COMMON PEOPLE AND THE MANY FACES OF EXPLOITATION







A Study in Thought

sa097



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Who are "the common people"?
Are we somewhat smarter than the average individual?
We have many things in common, in spite of the fact that no two people are the same.
A useful definition of individuality.
We share the drive to compete and become rivals.
A majority of the people "does all the necessary work"
The majority always works, regardless, who is in power.
What sort of work are average people going to do in the near future?
A shift towards skilled functions.
Man will rebuild after a period of warfare and devastation, if there is something left to build from.
The human labourer versus the robot.
An army of "common people".
A life-style of strenuous consumerism is being encouraged in order to maintain an all-important "economic momentum".
The vague boundaries between luxuries and necessities in affluent societies.
An unhealthy dependence upon a high level of cash-income.
A review of various social models.
The varying living standards of common people, all over the world.
Disparities that represent a heart-breaking injustice to anyone with a keen eye and a compassionate attitude.
It is an honour to belong to the common people.

Who are the common people? Most of us are somewhat reluctant to consider ourselves "common people" because, often, it seems to imply an aura of "slight dullness"; of being average, gullible, easily taken advantage of. Indeed, most of us believe, that we are somewhat "smarter" than average. Yet, if we consider in what way our existence, life-style and requirements resemble those of other people, we see, that we have far more in common with the "common people" than we think, even, if we do not know, who these common people are, or what they represent.

We realise, now, better than ever before, thanks to world-wide communications, that the species of mankind has grown into a wide spectrum of cultural and social entities, and, we know, that the population of human beings has grown spectacularly, especially, in the last century. We, the living members of mankind are spread over innumerable communities and societies all over the world, and, we all need a place to live. We have to work to earn our daily bread, and, we are entangled in a web of relationships with the people around us. In spite of this large population of human beings, it is not difficult to prove, that no two people are the same, either, in their physical or psychological constitution, nor, in the way they live.

We may come to the justified conclusion, that we are all "unique" individuals, who will never be duplicated again in exactly the same manner. Yet, what is the meaning or relevance of this uniqueness, either for ourselves, or for others? What does it mean to be "unique"? Sure, we can always emphasise the differences between similar entities, but, what is the purpose of doing so? To prove that we have an individuality; that we have rights as an individual, and, that the whole sphere of reality is, in essence, carried by a large number of individuals, who, through a process of communication create this sphere of reality, knowledge and familiarity upon which we all depend for our survival?

Certainly, this would be a very useful way of using the quality of our individuality, but, even so, we have to acknowledge, that it is the function of communication, as well as the fact of our communal or social interwovenness, which makes the attributes of individuality possible, together with our awareness of it.

We always come back upon the importance of what we share and can communicate with each other, and, it is, only, after we acknowledge the importance of shared awarenesses and concepts, that we can place the nature of our own existence in a realistic context. Therefore, it seems quite useful to talk about "the common people", and, to emphasise the aspects we share. We see, then, that we also share the drive of competitiveness or rivalry, and yet, just because this drive sets us apart and evokes an attitude of confrontation with each other, we have great difficulties recognising the fact, that we share the drive of competitive existence, as well as all other existential drives, with those we do not like or consider to be our enemies.

However, let us narrow the definition of "the common people" somewhat, and, let us describe, in a generalised but pragmatic manner, what the characteristic features are of those, who form a majority in each and every social environment. Perhaps, the most important characteristic of the majority of a social entity, is the fact, that this body of people "does the work". The majority does all the work necessary to feed society, defend society, build it up and maintain it, while this majority feeds, also, a small, privileged elite occupying a position of leadership, either through the gift of responsibility after democratic elections, or, by an act of cunning and force.

The majority always works, regardless, whether a beneficial or a parasitic elite is in power, but, the majority is, of course, a lot better of, if it has a say in the way society is governed. On the other side of the social coin, the majority of hard working, conscientious, but, indeed, somewhat gullible people, also feeds a small minority of loafers and irresponsible people, who do nothing, or, very little, and, who do not make a contribution to society. Sometimes, this minority becomes a powerful "elite" of organised crime, posing a severe strain on the viability of the contemporary, large and affluent societies.

The majority works in the fields and the industries, and makes it possible to buy food and other items of consumption. The majority makes it possible for governments to provide a number of services. The ordinary, hard-working consumer makes it possible that governments can keep going into debt and hire more and more people, who produce less and less worthwhile services! At least, so it seems, at the present time, in many affluent societies. If it was not for this silent majority, these large affluent societies would not exist.

Certainly, with the introduction of machines and the recent development of industrial robots, a large part of the traditional work done by people is being taken-over by mechanised devices, creating great difficulties for the affluent societies to find work for all their citizens. What sort of work are the average people going to do in the near future? A few will always find a job, but the competition will become fierce, and the emphasis will shift towards more highly skilled work, because fewer people are needed to service, guide and control a large number of mechanised and computerised industrial processes.

Will there still be a place in society for the average person, who does not excel in technical or intellectual capabilities? What will happen to the common people, after they have provided, throughout history, the backbone for the forces of recovery; after short-sighted and foolish leaderships had wrecked, in a short period of time, what had taken many generations of hard work to build-up? Can robots and mechanical devices do the work, after the next phase of devastation? Machines and robots will not reproduce themselves under the guidance of a genetic code, in spite of the fact, that man has been able to incorporate some "self-correcting" features in many of the computer-systems that guide the behaviour of these modern, sophisticated machines.

Will man do the work of rebuilding again, after the next major war? Probably, if man is not so weakened, that, he, too, just like the robots, lacks the appropriate self-duplicating mechanisms to build-up the population again. However, the introduction of mechanised labour on the fields is one aspect that will undoubtedly find favour all over the world, because no-one is keen to break his human back on these chores. Animals are, by and large, more expensive and more difficult to feed adequately compared to tractors and all sorts of harvesting and earth-moving equipment.

However, the introduction of robots in our factories may never find a world-wide application, as the assembly-line production processes are, only in selective cases, so specialised and so geared to very high levels of production, that the introduction of robots becomes economically feasible, and, in some cases, a necessity. In the future, human labour will have to compete, in cost and versatility, with a computerised robot, and, I think, that, for most medium-sized and smaller industries, especially, if they remain flexible, the labour-force will remain human.

However, this is an aside. For a long time to come, the strength of a nation, a community, or any social organisation, will depend on the energy, the enthousiasm, as well as the insights, which a majority of ordinary people has to give to its social environment. This also applies to the world of warfare and defense, in spite of the fact, that modern techniques and sophisticated weaponry seem to indicate a trend towards "robotisation". A few military and political leaders will, soon, have an awesome, and, even, unimaginable power of destruction at the touch of an infernal computer button, and, they will be able to watch the "progress" of the earth's destruction on their monitors. Yet, to control peoples and territories, to support policies and diplomatic moves, we still will need a large number of soldiers and administrators, and, where are these soldiers and workers coming from, if it is not from the "common people"?

Until the present time, nations and communities have lived, by and large, in a state of competitive strife with each other, and, because leaderships tend to accentuate these feelings of competitive strife with their strong, territorial instincts, we see, that, communities and all sorts of socially integrated groupings live and work in somewhat varying and isolated conditions and circumstances. In the past, these strong, territorial instincts made it possible to conquer and colonise lands that were occupied by peoples, who did not have the power to resist the invaders. To a large extent, the affluence of the modern Western World has been based on a legacy of such conquests in the past. The era of colonialism has ended only recently, and, the techniques of neo-colonialist exploitation and financial enslavement are still fully operative, and are supporting the affluence of Western consumerism.

In the affluent world, a majority of people share in this affluence, and they have to live a life-style of strenuous consumerism in order to maintain this all-important "economic momentum". Yet, the basic requirements are, by and large, easily obtained, but, because of the blurring between luxuries and necessities, we see the anomalous situation, that a member of the affluent majority will take upon himself the burdens of a long-term financial debt in order to buy such an essential item as his shelter or his home. This home is often far larger, more luxurious and more prestigious than is necessary for the function of sheltering him and his family.

