again, whenever a conflict-situation arises. The question is this. Is it justified to go to war? Are we, indeed, defending ourselves against an unquestionable "wrong" perpetrated by the "other side", or, are we also to blame for the hostilities? Have we done injustice to the other side, and, are our enemies considering the conflict just like we do; a defense of their inalienable rights or honour? Do they see the upcoming battle as a defense against a treacherous and opportunistic aggressor?

If both parties see themselves as the wronged and defending party, and, if both see themselves as the righteous defender of truth, virtue and honesty; if both parties see themselves as the Saviour of the nation, the community, or a particular life-style or ideology, then, obviously, there must be something wrong with the perception of reality of the parties involved. Rather than jumping head-first into a war with a sense of unquestionable righteousness, singing heroic songs when marching into the final battle of death and destruction, it may be advantageous to re-examine the whole situation, and see, whether or not it is possible to come to a negotiated settlement, perhaps, with the help of an impartial outsider.

In my opinion, there is good reason to believe, that the nations of the world are showing an increasing willingness to settle disputes through compromise and negotiation, especially, since the last World War. This is a hopeful sign, and, it is likely that reason will continue to prevail over primitive emotions of glory, victory and righteousness. However, the memories of war are fading fast, and the younger generations do not know, anymore, what it means to be caught in an all-out conflict. Nations, which have just been freed from the yoke of colonialism and foreign domination, seem to be most eager to plunge themselves into fierce and disastrous battles, not only, against their former oppressors, but also, against each other, because in their vigour and emotionalism they have adopted equally fervent and absolute truths, either, as a social dogma, or, as a fundamentalist religious Faith. Yet, frequently, the underlying reasons for most of their conflicts are the primitive drives of territoriality and national pride.

How often do our leaders deceive us with a facade of serious and concerned leadership, proclaiming lofty social or religious codes with high ethical and moral standards, while behaving, in their posturing and bellicosity towards each other, as primitive, territorial animals, ready to sweep their communities into a fanatic hatred for the alleged enemy; ready to lead their nations into the illusion of glory and victory. Death is the only result that will come from this, and, unless we, as ordinary people, learn to tame the combative instincts of our leaders, we will not survive.

I am exaggerating, you think? There are huge nuclear arsenals in existence, and, who knows, what other fiendish weapons such as nerve-gases and other toxic chemical or biological weapons may have been produced and stockpiled by our concerned leaders, without our knowledge. It only takes one determined suicidal lunatic in a position of power to blow himself, and most of the world, to smithereens.

While the structure of the earth will remain intact, the high levels of radio-activity and other toxic materials may eliminate most higher life-forms. It will be a ghostly earth, silently revolving around its axis, and there will be no chance of intelligent life ever developing again. Perhaps, a few hardy insects will survive and thrive, but, the chance of evolving another flexible species with the ability to talk and think, will have disappeared for good.

These images are so frightening and revolting, that we do not want to think about them. Because we really do not know what to do with these images, we minimise their likelyhood of occurrence, or, we suppress them, all-together, as an irrealistic nightmare and a subject for science-fiction movies.

Yet, we have to watch our leaders like a hawk, and, we have to watch ourselves, because we are still inclined to elect the flamboyant and gutsy leader who appeals to our emotions, because we get bored with the cautious and deliberate thinker, who keeps his cool and carefully calculates all the odds before making a move.

Certainly, we see many different leaders, in many different situations and functions. There are leaders in many different areas of jurisdiction, and, we may think about any one of a large number of examples, whenever we talk about the need for leadership qualities. Let us be aware, however, for incompetent and fanatic people, who prey upon the simplistic emotions of a large crowd. This type of leader will increasingly be a scourge to his own people, and a menace to the rest of us.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

Not every leader is dangerous.
The wide spectrum of leadership functions.
Qualities of good political leadership.
A varying mixture of force and persuasion.
The need to understand all hostile forces, and the need to react justly and decisively.
The possibility to grant autonomy to restless ethnic groupings within a nation.
A discussion about "national unity".
A comparison with the pioneering family.
The need to subjugate personal differences for the sake of common interests.
A natural trend towards divergence, after the pioneering phase has been completed.
Grateful children and wise parents.
The division of the homestead.
Dominance and suppression within a large society.
People, thrown together by the accidents of history.
A review of common attitudes.
The "smell" of power and independence.
An opportunity to harnass the energies of dissenting groups for the benefit of society as a whole.
The possibilities of elected leadership and popular representation.
The need for Constitutional Guidelines to regulate the democratic process.
Human rights and obligations.
Why we hesitate to adopt the radical consequences of the principles of fairness and equality.
Motives for independence; suppressed anger and resentment, or, a search for an egocentric opportunity to hoard assets and resources.
A tendency towards "empire building".
The pitfalls of patriotic fervor.
Belligerent emotionalism, and the inability to think clearly and evaluate fairly.
The limits of our sphere of ethical and moral concerns.
The scourge of opportunism.
The moral obligation to search in our own behaviour for traits we condemn in our adversaries.

It would be erroneous to consider every leader a potentially dangerous individual or a menace to society. After all, leadership requirements are so complex and broad, that we would do injustice to the concept of leadership, if we only looked at some of the less desirable aspects of political leaders. We receive many influences and directives from a variety of social leaders, because, in addition to the political leadership of a nation, running the "household affairs" of a country, we seek and accept leadership from our parents, elders in the community, our spiritual leaders, writers and thinkers, but, also, in a way, from our sports-heroes and pop-artists, as well as many others, such as teachers in science and technology, the world of business, or, people who are in the forefront of social and cultural activities.

True, it is in the field of political leadership, that we see the most clear-cut examples of overall leadership, and, here, we see the most disastrous consequences of unscrupulous or criminal behaviour. But, we should not underestimate the difficulties of competent political leadership in a large, complex and, often, somewhat chaotic society. A successful, elected political leader has to search carefully for this elusive common denominator within his large and diverse nation, continuously trying to evaluate the mood of the people, and, at the same time, a good leader has to teach the people his insights and long-term goals for society.

The leadership has to work with a continuously shifting mixture of power and persuasion, winning support and cooperation as much as possible, but, inevitably, resorting to force at one time or another, if divergent trends threaten to disrupt the social order. It is impossible for any political leader to guide and rule with persuasion alone, because there will always be a few irresponsible elements in society, who have no hesitation to exploit a weakness or an opportunity to seek an unfair advantage. There will always be some individuals, and a few groups of people, who do not recognise society as the foundation for their security and well-being. There will always be a few people, who want to destroy the social order by force, and, who want to change society with the power of the gun, callously abandoning the concepts of majority rule and popular representation within a politically and culturally diverse society.

While we have to analyse and understand, carefully, the motivations of such people, and, while these people have often legitimate criticisms about the pluralist society, (which we should take into account), no society or leadership can ever accept the fact, that a small and well-armed elite is able to hold the rest of society to ransom. If a society acquiesces to such a situation, it has capitulated its birth-right, because it fails to acknowledge, then, that the society has lost the basis for its existence.

However, in a majority of cases, a revolutionary overthrow of an existing leadership or social organisation has the backing of an oppressed majority, and, the revolutionary process is then a step towards popular representation. This development is the opposite from a right-wing coup d'etat, where a small elite sees an opportunity to grab power because of the confusion and fragmentation existing within a large and conglomerate social environment.

Yet, even a popular revolution has to recognise the importance of representing truly all segments of society, including the elite, which has so recently been dethroned. It will rarely be possible to satisfy completely every segment of society, and, it will sometimes be impossible to reconcile markedly diverging and hostile communities with each other. In the latter case, the leadership should seriously consider giving a large measure of autonomy to these diverging ethnic groupings, especially, if there is a long history of animosity between them.

Why not grant autonomy to both regions that are constantly fighting with each other? Why is it necessary to cling to the idea or obsession of "national unity", especially, since, nearly always, the size of a nation has been accomplished by a series of conquests?

It is worthwhile to develop this line of thought a little further, because our attitudes and opinions about the demands for autonomy or independence from certain segments or ethnic minorities within a large nation, are still hopelessly confused and contradictory. Let us imagine a fairly large family, working together on a section of land. (I have always found it useful to go back to the inter-relationships of a small number of people, when trying to find an answer, or, the beginning of a comprehensive analysis of problems involving large numbers of people).

In the beginning, a pioneering family will work hard, and, they will work in a reasonable degree of harmony, as long as it has the good fortune of being led by a strong and decisive leadership. The family needs tough leadership, in particular during the pioneering stages, because there is a lot of work to be done just to survive. Individual frictions may smoulder, but they stay usually below the surface, as each member realises, that the common interests take precedence, and, as a rule, there is little energy left-over, after a long and hard day's work, to fight with each other. Besides, the leadership will suppress, firmly, any internal bickering, and, the members will be shamed into cooperating with each other, as they acknowledge the need to pool their energies and commitments to the common goals.

This does not mean, however, that everyone is completely happy, or, that the people working together do not have their differences. Each one of them dreams, from time to time, about the future, when life will be easier; when there will be a little more time and money to enjoy life; to have a few luxuries or conveniences; to do something else besides slaving from morning till night to get the necessary chores done.

It is during these pioneering years, however, that the foundation for future strength and security is being laid, often, lasting for several generations, who, unfortunately, quickly forget, how hard the pioneering generations had to work, in order to provide the amenities and luxuries which they take so easily for granted.

When life gets a little easier, and, when this all-important foundation for collective security has been laid, the time has come for individual preferences to come to the fore, and, a divergence in activities and aspirations is inevitable. If the leadership is completely rigid and does not recognise these developments as natural, we see, quickly, a period of rising tensions emerge. However, a wise parental leadership knows that it is natural, and just, for the children, who have become fully-grown men and women, to go their own way; to start their own families, live their own lives, raise their children, and take full responsiblity. Are we, as parents, going to suppress these trends? Are we not ungrateful to them, if we fail to recognise the contributions they have made? Now is the time to let them become leaders themselves.

The pioneering leadership is getting older. The parents need, of course, a basic security, but, the understanding of grateful children who have been helped on their way by understanding and grateful parents, will remain the greatest source of trust and help. As parents, we welcome their willingness to assume all responsibilities and their coming of age, even, if it is difficult for us, at times, to feel confident and secure, when the younger generations begin to take the helm. We know, how many serious mistakes they can make, and, we know, that, they will make a number of serious errors, leading to set-backs, disappointments, tensions, and, perhaps, even, a few hardships.

If the original homestead is going to be divided between the children and their parents, it is logical, that the division will be as fair and as equitable as possible. Nobody wants necessarily an advantage over the others, but, no-one wants to be left-out either. If a certain area of land is more valuable than another, it remains, either communal property, or scrupulous agreements are made to ensure, that the people living on various parts of the divided estate, will live under roughly equal standards of living.

As a rule, the children will live separately and independently, whenever possible, and, in this way, they enjoy a measure of autonomy, as well as an opportunity to develop their own particular way of life. Yet, in those aspects, where it is obviously advantageous to cooperate, such as sharing expensive equipment, water for irrigation, or other resources that are not equally spread over the sub-divided estate, or, in the pooling of labour when a barn or a house has to be erected, in all these aspects, cooperation will ease the burden of remaining a viable unit of family-life.

Let us now go back to a nation consisting of a number of rather heterogenous ethnic groupings, thrown-together by the accidents of history and the vagaries of conquest and defeat. Usually, one or several groups have suffered abuse and mal-treatment, in particular, if they have been the subject of a recent conquest, and, if the political and economic life of this society has been dominated by a small segment of the overall society. If the leadership of the nation as a whole becomes somewhat less forceful and dominating, trying to practice a truly universal representation of all the major factions within society, it is logical to see a resurgence of nationalistic fervor, in particular, by those, who have been suppressed until recently.

