Click here for PDF format of this essay

A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE IDEOLOGIES OF SOCIALISM AND FREE-ENTERPRISE





Democratic Socialism II






A Study in Thought





sa066




by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Man's greatest scourge; poor leadership.
A dictatorship is always placed on the defensive.
An inevitable tendency towards oppression.
Dictatorships of "the right" or "the left".
One-Party Rule is a sure road towards dictatorship.
How can we safeguard the viability of a Parliamentary Democracy?
A three-part series on "Democratic Socialism".
The inevitable corruption of a Party Ideology and its objectives.
A dictatorship of "the right" is defined by the maintenance of a privileged status-quo.
The importance of leadership.
A forgotten link; past bellicose posturing and a contemporary slide towards an armed confrontation.

1 Poor leadership is, perhaps, man's greatest scourge, and, because of our dependence upon overall, political leadership, poor leadership is the most significant cause of death. On the other hand, there are few conditions more beneficial to man and his society than wise, concerned, efficient and far-sighted leadership. Let us explore in this essay the relationships between individual human existence, our collective influence upon society and its leadership, and, the leadership requirements for good, viable and beneficial government.

2 Let us make it clear, that, any form of leadership which has assumed power by force or abandons allegiance to a process of democratic elections after it has gained power, is, inevitably, headed for a reign of terror. Especially, at a time, when the ideals of representative government are becoming a common objective for peoples all over the world, it does not take long for a dictatorial regime to be placed on the defensive.

3 It really does not matter, whether we are considering, here, a dictatorship of the left or the right. The overthrow of a decaying democracy is followed by a regime, that, either, adheres to an absolute faith in the righteousness of a Party doctrine or a religious Faith, (often ignoring the problems associated with the irrepressible human need to explore all sorts of activities and ideas), or, the leadership falls into the hands of a right-wing elite, which maintains its position of advantage and privilege at all costs, and by all means, including oppression, torture and the murder of everyone so much as suspected of being opposed to those in power.

4 In the past, a highly charismatic dictator could emerge after a ruthless and bloody power-struggle, because an increasing sense of security would bring-about a more mellow attitude. A qualified, sensitive and gifted leader, could, occasionally, use the vast powers of a dictatorial regime to push through long overdue social reforms. These measures would reduce the influence of a small, privileged minority, because a weak democratic leadership often lacked the political will, and the power, to institute the necessary reforms.

5 A program of social reforms can be beneficial to the society as a whole, if carried-out by a sensible and intelligent dictator who is able to avoid the pitfalls of chaos and corruption at a time of rapid social change. Such a far-sighted program would ensure a feeling of gratitude towards the benevolent dictator by a large majority of the people.

6 However, even, the most benevolent dictator, who does his utmost to bring a measure of social justice to his people, will face, sooner or later, disgruntled criticisms, unrest, rising expectations, as well as a thankless forgetfulness for the blessings his regime and personal efforts have brought-about. It is perfectly logical, that such a leader will quickly feel unjustly criticised. He will feel that he has become the victim of ruthless profiteers, and, he may want to teach these forgetful and thankless people a lesson.

7 Whatever the reasons are for his change in attitude, the fact remains, that a dictator will, eventually, have to become more oppressive in order to stifle criticisms and unrest. Together with muzzling the opportunistic attitudes of disgruntled minorities, there are, unfortunately, always situations of genuine injustice and justified cricitisms, which get suppressed and neglected as well.

8 The usefulness of every dictatorship is, therefore, limited, in spite of the fact, that the slow, cumbersome and inefficient bureaucracies and Parliaments of democratic governments may, often, create a sense of longing for the benefits of a quick, just and decisive "strong man". Certainly, democratic institutions, as we know them today, are always in danger of crumbling into an unmanageable inertia or chaos, in particular, if there are no other mechanisms, guidelines and institutions to keep a society functioning during a democratic leadership crisis.

9 When the democratic bureaucracy has become chronically stifled, inefficient and corrupt, the people's faith in the ability of their governments to govern properly, may be eroded to the point, that a dictatorial take-over by the left, or the right, becomes a likely event, and, such an event may well be supported by a large segment of frustrated citizens.

10 There seems to be a curious lability or instability in the democratic form of government, but, dictatorial regimes lack the institutionalised channels for an "input" from the people, and, they can, therefore, not be replaced by peaceful, electoral means. Dictatorships are, therefore, also unstable, and, they become invariably oppressive and defensive, regardless, how capable and benevolent the initial phase of such a dictatorial leadership may have been.

11 A dictatorship survives rarely more than a few generations, before it deteriorates into an increasingly defensive and oppressive institution, leading to violence and bloodshed. On the other hand, a leadership that places itself under a truly democratic system of general elections, where "the people" get a chance to influence or replace the leadership through a secret ballot with a measure of political choice, is always at risk of becoming fragmented or paralysed. This leads to chaos and chronic frustrations, rising tensions and disgruntlement, which, in turn, lead to a polarisation of the social environment.

12 Those in positions of power, wealth or privilege, feel increasingly alarmed by the dangers of "anarchy", and, they become convinced that they have to take control in order to "save the nation", which means, in their point of view, a maintenance of the status-quo upon which they depend. On the other hand, the poor, those, who have pinned their hopes upon needed reforms of social institutions and are outside the established structures of bureaucratic power and influence, as well as outside the structures of commercial, industrial or land-based wealth, drift together and come also to the conclusion, that "social justice" can only be obtained by the forceful overthrow of the present government and the establishment of a centralised, one-Party system with a Marxist or, at least, "leftist" ideology. However, after the initial benefits of social reforms, including the distribution of land and wealth, have been implemented, the members of the Party-elite tend to creep into positions of power and privilege, slowly alienating themselves from the rest of the people who are getting restless and disillusioned, once again.

13 We have observed a long enough period in modern history, and, there have been a sufficient number of social experiments with "Dogmatic Socialism", to know, that such one-Party regimes share, with the dictatorships of the right, the inevitable trends towards oppressing dissent and alienating ordinary people. However, a corrupt democracy leads, easily, to chaos, polarisation, and a coup d'etat of the left or the right, and, a dictatorship by a ruling elite, regardless of its nature and origins, leads, eventually, also to unrest and revolt. The question arises, therefore, what kind of a leadership structure, and, what sort of a social organisation do we need, before we can create a society that remains healthy, harmonious and content for a prolonged period of time?

14 Before we can answer this question, we have to acknowledge, that societies and leaderships have recognised this dilemma for a long time, and, we see, therefore, that there are a variety of "democratic systems" in use, where societies have tried different ways of electing a leadership, together with a body of elected representatives, in the hope of preventing a drift into chaos and paralysis, whenever political Parties become dead-locked in a struggle for power and dominance.

15 There are a number of ways in which the people can vote for a leadership or a Legislative Assembly, and, we will discuss these various methods of obtaining an effective input from the people, as soon as we look at these processes, more in detail, in the last part of this three-part series on Democratic Socialism. Here, we want to emphasise the fact, that "democratic societies" have, nearly always, somewhat different leadership structures. This is due to the great practical and theoretical difficulties associated with a leadership structure that governs in accordance with the varied will of the people. A democratically elected and truly representative leadership must, by necessity, reflect the divisions of the electorate, and, the only way to overcome these divisions, at least, to some extent, is by agreeing that "the majority rules".

16 Even dictatorial leaderships have recognised, by and large, the difficulties and disappointments that are associated with a leadership that has taken power by force, and has to maintain its power by suppressing dissent and opposition.

17 The Communist Parties in power have generally recognised the need to have an input from all the Party members, and, within the limits of the Party hierarchy, the top-officials are elected more or less democratically. There is also an attempt in the Soviet Union to give the right to vote to all members of society by making the candidacy for a position in the Supreme Councils, or "Soviets", not dependent upon membership of the Communist Party. However, such a candidacy is certainly subject to Party approval.

18 Obviously, the range of political diversity of opinion in the Communist countries is still limited, and, it remains to be seen, whether or not the Communist Party has the will, courage and wisdom to withdraw from its role as the exclusive guarantor of social well-being, which makes it, inevitably, dictatorial in nature.

19 Party membership is effectively restricted to those, who actively support the Marxist ideology, and, who are able to lead and dominate the people in their social environment. The division of society into members of the Party and those who are not, gives inevitably rise to a "class system", in spite of the fact, that the Marxist ideology found its origins in the drive to over-throw the class-systems of the Capitalist societies, and the replacement of the ruling elite by a worker-State.

20 The development of a Party elite is unavoidable in a State, where one Party rules and can not be replaced by an alternative political Party, and, it is unavoidable, that a large number of young and ambitious people are attracted to become Party members, not so much, because they are moved by the beauty of the Party ideology or by the vistas of social justice, but, because the Party is the key to many if not all positions of privilege and power. Certainly, the idealistic, orthodox core of Communist Party members will strenuously deny such a cynical assessment, but, I believe that an objective, retrospective study will show these trends quite clearly, because these trends are psychologically inevitable.

21 The absence of an ideological and political alternative to the Party in power introduces the need to "suppress" dissenting opinions, just as Christianity had to suppress any opinion that was contrary to the officially approved interpretations of the Faith. This suppression may not always be harsh physical and mental punishment, such as exile or imprisonment, but, it may take the rather ludicrous form that dissent from the Socialist Ideals, with their obvious and unquestionable benefits for everyone, are considered to be mental aberrations that need "psychiatric treatment".

22 We are now well aware of the fact, that a strict adherence to an imposed Party doctrine as the only truthful and unquestionable social doctrine, is psychologically untenable, certainly, in the long run, and, such a practice will, inevitably, lead to serious dissent, strife, chaos and a strongly defensive attitude from the Party hierarchy.

23 The dictatorships of the right have, as a rule, even less redeeming features than those of the left, because they represent a more primitive form of government. Their rule is based, by and large, on the principle that the strongest faction rules and dictates its wishes to the rest of society. As long as a right-wing dictatorship is reasonably secure, free from internal power-struggles or serious challenges, it may turn into a rather benevolent rule, where the leadership genuinely tries to improve the lot of its citizens.

24 However, a little power, given to the poor, is always used to demand more, and, an increase in strength leads to an effort to grab all. This has always been a baffling development to dictatorial right-wing leaderships, who are puzzled by the fact, that a gift to the poor and oppressed is not received in gratitude and repaid by loyalty, but, results in a greater awareness of social discrepancies, a better level of education, and, a better state of health for the younger, more aggressive members of the poor, who begin to direct all their energies towards over-throwing the hated regime, together with all those, who are considered to be the root-causes for their poverty and subjugation. A benevolent, right-wing dictatorship is, therefore, quickly put on the defensive, and, the inevitable chain of suppression, imprisonment, torture and murder by death-squads and ruthless guerilla attacks by the oppressed, resumes its grim and devastating course.

25 Perhaps, you will agree with me, now, that, by far, the greatest part of man's suffering, as well as the majority of the causes of death in wars, civil strife and starvation, are due to ignorant and incompetent leaderships, which allow a society to become polarised between antagonistic and warring factions. Every dictatorship seems to be destined to travel this route, and yet, every attempt to give the people a genuine say in the affairs of the State and its leadership, also ends in chaos and interminable political wrangling, swinging the pendulum, once again, towards a strong, decisive and dictatorial leadership.

26 If we acknowledge the fact, that, indecisive, corrupt and unconcerned leaderships have to be held responsible for a state of poor mental and physical health of the people, as well as a poor response to disasters and emergencies of all sorts, we are justified to say, that, inadequate social leadership is, nearly always, responsible for human suffering on a large scale.

27 Let us reflect about this, for a moment, because, as a rule, we are not aware of the importance of the type and quality of our overall social leaderships. Still, too often, we consider wars and famine to be like other natural disasters over which we have no control, and, which we have to cope with to the best of our abilities. Too often, we come to the conclusion, that the momentum of a belligerent conflict, as well as the outbreak of open hostilities, are forces we have no control over, and, we forget, that we all contributed to these forces, at one time or another.

28 We tend to overlook any connection between the belligerent posture we took, perhaps, years ago, and, the fact, that we are now facing an armed enemy with a gun in our hands. Even our political leaders give, too often, the impression, that they have no control over the events of their time. They believe, that, "duty", moral conscience and the pride of the nation dictate a course of action, which leads further and further onto the road of an uncompromising stance, sliding, eventually, into outright warfare.

29 How often do we realise, either as private citizens, or as leaders, that we sow the seeds of hatred, injustice and future warfare at the time we seem to have won a victory over our adversaries? We have obtained the goals we were fighting for, and, "sufficient pressure" has subdued our opponents into submission and cooperation, but, we fail to appreciate the strength of the feelings of resentment, frustration, injustice and hatred, and, we forget, that our deeds, actions and attitudes are interpreted in a completely different way by the enemy we have just defeated.

30 We may see our attitudes and actions as justified "corrections" of "wrong-doings", or, as a justified retribution for someone's aggressive actions. We may consider our conquest as a just occupation of what belonged to us in the first place, but, our opponents see us only as aggressors; as people, who have used brute power to obtain a position of advantage and privilege; who have taken, in an opportunistic grab, something that does not belong to them.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

Let us be careful in our moments of triumph.
The dramatic consequences of a belligerent attitude.
A common-sense morality.
The serious responsibility of the franchise to vote.
Small-scale social mechanisms.
The attitude of trust in the small-scale social unit is based on a condition of transparence.
Cultural identification mechanisms.
We see only a small fragment of the larger society around us.
Why it is so difficult to obtain adequate levels of communication.
A hypocritical insistance upon the right to privacy.
We want people to be "impressed", but not to know.
A fertile breeding ground for crime.
The blessings of gathering information efficiently.
The cost of government could be reduced to a fraction of what it is today.