This means, that the wage-earner, or, rather, the ordinary, average affluent worker has to work consistently, for many years and without a break in this flow of all-important cash, in order to keep his home. Here, we see an incongruous situation, because a worker in the affluent majority needs a long-term income that lies far above a level of "basic maintenance", in particular, if this income is compared to the earnings of people in the lesser developed regions of the world. Yet, in a sense, this affluent worker would be in real trouble, if he loses his job and this affluent income, because he would lose his home, if he can not keep-up the mortgage payments.

We see, nearly invariably, a curious blurring between basic requirements and luxuries in the affluent world, and, this is the main reason, why the affluent societies and the affluent majority of common people have become so extra ordinarily dependent upon this affluent income. This dependence is a weakness rather than a strength, as we have argued on many occasions, and, the fact, that affluence and an affluent life-style are indeed a weakness, can be seen, so clearly, in the inability of the affluent societies to compete with the labour-force of less affluent societies, which have not, as yet, become so dependent upon a large cash income.

Even in the lesser developed societies, a majority of the common people "does all the work", and, fortunately, many of them are relatively well off. They may not have the same affluence as our overheated pockets of free-enterprise consumption, but, who would want this anyway. Their societies may be organised on the basis of a social contract of essential equality, and, such a socially superior form of organisation has protected a majority of the common people, at least, to a large extent, from the trappings and anxieties that are an inevitable price of the affluent, free-enterprise, societies.

This means, that their goverments are, at least in theory, the "servants" of the people, and, these governments are supposed to work and exist for the benefit of the members of society. This is a lofty idea that seems to work well, on many occasions, but, unfortunately, too large an element of social security leads, so often, to complacency and corruption, meaning, that, from time to time, the ruling elite requires a painful purge and a bitter power-struggle in order to re-establish the ideals of Socialism. Yet, the people are well off, because their basic existential requirements are well taken care of, and, they are not dependent upon this frantic economic momentum like the affluent majority in free-enterprise societies.

Then, there is a very large group of nations with different leaderships and varying standards of living, as well as variable levels of social justice. Some of them are well on their way to become a Socialist Democracy, and, they adhere to this lofty, but fragile ideal of full, pluralistic political representation. Others, are governed by an elite that rules by the force of the gun. A number of countries oscillate rather percariously between an experiment with democratic, civilian rule, and the imposition of a military dictatorship, and, it is not surprising, that unstable societies suffer a great deal from social and economic unrest, where the common people are subjected to severe and chronic pressures of high inflation, unemployment, as well as the ever-present fear for a further slide into poverty.

The living standards of the common peoples all over the world vary from over-heated pockets of consumption and affluence, to a large variety of social environments, where the peoples are well looked-after, and, as a whole, are satisfied with their governments. But, there are also a number of social entities, where a large segment of the population is subjected to chronic stress and anxiety, always in danger of sliding into chaos, anarchy, strife and bloodshed. Then, at the bottom of the scale, there are societies where a large part of the population lives on the verge of starvation and destitution; where the level of health and education, as well as the possibilities to find sustenance from the land, are so low, that the population is doomed to live as out-casts in a world of potential abundance.

These disparities represent a heart-breaking injustice to anyone with a keen eye and a compassionate heart. The quality of leadership and government reflects, as a rule, the impoverished, incompetent and diseased state of such destitute societies. The elite is usually in power by the force of the gun, even, if the apathy and ignorance of the masses does not make it necessary to use much force to oppress and subdue a starving and diseased majority.

In summary, majorities all over the world live under all sorts of conditions, but, a clear understanding of the need to bring justice and help to the most impoverished social environments, makes it clear, that the pockets of affluent over-consumption are immoral, wasteful and harmful obstacles to our efforts to diminish the level of disparity between the rich and the poor on a global scale.

We should consider it to be an honour to belong to the common people. We may be in an exceptional situation, or, we may be in a position of leadership, but, in every instance, we still depend upon the workers of the majority to provide us with our livelyhood. As leaders, we become, either, servants of a majority, which has the right to choose their leadership under the principles of the democratic franchise, or, we take upon ourselves a privileged and dominating position with the force the gun. It does not matter, really, whether we are a member of a beneficial leadership, an exploitative elite, or a parasitic and criminal element; we all depend on the workers in society to provide us with our daily bread.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

A call to rebel against our leaders?
We have to pay dearly for our "good feelings".
Let us listen closely; to our own leaders, as well as the leaders of our enemies.
Putting the arguments side by side.
When are people followers, and, when do they become leaders?
Natural leadership qualities.
Leadership difficulties multiply prodigiously, as the social grouping gets larger.
The "social split".
Over-crowding, and a rising level of competitive strife.
The multi-individual leadership-institution of a modern, large-scale social entity.
The widespread influence of leadership structures.
A measure of good-will and cooperation is essential in order for a large-scale social entity and its leadership to remain viable.
The role of the army.
When everyone contributes, willingly, to the well-being of society.
Mechanisms that sour the atmosphere of enthousiasm and good-will.
Societies oscillate between the extremes of chaos and vigorous expansionism.
The short-lived benefits of a revolutionary over-throw of the elite.
Common people have to accept the responsibility for electing competent leaders.
Who is to blame for the "activities of social decay"?
Learning from history.
We have to learn to maintain, and appreciate, a steady-state of well-being.

Let us not be ashamed to consider ourselves "common people", because we will benefit trom the realisation, that we share our most basic needs and drives with so many others. We share our needs and drives, not only, with people within our own social environment, but, also, with those whom our society and our leaders consider to be our bitterest enemies. Let us not be afraid to identify with the common peoples all over the world, regardless, whether or not our leaders consider their societies "friendly". We will benefit from the realisation, that we share with our enemies far more than we think, and, certainly, far more than our leaders want us to know about.

Is this a call to rebel against our leaders? It is a call to think about what our leaders tell us; to examine, carefully, what they want us to believe, and, it is a plea to resist the lure of being drawn into a belligerent attitude towards other social groupings. We, as members of the public, and, especially, as members of a majority of the common peoples of the world, we are so easily lured by our leaders into a firm and hostile stance. It feels so good to stand-up and commit ourselves to what we think is right and honourable. Yet, people, let us not forget, that we may have to pay dearly for such "good feelings". Some of us will surely die on the battle-fields as the price for such feelings. To have to go to war and to fulfill the patriotic duties of being a citizen of our country, follows, so easily, the bellicose commitments to stand firm against the alleged infringements upon our rights, or, the "heinous crimes" perpetrated by our arch-enemies against our innocent society and its righteous leaders.

Let us listen, closely, what our leaders have to say. Let us listen closely, not only, to our own leaders, but, also, to the leaders of our enemies. Let us place the arguments and statements side by side, and, let us insist, that our own leaders, as well as those of our enemies, put the arguments side by side in front of their followers. Let us then study, carefully, how far the roots of a particular conflict go back into history, and, let us analyse the relevant events and happenings that have taken place over the years.

Let us ask an impartial outsider to explain the conflict to us, and, let us compare the behaviour of our leaders, as well as the leaders of our enemies, with other groups of belligerents with whom we are not involved. In this way, we may be able to get a more objective view of the conflict-situation, together with the forces that are pulling and pushing us into a belligerent attitude. Only in this way, by making an effort to be honest and impartial, will it be possible to avoid the battle-fields and the bloodshed of patriotic law-abiding citizens, who are fathers and bread-winners on either side of the conflict.

Let us, indeed, analyse, more in detail, to what extent, we, as common people of the public, as the working and building classes of our societies, should question and scrutinise, what our leaders tell us. "Is the function of our leadership not to lead us, and, tell us what to do?", you may ask. "Is the essence of being a patriotic and good citizen not the attitude, that we have to follow and support our leaders and believe what they tell us? Are we not inviting chaos and paralysis, if we all try to make such monumental decisions as going to war?".

Let us put these questions in a broader perspective, and, let us discuss the relationships between the common people and their leaders. When are people followers? When do they become leaders themselves, and, what sort of inter-actions should take place between leaders and followers, so that the unit as a whole, of leaders and followers, makes the best possible behavioural decisions under the circumstances?

If we look at the most primitive, but, also, the most natural, small, nomadic grouping of human beings, we see, that a hierarchical positioning takes place, which ordens the members of this small group into an order of dominance, or "pecking order". This means, that the strongest and most dominant members occupy a position near the top, and become, automatically, leaders.