What is our attitude going to be, if we happen to belong to the segment that dominated this ethnic minority until recently? Undoubtedly, we will be somewhat confused and baffled. Our initial reaction may be surprise, because we have given the conquered or dominated minority more freedoms, as well as a measure of equality, and, now, they want to break-away entirely from the nation. This looks like blatant ingratitude to us, and, our primary reaction will be to suppress them again, and, to prevent them from carrying-out their treacherous intentions by keeping them under our thumb.

Often, however, the resurgence of a nationalistic trend is not due to a deliberate and benevolent mood of central relaxation, but, it is brought-about by a slowly decaying and deteriorating leadership, with the emergence of inefficiencies, corruption and indecisiveness, which are eroding the power and authority of the central government. We are then witnessing the primeval power-play that takes place in every social grouping. If the leadership becomes weak, a multitude of divergent forces, previously kept in check, are starting to flex their muscles as they smell power and independence.

However, a leadership structure that has been elected by the people, gives, at least, in theory, room to these aspiring leadership forces. Ideally, there should be an invitation to the more vigorous forces in society to play a role in the leadership of a nation. This is an extremely useful mechanism to deflect the vigorous drive of aspiring leaders or sub-groupings from fragmenting a large and conglomerate society, and, it provides, at the same time, an opportunity to harnass the energy of such forces for the benefit of society as a whole.

The participation in the overall social leadership by a majority of the vigorous, diverging forces in society, serves two important functions. It defuses, to a large extent, the anger of frustration and resentment, when a powerful minority feels, often, with some justification, that it has not received sufficient recognition of its importance. Secondly, a pluralistic representation gives the leadership of a dominant and powerful segment in society a chance to lead or govern the society as a whole, and, it forces the established leadership to become more responsive to, and responsible for, the various forces at work within society.

As we have outlined before, there should always be a well established set of Constitutional Guidelines to guarantee a smooth accession to power through the ballot box. These Constitutional Guidelines should also guide every leadership in its plans and activities, by providing a specific and detailed set of instructions, safeguarding, not only, the mechanisms of popular representation and leadership succession, but also, the rights and obligations of each and every citizen.

The concepts and ideas that guide the rights and obligations of citizens have been developing, slowly, especially, in recent times, but, we are still confused in our thinking, because we do not see, clearly, as yet, the obligations that flow, as an inevitable corollary, from the existence of human rights. By and large, we agree, that each citizen should have equal opportunities to develop his or her talents, to be treated equally under the laws of society, and, to be free from hunger, disease or discrimination. We still disagree, somewhat, about the extent we should allow successful individuals to accumulate wealth and power, and, we are not sure, whether or not it is justified to give the heirs of successful people an inherited material advantage as a birthright.

Most people agree, that exploitation of one individual or group by another only leads to hostilities and hatred, and, we agree, that many safeguards have to be set-up to make sure that such an exploitation does not take place. We disagree, again, about the implications of this principle, and, many of us shy-away from a radical and drastic approach to ensure fairness and essential equality, because it interferes with long-cherished principles of individual freedoms, private enterprise and large-scale ownership, as well as the right to keep our assets and sources of income a secret.

Let us see, how we can reconcile the principles of fairness and essential equality with the aspirations for autonomy and independence, which are a goal for every group that has still a living memory of oppression and unfair treatment. What is wrong with the following principle; if demands for autonomy come from a group of people with a definite ethnic and cultural identity, these demands are, nearly always, an expression of resentment for the fact, that another group has dominated this community in the past. In such a situation, we can be sure, that the living standards of the ethnic minority are not higher, and, most likely, lower than the rest of society. If such people are granted autonomy, the living standard of the rest of society is unlikely to suffer, because any resources that could be obtained from this ethnic minority have been taken long ago.

Therefore, to grant such people a large measure of autonomy is not likely to harm anyone else in a significant manner. Certainly, some non-ethnic individuals, occupying key positions in the society with autonomy aspirations, or, the owners of large tracts of land, may have to give-up their holdings, in particular, if their wealth and affluence is significantly above average. There is no injustice done, if the last vestiges of colonial or neo-colonial attitudes and practices are wiped-away by granting a group of people a measure of independence or autonomy.

It is possible, at least, in theory, that a minority segment of society feels, that independence is preferable to being a significant part in a large society, because this particular segment is markedly privileged in natural resources and other amenities, contributing to a significant level of affluence, e.g., trade advantages or industrial developments. In such a case, the rest of the country may be felt as a "burden", or a "drag", and, it may want to "shed" the poorer areas, in particular, if an enlightened and democratic central government has started to spread the wealth a little more evenly throughout the nation.

In this case, we would be dealing with an understandable, but, essentially, markedly egocentric and opportunistic reason for wanting regional autonomy or independence. However, as a matter of historical fact, I think, that it is much more difficult to find good examples for a struggle for independence that is based on such an egocentric and opportunistic motivation. On the contrary, a region that becomes wealthy and powerful by a fortuitous combination of hard work, cooperation, intelligent use of resources and a shrewd domination over others, usually likes to become larger and more dominant, annexing the surrounding territories and their populations in a process of "empire building".

From a practical point of view, we may safely state, therefore, that a fervent struggle for regional independence, (often violent and difficult to understand in view of the severe hardships and sacrifices made by the insurgents), is nearly always based upon a legitimate historical claim of having been exploited, invaded, or dominated by a neighbouring, superior power, which claims legitimacy in its jurisdiction over the area by virtue of the fact of "having control".

Very rarely are true referenda held in such dominated territories, where only the dominated minority is asked, whether or not it wants independence. If the members of the dominant section of society are included in the referendum, they fall almost invariably into the trap of nationalistic sentiments, where they believe, unquestionably, in the unity of their counry. This is the attitude of fervent nationalism or patriotism, and, it means, that each patriotic citizen regards his country as "his property". The claim of an ethnic minority to their own territory and to independence is, then, felt as an infringement upon the right to territorial integrity, especially by those, who identify with the country as a whole.

Many wars to suppress the aspirations of independence by liberation movements in large, well-defined ethnic and cultural groupings, have been fought, and, are still going-on. They have been justified, largely, on the basis of the attitudes of patriotism and unquestioned national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and, many good citizens have given their lives for these ideals, without asking themselves, for one moment, whether or not they had a right to feel or think this way. It is really unfortunate, that, so many of us are still willing to accept, without any serious scrutiny or criticism, these patriotic axiomas and unquestionable truths, which our leaders and cultural traditions are so eager to teach us.

How many patriotic citizens ever consider the way their country was put-together? How many wars of conquest were fought in those "good old days", when the fatherland was being established? How many people ask themselves, whenever they are ready to take-up arms and fight, once more, for the glory of their country, whether or not "the enemy" has a good reason to fight back? The righteousness of the Cause is so easily and so unquestionably appropriated on each side by this blind attitude of fervent patriotism. Then, it becomes inevitable, that the soldiers on both sides of a conflict are marching, once again, towards each other's death and destruction.

Patriotism is a strong, but primitive sentiment, and, it is not easily controled, in particular, because our political leaders use the emotional spur of patriotic nationalism, invariably, as a tool to galvanise a divided and frustrated people into a fervent unit. Here, we have to watch our leaders carefully, because history is full of disastrous examples, where political leaders have used the emotions of patriotism and nationalism to destroy and kill thousands, even, millions of people.

How many people recognise the fact, that, a seemingly treacherous attack upon the territories of the fatherland may have been motivated by an attempt to "get even" for a similarly treacherous attack by our forefathers, a few decades or a few generations ago?

Patriotism is often the background of an attitude of ignorance and injustice, and, such a shallow attitude causes unnecessary suffering. We should acknowledge the fact, that, each society or ethnic grouping wants to have a measure of security, and, it likes to be able to lay claim to a territory it can call its own, just like we.

We still try to seek security in a primitive manner; by fortifying our defenses, by holding-on to strategic and economic advantages, and, by goading our citizens into a patriotic hysteria. Dialogue, reasoning, as well as a balanced examination of all the facts in an attitude of fairness becomes then impossible, and yet, we all know, from experience within our societies, that such is the right way to settle a dispute. Why is it so difficult, then, to apply the same priniciples of a judicial settlement in disputes between communities or ethnic groupings?

There are a variety of reasons. One reason is the fact, that, we, ordinary citizens, are trained, from an early age, to settle our disputes judicially, or, with the help of arbitration, while our political leaders with their strongly developed territorial instincts, tend to fight with their neighbouring colleagues in a ruthless, jungle-like atmosphere of aggression and naked opportunism.

This observation is related to our next argument, which is more theoretical, but, it represents, in essence, the basic reason for these differing attitudes between citizens and their leaders, whenever a dispute has to be settled. Members of a society absorb a culture that is strongly oriented towards internal cooperation. Disputes within a social environment are settled, therefore, by arbitration, because a judgement or concept of justice applies to all those people, who recognise each other as members of the same society and are under the jurisdiction of the same leadership. The moral orientation of our culture is, therefore, directed towards the well-being of society and its members, and, everything that threatens the unity and security of this social entity is considered to be "evil".

This is the reason, why the conflict with an alien or foreign society is seen, and experienced, in a totallly different light. This conflict is not subject to considerations of justice and cultural guidelines, and, the only factors that play a role, are those of security and opportunity.

Sometimes, opportunism dictates a policy of all-out war and conquest. Sometimes, it seems more prudent to maintain a stand-off, and, on occasion, opportunism dictates a policy of shady and shifting alliances, designed to maintain an uneasy balance of power, preserving a precarious sociological niche for the society we belong to. Sometimes, the belligerent behaviour of powerful neighbours results in a near-total collapse of our own society, if they decide to fight each other on our territory.

Indeed, we see, here, a fundamental reason for the differences in attitudes between citizens and nations in a state of conflict, because the sphere of our concerns, as well as our ethical outlook, are limited to the social environment we belong to. We can see, but, we do not understand, the curious contradiction, that the moral precepts of our culture teach us to love our neighbour and sacrifice our life for the common good, while, at the same time, we carry-out a communal assault upon our neighbour, whenever we get a chance; all for the glory of our nation and for the love of our God.

Yet, we are slowly learning to extend our sphere of concern and mutual recognition beyond the boundaries of our particular ethnic or social unit, and, we are learning, finally, that our enemies are human beings, who are just as vulnerable, and, just as much in need of security as we are. They are just as concerned and caring for their friends and relatives, and, they are just as cunning and opportunistic as we can be, in spite of the fact, that it is often difficult to recognise in our own behaviour this streak of opportunism, which is so clearly visible in the behaviour of our enemies.

Patriotism turns-out to be an immoral attitude, just as it is immoral to feel, that we own the lands and territories of people who may prefer to live more independently from us. It is immoral to fail to acknowledge the human motivations of our enemies, just as it is immoral for us to make use of an opportunity for an egocentric advantage, whenever we can.

If we want to have the moral right to condemn treacherous opportunism in our enemies, we have to scrutinise, carefully, our own behaviour for similar traits.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The attractiveness of a "hawkish" attitude.
Understandable emotions, based on a strong genetic anlage.
The forgotten stench of rotting flesh and the suffering of dying friends.
The need to refrain from giving-in to primitive emotions.
Asking God, whether or not it is justified to go to war.
The dubious justification of the wars of our forefathers.
Limitations of legal arguments, when settling a dispute between societies or ethnic groupings.
The key question; do we search for security in military strength, or, in the principle of social integration, based on inter-dependence and essential equality?
Why so few social organisations reflect adequately the principles of social integration.
The genetic anlage for obtaining a measure of security in a small social grouping.
Nature's contradictory trends.
The cultural tools for organising a much larger social entity.
The need for a conscious decision about the way we want to establish security and viability.
Reasons for the short life-span of large societies and empires.
Man has never understood, fully, the meaning of a social organisation, or the reasons for its life-cycle.
An intuitive insight, and a plausible religious explanation.
Unconvincing attempts to create justice in the larger societies.
The methods of Marxism represent an essentially belligerent solution.
The need for a truly universal franchise to vote.
The abuse of this franchise.
Disenchantment with blatant partisanship.
A lack of awareness, and a sense of responsibility.
Why it is difficult to adopt an attitude of self-discipline in a democratic society.
The all-pervasive effects of our suspicions.
Deplorable chaos, inefficiency and waste.