1 We have to learn to be careful, and not to gloat in our moments of triumph. We have to make sure, that we are not causing injustice in our zeal to correct wrong-doings; that we do not impose our particular truths upon others, in particular, when these truths consider a position of advantage or superiority as a natural birth-right.

2 We also have to learn, that a belligerent attitude represents, in essence, a willingness to go to war, and, that we may, some day, have to face death and defeat, or, the need to kill someone else, because, in the past, we have given our tacit or active support to a course of action, or a series of events, that began the momentum or a slide towards full-scale warfare. The failure to see a connection between events of the past and the present, does not absolve us from the responsibility of having contributed to this momentum. Just because we do not recognise the connection between our attitudes in the past and the circumstances of the present, does not mean that these links are not there.

3 We have to acknowledge, that we all are responsible for the quality of our social leaderships, and, we have to accept this responsibility in full. The time has passed, for good, that we could leave the concerns of the social environment to a few ambitious people, and, we can not afford, any longer, to give our vote, simply, to those, who promise us the most. We can not afford, anymore, to look-out, only, for our own interests, and leave it to the political leaders of society to keep the society together for the good of us all.

4 We have to be able, and willing, to excercise our common-sense, before we can hope to create a just society and install a leadership that will benefit us all. We have to refrain from the temptation to blame others for the troubles of our social environment. We have to think and speak-out clearly, and, we have to point the finger at our own attitudes as well as those of others, because, after all, we resemble each other to such a large extent.

5 Our political leaders have to learn, that it is not sufficient to gather-in the vote any way they can. Political leaders have a responsibility to gain the confidence and support of the electorate with sound and balanced proposals for social development, and, we know, now, enough about human nature to realise, that the guidelines for political campaigning have to be enshrined and delineated in the Constitution.

6 In our discussions about the way a society should be organised, and the leadership should be chosen, we will come back upon the safeguards and guidelines that are necessary to regulate the behaviour and conduct of elected, as well as aspiring political leaders. At the same time, we will discuss a variety of guidelines and safeguards that apply to all of us, as voters, and, we will discuss the need to make the act of "casting a vote", a serious and responsible business.

7 Let us look, again, at the small but smoothly functioning family-unit, as well as the inter-play between the members and their leaders. There is good reason to believe, that the same qualities, necessary to transform a small family-unit into a coherent "little society", are essential for the viability and success of the much larger social entity, in spite of the fact, that the difficulties are enormous, whenever we want to create a large-scale social leadership that behaves like the head of a good family. How much more complex is such a leadership compared to the leadership of a family-grouping of a dozen members, or so!

8 The leader of the family-grouping knows each member of the family intimately, and he knows what is going-on. Internal squabbles will be judged and settled quickly, and, in spite of the fact, that the members vary in age, strength and capabilities, the rules of justice apply to all. Every member is given, tacitly or sub-consciously, a package of basic rights, including those of security and existence, but, at the same time, each member is required to contribute according to his or her abilities. As the members grow older and more responsible, their influence upon the leadership increases, and, the leadership comes to rely, increasingly, upon their contributions and insights.

9 While the rules of justice and the basic guidelines for responsible conduct do not vary for the members of a small social unit, (and a good leadership adheres to the same rules in order to give a good example), the older and more responsible members gain a greater measure of freedom and a somewhat more privileged position in relation to those, who are younger and still in need of guidance. On the other hand, the older members are called-upon to share the burdens and responsibilities of parental care and leadership. Gradually, the younger generations grow into adult members, ready to "break-away" from the family and start their own nucleus of family life.

10 There are no secret deals between the members or with the leadership. Everyone has enough to eat and extras are shared equally, or, at least, equitably. There is a flexible give-and-take, as arguments and disputes inevitably occur, now and then. The family leaders will listen attentively to the arguments between disputants, and, they let these arguments be resolved by themselves, if possible, but, sensible leaders will interfere, if the squabble threatens the security or well-being of the family-unit as a whole.

11 The leaders will answer many questions from the younger generations, and, they will help to organise, together with other family leaders, special places or institutions, where the youngsters can learn the skills and knowledge necessary to develop into responsible adults.

12 There is an atmosphere of trust, because the members know, at least, intuitively, that they will not harm or deceive each other to any extent, and, they will stick together, whenever a common threat emerges. There is a continuous dialogue going-on between leaders and members, and, the long-term goals, hopes, ambitions and fears, are discussed and pondered. Important decisions are never taken by the family leaders without consulting, at least, the older members in the family-unit. There is an attitude of cooperation, as well as a willingness to depend on each other. Chores are distributed equitably. Some members may become "specialists" in one function or another, but, the members remain a flexible and contributing personality, ready to change their activities, if circumstances make it necessary to do so.

13 In this brief sketch, we have mentioned all the important elements that are necessary to keep a large society healthy and functioning smoothly as a unit, but, we will see, that there are numerous problems standing in the way, whenever we attempt to model the leadership of the larger social unit on the leadership structure and lines of communication that function, so successfully, in a small family-unit. What, then, are these difficulties?

14 Perhaps, the single, most important factor and the greatest limitation for our ability to form a large group, lies in the fact, that, in the larger society, we lose the ability to know each other intimately. The sheer size of a large society makes it completely impossible for each member to know all the others, and, we are therefore confronted, out of necessity, with a situation, where we all have a small social environment around us that is familiar, while the rest of society is "strange" or, at least, unknown. We still live, as a rule, within the context of our family and friends, and, it is to these people that we extend our care and concern. In essence, we feel indifferent to the large, grey mass of people around us, because we really do not know them.

15 If we do know some of the people in the larger social environment, it is very superficially. We may recognise the compatriots of our society by the way they speak, eat, dress, sing or dance, and, we have discussed, before, how these cultural tools help us to enlarge our feelings of concern and togetherness. With the help of our "cultural identity" we can identify with a much larger group than we ever could hope to know, personally, and, we may feel a sense of togetherness with those we do not know by name or by face, just because they belong to the same ethnic grouping, have lived for a long time in the same region, speak the same language, believe in the same God, and obey the same authorities.

16 At the same time, the inability to know everyone personally, or, to know, even, all the small local communities with their numerous events and happenings, places a great burden on the tasks of overall political leadership for the larger, ethnic or cultural grouping. We have seen, how the solution to this problem has been found by creating a multi-individual structure of leadership, which evolves, eventually, into an overall political leader, who is surrounded by a number of advisors, "helpers" and other loyal citizens. This structure evolved into a bureaucracy with its many specialised institutions, manned by "civil servants". These are people, who make a career out of serving the community and its leadership in one or other, specialised function.

17 This entire complex of the overall political leadership, together with its small group of loyal helpers and advisors, a vast, more or less entrenched bureaucracy, and, an equally large, more independent body of para-governmental institutions, such as the military, the police, the judiciary, the educational system, the systems of health-care and other social services, all these institutions form a nearly unoverseeable conglomerate that is almost as foreign to the political leadership as it is to the peoples of a complex and large society.

18 Each one of us can only be familiar with a small fragment of the larger society. If we are a leader, we may know a somewhat larger segment of the social realities, but, with the specialisation of political leadership as a separate career, even, the professional politician starts to live in a world of his own, in spite of the fact, that he is continuously "in touch" with the people; his constituents, as well as the overall public. He is in contact with them via the many media of mass-communications and through the feed-back mechanisms of "opinion polls". Nevertheless, there are many specialised worlds which the politician comes only superficially in contact with, and, it is not surprising, that the modern politician, who aspires to a leadership position in a complex, affluent society, becomes completely pre-occupied with the techniques and mechanics of capturing the "imagination" of a large enough public to secure the votes needed to win.

19 This inability to oversee the society as a whole, places a severe burden upon the ability to gather complete, relevant and reliable information, and, it limits the ability to communicate effectively with a large number of people and sub-groupings. The ability to communicate, or present an imagery, simultaneously, into the awareness of millions of people, has become possible with the mass-media, but, because of the interests of big-business, the world of financial interests, and the commercial controls over these media, we see, that the "presentation" of such an image of political leadership is treated like a slick advertising job, and, it depends, completely, on the availability of large sums of money.

20 The ability to gather complete, relevant and reliable data is hampered, because we do not have a coherent philosophy about what information should be private and what should be public. Most of us, in our affluent societies, live with a sense of suspicion, because we do not know each other, and, we may even fear each other. Many of us are tempted to do things we would not want someone else to know about. For these reasons, we have cloaked ourselves in a mantle of secrecy, which has been given an aura of dignity by the concept of "privacy".

21 How ridiculous and hypocritical are we, when we insist upon our right of privacy! Why should we want to hide what we own, what we earn, whom we deal with, what our plans are, how we think about this or that? On the one hand, we anxiously display, in an ostentatious manner, our possessions and luxurious life-style, in order to impress neighbours with our "earning powers", or, rather, our ability to spend money, but, on the other hand, if our neighbour would inquire, how it is possible for us to spend so lavishly, we become defensive and tell him that it is none of his business. We expect others to admire our property, but we refuse to tell them, how we acquired this property. We want others to be impressed, how much we can spend, but, we refuse to let them know how much we pay in taxes to the State.

22 The reasons for our reluctance to be open, are obvious. Nearly everyone in our affluent societies has some doubts about the rightfulness of the money that is coming-in. It used to be, primarily, the businessman, who was suspected of earning his money in ways that were not entirely above board, but we are now faced with a situation, where many workers, professionals and bureaucrats should ask themselves, also, whether or not they are really worth the income or salaries they receive.

23 Most people can only see, that there are other groupings earning even more, and, in stead of asking themselves, whether or not they would be willing to pay the same amount of money, if they were the employer rather than the employee, people begin to look, exclusively, at their own interests and band together in militant unions and special-interest groupings, in order to demand ever more.

24 We are suspicious and jealous of each other, and yet, we seem to be so reluctant to accept a few simple and logical steps towards a more open and transparent society. The only conclusion we can come to, is the fact, that most of us do not feel confident about our ability to justify our income, our belongings, our actions, dealings and plans or opinions, if they would ever come under close scrutiny. Therefore, we clamor for more protection, more "rights to privacy", and, we do not care, how difficult it becomes for good-willing leaders and leadership institutions to make sure, that society retains, at least, a measure of fairness and justice.

25 How many of us realise, that a willingness to cooperate, freely, in the establishment of a wide network of information about each and everyone of us, will be the only effective means to come to grips with the paralysing atmosphere of mistrust and the practices of organised crime? Our cloak of secrecy and suspicion is a fertile breeding ground for the activities of crime and corruption, and, I am convinced, that future historians, studying the post-mortem of our contemporary, affluent and crime-ridden societies, will come to the conclusion, that the failure to establish, in time, a truly efficient network of communications, as well as an atmosphere of trust and openness, were primarily to blame for the collapse of these societies.

26 Perhaps, we have already reached the point that we can not afford to come really to grips with crime and corruption in our affluent societies, because, too many of us, perhaps, even, a majority, have already, be it ever so slightly, been tainted with corruption, or, at least, with unethical attitudes and practices. We have become slaves of our mutual suspicions, but, we have also become enslaved to the attitude and practice of secrecy, because we are afraid to show our doings and belongings, our wheelings and dealings, out into the open.

27 A truly efficient, information gathering system would allow our political leaders, as well as everyone else, to make decisions with an increased depth of understanding. A comprehensive, and, for everyone accessible computer-file of information about each and everyone of us, would smother, completely, all criminal activities. All pre-meditated crime and fraud would be impossible, because an adequate system of monitoring would detect such activities in their preliminary stages, and, we would have a much greater insight into the motivations and immediate causes of criminal behaviour.

28 Some of our criminal activities result from emotional tensions, but, many represent, simply, a ruthless exploitation of an opportunity to make money. With universal social transparence, we would be able to prevent crime to an extent we can not even dream about at the present time. Besides, a truly efficient, computerised network of information-gathering, data-processing and communication-links would make the tasks of streamlining the government bureaucracies, as well as all other institutions, so much easier.

29 What a blessing would it be for society, if all government functions could be carried-out swiftly, efficiently, and with complete openness; for everyone to see, especially for those who are interested or affected by what is going-on. All the functions of government would be coordinated and efficient. No more redundancies. No more bureaucratic inertia, or the protection of inefficient jobs.

30 The cost of government would be reduced to a small fraction of what it is today, and, a lot of people would be freed from useless and redundant jobs. These people would be free to help building a cleaner and safer environment, as well as a more just and transparent society with global dimensions.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The atmosphere of trust is an essential element for social viability.
Trust has to be earned.
How to maintain the gift of "human rights".
A satisfied "sense of justice" lies behind the willingness to cooperate.
The "democratisation" of leadership functions.
A continuous process of feed-back and dialogue.
The "thought-processes" of a social unit.
The need to take large-scale concerns into account.
A frequent use of "polls" or "referenda".
The bonds of common-sense.
Supervising leaders and leadership structures.
Rights and obligations.
The injustice of disparity.
The erroneous concepts of "absolute sovereignty", and "non-interference in each other's affairs".

1 We have argued, before, that the essential element making the small family-unit, under good leadership, a smoothly functioning and efficient social entity, is the atmosphere of trust. Trust, however, is not generated by exhortations, regardless, how authoritative or divinely inspired. Trust has to be earned, and, it has to be carefully nurtured and sustained by the possibility for each member to verify, that it is "justified" to give their trust.