If we extend our view to include pre-human anthropoids and other, socially integrated groupings, we see, that usually, one strong dominant male is "the overall leader", at least, for a while; as long as he can successfully fight-off the challenge of another strong male, who is younger and still growing in strength. All the members of such a socially integrated grouping occupy a "natural position", which means, that a process of testing, or test-fights, determines, who can dominate whom. Every member "knows his place", because he knows, whom he can "boss around", and, he knows, who can dominate him or her. This is the essence of the small, natural, primitive, nomadic grouping, and, this same pattern of social organisation existed amongst species' that were on their way to become conceptualising or verbalising animals. We know, now, that, only one species survives, until the present; mankind, but, perhaps, mankind's extinction is closer than we think.

We know, now, that profound changes took place in these small nomadic groupings of early human beings, once the need arose for social groupings to become much larger. The difficulties for the leadership increased dramatically as the groups were getting larger. Competition for the top position became intense; the number of events taking place in the larger communities, escalated enormously, making it much more difficult for the leadership to know, what was going on, and, to keep a firm grasp over the events that were taking place in the social grouping, including the behaviour of every member. Finally, the process of hierarchical ordening became confusing, and represented a burden rather than a help in the organisation of a social environment, because it had become too difficult for the individual members to "oversee" their society and to know their place.

It is not surprising, then, that the small nomadic grouping of the pre-historic past would only grow to a certain size, if it was successful. Any growth beyond a certain, but still vaguely defined size, would make the unit unstable, and, a dominant member would set a process of "social splitting" into motion, because the leadership would be challenged, time and again. When this challenge was unsuccessful, such a dominant member would be inclined take a number of followers with him and leave the group, setting-up his own small social unit in a neighbouring territory.

However, when all suitable territories became occupied, the natural tendency to split-off became more difficult, and costly, and, this practice was, therefore, inhibited, at least, to some extent, because it would lead to an act of fierce hostilities to displace those who already lived in a neighbouring territory. Therefore, over-crowding, or, at least, a measure of over-crowding of the human species, began to exert a significant evolutionary pressure on the organisation of the much larger social unit, which could, if successfully governed and organised, absorb many more members, and could also muster a superior strength in the defense of its territory.

However, let us examine the question, what was needed to make a successful transition from a natural, instinctive, genetically encoded leadership, towards a leadership that could successfully guide, and keep together, a much larger group of human beings. We can only review these mechanisms, here, in a nut-shell, because these concepts serve, merely, as an introduction to a discussion about being an ordinary member within a much larger social grouping. One of the features we see, is the evolution of a leadership that is comprised of a "head", often, a single individual, in the form of an absolute ruler, but, in modern times, we see, much more often, an executive body, a comittee, or an assembly, where a number of leaders share power and try to decide, by a process of consensus or a majority vote, on the best course of action for the society as a whole.

This multi-individual body of the leadership is assisted by a large number of organisations or bureaucratic institutions, where the information needed to make sensible decisions is being gathered and presented to the leadership. At the same time, these bureaucratic institutions carry-out a number of guiding, regulating or managing functions, whereby the behaviour-patterns, the social inter-actions, as well as the possibilities for making a living are facilitated for the numerous members of society. If we look around us in a modern social environment, we see, how widespread the influence of government has become in our lives.

Last, but not least, the leadership needs a complex institution to keep "law and order"; to make sure, that its laws and decrees are carried-out according to plan; that justice, or, at least a uniform code of conduct is applied equally and fairly to all members, and, that any challenge to authority takes place within the tolerance of a lawful framework for the succession of a leadership. Only, with the help of a large number of institutions which are under the control of a keen and efficient leadership, is it possible for such a leadership to keep "on top" of all the many events that are taking place within a complex society.

We have discussed, before, the idea, that, "conscious principles" of operation start to play a role in guiding the conduct of the members of a large-scale social environment, but, even, before we see the emergence of the "laws" of society, (the explicit formulation of such generalised principles of conduct), we see, that "notions and beliefs" began to play an essential role in the cohesion and guidance of the enlarging human societies. The point we want to emphasise, here, is the fact, that "the leadership" becomes much more complex in the larger societies of mankind, and, that a beneficial leadership function can only take place, if the leadership has an efficient bureaucracy at its disposal. Even so, every leadership will always need an efficient instrument to enforce laws and decrees, because we have not evolved, as yet, to the point, that we abide, completely voluntarily, by the laws of the social environment, and contribute, entirely of our own free will, to society, and the well being of us all. Yet a measure of good-will and cooperation is necessary for any sort of successful, large-scale leadership, and, this is the reason, why acceptable, fair and just laws are such an essential structure of each and every viable, large-scale social environment.

If fair and just laws disappear, or, if they become ineffective because of an inadequate re-enforcement, the level of frustration and resentment increases. A leadership has to rely, then, increasingly, upon the police, the law-enforcement agencies, or the military, in order to control the people and keep the leadership in power. On one side of this scale, we see the military dictatorships, where a leader feeds and equips an army in the midst of social chaos, poverty, exploitation, as well as many other conditions of serious injustice. In return for its services to the leadership, the army becomes a privileged and elitist institution in itself, isolating itself ever further from a majority of the common people in society.

On the other end of this sliding scale, we see such a degree of motivation on the part of all the members of society, that, nearly everyone feels satisfied with the level of justice and fair treatment under the law. Then, everyone will contribute willingly to the well-being of society, and the leadership is revered; the need for law-enforcement is minimal; there is a great deal of good-will and enthousiasm amongst the peoples, as well as the bureaucrats, and, this means, that government functions are carried-out honestly, efficiently, and without corruption.

However, such an ideal situation does not last long, and, invariably, resentment and disappoinment, corruption and elitism arise anew. Why this happens, has been discussed, on many occasions, and, we will, here, only re-iterate the conclusion, that man is always inclined to take a beneficial and high level of social well-being for granted. This means, that the expectations rise ever higher, but, the willingness to work hard and sacrifice, disappears. Invariably, the leadership makes mistakes, causing disappointment and promoting a tendency towards corruption and elitism. The relationships between people, with or without the abuse of an official position of power and privilege, sour quickly, and these mechanisms spoil the atmosphere of enthousiasm and good-will.

It is, indeed, very difficult to maintain an honest government that is supported by nearly everyone, and, to prevent it from crumbling into chaos and corruption. On the other hand, a military dictatorship and a reign of terror alienates so many people, that, eventually, a large majority has nothing more to lose, and will begin an armed struggle with the ruling authorities, regardless of the odds against which the common people have to fight.

Therefore, we see societies oscillate between these two extremes, but, as a rule, the situation does not reach either extreme. A society that becomes a ruthless reign of terror under some sort of military dictatorship, is, in essence, in its final stages, and, it will collapse; it will be overthrown or conquered from the outside. Ironically, the revolutionary over-throw of such a hated regime may give rise, for a few short generations, to a government of the other extreme, where people are enthousiastic and completely committed to the new Revolutionary Government, until the trend towards suppression and corruption starts, once again, its inexorable course.

Certainly, these swings and oscillations can be explained on the basis of our genetic heritage, as we have done on several occasions. Let us emphasise, here, the obvious fact, that, we, as members of a majority of common people, are obviously better off, if we have a say in our government, and, if we have a system of laws and guidelines ensuring a fair deal for everyone. However, we have to accept a certain responsibility for the task of maintaining such a beneficial form of government, and, we have the task, and the responsibility, of finding out why, we, invariably, fail in this long-term task of maintaining a fair, efficient, honest and benevolent leadership.

"Why", we have to aks ourselves, "is it inevitable, or, why does it seem inevitable, that such beneficial conditions do not last much longer than a few generations? Are we to blame ourselves for a slide towards conditions that are corrupt, belligerent and less beneficial for the peoples of society, or, does the blame lie, entirely, with incompetent and defective leaderships?" Indeed, it seems so difficult for man, especially, for those generations, born into well-being and social justice, to understand, clearly, what they have to do, or to avoid, in order to preserve these beneficial conditions. We all take, so easily, those beneficial conditions for granted, and, we squander our surplus energies, which are a direct result of the privileged conditions we have been born into, on bickering, hostilities, disputes and fights. These are all "activities of decay", until we are caught in a down-hill momentum and have become firmly set upon a road of suicidal warfare and large-scale destruction.