Let us come back to an important point. You may say to me, that you believe, firmly, in national security on the basis of a strong military force; that you believe in natural and easily defensible borders, as well as a purposeful, nation-wide resolve of patriotism, where the citizens and the leadership are willing to bring sacrifices in order to maintain the independence of their national territories.

You may argue, that this attitude represents the basic struggle for existence, and, that natural selection shows us, clearly, the advantage of survival for those who are strong. You may not be convinced at all, that it is wise, nor just, to extend our sphere of moral concerns to people we do not know, or do not care about. You may argue, that our national pride and sense of self-worth are a deep and natural motivation for our attitudes of courageous patriotism, where we help each other to secure collective viability.

We fight together against the elements of nature, as well as any human enemy, who tries to take from us what is our's by virtue of hard work and previous conquests. Those, who do not like to live in our tough-minded societies can leave, and, they should be grateful that we let them leave, and, that we do not keep them as prisoners or slaves. "It is nonsense to concern ourselves with equality for all on a global scale. Let other societies and nations work as hard for themselves as we have done, and, they will be able to have the same standard of living as we do".

This hawkish attitude is thoroughly attractive, and, it surfaces, time and again, in particular, when a frustrating episode of national humiliation creates resentment and has wounded our sense of pride. Strength can indeed be created by such attitudes, and, the glory of victory shines in everyone's eyes. Yes, the lure is strong, especially, if we have forgotten the stench of rotting flesh on the battle-fields. We do not know, anymore, what it means to see our friends die from their wounds, after their bodies have been torn-apart by an artillery shell or a bullet; where death and dying seem so senseless and unnecessary after the battle is over. If we forget the miseries of war, we soon become willing, once again, to sacrifice on the altar of Warfare.

True, we love combat, because nature has sharpened a strong combative instinct in us all, and, we probably need, at least, to some extent, the challenge of a fight, once in a while, but, we should not let our instincts destroy our existence, because nature never foresaw combat on a global scale with nuclear warheads. We can not let the fortunes or misfortunes of milions of people and entire civilisations depend, any longer, on our primitive, combative instincts.

Anyone, who asks, whether or not the experiences of suffering, defeat and death on the battle-fields are sufficient to think twice about engaging in an armed conflict, has, obviously, never experienced the miseries of war, but, there are, indeed, other reasons, why we should refrain from giving-in to our primitive emotions and the lure of combat and victory. If we are lured into a belligerent attitude, we lose the ability to think clearly, and examine a conflict-situation from all sides. Our emotions are aroused, and, our attitudes slip invariably into the belief, that we have God and Justice, as well as the Absolute Truth, on our side!

We are quick to pray to God for help, whenever we are caught in a struggle of life and death, but, how often do we ask our God, whether or not it is right to do battle? Yes, even, in victory, we may be wrong, and we may do untold harm and cause unimaginable hardship and injustice. We only have to examine the history of any nation, any ethnic grouping, including our own, to know, that our forefathers have fought and won battles, which we can not really consider to be just or justified. Yet, we may still reap the fruits of their conquests, and, we may acknowledge, that our existence has been made possible because of the ruthless, barbaric and unjust conquests of our forefathers, who conquered the lands of the native people, who lived in the same territories we now call, so fondly, "our fatherland".

This bring us back to another argument that is often brought-up in a discussion about the search for independence by an ethnic minority. We often try to apply legalistic arguments. Certainly, when there are clear-cut treaties, which our forefathers made but did not honour, legal arguments play a significant role, but, if we look upon a territory, where wave after wave of inhabitants have fought for posession and settlement; where the original peoples have intermingled and mixed with successive conquerors, we can not trace, anymore, with any degree of accuracy, an "original owner". We can be sure, that man has fought over nearly every strip of arable and non-arable land, and, it is clear, that none of the people, who have been recently conquered, were the truly "original owners" or inhabitants of a particular area.

The key question we have to ask ourselves is the following. Do we search for security in outright military strength, (often becoming an empire-builder dominating over many others), or, do we opt for the "social principle"; the principle of searching for viability in cooperation with other peoples and social groupings, where we extend the area of cooperation, eventually, to a world-wide scale?

As we have discussed before, this principle of security on the basis of social integration is based upon a state of inter-dependence in a position of essential equality. True, not many social organisations reflect, in practice, this principle to any significant extent, in spite of the fact, that these principles can be clearly outlined philosophically. We have seen, how easily this elusive ideal of essential equality disappears, e.g., as the result of exploitation by a dominant elite, or, because of secondary differentiations in economic powers. The latter have a tendency to destroy the original equality that has to be present, before the mechanisms of the "voluntary exchange" can, even, begin to work. Even, in those societies, which regulate and safeguard, rather stringently, the essential equality of position for a majority of the people, we see an inexorable march towards the formation of an elite that is faithful to the ideology of a ruling Party.

Indeed, it is difficult to maintain the practice of essential equality because of the inequalities that invariably exist between people, especially, if we look at their capabilities, efforts and motivations, but, we have also seen, in the earlier part of this discussion, that a divergence from the status of equality is acceptable, if it reflects true, personal merit, and not, a privilege obtained by inheritance, favouritism or financial profiteering.

Nature has sought an increase in security and viability for most of the behaviourally flexible species' by fostering a measure of social integration and task-differentiation. If the behaviour of a species is more rigid, it is less likely, that social organisation or integration plays a significant role in the search for viability, as we see, e.g., in the members of the cat-family. However, the human being is the flexible species, par excellence, and relies for its viability on a measure of integration into a small social unit.

We have discussed, several times, how nature's evolutionary forces left man at the stage, where an aggressive, or, even, ferocious instinct has been favoured during the long struggle for dominance over the larger animals, but, at the same time, man's inherited behaviour-patterns show, also, a well developed instinct of care, togetherness and protection, in particular, towards its off-spring and the weaker members of its own small social grouping.

Nature did not provide man with significant instinctive or genetic instructions to organise into a large-scale social grouping, but, with the development of symbolic representations, (culminating into the extremely rapid and efficient verbal communication of "speech"), the human being has been equipped with a remarkable potential for developing cultural guidelines that have the potential to organise a large society, effectively and successfully. Yet, the required cultural patterns are themselves not inherited, and, man has to learn, slowly, (as an expression of its collective will), how to safeguard and transmit these cultural patterns, and, how to select the cultural patterns that provide the best possible chances for long-term survival on a global scale.

So, here we are. First of all, we have to decide the size of our societies in which we want to find security, or viability. We have seen, that, survival of the small family clan or grouping has long since disappeared. Even the nomadic tribes of a few hundred people have lost their ability to survive, except, perhaps, as an isolated and forgotten existence, far removed from the mainstream of human life, because they are doomed as viable units, as soon as their territories are encroached upon by the more advanced societies.

Since the beginning of recorded history, viability had to be found in much larger groupings because of an increasing competitive strife for the remaining fertile areas, and, ever since, we have seen nations, empires and civilisations come and go in a seemingly endless succession of wars. We see vigorous, growing and expansive societies settle into maturity, affluence and comfort, decaying to senility, with rising internal tensions, eventually falling-apart by corruption from within, or, as a result of pressures from the outside.

You may ask, why the larger societies and empires, which, at times, encompassed nearly the entire "civilised world", did not prove to be more durable than the smaller nations or societies. The reason for collapse was, almost always, the emergence of a small dominating and exploiting elite or bureaucracy, together with a large, exploited and confused mass of people, who felt, sooner or later, that it would be better to throw-off the yoke of imperial rule.

It has never been clear to a majority of any large-scale society, that society exists for the benefit of all its sections, and, not only, for those who dominate. Throughout history, we have never really understood the nature and meaning of the social organisation, because we knew little of the nature and evolution of life and its many organisational forces. We still have, few insights into the reasons, why a society would sometimes be growing strong and vigorous, just and prosperous, and, why, at other times, it would be decaying as a result of corruption and internal strife.

Yet, many times in history, we see, that intelligent and sensitive people understood, at least, intuitively, some of the forces involved, such as those of the sense of justice and the contract of essential equality. People understood, to some extent, that the most important forces determining the fate of society, were the motivations and frustrations of its members.

Some spiritual leaders were able to formulate a deeply satisfying and socially stabilising interpretation of life and death, often, over a period of several generations. Such a structure of religious reality perceptions would, finally, give meaning to the suffering of the poor and oppressed, and, it would overcome the frustrations of injustice and the incomprehensible vagaries of fortune by promising that justice would be restored in a life of ever-lasting peace and glory, after physical death.

Until recently, man's hopeful and confident attempts to bring true justice, here on earth, in a living society, were not very successful or durable, in particular, for the lower classes in society, which found themselves exploited, regardless, who would be in power. Until recently, the lower classes could only vent their anger and frustration in riots and revolts, which were sometimes spectacularly successful, if they were led intelligently, but, often, they were brutally suppressed and quickly forgotten.

Even the modern doctrines of Socialism are based upon a combative solution; nl., to seek-out and destroy "the enemy within". The enemy is then found within society, rather than in the form of an alien culture or a foreign invader. These ideas are clearly stated in the revolutionary philosophy of Karl Marx, who identified the enemy as "the elite". Such an approach to social injustice was understandable and justifiable, at least, before the emergence of truly representative leaderships. We know, now, that such tensions and inequalities between the classes of society can be defused by the ballot-box, and, we know, also, that these tensions have to be defused by the ballot-box, if we do not want to alienate those, who may be sympathetic to the Socialist ideals, but, who fear, rightly, the violent methods of a revolutionary overthrow as a means to create a new social order and bring-about a condition of social justice. Only, when the methods of truly democratic and free elections are not available, a revolutionary overthrow may be necessary to break-through encrusted layers of oppression, injustice and intransigeance of the established elite.

Even now, when we have the privilege to participate in the election of a representative government, chosen by the people and working for the common good of all segments in society, even, now, we see, how divergent and contradictory our attitudes can be, whenever we are called-upon to excercise our franchise to vote. In a society that is tense, fragmented, suspicious, decaying with inefficiency and corruption, we see, that the predominant attitude of the voter will be to select those, who are promising, (and able to deliver on these promises), to give this particular voter, or the group he represents, a specific advantage. The idea that one votes for the individual or leadership candidate, who is most honest and capable in leading the nation as a whole through a particular period of time, will not enter into the minds of those, who are so blatantly egocentrically oriented. The voter, then, uses the mechanisms of elected representation as a lever for his own benefit, and, when he thinks that he can not get a worthwhile advantage from voting, his interests in the democratic processes fades rapidly.

Certainly, this is a rather cynical interpretation of the reasons, why people lose interest in excercising their right to vote, and, it is likely that people become disenchanted with the candidates and their political Parties as a result of the blatant partisan appeal of these candidates for public office. When a candidate or political Party comes to the regrettable conclusion, that they can only get the people's support by attacking and criticising their political opponents at all costs, many people are turned-off by such practices, because they vaguely realise, that it is irrealistic, or, even, preposterous, to think or proclaim that one Party is "all good" and the others are "all bad".