2 We can only trust our neighbours, relatives and friends, or, the numerous people in society we do not know well, if it is possible to verify, at any time we feel the need to do so, that they are "playing by the rules", and, that these people adhere to the contractual agreements and obligations of "belonging to society". In order to have the right, and the ability, to verify, that someone else is playing by the rules and is contributing his or her fair share to the burdens of maintaining our social structure and "human rights", we have to be willing to be scrutinised by anyone, who wants to do so.

3 Is this really so difficult to accept? If we feel justified in our behaviour, or, even, a little proud of the way we behave as an up-right, contributing citizen, would we not welcome someone else's scrutiny? Would it not give us the opportunity to say; "Well, this is what I do for a living. This is what I have done to fulfill my obligations, and, these are the justified awards and rights I enjoy as a member in good standing. Let us see, whether you are measuring-up as well".

4 The mechanisms for a large-scale, social transparence, to the point that an efficient and just society can be organised and maintained, are now available, for the first time in history. We have developed a sophisticated instrument, the computer, which can be organised into a global network of inter-linked computers, which could be programmed in such a way, that each and every human being could get a useful profile of the realities of the social environment. The implications of this technology for the level of awareness and insight, as well as our sense of justice and willingness to trust and cooperate with each other, are beyond imagination, and, we will recall aspects of these ideas on many occasions.

5 Let us return to a comparison between small-scale and large-scale social units, and, let us see, whether or not it is possible to duplicate, in the larger social units, the same conditions and mechanisms that have been so useful in sustaining a viable family-unit. Let us look, in particular, at the dialogue between the leadership and the membership. Such a dialogue is made-up by the input from the members upon the leadership, and, vice versa, the influence of the leadership on the attitudes and behaviour of the members.

6 Let us spell-out, in detail, this essential balance between the standard of living enjoyed by the members of such a self-contained social entity, and, the productivity of this group as a whole. Let us also discuss the varying degrees of "democratisation" that are possible for the decisions a leadership has to make. Let us review, when such a collective system of decision-making works well, and, when there is a trend towards greater centralisation of power into the hands of a small leadership elite; e.g., when the unit has to be brought through a difficult and potentially divisive period.

7 The most essential element that determines, whether or not a social unit functions well, is the atmosphere and attitude of trust, good-will and cooperation, and, we have seen that transparence is, perhaps, the single, most important contributing factor towards fostering and maintaining such an atmosphere of trust and good-will. As a result of transparence, freely flowing communications and the availability of all sorts of information, it is easy to see, how the leadership and the members can become, at times, a single unit of decision-making. A process that fosters dialogue, consultation, sharing information, as well as a consensus about important decisions, is, of course, much easier to accomplish within a small group than a large one, but, with the help of computerised communications, it should be possible to duplicate this process of intense and meaningful communications on a world-wide scale.

8 The benefits of such an on-going process of consultation and dialogue are enormous, because this process serves several vital functions at the same time. It allows for the feed-back of information, feelings, sentiments and attitudes from the members to the leadership, improving the leadership's grasp over reality. The leadership can be aware of the feelings and reactions of the members under its jurisdiction, and, this allows the leadership to be in nearly instantaneous touch with the effects of its decisions and plans.

9 If we concentrate upon the idea, that the leadership can "float an idea or a plan of action", by discussing it, before it is implemented, the leadership can gauge the likely reactions and effects that would take place, if the plan was, indeed, carried-out. This mechanism is analogous to the process of thinking, which occurs, when an individual "projects" a planned course of action in his mind, and "studies", or tries to visualise, what results and effects this course of action would have, if the planned course of action was actually carried-out.

10 The benefits of an honest, complete and open dialogue are just as great for the members, as they are for the leadership. This is the only way a membership can become informed about the problems that face the community, and, such a process of dialogue and exchange of information encourages each member to adopt an attitude of concern for the entire community. By giving the members "a say" in what is going-on, we inform the members and give them a sense of satisfaction and importance of having been "consulted", and, at the same time, by making people participate, actively, in the decision-making processes of a society, we create attitudes with a wider sphere of concern.

11 This last development is crucially important, because we can only harmonise the members of a social entity by streamlining and synchronising their concerns and objectives. If this attitude, or willingness, to take the larger concerns of society into account, is not there, the leadership's exhortations will fall on deaf ears, and, the only way to create then a measure of political unity, is to impose restraints upon the opinions and activities of the members.

12 You may object to this idea, and, you may maintain that it is utopian nonsense to get each and every citizen involved in a political dialogue and the communal decision-making processes. There will always be a large number of people who just do not want to get involved, or, who feel uncomfortable when they are called-upon to make such wide-ranging decisions. Perhaps, you will argue, that, most people are not intelligent and concerned enough to even try, and, you may point-out that experiments of this nature on a smaller scale have always resulted in a small core, or "elite", making all the decisions, while the rest goes passively along.

13 True, this happens, if we leave the chance to participate up to the initiative and aggressiveness of the individual. Many people would not "volunteer" for this kind of participation in leadership functions, because they are "shy", or, they feel, that they can not compete in debating a variety of arguments with their more clever fellow members, etc. Most people have a strong "followers instinct", and, they are not interested in competing with others for a chance to be heard.

14 The process of consultation, as well as the exchange of information between the members and the leadership, has to take a different form. Just as all young people are required to go through school and have to pass certain tests, so should there be a "program of continuing education" for all adults. This means, that all adults have to attend these programs, in one way or another, and, people will be given simple tests to make sure, that they are, and remain, aware of, at least, a basic core of knowledge and information, which is necessary to come to a responsible voting decision. This close contact between the social leadership and each member, allows the leadership to poll the individual citizens frequently, and, the participation in such polls or referenda should be obligatory for everyone.

15 None of us can go through life as a full-fledged citizen without, at least, some ability to participate in the production processes of society. Therefore, all of us should have the obligation to keep ourselves informed enough about the issues of the society in which we live, so that we can make an intelligent choice, or give a responsible answer, if, and when, we are called-upon to do so. With a computerised network of communications, extending into every home, just as the telephone, radio and television already do, now, there is no reason, why the citizens of tomorrow can not receive, every day, a balanced and well-summarised synopsis of the major issues and events of the day, and, why they should not be polled, e.g. once a week, on one or other major topic of concern.

16 We are not trying to make everyone into a skilled political analyst, but, we have to excercise the minds of the people continuously. We have to do this, in order to remain viable as a social entity. We are not advocating the "learning" of a great deal of data, (most of it would be irrelevant anyway), but, it should be possible to bring-out, time and again, the remarkable similarities between the leadership of the family and the leadership of the nation. Most citizens will be leaders of a family-unit, and, the leaders of society are consulting their citizens in the same way family leaders are "talking it over" with their own family members. By emphasising the similarity of problems and concerns between the family-unit and the society as a whole, such a program of continuing education should be able to emphasise the bonds of "common-sense" that exist between the leaders of the family, and the leaders of the nation.

17 It is time, that we learn to make the complex issues of the larger nation transparent enough for everyone to understand the fundamental problems that are facing us. Now, ordinary but intelligent citizens are overwhelmed by the vastness of the problems in the society at large, and, they tend to blame their own limited powers of understanding for being confused. This is the reason, why they tend to shy-away from actively participating in these problems, and, they are inclined to leave all the decisions to the authorities and experts. Yet, they should do just the opposite. They should scold their experts and authorities for making such a confused mess out of the affairs of the State.

18 Rather than being impressed and overwhelmed by the confusing chaos and the constant bickering between politicians, I would like people to say; "Look, you, supposedly intelligent people, who are in a position of expertise and authority, we have given you the task of runnning the household of our nation efficiently. We realise, that the task is difficult, because you do not have the proper channels to communicate and gather the necessary information, but, then, get-on with this task! Start builing those basic networks, which you need to keep truly informed, and, which have to be in place to carry-out an on-going dialogue between us and yourself. Start building, so that we all may gain in insight and concern for the nation".

19 What kind of dialogue will take place in these future societies, where, finally, the few real gains of our technological era have been implemented in a responsible manner, rather than for the egocentric gain of a commercial enterprise or small, special-interest grouping? There is going to be a continuous dialogue about the really important issues that concern us all. Our most central concern will be this package of rights and obligations, which each citizen is entitled and subjected to, but, we also have to be concerned about the mechanisms of transparence and mutual checks, which allow us to monitor each other's compliance with the rules and regulations of belonging to society.

20 We want to make sure, that we all get a fair share of the benefits and the burdens. Only, then, our sense of justice will be satisfied, and, only then, will we be willing, even eager, to contribute to society. However, what exactly constitutes this package of rights and obligations? It is obvious, that an agreement or near-agreement about these rights and obligations, depends, very much, on the way we see ourselves, our social environment, other people, as well as everyone's legitimate place in society. This reality perception of ourselves and our environment, ties-in with the fundamental reality perceptions and beliefs about the origins, destination and meaning of our existence.

21 However, we have learned, that it is possible to agree about a number of practical rights and obligations, while leaving the question unanswered, whether we see ourselves as a created or as an evolved creature. The main point is, that we give each other equal rights of existence. If not, we revert back to a situation of exploitation and competitive strife, where the stronger individuals and groupings take advantage of the weaker segments of society.

22 What does equal rights of existence mean? I believe, that it means the following; each member of society, by virtue of having been born into the society of mankind, should have adequate shelter and nourishment, protection and stimulation, in order to have a chance to grow-up in a state of physical and mental well-being. The right to a standard of nourishment and protection, health and education, should be given to all citizens of the world, regardless of age, race or merit, so that the elderly, the sick and the handicapped have a chance to exist in a state of frugal dignity.

23 As long as there are great disparities between people, be it between the members of an existing social unit, or, between widely varying regions under different political leaderships or social systems, these disparities constitute a grave injustice and will prevent a truly peaceful co-existence between the population groupings of the earth.

24 As long as there is hunger and poverty, unattended illness and ignorance, the consumption of luxuries, and, a trivial strife for an even greater degree of material wealth, we are seeing, in essence, criminal conditions of disparity. It should be the responsibility of all citizens of the world, as well as their leaderships, to acknowledge, that the problems of a society can not be solved, any longer, within the boundaries or jurisdiction of a single nation or social entity. The time has come to seek solutions on a global scale.

25 As we have discussed before, poor and ignorant leaderships are the main cause for the perpetuation of major social injustices, but, poorly conceptualised premises or attitudes that provide an excuse for not accepting these wide-ranging responsibilities, are also a major contributing factor to the persistence of disparities. We are refering, here, to the currently popular ideas of "absolute sovereignty", as well as "non-interference in the affairs of another nation".

26 Would you sit back and do nothing, if your neighbour abused his children, or neglected them and let them starve? Of course not. Neither should we allow our leaders to do so. Nor should we leave it to our leaders to make such decisions as going to war, or to suppress dissent and criticisms. These problems and criticisms should be carefully scrutinised by the entire membership of a social entity, and, the peoples of the world should, eventually, draw-up a set of stringent guidelines for the behaviour of themselves and their leaders.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The right to life, and other basic human rights.
The rationale of dividing chores.
Rights and contributions.
The right to an equal opportunity to make something of oneself.
The Civil Task-Force.
Designing careers according to the natural life-cycle of the human being.
Some ideas and images about the societies of the future.
The question of "freedom".
Socialism and Free-Enterprise.
Let us be aware of simplistic attitudes and judgements.
Militant unions, and the philosophy of free-enterprise.
The right to strike against the public and its democratically elected government is an anachronism, and is, in essence, anti-social in nature.

1 Let us return to the question, how we are going to define a package of rights and obligations for each member in society. Later, we hope, many different societies will be able to adopt a similar set of guidelines and standardised principles, describing, adequately, a package of rights and obligations that is appropriate for every human being in the world. The basic right is the right to exist. This is the right to life, to nourishment, to health and security. We receive this right as a reward for the fact, that we accept, consciously, a contract of essential equality and the willingness to forego the competitive struggle. We receive this essential right to existence and well-being as a reward for our willingness to search, in stead, for a viable way of life through cooperation and task-division.

2 It is obvious, that the tasks of survival still have to go-on, even, if they are now shared and distributed in a manner reflecting the principles of essential equality. The ability to specialise in a particular task for the social unit as a whole, provides an opportunity to streamline these tasks and ease the burden of all these tasks and chores considerably. It is far more difficult and taxing to carry-out ten different chores or tasks for survival, only once, and without assistance, compared to dividing these tasks, and, giving ten different members one chore each, to be carried-out ten times.

3 Besides, by cooperating, a large, complex, difficult or heavy task may come within reach, while it would remain totally outside the ability of a single individual to accomplish this task. In our introduction, we have mentioned, briefly, that the ability to carry-out tasks, and provide for sheltered living conditions for a large number of specialised cells, lies at the root of the evolutionary success of the multi-cellular animal, because the tasks of survival for such a community of cells are, by and large, beyond the range of capabilities of each individual cell. This is the reason, why all cells die, if the community as a whole, the multi-cellular animal, dies and disintegrates.

4 We have also discussed the fact, that the level of inter-dependence and cooperation between human beings does not even begin to compare with the complex and obligatory inter-dependencies of cells within a multi-cellular organism. However, this does not mean, that we can not see similar principles and mechanisms at work. The point we want to emphasise, here, is the fact, that the "rights" we want to bestow upon each other in a social contract of essential equality, have to be made possible by the contributions of the capable members of society. We can not give rights away from nothing, and, if we only emphasise our rights, and do not concern ourselves with the obligations that come, inevitably, with an acceptance of these rights, we will soon have nothing to give or distribute.

5 Everyone is demanding and clamoring for his or her rights, and, soon, there will be an all-out grab for whatever resources and assets are still available. No society survives such an onslaught upon its integrity, and, every social environment that fails to maintain a balance between the "consumption of rights" and the "productive results of obligatory contributions", is, by definition, doomed to perish.