Here, we want to concentrate on the tasks that face us, the common, average workers in society, regardless, what sort of social environment we live in. Let us begin by having a good look at history. If we look at the history of our society, or, any other society, we become quickly caught-up in an endless series of "social depressions", where we are buffeted, again and again, by the winds of war; where we are sent, time and again, into the battle-fields to fight and destroy each other. Afterwards, the survivors have to start the long, arduous task of rebuilding what has been destroyed in a few clashes of intense armed conflict.

We have to learn to maintain and appreciate a steady state of well-being, and, we have to keep this element of appreciation for a condition of well-being, alive and well. Once we learn the dull, arduous and inconspicuous task of maintaining, carefully, a beneficial way of life, we may be able to absorb our surplus energies to such an extent, that we will not slide into a foolish squandering of energies. Once we know, precisely, what we have to do to maintain a condition of justice and well-being that is not based on some sort of an elitist position of privilege, we will be less prone to listen to belligerent and hostile leaders, who are invariably tempted to start, again, this battle of words, in preparation for the next act of warfare.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

A closer look at the mechanisms of social decay and polarisation.
Is it acceptable to lose nearly all the big cities and a majority of the population during a "nuclear exchange"?
A look at the contemporary arms-race, and the "ideological divide" between Communism and Free-Enterprise.
Is it impossible to design a set of Constitutional Guidelines, acceptable to a great majority of the people on either side of this pernicious ideological divide?
Conducting a dialogue over the heads of political and military leaders.
Too many common people still like their leaders to "talk tough".
The draw-backs of a professional army.
Most of us realise, vaguely, that we have to do more to stop the world from sliding into a fatal conflagration.
Coping with the inexorable trend towards increasing large-scale inter-dependence.
Why we are influenced by people, who live far beyond the horizon of familiarity.
We can solve local problems much easier, when we have learned to look at the world as a whole.
The importance of enlarging the sphere of our concerns.
The fragile attributes of concern and magnanimity.
We have to learn to control our instinctive drives.
An unfortunate blunting of the powers of imagination.
Let us look, closely and calmly, at the many examples of disastrous behaviour around us.
We all tend to believe, that we can escape and hide.
When we remain "sitting ducks", passively waiting, until disaster strikes.
The recurrent loss of life associated with major earth-quakes.

Let us analyse the statements at the end of the previous chapter a little more closely, because it seems somewhat frivolous to say, that a sense of gratitude and a certain amount of "maintenance work" to retain a position of well-being, are sufficient to avoid a process of social decay, as well as the mechanisms of polarisation. Yet, if we examine, closely, the build-up of polarising tensions and rivalries, we see, that a clash is rarely inevitable, and, that we are seldom dealing with desperate conditions that can not be solved, except by an armed struggle.

Do you believe, that the escalating arms-race between East and West is a matter of desperate survival for either side? The super-powers may think so, or, at least, those in a position of power may have convinced themselves, that they need, indeed, all these nuclear weapons to safeguard their security, and, that they would be vulnerable to a treacherous attack from the other side without such a ring of deadly armor. Indeed, these attitudes reveal the high level of suspicion that has arisen between the super-powers, and, it indicates, that, in all probability, these leaderships would, indeed, be tempted to make use of a weakness in their opponent and deal a fatal blow, if they had a chance to "get away with it". Perhaps, some leaderships are beginning to think, that it is acceptable to lose their big cities and two-thirds of the population, as long as the other side will be completely destroyed!

A close scrutiny of the attitudes of our leaders and the plans of the military elite, shows us, how dangerous it is to leave such monumental decisions as going to war, to generals and politicians, who may have become so warped in their thinking, that they are beginning to accept the devastating consequences of a nuclear war, as the price for "winning".

We have discussed, before, that, genuine leaders identify with the entire social unit under their jurisdiction, and, not only, with an elite. We see, clearly, how necessary it is for ordinary, common-sense citizens of the larger societies, to keep their leaderships from tearing suicidally into each other. Our leaderships may think, that they can afford to lose a large number of their members for the sake of destroying "the enemy", but such an attitude is pure madness to us, common people, and, we have a collective responsibility to make sure, that our leaderships behave sensibly and rationally, and, that they govern and lead for the benefit of the peoples in society, and not, to satisfy the interests of a small, exclusive elite that can hide in nuclear-proof bunkers.

Few common-sense people will be able to maintain, in all sincerity, that the arms-race between East and West, is a matter of life and death. Yet, a fairly large number of us still believe our leaders, on either side of the Iron Curtain, if they tell us, that they have to have all these weapons to safeguard themselves "from the other side". We, the peoples on both sides of this ideological divide, should realise, by now, that our leaders only fear each other. The ordinary people of either side do not fear each other. I am convinced, that the ordinary citizens on either side of the "great ideological divide" could get along quite well with each other. Therefore, it is time for us to call a halt to this belligerent posturing of our military and political leaderships, and, it is about time to work-out a rational compromise between the two social systems under which we live.

Would it really be so difficult to design a set of social or Constitutional Guidelines, which could be acceptable to a great majority on either side of this pernicious dividing line? Let us set-up a dialogue between the peoples of East and West, without any dogmatic, preconceived notions about the way society should function or evolve. Perhaps, we should conduct such a dialogue over the heads of our military and political leaderships, and, if we have worked-out a compromise Constitution, let us put these ideas before the peoples of East and West, and, let us have nation-wide referenda, or, even, a world-wide referendum about such a set of Constitutional Guidelines. Let us see, then, whether our leaders can defy the will of a global majority.

But, people, we are not that far as yet. Too many of us, common people, still identify with the belligerent stance of our leaders; too many people still fall for the lure of national pride, and the glory of the fatherland; too many of us still encourage our leaders "to be tough" and show "who is boss". We are tempted to fall for such attitudes, especially, if we do not have to do the fighting ourselves, because the country has a "professional army" that can be sent into battle and do the fighting for us.

If we send these professional soldiers, too often, into battle to sooth the wounded ego of the national leaderships and the belligerent attitudes of patriotic citizens, these soldiers will think twice about signing-up for a "life of security", because this life may, then, all too easily be ended, suddenly, by a bullet or a bomb. It is, indeed, an unusual situation, if ordinary citizens do not have to fight, anymore, in the defense of their country. It will be interesting to see, how long a professional military force will remain loyal to the whims of a political leadership that represents, increasingly, the interests of the rich.

Nevertheless, I believe, that the common people, who have to work hard to support themselves and their families, who pay their taxes and provide the backbone of strength for their society, are looking with horror at the ever increasing threat of nuclear warfare, which can be unleashed by a handful of anonymous military leaders. Most of us realise, vaguely, that we have to do more to stop the world from sliding into a fatal conflagration, but, the question is, what can we do, because we seem to be so hopelessly disunited and confused. This is the reason, why we have to build-up, first of all, a clear image of ourselves. We, the common workers of the world, regardless, where we are, and, under what sort of social or political system we live, we have to know, where we want to go, and, we have to know, how we can control our political and military leaders.

Can we identify with each other across national, cultural, or ideological and religious boundaries? We certainly can, and, let us not be ashamed to do so. Perhaps, your reaction, here, will be a sense of disbelief. Why is it necessary, you may ask, to be concerned with so many peoples we do not know, while we are unable to live peacefully and harmoniously with those in our immediate environment? Is it not a waste of time, as well as a futile, utopian attitude, to preach a brotherhood of all mankind, while we still look with suspicion and mistrust towards our neighbours?

Indeed, these are logical and legitimate questions, and, if we review the course of history in very broad terms, we see, that man never liked to enlarge the size of his social environment, or the sphere of his social concerns, much beyond the boundaries of the circle of familiarity. We have discussed the reasons why it is difficult to do so, and, we know, that it gives a feeling of abstractness and irrelevance to consider ourselves as a minute fragment in a large, social complex, but, we also know, that the circumstances have forced the members of mankind to live in ever larger social units. These larger units were forced by the changing conditions of existence to develop a number of regulating principles and administrative or executive tools, in order to obtain, at least, a measure of viability. This trend is continuing, whether we want it or not. We are becoming one giant family of mankind, whether we like it or not, and, we have to learn to live with this reality, if we want to survive.