If anyone of us would behave like the major political Parties campaigning for seats in the House of Assembly, we would be laughed at by everyone around us. If we would try to impress a prospective employer with the blatant one-sidedness of the truth, belittling anyone who competes with us, I am convinced, that none of us would stand a chance to get a job. Yet, time and again, our political strategists and advisors seem to come to the conclusion, that the only way to convince the people, is to hammer at a few simplistic half-truths. If they are right, (and they probably are, because their strategy is constantly checked with opinion polls), it shows, that we have not yet found a way to make a majority of the people aware of the responsibilities of participating in the electoral process. We have not yet found a way to educate the people, sufficiently, to understand their responsibilities, and, consequently, it is difficult to generate a measure of trust in the government and its institutions. This reflects a level of political awareness and conscience so dangerously egocentric and narrow in its outlook, that it becomes very doubtful, whether or not an efficient and beneficial government can be formed under these circumstances.

The awareness of the dangers of an ill-informed and poorly motivated electorate is still vague, but, it is rising, because people feel, intuitively, that the political bickering and bureaucratic bungling is contributing to a disastrous divisiveness and polarisation of their societies. People are beginning to understand, that these practices are incompatible with the attitudes of good democratic leadership, where the leadership is supposed to represent all segments of society, after it has been elected to power.

Most people do not really know, why they distrust the political process and the major political Parties, in spite of the fact, that they have no clear alternatives to vote for. Yet, people are vaguely aware of the fact, that the political leadership is dangerously partisan, and, their only defense is not to vote, or, to annul, deliberately, their ballot as a mute protest against divisive political attitudes and practices.

There can be no doubt; to lead a large society efficiently and with foresight is a difficult task for any leadership, but, it is particularly difficult for a leadership that has been chosen by the people and has to offer for re-election after only a few years in office. Often, the leadership is guided by compromise; by a search for the largest common denominator, but, in following this practice, the leadership abrogates, by definition, its most important function. By looking for a policy that will find approval from the largest possible number of people, the leadership falls into the trap of following a popular feeling, rather than leading it, with persuasion and foresight, along a road that has clear, long-term objectives.

Frequently, a necessary course of political action for the sake of a long-term benefit involves a temporary hardship and a measure of self-discipline or sacrifice. Time and again, we see, that, large, affluent societies are incapable of initiating the necessary disciplinary or belt-tightening policies, as their democratically elected leaderships become paralysed by bickering, indecisiveness, as well as their own facile election promises.

Most of us see the logic, that we have to go on a diet, if we want to lose excessive weight, and feel and look better. We know, that it takes a certain amount of effort and self-discipline to cut-back in our food consumption. Yet, one individual, or a small group, can, usually, bring-up the will-power and motivation to carry-out the necessary course of action, but, the larger the group, the more difficult it seems to accomplish a task that requires self-discipline and long-term planning. Why is this? Why is it so difficult to agree, collectively, about something we can agree with, quite well, individually? Why can we bring ourselves individually to an act of restraint and discipline, while, collectively, we seem unable to do so?

The answer lies in the lack of trust we have in each other. The cardinal difficulty, here, is the sense of suspicion; the feeling that I may be doing my best to make a contribution, but, I am not sure about the others. I am afraid, that I become the guillible work-horse who makes a contribution to society, while the others sit-back and get a ride on my efforts. I am suspicious, that my efforts, as well as the efforts of the group I belong to, will come to nothing. We suspect, all too often with fairly good reasons, that our efforts will only benefit a privileged elite and does not lead to the desired or promised results.

This is the fundamental reason, why people in a large grouping have great difficulties acting in unison, in order to bring-about a change that most of us clearly see as desirable or needed. From experience, we know, that our politicians have made numerous efforts in the past to improve one situation or another, but, their efforts were usually in vain and their promises and predictions turned-out to be in error.

We are highly suspicious, if we are asked to cut-back in our demands for a rise in earnings or wages, because we suspect, that, any act of good-will on our part will be taken advantage of by others. We read about the huge profits of large corporations, and, we hear about the many devious ways companies and their accountants devise schemes to hide income and avoid paying taxes. We rarely trust the information we have been given, or the figures we have been shown, because managers, executives and directors, always earn a lot more money than we, the workers, who do, after all, the hard and dirty or dangerous work.

We do not believe in our governments and their large bureaucracies, where more and more people are doing less and less work. At least, that is the impression we have, and, if we are given an opportunity to look behind the curtains of secrecy, we see, that the actual productivity of this gigantic network of bureaucracies is disastrously low. Not infrequently, the work of one department is duplicated or counter-acted by another, and, we have reached the deplorable situation, in many of the large and complex societies, that, no-one in government and none of the leaders in power, has a firm grip over the organisation and function of the many bureaucratic institutions clinging desperately to their possibilities of existence.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Good intentions are no guarantee for efficient leadership.
A lack of control over the bureaucracies in affluent societies.
Suspicions about cut-backs in the wages of public workers.
The high profile of unions and their fights with management.
The power and influence of professionals, businessmen, executives and politicians.
The "excommunication" of a "nosy" individual.
The problem of debt; personal, corporate and public debts.
How do we determine the value of a job or a product?
A review of basic economic principles.
Assumptions of the philosophy of free-enterprise .
A rapid loss of the quality of "voluntariness".
The entrapment of the worker who moves to the city.
The effects of an unequal position in power between worker and employer.
Unions and social legislation.
The criteria of effort, time and skill, when evaluating the value of a product or labour-task.
"White- and blue-collar" workers; another example of differences in power and influence.
The right of people to demand full financial disclosure from any individual or organisation.
Possibilities given by a democratic system of government.
An all-pervasive malaise, and a widespread atmosphere of corruption.
Other reasons for a deep-seated feeling of depression and mistrust; the phenomena of "inflation".

We know, that our politicians are, by and large, good-willing men and women; ambitious, but, nevertheless, concerned with the problems of their society. However, we also know, that an honest intention is far from a guarantee for receiving effective and beneficial leadership.

We know, that no-one can, or, even, tries to re-organise the bureaucracies into a lean and efficient arm of government. The reason is, primarily, because nobody has any idea how to do it, and, secondly, any cut in the bureaucracy will immediately cause a storm of protest from those, who are afraid that they are going to lose their job.

It is impossible for a politician or outside investigator to get a full picture of the details in all departments of a complex government bureaucracy, because the members, who work there, will consider such a study an intrusion of privacy, and, they will do everything in their power to thwart such an investigation. The last thing they will do is to admit, that they could do their work in half the time, or, even, less, if the bureaucracies would be re-organised more efficiently.

If we, as employees, see governments waste our tax-monies on a scale that is so gigantic, that we have lost sight of its overall scope and impact, how, then, can we expect to be sympathetic to any pleas to hold back on our wage demands or to hold-on to our jobs, whenever there is an effort underway to streamline inefficient bureaucracies? It seems, that the worker's wages are always the first target for a government cut-back in spending. We, the ordinary workers, have to fight for every increase with long and public negotiations, often, ending-up with a strike, if a labour dispute can not be settled voluntarily. This gives our group a lot of adverse publicity, and economic difficulties are, then, so easily blamed on the excessive wage-demands of the organised workers in the private and public sectors of the economy.

Many executives and professionals, including the politicians themselves, are able to get pay-rises that exceed union wage-demands or the current rate of inflation, and, these pay-rises do not become publicised; at least, not to the same extent. The level of income of a private entrepreneur or professional is so easily hidden from public view, because this income is still considered to be a sacrosanct domain of personal privacy.

Many affluent wage earners display an ostentatious life-style, but, if anyone dares to ask, how it is possible to display such a style of high spending, the question is considered to be highly inappropriate, or, even, indecent. If you would dare to ask, outright, how much such a free-spending professional or executive makes, your question will be met with an icy silence, and, you have then just been "excommunicated" from these social circles. If you ever dare to ask the ultimate question, how these people can justify their earnings, and, why they think they are worth the income they are skimming off society, you will be considered to be, beyond doubt, one of those wretched Socialists.

Yet, if we look at the overall mechanisms of income distribution in a benevolent society, we see, that the workers receive, indeed, most of the publicity with their wage demands, while the silent income "adjustments" of professionals and corporate executives are hidden behind an optimistic account of the nation's economic performance. This type of discrepancy and discrimination leads also to mistrust, and, unless our politicians realise, that they have to work hard to regain the trust of ordinary people in society, they will not understand, why all their good intentions and rethoric fall on deaf ears.

Let us look, again, at our neighbour, the big spender, who spends almost certainly more than he is earning. He must be going into debt. Let us look at all the aspects of going into debt. First of all, let us ask ourselves, what such an individual does for a living, and, how much he earns. Is he worth the money he earns? Are we worth the monies we receive? How do we determine, whether any job, type of work, service or product is worth the money it earns?

Here, we touch upon a crucial question, but, if we think about it for a whille, it becomes clear that it is very difficult to answer this question decisively. What, actually, is money? We have to go back to the primary principles of economic transactions, and, we have to review the process of barter, or the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Do not laugh at this, because the principle of the voluntary exchange between goods and services, which seems to most of us such a pre-historic relic of the past, lies at the root of all free-market or free-enterprise philosophies, and, it is indeed a valid way to make a start in determining what a service or a product is worth.

If I make something you like, and, you make something I like, we may come to an agreement; we exchange the items we have made, and, we both will have something we like. If I like something you have made in about a week's time, and, if you like something I made in only one day, it seems logical, and fair, that the values of our respective products are not equal. Here, we see another important principle, which we can make use of when determining value. It seems, indeed, reasonable that work of roughly equal effort, skill and time, should be considered roughly equal in value.

We are aware of the fact, that this second principle always comes to the fore, even, if some of us ardently adhere to the basic principles of supply and demand. You may ask me again, why the principles of supply and demand are not sufficient to determine value. "What is wrong with the idea of a completely free exchange of goods and services between consenting people? Does this not lead to a natural efficiency? The individual, who makes the most desirable and largest number of items that are in demand, will, eventually, accumulate most of the goods offered in return, and, he will be rewarded for his skill and hard work by riches and affluence".

Yes, this is indeed the case, but, we tend to forget, that the exchange of goods and services loses, rapidly, the quality of being entirely voluntary. Quickly, some of us, or, probably, most of us, become so dependent upon the exchange, that we can not see this process, anymore, as a voluntary exchange. Look at the worker, who goes to the city in search of a job. He needs a place to live. He has to rent accomodation, buy his food, and pay for many other services, which he could and probably would take care of himself, "back home". At least, all these essential requirements would cost him less, if he had stayed in his village.

Therefore, the need for money, which is the "product" his employer gives him in exchange for his time and effort, is far greater than the needs of the industrialist or owner of a large business enterprise, for the services of the individual worker, who is looking for an opportunity to make a living. What happens in such a situation of unequal power between employer and employee? The workers will work at almost any price, under any condition, because they need the cash for their families and themselves. The worker, by moving to the city, setting-up a family with dependents, and, having to pay rent and other services, becomes completely dependent upon a steady cash income, and, the "voluntary aspects" of the relationship between the parties exchanging goods and services, has been destroyed.

Now, the stronger, more independent party can exploit the weaker or more dependent party, and, there is no limit to what extent this exploitation can go. The limit is, literally, the death of the weaker party, and, many social conditions in the early phases of the period of rapid industrial development, showed, indeed, that workers were exploited. People were being exploited to the point, that the workers were only slightly better of than slaves.

True, the worker could always pull-out and return to the village, but, often, this was very difficult, as his place back home had already been taken by someone else, and, in the competitive market forces of a free-enterprise system, the employer would hire the workers with just enough cash to make them stay and endure his working and living conditions, but, as soon as more people would flock to the cities, looking for work, more competitors would show-up for the available jobs, and, the employer could immediately squeeze more out of his workers.