6 If we, as a social grouping, give each individual the right to enjoy a more or less equal opportunity to develop, at least, some of one's potentials, and, if we provide a prolonged program of education, shelter, nourishment and safeguards for the maintenance of a sense of justice, we can only continue to do so, generation after generation, if we start to collect the contributions of the adolescent and mature members, as soon as they become capable of contributing.

7 The remarkable fact is, that, with proper stimulation and education, each youngster can be made to feel satisfied and happy, by tapping his or her skills at the right time and at the right level of demand. We have discussed, elsewhere, how young adolescents, from approximately the ages of eighteen to twenty-three should spend their time in a three to five year program of compulsory service to society. These young people will become an important work-force, assisting communities all over the world with their labours and contributions, but, at the same time, this period is designed to be an educational experience, where the contribution of labour is carefully balanced with a program of relaxation and leisure-time, continuing education, and, above all, an extensive program of exposure to the many problems societies face all over the world.

8 I do not see any major difficulties designing satisfactory programs for the working careers of the members, as long as we keep the natural life-cycle of the human being in mind. If we organise society in such a way, that the required contributions to society are carefully matched with the normal life-cycle of the members, there will be little friction or unhappiness. For example, the most flexible and impressionable period of an individual's life-cylce is spent, primarily, in education. After this comes the period of early maturity, which is characterised by a great output of energy and is utilised in the Civil Task-Force.

9 Near the end of this period of civil duties, most members will return to the communities they came form, and settle-down into a less demanding way of life. With the help of neighbours, they will build or renovate a home, start their own family, and contribute to the community in the best and most efficient way they have been trained for. They will look upon their period in the Civil Service as a valuable training ground for acquiring a number of practical skills, and, they will cherish the great many contacts they have made with peoples and communities, far away from their own.

10 This high level of contact with a large number of peoples and communities, widely scattered over the globe, will lay the basis for a level of mutual understanding and familiarity with far-away peoples that is not even remotely possible at the present time, in spite of the fact, that we waste a large amount of energy in a useless and superficial holiday-travel, where we see many different regions but make no contribution, and, do not learn anything about the people and their problems.

11 A number of people will continue-on to a "professional career" of one sort or another, after completion of their tour of duty in the Civil Task-Force. These people will, eventually, become professionals, experts, bureaucrats, the main political leaders, teachers in the arts, and leaders in the fields of education, technology, etc. We will not discuss these ideas, here, in any detail, because we have done so before.

12 We have to meet head-on the main objection many people will feel, when they read about such a "completely regulated" life-style, where everyone seems to go through society and through life in a highly ordened, almost "predestined" manner. Our sense of freedom and individuality rebels against such a corset of regulations. Many people will reject these ideas out of hand because of this intuitive revolt against being in a straight-jacket, as well as the conviction, that it can never work because of man's unpredictable attitudes and rebellious nature.

13 Let us, therefore, discuss, in detail, this aspect of "freedom". Why do we have such a deep urge to be free. Why do so many of us dream of one sort of freedom or another? Why have the ideals of freedom of behaviour, freedom of activities, the freedom to become an entre-preneur, the freedom to seek our fortunes and live a life-style of our own choice; why are these instinctive desires so strong and persistent in our affluent societies, that they have become an important part in the philosophy of those, who want society to be organised around the principles of individual freedom and free-enterprise?

14 Perhaps, there is an, even, more important question, here; are the ideas of personal freedom and initiative completely incompatible with the ideas and ideals that lie behind the philosophy of the social contract of essential equality, where every member of society is guaranteed a basic set of rights? Many people believe, that there is, indeed, a fundamental contradiction between these two basic outlooks upon society. Many people believe, that these objectives for social organisation are, in essence, incompatible with each other, and, that, therefore, an armed conflict is unavoidable when these incompatible ideologies clash.

15 However, is this perception correct? Is there really an unavoidable trade-off between Socialism with its completely regulated behaviour on the one hand, and, the lure of freedom, initiative and personal success, with its inevitable division between the wealthy and the poor, on the other? Certainly, if the terms of Socialism, and, Free-Enterpise, stand for the simplistic attitudes of "grabbing from the rich", and, "get what you can from the poor", then, of course, there is a conflict-situation. Indeed, such simplistic images play an important role in the polarisation of a social environment, in spite of the fact, that, most people would be unwilling to admit, that their political ideology is motivated by these simplistic and egocentric attitudes.

16 Yet, nearly invariably, you will find, that the most militant left-wing agitators, in particular, those, who are convinced of the need for a revolutionary take-over, have little to lose, except perhaps, their lives. They are young, aggressive and frustrated, and, a chronically rebellious attitude has driven them into poverty and a hardened attitude of contempt for everything that is legal and established in their social environment. Once they have entered onto the road of violent rebellion, their existence becomes marked by the perpetual need to hide from the law, and, a lawful way of making a living has, then, become impossible.

17 However, this is a fringe group that is not representative for the majority of those, who are sympathetic to a left-wing or Socialist philosophy. Many workers, especially, if they are organised into militant unions, become completely dominated by radical members, whose reason for existence becomes, increasingly, a perpetual round of confrontations with the employers, regardless of the question, whether this employer represents a private company, or the government of the society as a whole. Here again, simplistic attitudes prevail, and, the worker is made to believe, that all his problems can be solved by clamoring for an ever greater share of the economic wealth, because he is "constantly exploited" by the enemy, the employer, be it big business, or big government.

18 We have repeatedly acknowledged the fact, that the right to strike and to organise into militant unions had a historical justification, because, in the past, these unions were in the fore-front of the struggle to get humane working conditions and a fair share of the economic pie for the workers. Now, the pendulum has swung the other way, and, militant unions, together with powerful professional and business lobbies, are actively contributing to a distortion of the democratic society. The democratically organised societies are becoming, increasingly, a helpless prey for the fight between powerful groupings, and, as a result, the ordinary worker, who is not represented by a powerful union, as well as the average citizen, who has no more power than his single, democratic vote, are getting squeezed and short-changed in the process.

19 Ironically, the short-sighted attitudes and egocentric exploitation of a position of power by militant unions and powerful lobbies, drive society away from a position of social justice, because these practices contribute to a widening of the gap between unionised and non-unionised workers. These militant, combative and essentially anti-social attitudes resemble more the ruthless power-struggle of a "survival of the strongest", and, in this sense, the attitudes and practical results of militant labour-unions resemble the philosophy of the avid "free-enterprisers", because, they too, believe, that it is healthy and beneficial for society, that the clever entre-preneurs flourish and become wealthy, while the rest of the people, who are not as clever or industrious, deserve to remain somewhat poor and oppressed.

20 Not surprisingly, the free-enterprisers do not like the competition they are getting from the militant unions, but, most free-enterprisers have accepted the challenge, and, every contract negotiation becomes a battle of wits and tactics, where each side tries, ruthlesslly, to gain an advantage. If it is in the interest of a business-enterprise, faced with a collective work-stoppage, to shut-down for a while in order to get rid off excess inventory, it will almost provoke a strike, and, let it drag-on till they feel the need to re-open, but, on the other hand, a militant union has no hesitation to soak a successful company for all it can, and, it gives little consideration to the fact, that a favourable contract settlement may increase the disparities between themselves and other workers. Nor do they pay any attention to the question, whether or not their labour services are worth the monies that are being demanded and received.

21 The right to strike against the public and its government is an anachronism, in particular, if the government is elected democratically, and, I believe, that it should not be tolerated any longer in our times. After all, the democratically elected government is a reflection of the will of the people, and, if a majority feels, that changes have to be made, the next general election will give this majority a chance to vote for a different set of political leaders.

22 Why should a small group of workers, who happen to occupy a position of crucial importance in society, be allowed to hold society to ransom, and bring it to its knees with "industrial or strike-action"? In the past, the workers could only bargain with a large private enterprise as an equally powerful partner, if they could use the threat of collective work-stoppage. This technique is not necessary anymore today, because settling a wage-dispute with judicial or quasi-judicial means, is far more fruitful and fair.

23 If civil servants or workers for a government institution are not happy with the working conditions, they can seek employment in the private sector, and, the public, through its elected representatives, will then ask the political leadership, why the government is not able to fill bureaucratic vacancies satisfactorily. The right and the practice of striking against society and crucial government functions, is a criminal and anti-social act, and, it should be out-lawed, but, no politician in the industrialised, free-enterprise societies seems to have the courage to point-out, that, the right to strike against society is fundamentally wrong.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

Benefits of the State as an employer.
Binding Arbitration, with the help of a competent judicial investigation.
Reasons for the militance of labour-unions.
The right to strike has to be abolished and replaced by adequate Constitutional Guidelines, regulating labour relationships.
A double standard for ardent free-enterprisers.
The need to control the influence of all special-interest groupings.
How to determine the value of "work".
A large society can not grow "by itself".
Limitations of the attitudes and practices of competitive strife.
When there will be no "next time".
The fallacy of "non-interference".
Blatantly egocentric attitudes.
Maintaining puppet-regimes in power.
Does society profit from the activities of entrepreneurs?
Competitive dispersion may lead to expansion, but not to the growth of a healthy, large-scale, well-integrated society.
The limits of territorial and economic expansion.

1 The arguments in favour of the right to strike for those, who are in a government service, have been centered around the fact, that any denial of this right leads to an unfair discrimination in favour of those, who are employed by the private sector. However, is this a valid evaluation of the situation? There are several important benefits that go with employment in the public sector, such as the fact, that "the State" is the "safest" employer and can guarantee pension benefits with an inflation index or a cost of living allowance, very few private employers can match.

2 My main objection is, however, that the power to strike against the public destroys the fundamental equality of the democratic vote, because, then, those, who happen to be in a position of responsibility are able to abuse this power to gain an advantage for themselves. The ultimate consequence of this attitude is terrorism, where those members of society, who have been given police duties or military functions, rob and loot at will, because they have the power to do so. In a milder form of abusing their powers, the members of the security forces can expose the public to criminal activities by withholding their services. This is just as immoral as physicians or nurses, who risk the well-being of patients in order to win a dispute with the government over pay or working conditions.

3 There is no reason, why we should allow anyone occupying a position of power and responsibility, to hold the public to ransom in one way or another. Whenever a dispute over pay or working conditions arises, special Courts should be available to guarantee a fair and impartial hearing, and, these Courts should, eventually, impose a settlement, if a voluntary agreement between the parties remains out of reach.

4 A "strike" or work-stoppage used to be, merely, a matter between a private enterprise and its employees, but, more and more activities of "the economy" are taking-on a significance for the society as a whole. More and more industrial activities are coming, directly or indirectly, under the control of the government of the people, because these industrial activities assume, increasingly, a national, or, even, international importance. It seems logical, therefore, to replace the entire confrontational process of collective bargaining, together with the weapons of industrial action, with a process of highly competent, impartial, judicial arbitration.

5 However, if we are going to take-away the hard-won and emotionally defended rights of the worker to unionise and strike against the employer, we will also have to show, that society can curb the powers of all groupings in society. As it stands now, politicians can vote themselves a raise in pay and generous pension benefits in Parliament. Professional groupings have, often, a monopoly because of licencing requirements, and, they can set their fees rather arbitrarily, without much publicity. Corporations can hide their profits behind complex book-keeping techniques, and, executives can keep their apparent earnings low by profit-sharing plans and other delayed benefits.

6 The militancy of the labour unions is sparked, to a large extent, by the knowledge, that, many other groupings in society can get their fees and salaries increased with much less public attention and opposition. If we want to emasculate the militant unions, we also have to impose the same restrictions and controls over every other sector in society. This can only be done, if the earnings and incomes of everyone can be scrutinised by anyone, who wants to do so. In addition, the setting of salaries, wages, incomes and earnings of everyone in society should be left to these special "Labour Courts", which scrutinise and debate, investigate and rule, in complete openness, about all the labour relations and working conditions in society.

7 This suggestion would represent a radical change for the free-enterprise societies, but, if you think about it, you will agree, that something has to be done, if we want to save our societies from ever-rising tensions and a crippling level of distrust. We can not muzzle one group without placing other groupings under the same sort of restrictions. It becomes also clear, that, the whole question, how much an individual should be allowed to earn and own, is a fundamental one, and, this question has to be debated and thought-about carefully. Eventually, every society will have to delineate or describe, clearly, in Constitutional Guidelines, the laws and rules that regulate the working conditions, level of remuneration, and standard of affluence, for all its citizens.

8 Do you think, that we can afford to continue the practice, where each individual or group fights as hard as possible to get what it wants, and, do you think that we can continue to adopt an indifferent, or, even, hostile attitude towards other groupings in the same social environment? Do you think, that it is really possible for our societies to survive, if we continue these hostile and divisive trends?

9 Sure, die-hard free-enterprisers would love to see a double standard; free-enterprise for the entrepreneur, without any limitations about the accumulation of assets, or the level of profits and income, while the wage-disputes with the workers would be relegated to a Court. However, such a double standard will never be acceptable to the people at large.

10 At the same time, organised labour in our freely elected, democratic societies has to realise, that it can not continue to undermine the functions of governments and essential institutions. At the present time, the public is not in a position to fight back, and, it has to suffer the arbitrary hardships that are inflicted upon it. One of the reasons for the passive acceptance of these practices is the fact, that, this same member of the public, who has to endure, today, an inconvenience or hardship because of industrial action, may participate, tomorrow, in another industrial action, ready to strike against society as a member of his own labour-union.