The spread of contacts and communications between peoples and societies all over the world, means, that we know about each other. We know about the disparities in living standards, levels of education and social justice, regardless of the fact, whether or not we care about it. We are tied to each other, not only, by an exchange of information, but, also, by the exchange of goods and services, as well as the mechanisms of pollution and hazardous waste.

Our life-style, environment and viability are increasingly determined by peoples and happenings that lie far beyond the horizon of familiarity. This is the reason, why it is an illusion, if we give-in to the temptation to withdraw into this small sphere of familiarity. We can not solve, anymore, the problems of existence on such a small scale.

The fact, that we still have problems with our neighbours, does not mean, that we should, first, solve these problems, before we begin to look at the world around us. Actually, we will discover, that we can solve the local problems much easier, after we have learned to look at the world as a whole. Then, we may come to the conclusion, that our local differences are futile and insignificant in view of the larger problems and concerns we have to cope with.

If we, as feuding neighbours, learn to look at the larger world of human existence, we will discover an important field of common concerns and existential needs, and, we will become more aware of the shared conditions of privilege, which provide us with this wasteful luxury to be able to quarrel with each other.

Therefore, an enlargement of our sphere of concern has many important benefits, not only, for ourselves, in the form of a broadened outlook, but, also, for our fellow human beings, because, such an enlargement of the sphere of concern, must mean, that these spheres of reality perceptions and attitudes of concerns are going to overlap to a much larger extent. And, as the degree of congruence increases between the various spheres of concern, so are the insight and willingness going to increase to cooperate with each other.

What are the reasons, why this sphere of concern is so difficult to enlarge, and, even, if we are able to bring-about such a widening in the scope of vision, why are these broad insights and magnanimous attitudes such fragile attributes? What are the reasons for the tendency to revert to a narrow, egocentric view of the world?

Indeed, this broad outlook, coupled with an attitude of good-will towards others, even, if these people fall far beyond the sphere of personal knowledge and familiarity, is easily wounded, because it needs a great deal of security, physically as well as psychologically, in order to survive. Only, if we are stable and mature personalities, can we adopt such a broad perspective of the world of human existence.

Yet, we need more than a mere feeling of security. We need to have experienced turmoil, difficulties and bloodshed at close quarters. We must know about the bestial treatment man can inflict upon his own kind. We must know, how dignity and rights can be trampled under foot, and, how easily the members of the human species can be provoked into a savage, murderous and suicidal frame of mind. We must know, how strong the urge is to reach for the solution of armed conflict; to the point that we have no hesitation to kill or exterminate an opponent. We must know, how dangerous and unfair these attitudes are, and, how easily an unbridled application of this primitive solution to a conflict of interests, may lead to an unimaginable and unmanageable level of death and destruction. In short, we must be convinced, that we have to curb this mad drive to annihilate our opponents, and ourselves. We have to control our instinctive drives for the sake of long-term human viability and a further evolution of the possibilities of "intelligent life".

Indeed, if we are not aware of the dangers of man's tendency to fall into a behaviour of suicidal madness, the whole purpose of enlarging the sphere of our concern, will remain meaningless. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to impress on people the need for behavioural restraints, especially, if they have no first-hand knowledge of the disastrous consequences of unbridled behaviour.

Only the living survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima know, what it means to have been subjected to a nuclear explosion, and, only a small minority of the living members of mankind have experienced the horrors of combat with modern weapons. It is logical, therefore, that, for most of us, the dangers of an all-out nuclear warfare, or, a warfare with modern chemical and biological weapons, remains an unimaginable horror-story.

Unfortunately, the impact of our imagination has been blunted, even further, because, numerous science-fiction movies and other exploits of our desire to "wallow in horror" have blurred the differences between fiction and reality.

Yet, most of us can learn about the disastrous consequences of ruthless human behaviour. If we look around us, we can see many examples where unbridled, unregulated, or uncontroled human behaviour causes great damage. Let us look, closely, at the scenes of violence which the news-media are bringing us, every day, and, let us realistically imagine the emotions and experiences of people who have been caught-up in turmoil and acts of warfare. Let us look at a gang of youths who have escaped from social control mechanisms and vandalise or brutalise their social environment. Let us look at the depressing examples of corruption and mismanagement that occur, if a part of the bureaucracy escapes from controling checks and balances. Look at the business of organised crime in the affluent societies, or, the blatant exploitation of a position of power in many lesser developed societies. It is not difficult to extrapolate from all these examples of unbridled and unregulated behaviour, the disastrous consequences of an all out war on a world-wide scale.

I know, we all have the tendency to believe, that, we can escape and hide, because, we can not imagine the horrors we have to suffer through, if we ever would become a victim of violent, criminal or unscrupulous behaviour. Our minds can not cope with too vivid an imagery, what it would be like to become a victim and die a hopeless, miserable and futile death, just because we happened to be in the way of a number of fighting or corrupt individuals.

Just, because of the fact, that these horrors and miseries are so difficult to cope with, or digest psychologically, we reject these images. We reject the promptings to think and reflect about the ultimate horror or catastrophe, which, we, and all the people around us, could be subjected to, because we do not know how to cope with these images. Yet, by rejecting, we solve nothing, and, we remain "sitting ducks", passively waiting till disaster strikes.

I am amazed about the fact, that earth-quakes in some earth-quake prone areas of the world, repeatedly exact a heavy toll in casualties. People and their governments know, that, within a few years or a few decades, another major quake will strike, and, they know, that, once again, many thousands of people will be buried alive, crushed to death, or suffocate in a futile struggle to survive, after they have been buried under the rubble of their dwellings.

People, and their leaderships, know, that these dwellings are unsuitable for the geographic conditions of the area. Would it not be possible to construct dwellings that could endure, much better, a major quake, and, if these buildings are damaged in a quake, could they not be made to stand long enough to give the inhabitants a chance to get-out? Of course, this can be done, but the overwhelming poverty and ignorance of the people, as well as the callous unconcern of their own goverments, result in a rebuilding of the same mud and brick structures that are, once again, going to bury thousands of innocent victims during the next major quake.

We can avoid nearly all disasters, be it natural or man-made, but, we have to have the energy, the tenacity, and the willingness, to analyse, in detail, and without fear and hesitation, where the gravest and greatest dangers are coming from, and, what we have to do to avoid and avert these dangers. Sometimes, the conclusions are so drastic, and, the implementation seems to be so far out of reach, that we get discouraged and do nothing; at least, we do not enough, to solve the problems definitively.

Do you think that these people in their brick and mud houses do not know, that these building are death-traps? Of course they know, but, what can they do? They have nowhere to go, and, there are not enough building-materials to make a safe dwelling for everyone. As a result, people become apathetic and resigned to fate. Perhaps, an occasional individual will work hard and will make a great effort to build a safer house. Perhaps, his efforts will be rewarded, and his family will be spared death, when the next earth-quake strikes.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The dangers of ignorance and neglect also apply to the ever-escalating stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons.
We all can be driven into an attitude of suicidal madness.
We have no psychological defense against the imagery of a nuclear catastrophe.
Changing the course of history through the powers of a coherent Public Opinion on a global scale.
We are now able to sketch a set of viable attitudes for world-wide cooperation.
The evolution of the human personality.
A mix of contradictory trends that leaves us poorly prepared for living in large-scale social units.
How ethical codes of conduct come into being.
Mechanisms of inter-dependence, which extend well beyond the limits of the sphere of familiarity.
Cultivating an atittude of loyalty towards a society of global dimensions.
A shift towards the common enemy of pollution and environmental deterioration.
Such a shift in attitudes will, probably, have to be forced upon us by deteriorating terrestial conditions.
The idea of a globally integrated social environment is gaining ground.
Why we, ordinary people, have a great advantage over our national leaders.
Where do we get the authority to enforce a global standard of justice?
How do we create the means to teach, systematically, the principles of a global ethic?
The common peoples of the world will have to pressure their national leaderships into transferring powers to an efficient, supra-national form of government.