Anyone who dropped-out, got sick or died, or, could not take it any longer, would be replaced by another, younger worker. It is logical, that this dependence of the workers upon their employers created harsh, exploitative conditions, which led to bloody riots, untold hardships, the rise of labour unions, as well as legislative protection for the workers, but, it also gave rise to a powerful expression in philosophy and literature. Many of our insights about human rights and dignity have been sharpened with the coming of the Industrial Revolution, but, in essence, these same developments occurred many times before.

With the advent of industrial development, wealth accumulated, primarily, in financial and industrial assets, while, before the industrial and technological revolution, assets tended to accumulate in the form of large tracts of land. In any case, ordinary people were reduced to a state of near-slavery or serfdom.

Perhaps, we should, indeed, determine the value of work or a product, primarily, by analysing the effort, time and skill that goes into this product, as well as the value of the raw materials with which the product has been manufactured. In this way, we can compare the incomes of people, and, we can determine, whether or not people earn a fair income. We can determine, what an executive or professional does in comparison with a labourer. We can take into account the time spent studying for a profession, or learning a trade. We can calculate the time and effort that go into a particular job, and, we can see, how a specific effort compares with the work done by others.

Almost invariably, the work done by "white collar" workers, executives, professionals, etc., is not as heavy, nor as dirty, and, certainly not as dangerous as those who work in the factories, mines, refineries or in other major industries. The traditional arguments to justify the higher incomes of white collar workers have been the following; longer periods of training, learning or education, since professionals have to go through college or University, while the blue-collar worker starts to earn much earlier. A greater financial risk, in particular, for those, who start a business, as well as other arguments in favour of a financial reward for shrewd intelligence and persistence, hard and sustained work, chronic worries and pressures, etc. In many non-Socialist societies, the traditional pay differential between the intellectuals, professionals, business executives and blue collar workers, is rapidly disappearing, but, socially, these groups remain far apart, and, they are, almost invariably, highly suspicious of each other.

However, let us come back to the effort to determine the value of someone's work. Few people will disagree with the idea, that it is fair and just to equate monetary earnings in relation to effort, skill, danger or dirtiness of a job. In this light, it is fair, that a miner should earn more than a highly placed bureaucrat or a powerful executive, but, this does not happen. The reason is, of course, that the top-level bureaucrat or executive has far more power in society than the miner, and, a top-level bureaucrat or executive is able to "appropriate", much easier and with much less publicity, not only, a good income, but, also, many hidden or partly hidden fringe benefits.

Unfortunately, fairness and justice still lose-out, so often, to power and opportunity. However, in a society, where the leadership is elected by the people, the members of society can demand to know, what individuals in powerful positions earn, and, questions along these lines are being asked more and more often. Perhaps, we see, here, one of the most important functions of a society that elects its leadership democratically. It is the only way the people of a nation can force their own leaders, and anyone else in a position of power and privilege, to divulge their status of income, affluence and power.

We can be sure, that, in a society, where the leadership is not accountable to the people, such questions are never tolerated and lead to severe persecutions of those who persist with their embarrassing scrutiny. With an elected representation of the people in a Parliament, or Congress, as well as an elected leadership in the form of a President or Prime Minister, we can, at least, continue to work towards a society, where the wealth of the nation and the fruits of labour and industry are distributed in a way we consider fair and equitable, and, not acording to the powers of the various sub-groupings within society.

If every group in society grabs what it can on the basis of the power it excercises, we know, that, quickly, a majority of the people will be enslaved by a minority, because, as always, a powerful elite runs, eventually, every large and complex social environment, especially, if the leadership is not voted into office, or, out of office, by a majority of the people.

Perhaps, we can see, now, one good reason, why we should cherish the franchise to vote, and, we see, also, why it is important to ask questions. We should, indeed, be able to ask our neighbour what he does, how much he earns, what he owns, but, also, what he spends and how much he owes. But, as we demand from our neighbour that he informs us and satisfies our curiosity, we should acknowledge, that we are a neighbour to him, and, that he may want to ask us some questions as well.

We should learn to analyse earnings in relation to work done, or, the cost of an item in relation to the cost of producing it, as well as the quality of workmanship that has gone into a product. Then, we may be able to develop a standard by which to judge a fair return for time and effort, and, we may, then, be able to decide, with confidence, that some people receive far more than they really deserve, and, we will, inevitably, encounter people, who work hard in dangerous, dirty and demanding conditions, while earning far less than they should.

We can all agree, that we have a long way to go, before incomes will be distributed fairly, but, we also have a long way to go, before we can agree upon a basic standard of fairness. Most of us are so steeped in the prejudices of our up-bringing, and, we are so anxious and vulnerable, if someone starts to question the basis for our earnings, that we become very defensive in response to such a challenge. Perhaps, most of us realise, subconsciously or intuitively, that we often earn more than we are entitled to; that we, often, return shoddy workmanship or a sloppy product to our employer; that we are often unscrupulous and short-change our employer, especially, if our employer is an impersonal government bureaucracy, or a large corporation for which we feel no responsibility or affinity.

If we want to ask questions from other people, we will have to learn to answer questions directed at us, and, perhaps, in part, we can attribute this all-pervasive feeling of malaise and mistrust that seems to hang as a barely perceptible haze through our affluent societies, as evidence for the fact, that, most of us are slightly tainted by the silently spreading evil of corruption. We try to justify our miniscule and seemingly insignificant practices of abuse and corruption by pointing to the gross and blatant profiteering carried-out by others, but, we forget, that we have lost our ability, as well as the moral right to criticise the big offender, if we are tainted by corruption ourselves, be it ever so slightly.

Yet, there must be other reasons, why we are so suspicious about each other, and, why we are depressed about the future of our societies, or, even, the world at large. There must be many more reasons, why we do not believe in saving anything for the future; why we want to "spend it all while it lasts". Why are we contributing, wholeheartedly, to an attitude of reckless consumerism, while we know, that a disastrous, and, perhaps, total collapse is near?

The reason is simple. We are afraid, that someone else will consume a little more, if we give-in to our sense of responsibility and consume a little less. Again, we have lost faith in the promises and assurances of our political leaders, that the benefits associated with a cut-back in consumption, an easing of wage-demands, as well as any act of good-will, will be distributed, evenly and equitably, amongst us all, and, we fear, that corrupt and unscrupulous elements will profit at our expense.

But, there is another important reason, why we have become cynical, depressed and obsessed with the consumption of goods and services, as well as all kinds of emotional stimuli. There is another good reason, why we want to spend it all now, and, why it does not make any sense, anymore, to save for the future; for a "rainy day", or, for our retirement. This reason is found in the phenomenon of "inflation".

.......

Chapter 7

Content

Inflation, and the nature of money.
Coins and paper-money.
Why the gradual erosion of the value of money has become such a persistent feature of our contemporary societies.
The process of barter.
Matching values, as well as needs and wants.
Introducing the coin.
The original purpose of money has been forgotten by our national leaders.
Guarantees of weight and purity.
Bilateral credits, and the promissory note.
Paper-money; a universal system of credit.
The "standard commodity"; the gold-standard.
"Curing" a depression by enlarging the money-supply.
The voucher.
The essential practice of barter between nations.
A surplus of vouchers.
Why did governments abandon the gold-standard?
The temptation to spend more than is justified.
The roots of inflation.
Throughout history, we see the problems associated with unfair taxation and fraudulent fiscal policies.
Legitimised plunder.
Colonialism and neo-colonialism.
Inflation; an example of deception and theft.
A variety of causes and effects during the Great Depression.
Expanding money-supplies.
Establishing social security by expanding social programs.
Eroding the principles of free-market pricing mechanisms.
The unhealthy dependence of affluent nations upon a steadily rising level of economic activities.
The cumulative and wide-spread effects of "inflation".

What is inflation, and, what is the function of money? Why should a piece of paper have value, just because someone printed a number on it? In the coin, we can see, at least, an attempt to represent its nominal value on acount of the metal contained in it. In a paper currency, we have literally nothing more than a voucher; a certificate, saying, that you can buy, anywhere in the nation, goods or services valued at the nominal worth of this piece of paper.

It takes an act of trust to accept such a piece of paper as payment for a product or a service, and, we will benefit, if we ask ourselves, once in a while, what we are really doing, whenever we accept money as a salary or payment, or spend it, when buying what we want and need, or, borrow money, when we want to spend more than we have. Let us ask, first of all, why money came into use, and, what advantages it has over a process of straight barter, and, let us ask ourselves, also, what the difference is between a system of coins and a paper currency, and, finally, why, in our life-time, we have come to accept the inevitability of inflation, which is the gradual erosion, and, sometimes, a spectacular decline in the value of money.

When we are exchanging goods and services in a system of barter, it is necessary to match, not only, the values between the exchanged items, but, we must also match needs or wants. It is not useful for me to accept someone else's product in exchange for one of my own, unless I have some use for it. When a society introduces a currency as a substitute for goods, it has found a brilliant way to overcome this problem of matching needs and wants. With the introduction of money, the problem of matching values becomes also much easier, because the value of an item can, then, be expressed in the unit of a currency, and, in stead of having to match item for item in terms of usefulness and value, I can now give or receive money in exchange for the item I want to buy or sell.

Certainly, I will only accept this strange commodity or currency that fits so easily in my hand or pocket, if I am convinced, that I can indeed buy something of value with it. It is important to be aware of the fundamental assumptions we make, when accepting payment in a monetary form. I assume, not only, that I can exchange money, again, at face-value, for an item I desire or need, but, even more importantly, I assume, that I can buy the face-value worth of goods at any time in the future. The first assumption is not difficult to maintain, once an entire society gets used to the practice of buying and selling with coins, or a currency of paper-money, but the second assumption, that its nominal value is going to hold true, is a condition that is far more difficult to maintain, in particular, during recent times, because our political leaders and economists seem to have forgotten the original purpose and intention of this strange commodity; money.

Every currency developed historically as a means of pricing goods and services against a standard commodity; a precious metal, or a generally valued commodity such as grain. Precious metals or gems were very useful as a standard for pricing, because it was, then, possible to incorporate in the coin its nominal value. Provided, that the weight and content of the coin were scrupulously standardised and guaranteed, every merchant or citizen could accept a coin at the face-value stamped upon it.

Quickly, it became clear, that these guarantees of purity and weight had to be underwritten by the State, and, the production of coins had to be carried-out, therefore, by the State, in order to avoid the problems of fraud and quick profiteering. It was clear, that a scrupulously honest manufacture of the coin would guarantee the stability or worth of this currency.

When trade and commerce became so gigantic, that, even, the coin system became burdensome, a note was issued guaranteeing a certain value to whomever owned this note. In a way, this is similar to a credit system, where people, or groups of people who are continuously exchanging goods and services, eventually, forego the cumbersome traffic of coins back and forth, and start to keep a balance sheet, or record, of the outstanding accounts. If there is a sufficient level of trust, that, eventually, payment will be made, such groups will extend each other the privilege of credit, and, trade becomes, mainly, a question of carefully calculating the credits and debits of the commercial traffic.

Paper-money takes this credit system one step further, because it is not tied anymore to a specific agreement between groups within society or between specific societies, but, paper-money, or a bank-note, is a "universal promissory note", guaranteeing the bearer the right to buy a quantity of the standard commodity in accordance with the value printed on this note.

Here, we have the role of paper-money, but, let us realise, that it is carefully tied to a system of standards or precious commodities, which, in modern times, has been the precious metal of gold. However, most of my contemporaries will remember, that, during our life-time, all the major nations have dropped the guarantee, that the currency of their country could be exchanged for a specified amount of gold.