11 Perhaps, the public has no choice but to suffer silently through these miseries, but, the damage done by rising levels of resentment and distrust is enormous. The public becomes a fertile breeding ground for ultra right-wing ideologies, and, there may be a silent but growing support for a right-wing dictatorship. Therefore, all those, who believe in the wisdom and the opportunities for social justice, given by the democratically elected form of goverment, have a strong moral duty to speak-out frankly, and point the finger, courageously, at all aspects, practices and opinions that undermine the functions of a democratic leadership and the principles of essential equality.

12 As part of this effort to put the blame, fairly and squarely, on all the factors distorting the democratic process, we have to criticise the present powers and practices of organised labour, and, we have to campaign, actively, for a change in attitude, allowing us to control all the special-interest groupings in society, including the professional lobbies. This control should include the levels of profits and incomes for corporations, their owners, shareholders and executives. If we fail to do this, we will not be able to turn-around the swelling tide of mutual distrust, and, if we are elected on the basis of facile promises and a simplistic search for the largest common denominator in public opinion, we may have the dubious privilege of presiding over the demise of the democratic and politically diversified society.

13 Let us return to the important question, how it is possible to determine the worth of someone's labour. How do we know what an individual or corporation should be allowed to own? How much spread should there be in income between the lowest and highest paid jobs? Are financial incentives needed to spur the clever entrepreneurs to activities that are necessary for the well-being of society? How does individual freedom of movement and behaviour, of thought and expression, tie-in with the freedom to find a niche in society by personal success and initiative? After all, these are the fundamental questions dividing those, who believe in the merits of a "Socialist System", from those, who believe, that society is better of, if it "grows naturally"; by the successes and failures of privately enterprising individuals.

14 The idea, that a large and complex social environment can "grow naturally" by the unbridled activities of its members, is a fundamental misunderstanding. Unbridled activities, be they of an economic nature, or, an unbridled search for political power, lead, invariably, to serious conflict-situations, not only, between the wealthy and the poor, but, also, between rivals, who begin to compete for the same sources of power and wealth.

15 We have seen, that the human personality traits have been shaped in a natural environment with a small-scale, socially integrated grouping, but, there are no genetic instructions in our personality and biological heritage to make us "grow naturally" into a much larger social grouping. Without Constitutional Guidelines, such a large grouping is only possible, if a strong "master-society", or, a dominant grouping, is able to conquer and subdue a large number of neighbouring societies and impose its will upon them.

16 The large empires of the past all showed a strong, central leadership by a dominant ethnic grouping. This leadership was able to supplement its superior military powers with a clever and intuitive understanding of the need to introduce a coherent system of laws and regulations. These laws and regulations became then a persuasive, cementing factor between the many groupings which had been brought-together by force. The moment the powers of the master-society began to decline, and, as soon as the administration of laws and regulations became inefficient or stifled by corruption, competitive strife and rivalries reared their head, and the empire would break-up again into warring factions.

17 Anyone, who really believes, that it is possible to maintain social order by letting every member compete with his neighbours for a position and a job, for assets and power, is sadly mistaken. Certainly, if you have a master-society, (in this case, a powerful, armed, dominant elite that is able to keep the rest of society in a state of terror, ignorance and poverty), an apparent state of order can be maintained for a fairly long time, but, we have rejected, categorically, the idea, that a dictatorship of the right, or the left, is an acceptable form of government. These dictatorships always crumble, sooner or later, to be replaced, either, by a more representative government that institutes a fairer distribution of the assets of society, or, by a revolutionary overthrow, re-establishing another dictatorship with a reversal of the roles of oppressor and oppressed.

18 It is irrealistic to believe, that, those, who lose-out in the struggle for success and material wealth, will calmly accept the status-quo, and will continue to adhere to the rules of "fair play". The loyalty to the rules of a game are only maintained, if the participants believe, that they will have a chance, next time, and, if they can, wholeheartedly, agree, that the winners deserved their victory. In a free-enterprise society, neither condition is fulfilled, because there is no "next time". There is no return to a status of essential equality, and, the players in society can not verify for themselves, that the winners won fairly.

19 When a successful elite clings to a righteous and rightist attitude, the philosophy of free-enterprise is used, increasingly, to justify and defend, at all costs, the benefits and privileges of an elitist status-quo. If the elite refuses to cooperate with a more progressive policy, designed to spread the wealth of a society more equally amongst its members, an armed conflict will be inevitable. However, if we could abandon the currently so popular, but somewhat superficial notion, that all nations have an absolute right to solve their own problems internally, without interference from the outside, we see, that outside pressures from a more enlightened and more powerful society could be instrumental in forcing the elite of a country to share with the poor, without the need for bloody revolutions or armed conflicts.

20 In a family, the leadership will intervene and prevent such a sharp division between rich and poor members from developing in the first place, and, in the same manner, should public opinion, around the world, together with the leaderships of democratically organised societies, make it a matter of the highest priority to ensure, that, all nations and leaderships work towards the elimination of these sharp contrasts between the wealthy and the poor.

21 Yet, what do we see? Many nations that proudly proclaim themselves to be heirs to a democratic tradition, will blatantly support elitist, corrupt and oppressive leaderships in "foreign" social environments, purely for the sake of their own interests, and, the major military powers of the world have become obsessed with a division of the world into rival spheres of influence, and, they eye each other, suspiciously, out of fear, that there are any encroachments on their "vital interests".

22 Leaderships of many, recently independent nations have become obsessed with the attitudes of pride and suspicion, and, they are also plunging head-long into an arms-race, while millions of their own people are starving, primarily, because they have become victims of large-scale strife. No-one seems to really care enough to help them find a solution to their plight. The only thorough and final solution left, is to die, and remove themselves from the scene, and, to remove themselves, also, as a "problem of conscience" for the well-to-do.

23 It seems inevitable to blame the leaderships of nearly every nation on earth for the inadequate measures to help their societies reach a satisfactory level of security and well-being, based on a large-scale contract of essential equality. Leaderships embark, invariably, upon a course of action designed to keep themselves in power, while giving-in to their most violent and vocal opponents. I would like to see the leaderships of powerful nations have the courage to put their proposals for huge increases in defense-spending to a public referendum, and, to submit their foreign policy, including their military and political support for a large number of non-representative leaderships, to public scrutiny. Perhaps, a majority of the people is, indeed, so egocentric, that they fully support a foreign policy that is geared, nearly exclusively, to the self-interests of the nation, but, let us give the people, at least, a chance to make this choice openly, and, let them become aware of the results of their egocentric attitudes and short-sighted actions.

24 The problem with free-enterprise, or, rather, an unbridled enterpreneurship, is the fact, that, a de-facto equality, obtained by careful laws and regulations, is immediately disturbed by the consequences of economic success and failure. Those, who are successful become more powerful, while those, who are less successful or unsuccessful become dependent, in one way or another, upon the products or employment opportunities provided by successful entrepreneurs.

25 We know, that the individual is tempted to accept the bonds of inter-dependence, because, there is, at least, initially, a marked increase in the ease of existence, and, people realise, often too late, to what extent they have become dependent or enslaved to their conditions of dependence. The moment someone has become dependent or enslaved to a particular situation, or a source of income provided by an employer, this individual becomes vulnerable to exploitation.

26 These trends have been recognised a long time ago, and, they represent the reasons behind the formation of trade-unions, the regulation of working conditions, the introduction of labour laws, as well as the concepts of progressive taxation or the provision of "social services". All these measures have been taken to ease the burdens of those, who have become enslaved, entrapped and exploited. Yet, the idea persists, that a measure of free-enterprise, or free entrepreneurship, is desirable, because the initiative of the individual, his inventiveness and resourcefulness, is best stimulated, if he is given a free hand, as well as the pomise of a large financial reward for his activities. Society can then profit from the innovations and inventions of such enterprising individuals.

27 Are these assumptions correct? Up to a certain point, yes. When we are dealing with a rapidly expanding and somewhat amorphous society, with plenty of room for every entrepreneur to "scratch around" and to build a little empire for himself, we see, that the emergence of a class-division between the rich and the poor is delayed, at least, to some extent. Those, who are unsuccessful, or lose-out in the competitive struggle, move away; they "move West", and, they try their "luck" in a different place.

28 In a sense, we see, here, once again, the process of "competitive dispersion" at work, but, let us frankly acknowledge, then, that such a society is nothing more than an amorphous, unstructured mass of small groupings that are competing with each other. Those, who lose, move out of the way, and, they do not become enslaved to those, who win. The ceaseless activities of self-interest, of trying to make a living off the land as pioneers, rewards the attitudes of a fierce independence, a determination to succeed, as well as a ruthless attitude towards those, who stand in the way. Those, who feel disillusioned with the rigors of pioneering life, have the option to return to the motherland, and, it is logical, that a history of rapid developments and a consistent encouragement by the fruits of a "pioneering spirit", still influence the concepts of a successful society with a recent history of successful free-enterprise.

29 However, if we fail to see, that the situation changes dramatically, once this process of continuous economic or territorial expansion has been halted, we fail to understand the most essential elements of our contemporary problems and tensions. Initially, the process of continuously expanding a recently settled and colonised territory was, indeed, a literal expansion in terms of population and occupied lands, as the colonised areas were surrounded by rather sparsely inhabited areas. The inhabitants were driven-off, or exterminated without too many scruples or feelings of remorse and guilt, and, the ability to expand cooled-off the over-heated pockets of competitive strife.

30 Later, the expansionary drive became, exclusively, a process of economic growth, where the unsuccessful entrepreneur could always try his hand at something else. The result was an ever more rapid escalation of "economic activities", and, this meant, that resources were being used-up at an ever expanding rate. Waste-products and pollution problems multiplied prodigiously, and the people became used to a steadily rising level of material consumption, leading, in turn, to an ever-rising expectation of more to come.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

The "magic button" of economic growth.
The role of money; a generally valid promissory note.
Inflation, devaluation and a floating exchange-rate.
Why the meaning of money has been destroyed.
An unhealthy dependence on economic growth.
Monetarism, Socialism, and the mechanisms of a continuing social decay.
The need for a return to sound fiscal and economic principles.
A look at the balance of "receiving from", and "giving to", society; for individuals, as well as groups of people.
An accent upon conservation and a frugal way of life.
The need for a globally shared perception of reality.
A look at pragmatic political objectives.
The penalties for living deeply in debt.
Efficient methods of production and administration.
The fallacy of "creating jobs" that do not become quickly viable.
Tackling disparities by the re-distribution of existing assets.
Living a frugal life-style, in a state of good health.

1 After our governments learned an easy, quick and, apparently, secure way to stimulate economic expansion, they have never failed to press the magic button of "increasing the money-supply", whenever an economic slow-down led to unemployment and unrest amongst the people. Since the techniques of spending money on "public works projects" were introduced, we have seen an ever-increasing supply of money and a mounting public debt, which were directly responsible for the fact, that the original purpose and function of a currency became, first, eroded, and, then, abandoned.

2 Originally, a currency was a substitute used in the process of barter, facilitating the matching of goods between people who were carrying-out a barter-exchange. Sometimes, the problem of "matching goods" was avoided, all-together, by substituting a "universal promissory note", which could be exchanged for a standard commodity, or a needed or desired product which was available, and valuable, anywhere in society. The crux of the idea was the concept of value, and, people in those days would have ridiculed anyone, who would try to introduce a bank-note, or, a substitute commodity, that could not be exchanged for a standard commodity, and would lose some of its value in a relentless process of "inflation".

3 Today, we are asking people to accept in return for their labours, products or savings, a currency, that is steadily declining in value as time goes by. And yet, we are still surprised to see, that the level of distrust is rising all the time, in spite of the fact, that, nearly everyone in an affluent society consumes more than is necessary.

4 Our political leaders have failed, completely, to come to grips with these problems. There are many reasons for this. Primarily to blame are the economic theories and ideas that justified a rapid expansion of the money-supply, as well as a "modest" rate of inflation. These theories argued, that the adverse effects of an inflationary devaluation of the currency were easily off-set by a rapidly expanding economy, a rising standard of living, and a rising real income for most workers. Besides, inflation helps to bring-down the real value of the outstanding debts, and, therefore, everyone, who is in debt, benefits from inflation; a government, an individual, as well as a business enterprise. Finally, with the introduction of a floating exchange-rate, where the value of the various currencies in use are determined by the forces of supply and demand on international money-markets, a fairly rapid rise in the money-supply would tend to depress the value of this currency on the international money-markets, and restore the competitiveness of its exports.

5 However, the improvement in competitiveness is then obtained "the easy way"; by a general devaluation of the currency, rather than the hard and honest way, which is the open acknowledgement, that products are too expensive, and that prices have to come down. The honest way of restoring competitiveness is by improving production techniques, lowering operating costs, or "overhead", and by lowering wages and prices that have been driven-up by militant labour demands, generous contract settlements, and inefficient marketing techniques, especially, when profits came easily.

6 What are the results of economic approaches and practices that are counting upon a process of inflation and economic expansion? As long as a rapid economic expansion was indeed possible, the theory of monetary expansionism seemed to work reasonably well, but, the economic system, as well as society as a whole, became increasingly dependent upon the persistence of a rapid rate of economic expansion. This is the reason, why, finally, it began to dawn on most political and economic leaders, that there is a limit to the "therapy" of ever-increasing economic expansion.

7 At the present time, most leaderships are not sure what to do. Most of them still believe, that the panacea of more public spending and borrowing, as well as increasing the amount of money in circulation, will work, one more time; that it will bring-down the level of unemployment, and, that it will sooth the frustrations of a restless public. Others apply, suddenly and somewhat indiscriminately, the financial brakes and hope that an abrupt reversal of a long-standing government policy of "easy money", will quickly bring inflation under control; that it will make industries happy and competitive again; that it will increase "investments" and create job-opportunities, so that the economy will expand, once again, and, everybody will be happily participating, once more, in the endless round of rising expectations and rising levels of material consumption.