The dangers of ignorance and neglect apply, also, to the ever increasing stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons. It is unavoidable, that, sooner or later, some of these weapons will come into the hands of mad and suicidal people, who may be deliberately dragging the entire world, including the species of mankind, into a state of annihilation. We know, now, enough about the psychological make-up of man to realise, that, even, normally sane and balanced people can be driven into an attitude of suicidal madness. Yet, we are resigned and apathetic, just like the people, who were passively waiting for the next earth-quake to strike.

There is little we can do about it, and, we tend to believe those, who tell us, that we need more and more weapons to make sure, that they are never going to be used. Or, we believe those, who tell us, that it is nonsense that the whole of humanity will perish in a nuclear war. We all identify with the small fragment that may survive the initial holocaust, and we imagine ourselves to be builders again, in an environment that will, then, be less dangerous, because these weapons will have been "used-up" during the war.

We have no psychological defense against the imagery of a nuclear catastrophe, and, therefore, we try to escape from these thoughts, and, we suppress them. We escape by imagining to belong to the survivors, and, we believe every indication, that we may, indeed, belong to this privileged minority that may escape immediate death. Or, if we can not escape in this way, we reject, resolutely, to think about such a calamity. What is the use thinking about it, if we can not avert or avoid such a catastrophe?

Yet, are we really helpless? Is it really impossible to destroy all these lethal weapons in a safe and non violent manner; as the result of a collective, voluntary decision of our conscious will? Public opinion on a world-wide scale is getting stronger all the time, and, as soon as sufficient people have found a coherent and articulate voice to make-known their deep concerns about the present trends, (such as the increasing polarisations between East and West and the immoral neglect of the many conditions of disparity and injustice), we will be able to change the course of history through a concerted act of Public Opinion. It would be the first time in history, that man's destiny would be determined by a collective act of our will, rather than by an involuntary accumulation of emotional attitudes and instinctive drives.

Such a concerted act of Public Opinion would, indeed, be a mile-stone, because the course of history has, nearly always, been determined by a series of causes and their effects, ending with an armed conflict as the solution to the rising and increasingly unmanageable level of tension and mistrust. If enough people, all over the world, learn to see, how dangerous it is to let the outcome of a tug-of-war between antagonistic forces be determined by a process of warfare, then, we may have given ourselves a little more time. We may, then, continue to exist, a little longer, as an intelligent species that owed its initial success to a remarkable increase in the level of aggression and ferocity; as a species, which learned, in time, that its long-term viability rested on the collective ability to curb these same instinctive drives, and replace the solution of violent combat with the solution of global socialisation.

This is the reason, people, why it is so important to accept to idea, that we have to enlarge the sphere of our concerns, far beyond the boundaries of our immediate environment, or, even, beyond the national borders of the political entity we belong to. Now, we can sketch a set of viable attitudes for common people all over the world; attitudes, that apply to our relationships between each other, as well as our relationships with the many different leaders in our complex societies. Let us sketch the "attitudes of life", in contrast to the "attitudes of suicide".

When our ancestors still lived in small nomadic groupings, which fought fiercely with each other for the available lands and remaining animal herds, we can imagine, quite easily, how a serious internal quarrel would weaken a particular social unit severely; perhaps, even, to the point, that the existence of all the members was placed in jeopardy. Therefore, as we have argued before, these nomadic groupings would survive, and function the best, whenever the internal relationships were functioning smoothly. This meant, that the most viable mix of behavioural attitudes, (shaped by many millions of years of evolutionary pressures upon the small social units of the species of mankind), was a ferocious, courageous, intelligent and coordinated attack upon, or defense against, other groupings, together with a caring, compassionate, cooperative attitude amongst the members of the same grouping.

We still see, how these contrasting attitudes are encouraged and revered by social groupings all over the world, and, such a mix is enshrined as virtuous, exemplary, or inspiring behaviour by the ethical codes of every society, irrespective of the specifics of the prevailing belief structures. Cowardice in the face of a threat from the outside, as well as treacherous, belligerent or uncooperative attitudes towards the members of the same grouping, (and, in particular, towards the "authorities"), are considered "evil", despicable and anti-social. At the same time, the attitudes of courage and strength when dealing with adversity or adversaries, together with an attitude of compassionate helpfulness towards the members of one's own grouping, are highly valued in any social structure. As we have argued before, the ethical code of behaviour has always been formulated around the existential requirements of a social, ethnic or cultural grouping.

When the social groupings became larger, a curious difficulty arose for the members of such an enlarging social unit. On the one hand, the "political unit", and, therefore, the unit that was supposed to work together and tolerate each other, became much larger than could be "encompassed", or known, by a single member. As a result, the sphere of familiarity or immediate identification remained, always, a lot smaller than the political unit a member belonged to, but, the teachings of the authorities, and, especially, the pressures upon behavioural conduct, exerted by a variety of sanctions, led to a grudging acceptance of this larger social entity.

This acceptance was, often, given rather reluctantly, and, the tolerance between the sub-groupings within a large political unit, was often limited, leading to open manifestations of friction and strife, as soon as the authorities of the political unit would slacken-off their efforts to impose a cohesion upon their "empire". This process found, perhaps, its most striking expression in the fierce, patriotic feelings a citizen would feel for "his country", in spite of the fact, that there would be many millions of peoples within this patriotic unit, who were complete strangers to each other.

If we think about it, we see, that the ability to identify with a unit that is much larger than the sphere of familiarity, is a remarkable accomplishment, and, at the same time, it shows us, that there is no serious theoretical or practical objection to the thesis, that it is quite possible for people to develop these same "patriotic feelings" for a society of global dimensions.

I agree, that a long period of teaching or, even, indoctrination would be necessary, before people could feel this way, and, we see, also, that the identification with a national or political entity only takes place, if this national political leadership is strong and spends a lot of time and effort teaching its citizens a proper form of patriotic behaviour. Besides, the patriotism of devoted citizens is, often, galvanised against a common threat or "enemy". We have to learn to shift the focus of this common enemy from another social unit to the dangers of pollution and the man-made threat of extinction.

Therefore, it is, indeed, difficult to imagine, that people would extend, spontaneously, their sphere of identification to a multi-national or global unit. First of all, there is no authoritative body to teach such an attitude, and, there are a number of strong political units, which behave just like the competitive, small nomadic groupings of the past. These leaderships still advocate a fearless, courageous and belligerent, or, even, ferocious attitude towards "their enemies", and, at the same time, there are always interminable exhortations to cooperate and sacrifice for the common good of the national entity.

Yet, a significant number of intelligent citizens are able to shape their attitudes on the basis of their own insights, or, on the basis of teachings and ideas they have picked-up, here and there, outside the "official channels". The idea is gaining ground, that the political entities of today should, eventually, merge into a global society, where all the peoples share a way of life that fulfills the basic needs and aspirations of human existence.

Just as people have learned, throughout the history of mankind, that, individual security and the rights of human existence have to be found in a social contract that is being implemented on an ever enlarging scale, so are many peoples in the world of today, in many different national entities, coming to the conclusion, that security and dignity have to be found in a world-wide contract of social justice and essential equality. Just as people have learned to cooperate within their social and political units, (often "forced" or, at least, strongly encouraged by their national or political leaderhips), so are these same people beginning to realise, that the diverging social and political leaderships should also behave and relate to each other according to the principles of a generally accepted social contract.

More and more people are looking beyond national boundaries, as well as beyond the confines of religious, political, ethnic or ideological interests. People are beginning to realise, that we are all the same, at least, in essence, and, that we are all agreeable, at least, in principle, to share the resources and the burdens of existence from a position of essential equality.

We, ordinary people, have a great advantage, here, over our leaders, because we, as followers, are people, who have adhered, all our lives, to a contract of social relationships with the other members of our social environment. Our leaders, however, are often strongly dominant and egocentric personalities. They have a well-developed sense of loyalty to the peoples of their own social unit, or the political entity they belong to, but, as soon as they occupy the top position in a social or political entity, they seem to be unable to see themselves, and their colleagues in other, neighbouring or distant political entities, as members of an even larger, international community.

Certainly, at times, they use, freely, the concepts of an international community, if it suits their nationalistic or personal purposes. However, as long as there is no strong authority that can "force" national leaderships to behave ethically in relation to each other, and to abide by a social contract of essential equality amongst the peoples of the world, we see, that the idea of an international community remains a captive pawn in the struggle for power and dominance beween strong, and, sometimes, ruthless political leaderships.