Why was the gold-standard abandoned? What are the consequences of a monetary policy, where the amount of monies in circulation is steadily enlarged without a concurrent enlargement of the gold reserves. These policies have become generally accepted after the industrial world experienced a baffling and frightening world-wide depression in the early part of the twentieth century. We will see, that the eventual abandonment of the gold-standard was an unavoidable result of the new economic philosophy, which became widely accepted after it was credited with a spectacular success; nl., the lifting of this global economic recession or depression during the second and third decades of the twentieth century.

We have hinted, briefly, that a rapidly enlarging volume of trade and industry needs an enlarging system of credits or monies, and, we know, that a mutual or bilateral credit-system becomes increasingly important. In essence, entire nations are bartering wich each other for the goods and services they need, but, each one of them knows, that it is important to keep a balance between earnings and spending. If a country spends far more than it earns, sooner or later, its creditors want to see something of value in exchange for the outstanding accounts, and, they are not happy with receiving just an "I owe you", or a voucher. Similarly, if a country is extra-ordinarily successful in selling its products, it will have a lot of surplus foreign money, or vouchers, which are useless, unless something of value is bought with them.

While coins or gold bars are valuable to correct a trade imbalance between countries, the mere printing of vouchers or paper money is, eventually, going to be meaningless, because there comes a time, that the creditors are going to lose faith in the ability of the nation to keep the promises that are given by these vouchers. If the voucher is stringently tied to a certain amount of gold, this confidence is not so easily eroded, because the creditor knows, that he can exchange all this paper-money into gold, whenever he so desires, but, if there is no precious commodity to back-up the promises of a nation to honour its debts with a valuable product, then, any surplus of vouchers or paper-monies tends to be looked upon with rising suspicions. Money becomes then a saleable item, whose value depends entirely on the level of confidence the trading partners have in the value of this specific currency.

Fine, you will say, if so many disadvantages are associated with a loosening of the gold standard, and, if nearly all our monetary problems can be traced to the fact, that governments reneged on their promise to back their currency with a specific value, why did governments then relinquish their responsibility, and, why did the financial and economic advisors not warn their governments about the disastrous results of abandoning the gold standard?

The reasons are simple, because, throughout history, governments have always been prone to tamper with their own guarantees or standards of coin manufacture. Throughout history, leaderships have spent far beyond their means, and, often, beyond their ability to scrape tributes or taxes together from the people under their control. It is amazing, how leaders always fall for the temptation to spend lavishly in an extra-vagant life-style of luxury, or, an over-ambitious program of building and construction, or, an expensive and often disastrous program of military adventures!

Almost always, government bureaucracies mushroom and grow faster than the revenues from taxation. Corruption, favouritism and bribery flourish. It all costs money, and, while the leadership and government bureaucreacies never run out of ideas how to spend money, sometimes wisely, often foolishly, there is a continuously increasing pressure upon the people to pay more taxes.

Tax increases have never been popular, and, throughout history, we see, that a major source of injustice and resentment is associated with unfair methods of taxation and tax-collection. Progressive taxation, where the rich pay proportionally more than the poor in order to spread the tax burden more or less equitably, is a relatively recent innovation of humane and wise leaderships, and, this practice has only been made possible with advanced techniques of administration. Taxes were, usually, collected where they were easiest to collect, and, this meant, that the rich, being powerful, would pay relatively less taxes, while the poor, who have little power and influence, would always carry the largest share of the tax burden.

As is clear from a glance at history, wars were often started as a legitimised form of plunder, where the cash requirements of a powerful nation outstripped its ability to scrape the necessary revenues together, and, a neighbouring territory was then eyed with envy, in particular, if it contained all sorts of riches and resources. All sorts of excuses were sought, and found, to start a conquest. The conquered people were then taxed to the hilt, or plundered outright, and, their assets, heritage and people were confiscated.

These practices culminated in the colonial era, where a relatively small, dominant, but powerful white minority needed more and more resources in order to fuel industrialisation and the rising levels of expectation and consumerist appetites that came with affluence.

Outright colonialism came to an end with the second World War, but, neo-colonialism took its place, where, nominally, the autonomy and leadership of a nation was kept intact, as long as it allowed its resources to be exploited by a rich and powerful neighbour, or "ally". We still see, nearly everywhere, that the profiteur is ready to take his tribute or toll, whenever he is given an opportunity to do so.

When a military adventure fails, there are greatly increased requirements for cash, and, inevitably, governments began to tamper with the value of their currencies. By bringing in more coins with cheaper alloys, or, by printing more money than could be backed, fully, with a precious commodity, a government could pay its soldiers, bureaucrats, civil servants and creditors with a currency that was, in reality, worth much less than it promised on the voucher.

"Is this not a form of deception or theft?", you may ask. Sure, it is a deception, as well as a theft, and, tinkering with the guarantees upon which the people have started to rely, amounts to fraud. People are given less value than they have been promised, and, this fraudulent practice lies at the root of the processes that lead to a gradual loss of the monetary value.

Governments always spend more than they really should. Partially, this is caused by unwise and ostentatious leaderships, but, partially, this spending is asked for by the people, who have come to rely, increasingly, on government help and hand-outs, whenever they are unable to find work and make a living. Together, this spending on social programs, inadequate taxation of the rich, an increasingly inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy, bungling and waste in large government projects, wasteful spending on armaments and military adventures or ambitious expeditions, all these practices, which are often designed with the objective of making a favourable impression, lead to a continuous drain upon the treasury.

People become restless and have to be pacified. Armies cost money, in particular, when there are no easy conquests anymore. Now, there is the added factor of an increasingly fraudulent monetary system, and, it does not take long for these dishonest manipulations to show-up in the market-place. If there is more money than there are goods, prices will rise steeply. Confidence declines, deceit and corruption increase, adding to the burdens of administrative costs. Resentment grows, and, quickly, the value of the currency starts to decline even further.

In modern times, the experience of the Great Depression taught economists another and rather novel reason for printing more and more monies, regardless of the level to which this currency was backed-up by gold. During and after the Industrial Revolution, the volume of trade in the form of goods and services, rose prodigiously, because the effort of human labour was largely taken-over by mechanised devices, which were powered by coal, steam or electricity.

We should not imply, that a very rapid expansion of the supply of goods and services on an international scale, without adequate enlargement of the money-supply, was the sole reason for the disastrous collapse of the stock-market and the resulting depression of economic growth. However, a lack of sufficient currency was an important factor, but rampant speculation, deceitful practices in the trade and evaluation of stocks, rising unemployment, as well as strident protectionism, all these forces combined and contributed to a widespread economic slow-down.

Massive unemployment and public pressure upon governments to provide work and income by creating public-works programs, co-incided with the emergence of new economic theories, which advocated the spending of large sums of money by governments. This was partly necessary to alleviate the hardships of unemployment and the lack of social security, but, this practice of massive government spending was only made possible by modifying and, eventually, abandoning the principles of the gold-standard.

The idea became popular, that a nation or society could enlarge its money-supply in step with its expanding economic base, and, the "gross national product" became a factor in determining the level of confidence in a national currency by its trading partners. While the idea that the gross national product would actually serve as a backing, is erroneous, (because the holder of a voucher of paper-money can not go to the bank and ask for a piece of this gross national product), the expansion of the economic base, meant, to the people, as well as the trading partners of a nation, that, indeed, it was possible to get goods and services, if one wanted to do so.

The combination of public-works programs, social services and safeguards, such as unemployment insurance and other collective programs of social security, elevated the living standards of the people and made them much more secure. Confidence increased, and the people were less inclined to demand a gold-backing for the monies they received as wages from their government and other employers.

Once the idea had become acceptable to enlarge the money-supply cautiously, more or less in line with the rise in the level of overall economic expansion, more money would be in cirulation than was covered by gold. However, the nations and their leaderships counted on the fact, that not everyone would want to exchange their monies for gold at the same time, but, on several occasions, when people became alarmed during one crisis or another, banks were, indeed, besieged and had to close their doors because of a stampede on the available supply of gold. For a while, nations promised to back their currencies, at least, in part, with a certain amount of gold, but it became increasingly more difficult for people to excercise their right to convert the national currency into gold at the nominal exchange-rate.

However, most of the government expenditures were directed towards social goals, especially, after the Great Depression, and, as a result, resentment was muted, and confidence remained high, in spite of ever increasing deficits in the national budgets. Chronic national debts, increased borrowing, increased financial burdens to service these debts, a gradual lowering or outright abandonment of the gold-standard, an ever rising need for more revenues, as well as an increasing dependence upon an expanding economy, all these factors contributed to a larger and larger amount of money in circulation, and prices, as well as wages, started to climb, inexorably, year after year.

We should not embark, here, upon a detailed discussion of the free-market forces, which, theoretically, keep wages and prices in check; at least, if these forces can operate truly and fully in a system of free and open competition. However, the merger of the labour force into unions, together with the introduction of labour legislation to assure safe and humane working conditions, punctured these assumptions of the free-enterprise philosophy. Next, the rapid growth of large corporations to very large conglomerates, made a mockery out of the principles of free competition. Certainly, often a semblance of competitiveness remained, but, if one looked closely, it was all too often obvious, that the margin of truly competitive pricing was quite small.

The era of neo-colonial exploitation is ending, by and large, as political control and dominance by the affluent nations over the under-developed world is graduallly declining. Resources and raw materials are not as cheap anymore as they used to be, and, in particular, the spectacular rise in the price of oil and other energy-resources during the early seventies, has strained the economies of the affluent world, as well as many under-developed nations, which did not have high-priced natural resources.

Continuously expanding money-supplies, rising prices for raw materials and increased financial burdens for servicing debts, combined with a rapid growth of the bureaucracies. A fall in productivity and competitiveness of many industries in the developed nations, meant, that every year, sometimes, every month, prices of commodities and services would go up; then, here, then there, rarely to come down again. The value of money began to drop faster than could be compensated for by rising wages, and, the peoples in many nations found themselves increasingly trapped into serious financial obligations.

Tensions rose, as people realised the high price to be paid for the trappings of affluence, and, the continuously falling value of money has become a fact of life for most nations, including many of the lesser developed societies. Any social upheaval, crisis or break-down in the efforts of governments to guide the economy and re-distribute income, leads to rapid price hikes, as well as a disturbing, demoralising rate of inflation. By and large, governments and people have accepted the process of inflation without really understanding the many complex mechanisms that bring this phenomenon about, and, yet, the tolerance, by people and governnments alike, of the phenomenon of inflation completely contradicts the basic function and purpose of money.

By tolerating and, often, encouraging an inflationary erosion of the value of their currencies, leaderships have negated one of the most important responsibilities and functions of being a leader. By tampering with the value of its currency, a leadership deceives deliberately its people, and, we are just beginning to realise the totally unacceptable consequences for society, once an inflationary spiral has gotten hold. Such an inflationary spiral behaves like an incurable cancer; a malignant and contagious disease that undermines trust and cooperation, and, it contributes to a sense of injustice, rising tensions, low productivity, and, eventually, to the decay and dissolution of a society. You think that I am exaggerating? Let us see what inflation does.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

The many consequences of a process of monetary devaluation.
A tug-of-war between prices and wages.
Justice and essential equality disappear, together with the value of money.
Brute force always prevails during a tug-of-war.
When a society fragments into groupings with conflicting interests.
The poorer segments always lose-out in the struggle for compensation resulting from a loss of monetary value.
Changes in attitude, affecting everyone, including the leadership.
Inflation makes an attitude of saving and frugality meaningless.
The lingering burdens of a debt-load.
Inflation fuels ever faster rising expectations.
The need to entice people to spend everything they earn.
A vulnerable dependence upon a gigantic economic momentum.
Inflation erodes the basic pillars of existential security.
Irresponsible and ignorant leaderships.
Unsound fiscal policies.
Social injustice, turmoil and inflation lead to a loss of productivity, as well as a loss of confidence and competitiveness.
The responsibilities of leadership.
Living within our means.
To accept inflation as natural or normal is a bankrupt philosophy.
Constitutional Guidelines are necessary to keep political leaders honest and responsible.
Responsibilities of the electorate.
The dangers of a purely egocentric outlook, when excercising our right to vote.
A scrupulous adherence to the principles of fairness.
Avoiding the temptation to take a little more than our fair share.
The harmful effects of "smart attitudes".
Social justice; a financial program of public spending, supported by frugal expenditures, fair taxation, and a balanced budget.
Doubts about our collective will, and the ability to avoid utter chaos and collapse.
We are becoming, to some extent, masters over our own destiny.