8 Some economists and political leaders have come to the conclusion, that the most fundamental problems in society are associated with the gradual erosion in the value of money, and I certainly agree with them, but, it seems that the monetarist policies, applied to an ailing patient, are somewhat similar to the doctor, who discovered that his patient was addicted to opiates and proceeded to stop, suddenly, the supply of all drugs, in the hope that the patient would be speedily cured of his addiction. In the mean time, he watches anxiously, and somewhat perplexed, as the patient goes through a series of severe withdrawal symptoms that nearly kill him.

9 On the other hand, the economic and political advise of those, who call themselves "Socialists" is equally short-sighted, because they seem to suggest, that we should continue to give the patient his opiates and return to the old, addictive habits of increasing the money-supply, and hope for another economic miracle.

10 Perhaps, you are anxiously awaiting the solution to this dilemma, and, you want to know, how we can get the patient off the hook of his addiction without killing him in the process. Let us, first, state the principles upon which a healthy and viable society has to rest, and, we might as well acknowledge, that this has to be a society with global dimensions, where the members can live in an atmosphere of harmony and dignity; with an acceptable degree of world-wide justice in the relationships between people.

11 I believe, that the original meaning and function of a constant value for a currency or a monetary unit has to be restored, because it is fundamentally unfair to negotiate a contract, be it for labour, services or products, in terms of a currency that does not have a stable value. This does not mean, however, that wage-levels or price-levels can be maintained at a high level. We have to re-introduce this fundamental equation; nl. that a "closed", independently existing group of people, be it a society with global dimensions, or a single, independently existing individual, can not consume more value than is being produced. If there is an imbalance between output and consumption, the difference has to be made-up somehow. It can be compensated for by "exploitation"; by giving someone else less in return for what is being contributed, or, it can be compensated for, at least, temporarily, by dipping into a reserve. Neither situation is just, nor stable.

12 It may well be, that, many people can not contribute an equal value in exchange for what they receive from society. For example, all through infancy, childhood and adolescence, an individual receives food, shelter, clothing and an education, and, the youngster has, really, little more to "produce" than to do his or her best at school. Similarly, if we are sick, old or handicapped, we may not be able to contribute as much as we receive, at least, in terms of the production of material goods, or the provision of needed labour services.

13 Yet, with a judicious division of job opportunities, as well as a careful matching between required tasks, and, available skills and energies, we can find many less demanding jobs that could be filled by those, who are somewhat handicaped in one way or another. This means, however, that, during early maturity, an individual in good health and with an abundance of energy, has to contribute far more than he or she consumes, and, the individual builds-up a measure of "credit", so to speak.

14 Similarly, the contributions of professionals, experts, leaders and educators, administrators, artists and sportsmen and -women are difficult to measure in concrete terms, but, it will often be easy to see, that, very important and lasting contributions are made by people, who are doing their work conscientiously and unobtrusively.

15 In view of a rapidly enlarging world population, a dwindling of easily available supplies and resources, as well as a mounting problem of waste-products, in one form or another, we will have to come to the conclusion, that, the unbridled consumption of material goods has to be replaced by a frugal but healthy and satisfying life-style; where the accent is upon conservation; upon a life-style of minimum disturbance of the environment, as well as upon a distribution of the basic necessities of life amongst all the peoples of the world, before we can even think about allowing ourselves the luxury of consuming more than we need.

16 These objectives require an extensive network of communications and competent channels for the distribution of information, before people can become aware of the need to adopt such stringent attitudes of self-discipline. Scientific and technological developments will increasingly serve universal social objectives of essential equality, as well as the specific problems and threats posed by pollution, the impoverishment of the soil, damage to the atmosphere, dramatic climatic changes and other natural disasters, the exhaustion of resources, etc.

17 At the same time, we will have to put-together a comprehensive picture of our realities, which lets us see, quite clearly, what our most pressing problems are; who we are, and, how we function. Only then, can we identify, properly, the priority of our needs, as well as the capabilities that allow us to solve the tensions of hostility, distrust and a wounded sense of justice.

18 You may laugh at these principles, because they seem so far removed from a contemporary reality, and, you may ask the question, how we are ever going to sell such a program to the voters? True, I do not pretend, that these principles will be of much help to a contemporary politician who has to put-together a practical political program, but, I believe, that it is worthwhile to discuss such principles, because, if we can form some sort of consensus about the ultimate destination of the evolution of society, and of mankind as a whole, then, it may be much easier to design a series of practical political approaches, that are, at least, a small step into the right direction.

19 Let us assume that you can agree, at least, in principle, that it would be an ideal situation, if we could steer the development of society into the direction we have described above, in spite of the fact, that you may not see, how this can be done, because you still believe, that these ideals are merely utopian day-dreams. Let us see, then, what the consequences would be for our efforts to design practical political goals, if we could agree about the desirability of these ultimate objectives.

20 Let us come back to the monetarist policies that are being tried in several societies, today. Are they right or wrong, or, is it possible to refine the intentions of these policies? Indeed, we can say, that they are right in certain aspects, while they are also rather crude instruments that lead to undesirable effects and incidences of injustice, on many occasions. The idea to restore the value, or, at least, a constancy of the monetary unit, is right, and, we all should, eventually, benefit from this, because it is obviously better to see the value of our income and savings remain constant, rather than being eroded, continuously, by rising costs and prices.

21 However, if we are suddenly "caught" by monetarist policies, because we have borrowed heavily, and, because we have counted on a steadily rising level of wages, earnings or other types of income, we may suddenly find ourselves in deep trouble. If we took-out a mortgage, a few years ago, and counted on a steady interest-rate for the borrowed monies, we may face disaster, if we have to re-negotiate a mortgage, when the interest-rates are sky-high. This places an unfair, or, even, an impossible burden upon an already tight budget, and, we can not help but feel hurt by a policy, whose value we only dimly understand.

22 Similarly, if we run a small business or a farm, the sudden rise in interest-rates, and the reduced buying powers of our customers, may put us, quickly, into a tight squeeze. The rich have much more financial leverage or lee-way than the average customer, and, a government can always float another bond-issue to cover the repayment of its debts. They are much less affected by monetarist policies, and, yet, these large institutions, which have borrowed even more than the individual investor, the home-owner, or the small businessman, are primarily responsible for the fiscal policies that led to a large increase in the money-supply and an inflationary erosion of currency values.

23 For years, the public media have told us to borrow money for this or that, but, suddenly, we find ourselves in a trap from where we can not escape without taking a severe beating. Certainly, high interest-rates, a decreased level of inflation, as well as an emphasis on the necessities of life, are all useful tools to encourage an attitude of saving, to reduce waste and unnecessary consumption, but, the point is, that a rather sudden introduction of monetarist policies places an unfair burden on the small consumer or businessman. It penalises all those, who borrowed heavily on their rising expectations. While it is correct to reduce this spiral of rising expectations, every social leadership has the fundamental obligation to monitor, carefully, the effects of its policies, and, to make sure, that burdens and hardships are distributed equitably.

24 Let us look at another example, where a policy or a principle can be refined. It is correct to say, that an inefficiently done job is worse than not doing the job at all, and, we can not deny the logic that it is much better to introduce changes that will make the performance of a job or task much easier and more efficient. However, we should ensure, that the benefits arising from finding an easier or more efficient way of doing things, are distributed equally, and, that the burdens of a lost job opportunity are not born only by one segment of the population.

25 Similarly, it is ridiculous to make things or produce products, if they have to be sold for less than it costs to produce them, and yet, all industries that are heavily subsidised by public monies, are doing just that. For the sake of having a job for our people, we give-away a finished product for less than it costs the society to produce this product, because that is what happens, if an industry has to be subsidised continuously.

26 Should we continue to employ a number of people in bureaucracies and industry, if we can do the job with half the people? Certainly not, because we are only creating a hidden form of unemployment, as well as a deliberately inefficient way of doing things, if we continue these policies, and, such an industry or bureaucracy becomes a chronic burden rather than a contributor to society. We will never solve the problems of inefficiency and hidden redundancies, if we fail to face up, squarely, to these hypocritical practices.

27 The spending of public monies on job-creation is not productive, if these jobs are not independently viable. We might as well just support people, until truly viable jobs are available or can be created. To spend monies to reduce unemployment and create more and more unviable jobs, does not make sense at all.

28 We should learn to abandon the hope of creating more work and generate more income by trying to stimulate a tired economic work-horse, which is going to become only increasingly dependent upon government subsidies. No, we have to learn to reduce disparities in society by re-distributing real wealth and existing assets, and, we have to learn to give-up the illusion, that we all can continue to make more and more money. Let us always make a clear distinction between services paid-for by a government or community, and, work that creates wealth or assets.

29 The crux of the matter is the fact, that we all have to cut-back to a level of consumption where we exist frugally, but, in a state of good health. In our competitive, affluent societies, we are so suspicious of each other, that we are afraid to bear the burden of such a program of cut-backs, because our neighbour, or someone else, the powerful and the wealthy, may secretly benefit from our sacrifices and acts of good-will. We see, therefore, that the real solution to these problems lies in the creation of a mechanism that allows us to distribute, effectively and fairly, the burdens of cut-backs and sacrifices over everyone in an equal measure, and, in order to accomplish this, we are back to the requirements of universal, social transparence.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

Socialist and Free-Enterprise philosophies.
The problem of "freedom".
Different kinds of freedom.
Setting realistic and socially beneficial goal-patterns.
A consensus through persuasion.
The "taming" of competitive strife.
Excercising discipline and self-discipline.
Maintaining a position of essential equality.
Freedom is only possible with a measure of self-discipline.
There will always be a need for regulatory mechanisms.
Man's most complete sense of freedom and fulfilment takes place in the context of a social objective.
A public discussion to delineate basic human needs.
Future requirements for basic standards of individual and social health will include a large measure of knowledge and insight, as well as access to all sorts of information.

1 "How are we ever going to implement such a far-reaching and ambitious program of social reforms", you will ask, "and, how am I going to convince my voters about the value of such a program?". These questions, I hope to answer later, but, let us compare, once again, the Socialist and Free-enterprise ideologies. It is clear, that we need an efficient apparatus of information-gathering and decision-making, in order to create an atmosphere of trust and good-will, because, only then, can we know, and verify, that we all share equally in the burdens of cut-backs and in the rigors of a frugal life-style.

2 Does such a radical "socialisation" of society, necessarily mean, that we will become listless robots, deprived of all personal initiative, incapable of thinking independently, or dreaming about personal ambitions? Does this mean, that we will live in a drab uniformity of thought and behaviour, where all variations from an accepted standard will be ruthlessly suppressed as "counter-revolutionary"? In short, do we have to lose a measure of individual freedom, in order to find a collective, long-term viability in a rigid code of social justice and essential equality? These questions represent the main fears and objections from the more idealistic and thoughtful adherents of the philosophy of free-enterprise and freedom of individual existence. We should, indeed, answer these fears and questions thoroughly.

3 What, really, is freedom? What do we mean, when we glorify freedom? In particular, what kinds of freedom are we talking about, when we maintain, that, we, as individuals, need certain freedoms in order to be satisfied and happy; to become a responsible, informed citizen, and, to develop a sense of justice and tolerance? Are these different from the "freedoms" that lead to social chaos and collapse? How do we differentiate between "beneficial" freedoms, and, those forms of behaviour that ruin the atmosphere of trust and cooperation, and stimulate short-sighted, egocentric desires? How does the need for freedom relate to the need for discipline, when considering the need to regulate relationships between people, and, what about the desire for freedom and the virtue of self-discipline? How do all these factors relate to each other?

4 At the present time, we certainly do not have a coherent answer or point of view about these matters, because we do not have a clear-cut idea about the nature of our own existence, nor, do we have clear ideas about the nature and objectives of our social organisations. Let us, therefore, try to develop, at least, a working hypothesis; a point of view, that has the virtue of being coherent, and, which may, then, serve as a basis for discussion and further thought.

5 Without repeating the basics of the human personality, as we sketched in the introduction, it is obvious, that all living organisms have a "drive", or instinct, which lets them seek and "fight" for the basic existential requirements. In the human being, these requirements go beyond the purely biological necessities of food, shelter or the urge to reproduce, because we form many long-term and short-term goals as a result of our ability to think and manipulate mental images and concepts. We have also discussed the fact, that, ambitions and goal-patterns can easily drive us away from a feeling of contentment, especially, if the goals and ambitions are excessively stimulated by a competitive drive, or, if a cultural code is telling us to do this or that, before we can relax and feel that we have accomplished something.

6 While the cultural influences of our social environment are extremely important in shaping socially acceptable behaviour, as well as the goal-patterns and ambitions of our personality, there is also a need to experience a number of basic freedoms; a need we all share. None of us will be happy, if we are caged, either physically or mentally, and, none of us will accept an oppressive force for any length of time, before we start to resent it intensely.

7 It is impossible to impose a belief or an opinion on someone or some group, in particular, when people start to develop a sense of security and comfort. As a rule, people are willing to forego a tendency towards individualisation during periods of severe, communal stress, but, as soon as we obtain a measure of shelter and security, the forces that synchronised our behaviour and perceptions, start to weaken, and, we begin to drift-apart, where everyone is seeking one's particular niche of comfort and fulfilment. We have seen, that this trend may lead to a resumption of the processes of competitive strife and dispersion, but, it may also lead to a variety of experiments with mutual inter-dependencies, which, unfortunately, have a tendency to slide, quickly, into positions of inequality or disparity.