"Where are we going to get such an authority to enforce a global ethic, and teach, systematically, the need for such an ethic of international behaviour?", you will ask. Indeed, it seems unlikely, that one particular national or political entity will be strong or wise enough to "impose" its will upon all the others, and create, thereby, an effective world-empire, where it can become the final authority for all of mankind.

The destructiveness of modern weaponry, as well as the all-out combat that seems unavoidable with such an approach, make this route impossible. Therefore, the struggle for the creation of a global society of mankind will have to take place through the spread of ideas and ideals. No weapon-system, or curtain of cultural isolation, can stop the spread of an appealing idea, such as the concept of a social contract of essential equality on a global scale.

If sufficient people can see through the nationalistic and ideological propaganda of one camp or another, then, we may, eventually, be able to lower the level of mutual suspicion far enough to begin a genuine dialogue with each other; a dialogue. with the purpose to understand and cooperate with each other, because, only then, can we can begin to create dignified living conditions for every member of mankind.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

I do not apologize for my beliefs.
Being convinced of the need to become a citizen of the world.
The same commonly accepted criteria of socially responsible behaviour apply in the large-scale as well as the small social entity.
We do not limit the sphere of concern to a specific national entity.
Ethical considerations have grown-up around the existential requirements of a specific social entity.
Recognising the "socio-centric" nature of motivations and attitudes.
Socio-centricity and ego-centricity.
What it means to "behave for the common good".
Is it possible to identify with a much larger social entity?
The need for a period of thorough education.
A natural tendency to limit the sphere of our concerns to our immediate surroundings.
We need a sophisticated interpretation of human nature.
The apparent "treachery" of an encompassing approach to conflict-situations.
A globalistic approach is rarely appreciated as an act of courage and wisdom.
When it is too late to teach the principles of a global concern.
Leaving room for manoeuvering behind bellicose rethoric.
The instruments of the judicial inquiry and settlement.
The persuasiveness of competence and impartiality.
A task for the International Court of Justice.
A series of thorough, well balanced and fearless analyses of contemporary conflicts, set in a broadly based, historical and philosophical background.
The objectives and methods of globalism are a logical extention of past developments.
Why we are so easily confused and discouraged.
The temptation to galvanise quarreling citizens with the issues of national security or pride.
It is difficult to get a good grasp over a complex, affluent society.
We, ordinary people, can not relax and rely upon the "society as a whole".
Are affluent societies "rotton to the core" through wide-spread crime and corruption?

I do not apologize for my belief in a global society of mankind, because I see it as the only rational alternative to a suicidal confrontation by competing super-powers and conflicting ideologies. I hope, that I have explained, adequately, the reasons, why it is so important, that, we, common members of our national units, should start to identify with each other on a global scale, across national, political, ideological, cultural and religious boundaries. Let us, now, try to answer the question, what this means in terms of practical attitudes and activities.

I assume, that you have been convinced of the need to become a citizen of the world, and, that you agree with the statement, that we have to work towards a global integration of existing political and national entities. What does this mean in terms of practical policies and goal-patterns? In many ways, the practical behaviour-patterns and attitudes do not differ from the commonly accepted goals of socially responsible behaviour. For example, there is the same emphasis upon honesty and decency in dealing with people, and, the same condemnation of deceit, treachery and other disruptive attitudes will guide a globalistic approach to the problems of living together.

The main differences lie in our attitudes towards individuals and groupings outside the sphere of immediate familiarity, or national and ethnic unity. The sphere of identification or ethical concern for our particular social grouping does not extend beyond national, cultural, religious or political boundaries, and, therefore, the behavioural guidelines of our culture and the exhortations of our leaders, may generate a hostile and belligerent attitude towards those "alien", exploitative, treacherous or "barbarian" nations, peoples, ideologies or religions, which fall outside our particular culture, and, which are perceived as a severe threat to our collective existence.

As we have discussed before, the ethics of our society are centered around the well-being of this society, and, if this society is threatenend, or, if it is perceived to be threatened, there is a strong activation of the "socio-centric" motivations and attitudes. All exhortations to come to the defense of the fatherland, the ethnic grouping, the religious or political entity upon which our security rests, are comparable to the stimulation of the basic egocentric anxieties that are aroused, when the security of an individual is threatened.

If we, as individuals belong to a small group that is often put under severe pressures, it is logical to see, that the level of exhortation and the pressures upon the members to behave "for the common good" of this small grouping, are high, and, it is logical, that these pressures can over-ride the primary existential concerns of an individual. This is the psychological background of the self-sacrificing, fanatical behaviour of small groups. Of course, these mechanisms are not perceived by these members in such a dispassionate and distanced manner, but, the mechanisms of psychological pressures and the over-riding of primary individual concerns, are there, and, they are based upon an attitude of total commitment to some sort of an absolute truth.

There is a strong and natural tendency for people to identify themselves with a fairly small but intensely believing group of people, because there are many circumstances, where we experience, indeed, that our primary security rests on this small group.

However, in times of relative prosperity, widening commercial and cultural contacts, extensive travel, and a more affluent way of life, it is, indeed, possible to identify more with the larger political unit, or "empire", which makes this increased contact between highly divergent groupings and cultures possible in the first place, and, perhaps, even, fruitful. Then, we will experience any challenge to the security of this enlarged political unit as a threat to our own way of life, and, here, we see the basic reason for the attitude of "patriotism".

As we have discussed before, this attitude of a patriotic identification with a large political unit as a whole, requires a long period of indoctrination, supported by a long experience of well-being within a large political unit, before people become, indeed, convinced that it is meaningful to identify with such a large entity. Nevertheless, the feelings of suspicion, or, the experiences of treachery, remain close to the surface, and, we see these internal tensions between divergent peoples erupt, time and again, regardless of the fact, that an enlightened and efficient leadership and its bureaucratic institutions, are constantly watching for such internal tensions, anxious to defuse them before they become a serious problem.

We all have a natural tendency to revert to a smaller sphere of social, cultural, ethnical as well as ethical identification, and, it is so easy to consider other sections of the larger political unit, as hostile, untrustworthy aliens. This is the reason, why it is so exceedingly difficult to extend this sphere of identification even further, beyond the boundaries of the large, contemporary political units.

The difficulties lie, not only, in the fact, that it requires a broad and sophisticated interpretation of man's existence and essential requirements, but, such an enlargement of the sphere of identification is looked-upon with suspicion by the leadership and the patriotic members of these political units. This is logical, because such an enlargement of the sphere of identifiation means, that people begin to resist the exhortations for a patriotic or socio-centric stance.

In stead of letting ourselves be goaded towards a synchronisation of belligerent and hostile attitudes towards the adversaries of our particular political unit, the attitude of globalism leads to an effort to bring-out the arguments and view-points of our adversaries, and, during a period of increasing tensions and hostilities, such a "mediating" or encompassing approach is easily interpreted by the patriotic leaderships and their followers, as "treachery" or "sedition".

We all know, that such a refusal to participate in a strongly belligerent attitude towards our national adversaries may, indeed, endanger the security of our society, at least, in the immediate future. It does not take long for the attitudes of suspicion, mistrust and dislike to emerge, because, such an unpatriotic, globalistic attitude is interpreted as "sympathising with the enemy", and, it leads quickly to persecution, internment, or, even, death.

A globalistic approach towards the problems of international or inter-religious and inter-political tensions, is rarely appreciated as an act of courage and wisdom, and, it is too late to try to advocate such a compromising approach, once the process of polarisation has been completed. However, if the reasons for a globalistic approach are clearly and patiently explained, before the sphere of belligerence has swept the people into a war-hysteria, then, a fair number of people may be influenced, and, it is possible, that, even, the leadership will try to resist the slide of the nation into a belligerent and uncompromising attitude.

It is not difficult to see, how the atmosphere of "feeling good", the euphoria that accompanies a general attitude of belligerence towards our adversaries, is paid-for with the devastations of warfare. The price of war is high, but, as we have seen, before, the dead, the wounded and the crippled are soon forgotten, and, after the energies of making war have been spent and have brought-about a general "sobering of the mind", we see, that the younger generations can, then, channel all their energies towards building-up what has been destroyed. Then, the stage is slowly being set for the next confrontation.