Inflation makes people realise, slowly, that the money they accept in return for their labours or products is constantly getting less in value, and, they are beginning to realise, that this represents a systematic robbery. As a rule, we hear so many different explanations for the phenomenon of inflation, that we are confused about its causes and effects. We can only become defensive and suspicious, because we are being cheated constantly. Of course, we want to compensate for these losses, and, we agitate for higher wages, or, we try to squeeze a higher price and profit for the products and services we sell. Friction mounts, because in this tug-of-war between prices and wages, the law of the jungle prevails. Justice and essential equality are eroded, together with the value of money, because the poorer and less powerful segments of society are, invariably, the last to be compensated for the erosion of their meagre earnings.

Inflation in our modern societies is one of the most common reasons for the disappearance of the sense of justice, together with a widening of the gap between the rich and poor. Because the forces of opportunism, exploitation and collective bargaining are rewarded, society shows a strong tendency to fragment into powerful, special-interest groupings. The battle for a larger slice of the economic pie of income and profits is now fought by powerful unions, professional groupings, and business cartels. They all try to enlarge or maintain their monopolies and powers, yet, we rarely realise, how these activities are destroying the last vestiges of trust, social cohesion and collective productivity, and, as a result, we all suffer as the performance of society goes into a steep decline.

Therefore, a continuous erosion in the value of money is one of the main reasons for a rising millitancy of the various groupings within society. Cooperation and mutual trust are replaced by resentment and a wounded sense of justice. These changes in attitude affect everyone. The poorer classes are driven into petty crime and minor forms of corruption, and, the more powerful strata of society become increasingly more exploitative, corrupt and opportunistic, on a much larger scale.

These changes in attitude and outlook affect, also, the candidates for public office or political leadership, as well as everyone else in a position of responsibility. Existential anxieties increase continuously, and, there is less good-will and willingness to work towards the common good or to produce good work. The responsibilities that are linked to a position of beneficial leadership have been forgotten and are being neglected, and, as a result, leadership, in its many different forms and functions, becomes corrupt.

Inflation makes the practice of saving for a rainy day, as well as the attitudes of a frugal life-style, meaningless. If the value of money erodes continuously, it does not make sense to save money, in particular, since interest-payments on savings-accounts are rarely sufficient to off-set the inflationary erosion, nor, are the returns on savings suficient to provide an incentive to delay the urge to spend now. Debt-financing becomes one way to beat inflation, because, by borrowing now and paying back over a period of time with monies that are worth less, the borower gains, in spite of the added interest-charges that have to be paid. However, the gains for the borrower are often minimal, as the money is frequently spent unwisely, and, the burdens of paying back a debt linger-on for years to come.

The temptation to borrow more and more, and, to live beyond the limits of one's income, is a powerful lure, especially, since it has been elevated to a position of prestige and wisdom by commercial advertising. Such practices are encouraged by governments and businesses alike. After all, it ensures sustained hard work by those, who are driven by the need to pay-off their debts. The value of one's work, or, the nature and quality of the products that have been made and have to be sold, becomes a meaningless consideration, as long as the money is coming-in to pay the bills.

Inflation, a tendency towards debt-financing, as well as ever-rising expectations about a continuous advance in material affluence, are all linked together. For a while, it was indeed possible to off-set the inflationary erosion of the value of money by a process of rapid economic expansion, and, this "technique", or philosophy, has been embraced by all affluent nations during my time. We see, then, the following combination of factors at work; a rapidly rising supply of money, a chronic erosion of the value of the currency, a chronic anxiety about loss of buying power, a ceaseless round of price and wage hikes, increased borrowing and a continuously increasing burden of debt-financing, ever-rising expectations about the ability to enlarge income and increase consumption, or, at least, to ease the problem of paying bills.

Our contemporary obsession with affluent consumerism has become dependent upon rapidly expanding production processes, as well as an ever-intensifying exploitation of resources in order to fuel the need for a constantly rising flow of cash. This means, an increasing dependence upon a large volume of sales, a need to advertise and entice people to keep spending; an ever-increasing search for new ways to entice people's appetites and excite their sensual desires. This requires domination over the mass-media, because a constant indoctrination into consumerist attitudes is necessary to keep the population docile and willing to spend all their earnings as soon as possible, and, often, before they have even earned their income.

Rapidly expanding economies bring-about an intensified tug-of-war between the more powerful and the weaker nations, and, this means, a rapidly increasing disparity between affluent and poor societies; a rapid depletion of many non-renewable resources, as well as a disastrous rise in the level of pollution and contamination.

Since the introduction of wide-spread credit-buying, a majority of affluent nations have come to depend, very heavily, upon this economic momentum, because the people have already committed a major part of their expected earnings over the next ten or twenty years. Any hesitation or faltering of the rate of economic expansion produces a frightening instability of the entire social and economic structure, because the solid pillars of existential security have been eroded by an over-exended life-style of frivolous luxuries and the burdens of gigantic debts.

Most people will have some difficulty accepting the idea, that all these intertwined effects and changes in attitudes and life-style can be reduced to a single but fundamental cause; the erosion of the value of money. Yet, if we recognise inflation for what it really is, (a continuous and unavoidable theft of the fruits of work or savings), you can appreciate the demoralising effects such a wholesale theft and exploitation has upon the attitudes of the people. We can certainly point to many other influences and happenings, when trying to explain the condition of the affluent societies, but, I think that we ought to keep in mind this central "evil" of an unstable value of our national currencies.

We have not yet begun to lay the blame squarely at the root of it all; the lack of responsibility and insight of our leaders and their institutions, because they abandoned their roles as guarantors of the value of money. Unfortunately, most contemporary leaders are so pre-occupied with the specific problems they are faced with, that they have no time to reflect upon the overall meaning and responsibilities of their leadership position. Many leaders try to hide behind forces, they say, they have no control over, like the price of imported goods. Yet, they fail to address themselves to the question, why these imports have to rise so dramatically in price. The reason is, invariably, a dramatic decline in the value of the national currency, and, this decline is always due to unsound, inflationary fiscal policies of the importing country.

Unless the problems of inflation are fully acknowledged, we have little chance to deal effectively with the turmoil and social injustices that accompany a galloping inflation. Unless our leaders come to grips, first conceptually and, then, pragmatically, with the problems of inflation, they are not going to solve any of the social problems within their affluent societies. Unless the leaderships of these affluent societies fully acknowledge, that it is their responsibillity to guarantee a stable value of their currencies, people will not cease to demand, ever more stridently, a larger slice of the national income. Unless our leaders fully acknowledge, that they can not separate social justice from sound fiscal policies, their efforts to govern fairly and justly, will be in vain.

Our leaders will have to realise, that they have to guide and control, effectively, all the economic, commercial and financial processes that are taking place in society, and, our leaders will have to realise, soon, that the attitude of trust between people can only be restored by complete access to all financial information, as well as the knowledge that monies received in payment for work done or a service rendered, will keep its value. Our leaders have to realise, that they can not buy social peace and justice with unsound, inflationary policies, nor can they claim to have solved the problem of inflation by increasing the disparities between the poor and the rich.

The doctrines that preach a sustained rate of monetary expansion for the sake of creating and maintaining a sustained economic growth, have to be discarded as erroneous and misleading, because these techniques only aggravate the basic problems of inflation, disparity and pollution. We all have to learn to live, again, within our means, without the burdens of heavy debts, and, this applies to governments, corporations and ordinary citizens alike. The ordinary citizen is actually, much more easily reminded of the fact, that he has reached the limits of spending and obtaining credit. An economic and political philosophy that accepts a certain rate of inlation as "normal" or unavoidable, is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and, it shows, that it does not really understand what inflation does to society.

Any leadership that promises power or affluence to a segment of the population over and beyond what is needed to restore a situation of justice, is engaging in an irresponsible act, that is essentially fraudulent in nature. Our leaders have to assume, not only, the responsibility to truly understand the complexities of all the social and economic factors at work in their societies, but, they have to assume full responsibility for the interests of all segments of society. The practice to promise a little more, just to appeal to the egocentric desires of a certain powerful and restless segment of society, is criminal in its intention and fraudulent in its effects. Yielding to pressures beyond the point of justice, is favouritism, and, it should be considered a weakness and an offense, because it weakens society by destoying this fragile sense of justice which comes with the social contract of essential equality.

The range of political changes and promises that can be made, the latitude of fiscal policies, the creation of bureaucracies, as well as the overall social and economic development of a nation, have to be encoded and safeguarded in Constitutional Guidelines. Only then, are our leaders kept within strictly circumscribed boundaries as to what they can promise or change, when in power. Any leadership or political Party that caters to a particular group, be it business or labour, is irresponsible and partisan, and should be rejected.

Indeed, as a voter, we have a remarkable opportunity to influence the level of responsibility of our leaderships, but, let us not have any illusions. We will have to teach most of our leaders, how to behave truly responsibly, when elected to office, and, we have to think, very seriously, about the task of designing, collectively, a useful and precise Constitution, which will serve as a framework for the sensible behaviour of ordinary people and political leaders alike.

If we want a leadership that is elected by the people and accountable to the people, we, the people, have to accept the responsibility to know, what we are doing, and, for whom we cast our vote. If we let ourselves be guided by promises that are designed to benefit us only, we are just as corrupt as a leader who uses his position of power and influence to better his own position. If we think about leadership, only, as a lever to get what we want, without having the patience to think about the needs and interests of other people, we will have to accept the responsibility for electing a corrupt, egocentric and chaotic leadership.

It is quite justified for us to feel a measure of resentment when we have been wronged, and, it is quite normal for us to demand justice, but we should be careful, at all times, to avoid the temptation to grab a little more than our fair share, whenever we are fighting for our rights. Here, we have an important principle, that can guide us through many complex decisions we have to make throughout our lives. If we all learn to follow, scrupulously, the priniciples of fairness and justice, we see, that we have every right to fight for our rights, or the rights of someone else, but, in applying the force necessary to correct a situation of injustice, we should be very careful not to infringe upon the rights of others.

If we encounter someone who is ignorant or naive, we have the obligation to teach and explain, why such an individual is likely to be abused, and, we should protect such a person, rather than take advantage of the level of ignorance and gullibility. If we only could refrain from this opportunistic and disastrously harmful attitude to exploit someone else or to take advantage of a situation, whenever we see an opportunity to do so! No other attitude will generate as much resentment and contempt as the attitude of ruthless opportunism. It is unfortunate, as well as a sign of gross ignorance, that this attitude is still, so often, revered as "smart", or, as a "keen sense of business".

We just do not realise what harm we do, what anti-pathy and resentment we create, when we exploit, ruthlessly, a situation for our own benefit. Yet, people, who behave, by and large, responsibly and morally in relation to the members of their own society, seem to have no hesitation or scruples to behave in such a ruthless and unscrupulous manner towards "foreigners". Our leaders are particularly guilty of this double standard in behaviour, and, the sad part of it all, is, that they do not even recognise the injustices that are inherent in their attitudes and actions. But, we are all guilty of this crime, mostly because we are so ignorant about the effects of our actions and attitudes upon other people.