8 We have discussed, that, unbridled competitive strife is incompatible with social existence, but, if competitive strife can be "tamed" with the help of voluntarily accepted and scrupulously adhered to rules and regulations, competitive strife may change into a competitive "game", where each participant knows, that the outcome has no serious or permanent existential consequences; that the basic contract of equal opportunity will remain intact, and, that everyone will adhere, scrupulously, to the rules and regulations of the game.

9 We have also discussed, how the processes of mutual inter-dependence and task-differentiation have to be regulated, if we want to avoid the development of disparities. In a situation of disparity, the weaker and poorer party becomes enslaved to the more powerful partner, who starts to reap all the benefits from the condition of inter-dependence.

10 All trends towards exploitation and enslavement have to be controled, therefore, if we want to preserve a maximum level of freedom for the members of society, and, here, we have answered one of those apparent paradoxes between freedom, regulation and discipline. We know, that society needs a set of stringent, but carefully crafted rules and regulations, if we want to preserve, at least, the possibility, that the members of society can move and intermingle, communicate and travel, in a sense of freedom and security.

11 Moreover, we will have to educate each member about the need to excercise a measure of self-discipline, if we want to preserve this freedom in our societies. We have come to the conclusion, that we need a contract between the members of society, if we want to transform the lethal consequences of all-out competitive strife to the beneficial results of an honest, competitive game, but, the pre-requisite for a successful transformation is the condition, that all members adhere, scrupulously, to the rules, and, that they avoid the opportunity or temptation to make use of slightly dishonest short-cuts or circumventions of these rules. This attitude requires a measure of self-discipline and insight.

12 Similarly, if we want to counter-act the nearly inevitable trend towards enslavement by the weaker party during a relationship of inter-dependence, we have to design a set of complex, but carefully crafted regulations, in order to prevent or slow-down such a trend. However, it is clear, that the individual has to excercise a great deal of restraint over his temptations to choose the "easy way" and become unnecessarily dependent upon others.

13 Without the willingness to excercise self-disipline, society will have to take-away a large number of options or freedoms, but, in our affluent societies, we see, ever more clearly, that the average individual is shamelessly exploited by the clever advertising techniques of commercial interests. Indeed, a very large percentage of the people are being driven into a position of financial slavery. Obviously, the will-power and insight of the average individual is not strong enough to resist the lure of advertising, and, society will have to protect the individual with a series of rules and regulations against the most pernicious forms of enticement and enslavement.

14 Therefore, there is an intimate relationship between the rules, regulations and guidelines which society has to design and implement in order to preserve a measure of freedom, and, the strength of character, insight and independence the members must show in their attitudes of control and self-discipline. In theory, a society can allow a greater range of freedoms and options, if the members are able to choose for themselves the wisest course of action. Neither one, nor the other extreme of this sliding scale between freedoms and self-discipline is viable; neither complete regulation, nor complete freedom of choice, will create a viable social environment. It is not feasible to take-over all personal initiatives and judgement functions by regulating the individual into a rigid straight-jacket of guidelines, nor, is it feasible to expect the members of society to develop such a perfect degree of insight and self-discipline, that society does not have to issue any guidelines, rules or regulations at all.

15 There is another way of looking at the problem of required freedoms, or, the range of tolerance for our behavioural choices, because, the sliding scale between social regulations and self-discipline does not explain, or describe, the entire complex of attitudes, feelings and emotions that play a role in these matters.

16 Man, as a behaviourally flexible organism, uses the faculty of his will to synthesise his conscious behavioural responses, primarily, to secure basic, egocentric needs. However, man has also a strong genetic "anlage" towards a behaviour of social integration, as we have discussed in man's inborn trends, and, man needs to place himself in a position of mutual inter-dependence with other people. We have also seen, how dependent the human being is for his early survival and ability to speak and think, on the cultural input from the social environment and upon the protection and care given by parents.

17 We should, therefore, not be surprised to find, that, man's most complete sense of fulfilment takes place in the context of some sort of a social goal or objective. Certainly, this goal may not co-incide with the commonly glorified objectives of "good deeds", or "charity towards the poor", but, even, the most aloof artist or thinker, who needs quietude and privacy to accomplish his works, knows, that his work will be essentially meaningless, if there would not exist, at least, a possibility, that these works would be seen, heard or read, at some time in the future. Really, we can not think of any significant activity, goal-pattern or ambition without being able to detect some sort of willingness, or desire, to communicate with other people, and, this means, of course, that the value of such activities or goals is, in essence, determined by the audience, whenever and wherever such an audience may exist.

18 It is perfectly clear to anyone, who has observed the human personality in action over a period of time, that, the unbridled pursuit of egocentric desires does not lead to a sense of satisfaction or fulfilment. Certainly, if a particular dream or desire has been frustrated for a long period of time, it may become an obsession throughout a major portion of one's life, and, many people will die without ever having had a chance to resolve these frustrations. However, if an individual is fortunate, and has a chance to fulfill a long-standing dream of essentially egocentric desires, he or she will quickly experience a sense of let-down, because the accomplishment of the dream will only lead to a short-lived period of elation. Lasting happiness and satisfaction is only achieved, if the dream has a strong social element, where success, happiness, a way of life, or a measure of freedom, is being shared with others.

19 We can, therefore, safely state, that the human being does not need to fulfill unbridled egocentric desires in order to be happy, but, every human being needs the fulfilment of his basic physiological and psychological requirements, in order to avoid severe frustrations. It will take a great deal of public debate and discussion to delineate, precisely, what the essential human needs are, and, we will come to the conclusion that it is not possible to give a firm and final description. We will come to the conclusion, that it is more important to come to an agreement about a global standard of living conditions and a standardised level of education.

20 Once we get rid of this disturbing imagery, where we see others wallow in an extravagant, luxurious or affluent life-style, while we have to struggle to obtain the bare necessities, we will be surprised, how happy we can be with a frugal way of life, and, we may come to the conclusion, that many "requirements" turn-out to be non-essential luxuries, while we thought, for a long time, that it would be impossible to live without them.

21 What sort of freedoms we really need or are able to afford, will always remain a matter for public debate, and, we will be able to accept, voluntarily, a spartan way of life, if we know, that everyone else leads the same life, and, that our collective sacrifices to forego pleasures and luxuries, serve a long-term purpose of great significance.

22 The requirements of happiness and health for future human beings will include a much greater degree of insight and access to information than we have at the present time, and, future generations may well agree, that our contemporary problems were largely due to the fact, that we failed to recognise the essential need to give every human being a chance to exist in equality, dignity and justice, together with a high level of insight and an adequate package of knowledge about himself and the world around him.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

A brief summary.
The basic choice; the freedom to develop disparities, or, a divergence based upon the mechanisms of personal merit under a Social Contract of Essential Equality?
Socialism provides an enormous range of freedoms.
Free-Enterprise "freedoms" become easily entrapped into a "siege mentality".
The importance of the attitudes of trust and good-will.
Constitutional Guidelines.
The President and Prime Minister in a Social Democracy.
Freedom and dissent.
The need to allow fundamental freedoms of political and religious beliefs.
Free-Enterprise, and the concept of "divinely ordained" disparities.
A combination of enslavement and entrapment.
The enjoyment of unlimited powers and wealth.
The outlook on life is a reflection of existential needs, because it is rarely based on careful scrutiny and argument.
Back to the basic choices we face in our search for viability.
Problems created by an attitude of nationalistic egocentricity.
Extending the principles of the Social Contract to an international or, even, global scale.

1 Let us summarise the ideas we have presented. I do not pretend, that this has been a scholarly dissertation about the differences between existing social models. In stead, we have traced the evolutionary background of human existence, and, we have touched upon the basic decisions to be made, when designing a model for social organisation.

2 The most important question is this; do we allow the differences in ability and motivation between human beings to fuel the growth of widely diverging classes, (which may reach a measure of uneasy and unequal inter-dependence, but, they may also become polarised into antagonistic factions that can, eventually, resolve their conflicts of interest, only, with armed conflict), or, do we opt for a route, where complex safeguards, guidelines and rules maintain a "social contract"; where the members declare themselves to be equal in rights, living standards, opportunity and dignity, and, where they submit, voluntarily, to a set of rules and regulations, as well as a series of rights and obligations, in order to maintain this fragile and delicate balance between unequally endowed people; a balance, that is always is danger of being torn-apart?

3 Let me emphasise, here, that the complex set of guidelines and obligations in the Socialist Model is compensated for by a very large measure of individual freedoms. This apparently contadictory effect is a result of the guaranteed security of individual existence in a position of equality, justice and dignity. The possibilities for developing an enormous variety of talents and skills, professions and trades, as well as the ability to engage in all sorts of activities, ranging from the various assignments in the Civil Task-Force to sports and all sorts of artistic activities, give us a spectrum of opportunities that can not be equalled by any other type of social organisation.

4 True, the Socialist Model of organisation requires an awareness of the factors that maintain and contribute to the stability and viability of such a social environment, and, this awareness has to be nurtured by concerned and responsible attitudes in an atmosphere of good-will and trust. But, we have also seen, that, there is, at least, in theory, the possibility to design effective structures and institutions to safeguard and sustain these all-important attitudes of good-will and trust.

5 A set of guidelines, rules and obligations forms a complex and detailed Constitutional Package, which will determine, not only, far more precisely than is the case now, the behaviour of each individual and social organisation, but, it will determine, also, the level of dissent and diversity of opinion that can be allowed to exist. However, this is not the same as the dictatorship of a social doctrine, where the policies of one political Party are declared the unquestionable guidelines for society, after such a Party has gained access to the leadership, most often, by armed force.

6 The Constitutional Package of the future Socialist Societies is a slowly developed and carefully constructed set of guidelines. These guidelines will be the product of an extensive public debate in which all the members of society have a chance to participate. This Constitutional Package should be approved, clause by clause, in a series of public referenda. Each Constitutional Regulation should have the support of, at least, a two-thirds majority. The "Upper House", together with an overall, elected, Constitutional leader, e.g,. a President, should be in charge for a four or five year period to discuss, debate and prepare Constitutional questions and amendments, which are, eventually, submitted to a nation-wide referendum. In this way, we can be sure, that the package of Constitutional Guidelines remains open to adaptative changes, and, the constant series of referenda, perhaps, once a month, or, even, once a week, is the most important stimulus for the members in society to remain informed and concerned about the fundamental questions facing them and their societies.

7 The "Lower House" is also elected by a universal right to vote, but, in contrast to the more scholarly Upper House, it is primarily concerned with the day to day, practical problems of leadership, very much like a contemporary "Parliamentary System" with a ruling, majority Party or coalition of political Parties. We will not go into details, how such members to the Upper and Lower Houses should be elected, and, how the Prime Minister, as the leader of the ruling political Party, and the Constitutional President relate to each other. In the final essay of this "trilogy" devoted to the problems and possibilities of a Social Democracy, we hope to outline, more in detail, the answers to such practical questions, and, we hope to give a number of suggestions for practical political changes. These suggestions will describe, how existing conditions can change and move society towards a situation, where, at least, some of these ideas will have been put into practice.

8 Let us come back, here, to this all-important question of "freedom". Just like the members of a hamonious family will experience a great deal of freedom and security, in spite of the fact, that they are aware of the need to pay a certain price of obedience, tolerance, cooperation and self-discipline in return for their freedom and security, so will the members of the future societies, (who have the good fortune to live in a well-organised and highly developed society of social justice and essential equality), experience the same privileges and needs. They will have undreamt of possibilities of development and freedoms of beliefs, opinions and movements, within this overall framework of guidelines, which is safeguarding these freedoms and obligations with a social contract of essential equality.

9 Let us address ourselves, briefly, to the problem of dissent. We have done so before, but, let us re-iterate, that there is no reason at all to suppress any sort of opinion or idea, criticism or plan for change and reform, as long as the actions of a member of society do not infringe upon the rights of another member.

10 In our times, there is a strong fear for dissent and criticisms, and, this fear shows, how fragile and incomplete the social safeguards still are. This fear is also an inevitable result, whenever the views and objectives of a single political Party or religious Movement are imposed upon society as a whole, and, we can safely say, that the dictatorial social models have only a measure of ideological good intentions in their favour. However, a lack of insight for the need to give people a chance to express a variety of opinions about fundamental ideological principles, as well as the revolutionary heritage of a ruling Party-elite, give the leftist regime an aura of stifled existence.

11 Yet, the fears of the Marxist regimes are understandable, because as an alternative to their rule, they see the unspeakable sin of a return to imperial domination by an alliance of wealth and military power. They fear, rightly, the inertia and indecisive chaos that accompanies so many of the democratic, and, in their view, "Capitalist", free-enterprise societies. Marxists are genuinely afraid, (and not without justification), that the tolerance of dissent and rival power groupings, such as independent trade-unions, will plunge their Socialist Societies into a similar chaos as the "decadent West".

12 Indeed, they will see a fragmentation of their societies, if they would allow dissent to operate freely under present conditions, but, they fail to realise, that oppression of dissent, together with the continued imposition of a Party doctrine upon the rest of society, without allowing a fundamental Constitutional Debate, must lead, inevitably, to alienation and strife, in particular, when a highly integer Party hierarchy has, eventually, been replaced by more egocentric and less inspired officials.