The rip-off, the exploitation, the ruthless opportunity to take advantage whenever we can, has reached gigantic proportions in our affluent, Capitalist societies, not only, in our relationships with foreign societies, but, also, amongst ourselves. Unless we learn to recognise and correct the intolerable levels of resentment, hatred and despair that are being created by the cumulative effects of these attitudes and practices, we will tear our societies apart by hostile attitudes and acts of civil warfare.

Our massive weaponry and our nuclear arsenals will stand by, silently, as citizens turn against each other and the machinery of our social metabolism will come to an irreversible halt. Future generations, (if they are around), will laugh bitterly at our attempts to build huge stock-piles of weapons, while letting our societies decay into anarchy and corruption, because we failed to correct injustice, opportunism, exploitation and the phenomenon of inflation. After all, inflation, the organised theft by the State of the values received by its citizens for their labours, is a prime example of opportunism; of advantage-taking, of a short-sighted practice, while the route of fair taxation and spending within budgetary limits has been neglected as a tool to correct disparities and social injustices.

We have often agonised over the question, whether or not a diagnosis of social ills does any good; whether or not it is possible to change the momentum of a social trend, as well as our enslavement to the momentum of economic expansion. I often doubt, that the affluent nations have the collective will, and vitality, to avoid utter collapse and chaos. Probably, we are just as will-less a prey of those powerful but ununderstood forces that made or broke empires in the past.

Yet, in many ways, we are becoming the masters of our own destiny, and, we know, that our collective insights and conscience are able to find an effective voice as our "political will", and, this collective political will can be reflected in the choice of our political leaders. Nevertheless, I still feel, that it is unlikely for future historians to come to the conclusion, that our collective will and our political choices had a decisive influence upon the major events of our time.

However, we have to keep trying to influence the course of events with an enlightened collective insight and political will. We have to learn to do it right, because, if we fail to understand the problems we are confronted with, and, if we neglect to excercise our collective will over the powerful instincts of human behaviour, we know, that we will destroy ourselves, and, then, there will be no future historians to think and wonder about the meaning of life; about the miracle of their own existence, as well as the perilous behaviour-patterns of their ancestors.

.......

Summary

1. The problem of complexity; coping with confusing differences.
   Emphasising common features.
   A core of shared existential requirements.
   The divergence between the rich and the poor, the powerful and those who are weak.
   The question, why such a divergence occurs.
   The inevitable corruption of absolute power.
   Complex tasks for leaderships of large societies.
   Successful leadership, creating a sense of benefit for all segments in society.
   The lure of a single, strong, leading personality.
   Competitiveness, and the problem of social integration.
   Exploitative practices during the period of rapid industrialisation.
   Ruthless scavengers of power and opportunities for exploitation.
   The need for more explicit concepts of justice, and guidelines for generally acceptable behaviour-patterns.
   The limits of our sphere of concerns.
   Population pressures, and the possibility to exploit the lower strata of society.
   Natural differences in attitudes and abilities.
   The justified prominence of those, who deserve a position of prestige and influence.
   Oppression and persecution are inevitable, if power comes into the hands of defensive, incompetent leaders.
   
   
   
2. When social divisions become irrelevant.
   The disappearance of the sense of justice.
   Difficulties recognising similar traits and aspirations in our adversaries and ourselves.
   The discovery of ourselves as a thinking individual.
   The contradiction between the sense of uniqueness, and the fact, that this experience is shared by us all.
   The art of mediation.
   A handful of sand.
   An essentially similar "anlage", but a great variety in emphasis and experience.
   Was war necessary?
   The weeping mother.
   The limitations of settling a dispute by armed conflict.
   Is it possible to make a code of ethics relevant on a global scale?
   The importance of "attitudes".
   Global integration through voluntary federation; not by conquest.
   Few people are concerned with, or interested in, such ideas.
   The reasons why; existential anxieties and pre-occupations.
   A mobile society, and the limitations of a restricted accountability
   The belligerent solution of Marxist objectives.
   Limitations of a belief in an Absolute Truth.
   Societies with a much more limited mobility of the population.
   A high level of frustration and resentment is necessary to ferment a revolutionary struggle.
   The unnoticed philosopher.
   
   
   
3. Thoughts, born ouf of frustration.
   Likely sources for the refinement of Socialist Ideals.
   The family-unit is the basic social structure.
   A restless disposition; the need for a broad exposure to develop a wide-ranging point of view.
   Questions and more questions.
   The ability to learn and compare.
   The fallacy to consider local security determined exclusively by local factors or concerns.
   Why should we be in a position of power and privilege?
   A look back at nature; natural hierarchical relationships.
   Awareness, and the possibilities for a "social contract" of essential equality.
   The emergence of social classes.
   Limitations of "test-fights" between social classes.
   The inability to break-away; its consequences.
   People have become each other's greatest source of danger.
   The need for majority support for any form of leadership.
   Civil war in dead-lock; a never-ending story of misery.
   Is it justified to go to war?
   There must be something wrong with our reality perceptions.
   The fallacy of an unquestioned faith in an absolute truth.
   Deceptive leaderships.
   A suicidal lunatic, and the ghostly earth.
   Suppressing images we do not know how to handle.
   A large variety of leadership functions.
   Beware of the fanatic!
   
   
   
4. Not every leader is dangerous.
   The wide spectrum of leadership functions.
   Qualities of good political leadership.
   A varying mixture of force and persuasion.
   The need to understand all hostile forces, and the need to react justly and decisively.
   The possibility to grant autonomy to restless ethnic groupings within a nation.
   A discussion about "national unity".
   A comparison with the pioneering family.
   The need to subjugate personal differences for the sake of common interests.
   A natural trend towards divergence, after the pioneering phase has been completed.
   Grateful children and wise parents.
   The division of the homestead.
   Dominance and suppression within a large society.
   People, thrown together by the accidents of history.
   A review of common attitudes.
   The "smell" of power and independence.
   An opportunity to harnass the energies of dissenting groups for the benefit of society as a whole.
   The possibilities of elected leadership and popular representation.
   The need for Constitutional Guidelines to regulate the democratic process.
   Human rights and obligations.
   Why we hesitate to adopt the radical consequences of the principles of fairness and equality.
   Motives for independence; suppressed anger and resentment, or, a search for an egocentric opportunity to hoard assets and resources.
   A tendency towards "empire building".
   The pitfalls of patriotic fervor.
   Belligerent emotionalism, and the inability to think clearly and evalutate fairly.
   The limits of our sphere of ethical and moral concerns.
   The scourge of opportunism.
   The moral obligation to search in our own behaviour for traits we condemn in our adversaries.
   
   
   
5. The attractiveness of a "hawkish" attitude.
   Understandable emotions, based on a strong genetic anlage.
   The forgotten stench of rotting flesh and the suffering of dying friends.
   The need to refrain from giving-in to primitive emotions.
   Asking God, whether or not it is justified to go to war.
   The dubious justification of the wars of our forefathers.
   Limitations of legal arguments, when settling a dispute between societies or ethnic groupings.
   The key question; do we search for security in military strength, or, in the principle of social integration, based on inter-dependence and essential equality?
   Why so few social organisations reflect adequately the principles of social integration.
   The genetic anlage for obtaining a measure of security in a small social grouping.
   Nature's contradictory trends.
   The cultural tools for organising a much larger social entity.
   The need for a conscious decision about the way we want to establish security and viability.
   Reasons for the short life-span of large societies and empires.
   Man has never understood, fully, the meaning of a social organisation, or the reasons for its life-cycle.
   An intuitive insight, and a plausible religious explanation.
   Unconvincing attempts to create justice in the larger societies.
   The methods of Marxism represent an essentially belligerent solution.
   The need for a truly universal franchise to vote.
   The abuse of this franchise.
   Disenchantment with blatant partisanship.
   A lack of awareness, and a sense of responsibility.
   Why it is difficult to adopt an attitude of self-discipline in a democratic society.
   The all-pervasive effects of our suspicions.
   Deplorable chaos, inefficiency and waste.
   
   
   
6. Good intentions are no guarantee for efficient leadership.
   A lack of control over the bureaucracies in affluent societies.
   Suspicions about cut-backs in the wages of public workers.
   The high profile of unions and their fights with management.
   The power and influence of professionals, businessmen, executives and politicians.
   The "excommunication" of a "nosy" individual.
   The problem of debt; personal, corporate and public debts.
   How do we determine the value of a job or a product?
   A review of basic economic principles.
   Assumptions of the philosophy of free-enterprise .
   A rapid loss of the quality of "voluntariness".
   The entrapment of the worker who moves to the city.
   The effects of an unequal position in power between worker and employer.
   Unions and social legislation.
   The criteria of effort, time and skill, when evaluating the value of a product or labour-task.
   "White- and blue-collar" workers; another example of differences in power and influence.
   The right of people to demand full financial disclosure from any individual or organisation.
   Possibilities given by a democratic system of government.
   An all-pervasive malaise, and a widespread atmosphere of corruption.
   Other reasons for a deep-seated feeling of depression and mistrust; the phenomena of "inflation".
   
   
   
7. Inflation, and the nature of money.
   Coins and paper-money.
   Why the gradual erosion of the value of money has become such a persistent feature of our contemporary societies.
   The process of barter.
   Matching values, as well as needs and wants.
   Introducing the coin.
   The original purpose of money has been forgotten by our national leaders.
   Guarantees of weight and purity.
   Bilateral credits, and the promissory note.
   Paper-money; a universal system of credit.
   The "standard commodity"; the gold-standard.
   "Curing" a depression by enlarging the money-supply.
   The voucher.
   The essential practice of barter between nations.
   A surplus of vouchers.
   Why did governments abandon the gold-standard?
   The temptation to spend more than is justified.
   The roots of inflation.
   Throughout history, we see the problems associated with unfair taxation and fraudulent fiscal policies.
   Legitimised plunder.
   Colonialism and neo-colonialism.
   Inflation; an example of deception and theft.
   A variety of causes and effects during the Great Depression.
   Expanding money-supplies.
   Establishing social security by expanding social programs.
   Eroding the principles of free-market pricing mechanisms.
   The unhealthy dependence of affluent nations upon a steadily rising level of economic activities.
   The cumulative and wide-spread effects of "inflation".
   
   
   
8. The many consequences of a process of monetary devaluation.
   A tug-of-war between prices and wages.
   Justice and essential equality disappear, together with the value of money.
   Brute force always prevails during a tug-of-war.
   When a society fragments into groupings with conflicting interests.
   The poorer segments always lose-out in the struggle for compensation resulting from a loss of monetary value.
   Changes in attitude, affecting everyone, including the leadership.
   Inflation makes an attitude of saving and frugality meaningless.
   The lingering burdens of a debt-load.
   Inflation fuels ever faster rising expectations.
   The need to entice people to spend everything they earn.
   A vulnerable dependence upon a gigantic economic momentum.
   Inflation erodes the basic pillars of existential security.
   Irresponsible and ignorant leaderships.
   Unsound fiscal policies.
   Social injustice, turmoil and inflation lead to a loss of productivity, as well as a loss of confidence and competitiveness.
   The responsibilities of leadership.
   Living within our means.
   To accept inflation as natural or normal is a bankrupt philosophy.
   Constitutional Guidelines are necessary to keep political leaders honest and responsible.
   Responsibilities of the electorate.
   The dangers of a purely egocentric outlook, when excercising our right to vote.
   A scrupulous adherence to the principles of fairness.
   Avoiding the temptation to take a little more than our fair share.
   The harmful effects of "smart attitudes".
   Social justice; a financial program of public spending, supported by frugal expenditures, fair taxation, and a balanced budget.
   Doubts about our collective will, and the ability to avoid utter chaos and collapse.
   We are becoming, to some extent, masters over our own destiny.

.......