13 Let us re-examine, once more, the commonly held concepts of personal freedoms, as well as the virtues of personal initiatives, which are espoused by the adherents of a free-enterprise philosophy. We have seen, that, by and large, their adherence or allegiance to such ideas is based upon personal success; upon the fact, that these ardent free-enterprisers have acquired or inherited a fair number of assets, and, they have, therefore, a lot to lose in a program of radical social reforms. We have also seen, that their ideas are based, in part, upon a vague notion, that society can be held together by the slogan; "Each one for himself and God for us all". While this is a somewhat facetious summary of the free-enterprise philosophy, it nevertheless characterises, accurately, the basic assumption of the free-enterprise philosophy; nl., that society will benefit from a course of action that allows the more successful and enterprising individuals to carry-out the major economic and political activities as they see fit.

14 Certainly, even, ardent free-enterprisers will concede, that it leads to a divergence between the rich and the poor, where the poor become, gradually, dominated by the rich. Such a trend is seen as a "natural development"; as a just reward for a keen mind and hard work, and, it is generally felt, that, those of the poor, who have the same drive and keenness of mind as the successful enterprisers, will be able to pull themselves up by their boot-straps and join the privileged elite.

15 There is also the feeling amongst ardent free-enterprisers, that, all members in society should respect this basic division between success and failure, or, between the rich and the poor, because it is, either, "God's Will" that such divisions exist, or, it is justified by the fact, that the rich elite takes all the responsibilities for making society work.

16 It rarely dawns on the free-enterpriser, that these trends destroy social cohesion and contribute nothing to social growth or a condition of justice. The only "cohesion" that is created by the development of disparity, is the enslavement, or entrapment, of the poor and the working classes. It seems so difficult for the ardent free-enterpriser to see this essential difference between the grudging acceptance of a fate, which can not be altered for the time being, and, a genuine sense of justice and well-being, which comes with an appreciation for the privilege of belonging and contributing to a benevolent society.

17 The freedoms of the ardent free-enterpriser are, in essence, an illusion. He thinks, that the accumulation of assets and capital will give him unlimited freedoms, power and opportunities, but, all he can do is guard, constantly and fearfully, his privileged status against persistent and increasingly bold attacks. In stead of enjoying a freedom, the free-enterpriser becomes, eventually, a captive in his own empire, and, if the privileged classes are not driven together by a common threat from the poor and the oppressed, they begin to drift-apart in this well-known mechanism of "competitive dispersion".

18 It is not surprising, therefore, that the free-enterpriser believes, in all sincerity, that the ultimate happiness of man lies in the enjoyment of unlimited power and wealth, but, he is unable to see the essential psychological limitations associated with such an egocentric orientation in the pursuit of happiness. No wonder, free enterprisers come to the conclusion, that man can only be motivated to work hard by the egocentric incentive of financial gains, and, they forget the enormous energies our youngsters and adolescents are willing to spend without any prospect of getting rich; just for the sheer enjoyment of doing things together, and, to excel a little in one field of endeavour or another, enjoying, somewhat shyly, the admiration of their friends.

19 However, let us not delude ourselves in believing, that the careful weighing of intellectual or philosophical arguments plays an important role in the philosophy or beliefs of people. We all experience the fact, that it is nearly impossible to change someone's outlook on life, once the mold of a firm opinion has set at the beginning of maturity. To change our basic political, philosophical or religious orientation is almost as difficult as changing the colour of our skin, and, we know, that, in essence, a political, philosophical or religious orientation takes place, primarily, as the result of three fundamental questions, which we ask ourselves, intuitively or subconsciously.

20 True, most of us will not even know, what we are talking about, even, after reading about it, because most of us believe, indeed, that the opinions and beliefs we adopt are the result of a rational process of thinking and making decisions. Let us think about it, however, and see, whether or not there is some truth in the thesis, that subconscious motivations are more important than conscious and verbalised decisions in the adoption of our beliefs and opinions.

21 Do we seek a solution of tensions and problems by conquest and a fight, or, by a process of negotiation, compromise and cooperation? Secondly, do we behave, primarily, or, perhaps, exclusively, with the well-being of our own existence in mind, or, are we willing to risk, at least, a measure of security and advantage by taking the well-being of others into account? Thirdly, do we find strength for our attitudes and convictions by adopting the rigid but narrow belief that there is only one truth, (the way we see reality), or, do we lose a certain measure of fanatic determination but gain in understanding and insight, by allowing ourselves to become aware of the fact, that aspects of reality have a disturbing tendency to shift and alter their appearance?

22 In other words; do we try to solve the problems of our existence by conflict or cooperation, by egocentricty or a concern for others, by an absolute truth, or a relativistic perception of reality?

23 I believe, that such an existential outlook on the motivations for our beliefs, attitudes and opinions, as well as the political-philosophical positions we adhere to, is giving us a clearer understanding of the numerous events and happenings taking place in the relationships between human beings, compared to a clash of professed beliefs or implied view-points.

24 For example, the leaders on both sides of the dispute between Dogmatic Socialism and Free Enterprise like us to believe, that their conflicts and clashes in the inter-national arena are, indeed, caused by a struggle of ideological principles, where each side believes, firmly, that it has the only right and just way of organising society and bringing happiness, fulfilment and freedom to the members of mankind.

25 However, if we look a little closer, we see, clearly, how the actions and decision of the leaderships contradict these professed ideals and idealisms for the well-being of their societies, or, the world at large. While each side manipulates, with dexterity, the symbols of peace and good-will, the behaviour of all the national powers in the world resemble each other to a remarkable extent. They talk about peace and democratic principles, but, they eye each other with the same attitudes of chronic suspicion and nationalistic pride as the medieval barons in their feudal enclaves, who were anxiously and fiercely defending their independence, while not entirely oblivious to the temptation to grab a quick advantage, whenever the opportunity would present itself.

26 While the peasantry in the surrounding villages had to bear the brunt of warfare, time and again, and saw their huts and crops destroyed by one side or the other, the feudal barons would spend increasingly on armaments in a race to gain the upper hand during a never-ending struggle for power or security. Many people endured chronic starvation, severe poverty, ignorance and isolation, as well as the lawless tyranny from whomever happened to wield power, while their feudal over-lords became obsessed with strife and warfare, the honour and sovereignty of their estates, as well as the sphere of influence of their rivals.

27 Our modern, national leaders behave very much in the same manner, be it on a larger scale, and, they too, are becoming entrapped in a psychosis of suspicion and spending on arms. Meanwhile, they appear to be oblivious to the rise of disparity and injustice. They are blind to the plight of depraved, starving and dying peoples in many parts of the world.

28 Nationalistic egocentricity is the dominating feature of contemporary international behaviour, but, unfortunately, not enough people have recognised this fact to make it clear and sharpen it into the conscience of world-opinion. We come back, again, on the idea, that the main problem of mankind is the fact, that we have still primitive leadership attitudes and objectives, and, I repeat the charge, that inadequate and corrupt leadership is by far the greatest single cause of human suffering.

29 Those of us, who have seen and experienced the misery of warfare, as well as the oppressive circumstances of chronic starvation and captivity in concentration or refugee camps, have no difficulties accepting the solution of cooperation and compromise, in preference to the lure of warfare and victory. However, most political leaders in positions of enormous power, have only a dim awareness about the devastation and death caused by all-out warfare, and, yet, many of them are now in a position, where they may have to make the decision, whether or not to plunge their nations into all-out war.

30 If we look at the world as a whole, we see, that there is no overall structure, only an amorphous mass of a large number of nations, big and small. They have been created by the haphazard accidents of historical developments and, they show all the signs of primitive, competitive behaviour, when relating to each other.

31 According to our free-enterprise friends, we should let the nations "fight it out", so that, eventually, we will have a strong elite on earth that can rule globally, while the rest of mankind will be their slaves. This would create a degree of "stability" and introduce a measure of control, that is not possible in any other way. To bring such an amorphous group of unequal nations together into a United Nations, only leads to useless and endless talk, while the real important events happen outside the world body of nations, regardless of any activity or resolution by the United Nations.

32 This is the opinion of a majority of the ardent free-enterprisers, and, indeed, so far, we can not take pride in the results of a democratic atmosphere of cooperation on a global scale, but, if we would seriously consider the ideas we have sketched in this essay, and, if we would, then, begin to bring-about a deliberate and conscious Social Contract of Essential Equality and Justice amongst all the peoples in the world, we may bring, even, greater freedoms of individual human existence into reality than the free-enterpriser can dream of.

33 Once we have understood the essence of the solution of the Social Contract, let us, then, put all our efforts into it, and, let our practical political activities be guided by this distant but realistic goal of a carefully shaped and well-preserved Social Contract of Essential Equality between all the peoples of the world.

.......

Summary

1. Man's greatest scourge; poor leadership.
A dictatorship is always placed on the defensive.
An inevitable tendency towards oppression.
Dictatorships of "the right" or "the left".
One-Party Rule is a sure road towards dictatorship.
How can we safeguard the viability of a Parliamentary Democracy?
A three-part series on "Democratic Socialism".
The inevitable corruption of a Party Ideology and its objectives.
A dictatorship of "the right" is defined by the maintenance of a privileged status-quo.
The importance of leadership.
A forgotten link; past bellicose posturing and a contemporary slide towards an armed confrontation.

2. Let us be careful in our moments of triumph.
The dramatic consequences of a belligerent attitude.
A common-sense morality.
The serious responsibility of the franchise to vote.
Small-scale social mechanisms.
The attitude of trust in the small-scale social unit is based on a condition of transparence.
Cultural identification mechanisms.
We see only a small fragment of the larger society around us.
Why it is so difficult to obtain adequate levels of communication.
A hypocritical insistance upon the right to privacy.
We want people to be "impressed", but not to know.
A fertile breeding ground for crime.
The blessings of gathering information efficiently.
The cost of government could be reduced to a fraction of what it is today.

3. The atmosphere of trust is an essential element for social viability.
Trust has to be earned.
How to maintain the gift of "human rights".
A satisfied "sense of justice" lies behind the willingness to cooperate.
The "democratisation" of leadership functions.
A continuous process of feed-back and dialogue.
The "thought-processes" of a social unit.
The need to take large-scale concerns into account.
A frequent use of "polls" or "referenda".
The bonds of common-sense.
Supervising leaders and leadership structures.
Rights and obligations.
The injustice of disparity.
The erroneous concepts of "absolute sovereignty", and "non-interference in each other's affairs".

4. The right to life, and other basic human rights.
The rationale of dividing chores.
Rights and contributions.
The right to an equal opportunity to make something of oneself.
The Civil Task-Force.
Designing careers according to the natural life-cycle of the human being.
Some ideas and images about the societies of the future.
The question of "freedom".
Socialism and Free-Enterprise.
Let us be aware of simplistic attitudes and judgements.
Militant unions, and the philosophy of free-enterprise.
The right to strike against the public and its democratically elected government is an anachronism, and is, in essence, anti-social in nature.

5. Benefits of the State as an employer.
Binding Arbitration, with the help of a competent judicial investigation.
Reasons for the militance of labour-unions.
The right to strike has to be abolished and replaced by adequate Constitutional Guidelines, regulating labour relationships.
A double standard for ardent free-enterprisers.
The need to control the influence of all special-interest groupings.
How to determine the value of "work".
A large society can not grow "by itself".
Limitations of the attitudes and practices of competitive strife.
When there will be no "next time".
The fallacy of "non-interference".
Blatantly egocentric attitudes.
Maintaining puppet-regimes in power.
Does society profit from the activities of entrepreneurs?
Competitive dispersion may lead to expansion, but not to the growth of a healthy, large-scale, well-integrated society.
The limits of territorial and economic expansion.

6. The "magic button" of economic growth.
The role of money; a generally valid promissory note.
Inflation, devaluation and a floating exchange-rate.
Why the meaning of money has been destroyed.
An unhealthy dependence on economic growth.
Monetarism, Socialism, and the mechanisms of a continuing social decay.
The need for a return to sound fiscal and economic principles.
A look at the balance of "receiving from", and "giving to", society; for individuals, as well as groups of people.
An accent upon conservation and a frugal way of life.
The need for a globally shared perception of reality.
A look at pragmatic political objectives.
The penalties for living deeply in debt.
Efficient methods of production and administration.
The fallacy of "creating jobs" that do not become quickly viable.
Tackling disparities by the re-distribution of existing assets.
Living a frugal life-style, in a state of good health.

7. Socialist and Free-Enterprise philosophies.
The problem of "freedom".
Different kinds of freedom.
Setting realistic and socially beneficial goal-patterns.
A consensus through persuasion.
The "taming" of competitive strife.
Excercising discipline and self-discipline.
Maintaining a position of essential equality.
Freedom is only possible with a measure of self-discipline.
There will always be a need for regulatory mechanisms.
Man's most complete sense of freedom and fulfilment takes place in the context of a social objective.
A public discussion to delineate basic human needs.
Future requirements for basic standards of individual and social health will include a large measure of knowledge and insight, as well as access to all sorts of information.

8. A brief summary.
The basic choice; the freedom to develop disparities, or, a divergence based upon the mechanisms of personal merit under a Social Contract of Essential Equality?
Socialism provides an enormous range of freedoms.
Free-Enterprise "freedoms" become easily entrapped into a "siege mentality".
The importance of the attitudes of trust and good-will.
Constitutional Guidelines.
The President and Prime Minister in a Social Democracy.
Freedom and dissent.
The need to allow fundamental freedoms of political and religious beliefs.
Free-Enterprise, and the concept of "divinely ordained" disparities.
A combination of enslavement and entrapment.
The enjoyment of unlimited powers and wealth.
The outlook on life is a reflection of existential needs, because it is rarely based on careful scrutiny and argument.
Back to the basic choices we face in our search for viability.
Problems created by an attitude of nationalistic egocentricity.
Extending the principles of the Social Contract to an international or, even, global scale.

.......