The attitudes and goal-patterns of the "globalists" differ, therefore, from the "patriots", primarily, in the way they want to solve a conflict-situation. Certainly, on occasion, it becomes totally unavoidable to go to war, in particular, if our adversaries are completely uncompromising and seek to destroy and annihilate us. Yet, even, behind such bellicose rethoric, we often see room for serious negotiations and a reasonable compromise, in particular, if we recognise, that such uncompromising talk may be, in part, a play upon the emotions of rather unsophisticated supporters, while, on the other hand, such a hostile stance may be a cry to be heard; a cry for a wrong to be righted.

Globalists tend to refer, again and again, to the beneficial examples of a judicial settlement. Here, a stronger, impartial power listens, patiently, to the arguments of both sides in a dispute; it listens and examines, carefully, all the evidence that is brought to the fore; it tries to correct a situation of injustice according to the commonly accepted rules of justice, and, in most cases, the belligerent parties can feel, that they have had a fair hearing.

Even, if the parties are not entirely satisfied with the process of justice, it should not be too difficult to see, that the process of settling a dispute according to fair and impartial rules of justice, is far less destructive than settling a conflict with brute force. Yet, we seem to forget these conclusions so easily, and, of course, we are still greatly handicapped by the fact, that we do not have a globally accepted system of justice that is able to guide the investigation and judgement of large-scale disputes in a thorough, fair and impartial manner.

Even, if we agree amongst ourselves, that it will be difficult for such a process of global justice to enforce its decisions, (because, after all, who is going to police the behaviour of the super-powers), it should be possible, by patient dialogue and study, to build-up, first of all, a comprehensive set of international behavioural guidelines that make it possible to carry-out an impartial investigation and come to a balanced judgement. If it would ever be possible to formulate such a set of guidelines, free from the tensions of polarised opinions that exist in the ideological struggle between East and West, such an International Court could start to build-up a certain prestige and aura of impartiality. The idea of an international Court of Justice has already led to the institution of the International Court of Justice in the Hague, the Netherlands, but this institution seems to be in a state of paralysis and disarray, because there seems to be a sense of futility in making pronouncements nobody is going to adhere-to.

Therefore, it would be much more fruitful, if such a Court of International Justice would, first, spend its time and energies formulating a comprehensive set of philosophical guidelines for the definition of justice and fairness in international events, as well as in the events of confrontation between combatants or political opponents within a national entity. Then, such an Instutition should start to make pronouncements on a large number of events, regardless of the fact, whether or not a particular problem has been brought before it. In this way, a thorough, well-balanced and a fearless analysis of contemporary events, set in a broad historical and philosophical background, may, eventually, gain recognition and influence, promoting a slow political and attitudinal shift towards the ideals of international harmony.

In essence, the same choices come back to haunt us, again and again. Do we solve the problems of conflicts of interest by the force of arms, or, by the mechanisms of social justice and essential equality? We have already learned to enlarge the size of the social unit to gigantic proportions, as we see in the existence of relative smoothly functioning federations, which contain up to a thousand million people. This process of enlargement is still going-on, and, it is being made more urgent, because the activities of warfare are getting more devastating all the time.

The goals and approaches of globalism are a logical extention of past developments, and, they bring no new element of behaviour to the fore, except for the realisation, that the "social solution", which was so successful in uniting diverse ethnic elements into a proud nation, has to be applied, also, to the conflicts between these proud, independent and sovereign nations. In all other aspects, the attitudes and virtues of globalism are exactly the same as those of a contributory member in any healthy and sensible social unit.

Let us, therefore, go back to the average, common citizens in their societies, and, let us review the many contradictory influences and pressures these citizens are subjected to. Let us acknowledge, how easy it is to become confused, exploited, taken advantage of, and, how easy it is to become a cynical, embittered and negative, or, at least, unproductive member of society, especially, in the more chaotic, amorphous, affluent societies.

The crux of the matter lies, indeed, in the fact, that it is so difficult to identify with "the society as a whole", whenever the sense of well-being is being undermined for a majority of the people. The sense of unity disappears, unless these citizens are galvanised into an attitude of patriotic fervor by their nationalistic leaderships. If there is no "national threat", these citizens revert to an attitude of competitive strife amongst themselves, and, this confusing, chaotic and constant bickering of the various social factions is a burden, a stress, as well as a constant headache, for the leadership, in particular, if this leadership has been chosen by a democratic process, and, if the leadership candidates have to go through a similar process of fighting, bickering, arguing and promising, before they have a chance to occupy the seat of political power and prestige.

No wonder, that, most leaderships, even, those, which have gained access to power by legal, democratic means, are tempted to divert the attention of their quarreling citizens by raising the issue of "national security", or, as a more aggressive form of galvanising public opinion, the issue of "national pride".

Every time I think about the complex affluent society as an "entity in principle", (as an abstract entity that embodies the main features of the affluent Western societies), I am forced to admit, that it is very difficult to get an accurate grip upon it. There are so many features that are degenerate, despicable, weakening, threatening, disappointing and disillusioning, that it is easy to forget about the more positive influences and efforts that are being made by people, who also live and work in these affluent societies. For example, we can easily become absorbed by the manifestations of the world of crime, especially, of organised, opportunistic crime; the crime of exploitation and callous unconcern, the crime of neglect and carelessness, or, the crime of ruthless commercial exploitation. People's earnings, attitudes, emotions and sentiments, drives and desires, wishes and dreams, in short, every possible angle of human existence is most balatantly exploited in the affluent, free-enterprise societies.

If we concentrate on these aspects, we must come to the conclusion, that these affluent societies are rotten to the core, and can not last much longer. Yet, they still exist, and, these same affluent societies also show, here and there, activities that reflect an attitude of decency; of responsibility and sensitivity; of compassionate concern and mutual respect; of energetic and innovative activities, which seem to give a surprising degree of tenacity and flexibility to these contradictory conglomerates of affluent existence.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Analysing the contradictory aspects of chaotic, affluent societies.
Nearly every activity can be beneficial or harmful to a social environment.
The value of carefully worked-out Constitutional Guidelines.
Defining harm and benefit for the social environment.
Distinguishing between harmful and beneficial attitudes and practices.
A number of examples.
The harm and benefit of economic free-enterprise.
An accentuation between succes and failure.
The "game".
The mechanisms of competitive strife within a social unit tend to destroy the mechanisms of social cohesion.
The trend to replace the hierarchical order with a "social contract".
How to control competitive strife and harnass its beneficial aspects.
A temporary leadership and participation in social functions.
The results of economic success are life-long, and become, often, an inherited privilege.
A measure of competitive strife is useful for achieving intellectual, artistic, economic or innovative excellence.
Mechanisms of cultural differentiation.
The factor of "cultural complexity".
The art of manipulating mental images, perceptions and beliefs.

When trying to analyse the contradictory aspects of the chaotic, affluent societies, it always becomes apparent, that the same activities, drives, incentives and attitudes can easily slide between the poles of benefit and harm. For example, Faith, the religious reality perception, can be an up-lifting and courageous experience, and, it may be the backbone for a responsible and compassionate attitude towards others, (obviously, a benefit to society), but it can also become a defensive, egocentric, narrow-minded and elitist attitude that is socially fragmenting. It may, even, become a highly dangerous attitude, if Faith becomes a fanatic belief, where it is thought that God's Will is being carried-out through acts of violence against those, who are considered to be "God's Enemies".

The inquisitiveness of an active mind can be a beneficial force for society, if it leads to improvements in the standard of living for everyone, but, if the cleverness of insight and the hard work of innovativeness become tools in an obsessive drive to "make money", gather assets, become rich and powerful, the processes of inquisitiveness and acquisitiveness become, quickly, highly disruptive and polarising factors.

The need to make a living stimulates a strong competitive drive in affluent, free-enterprise societies, and, if people's activities are carefully regulated in an open society, where everyone has about an equal chance to succeed, we see, indeed, a stimulating, or, even, exciting atmosphere, which can be to the benefit of the entire social environment. However, this same attitude of restlessness and the glorification of a "personal initiative", can easily slide into criminal activities.

In short, nearly all activities can be socially beneficial, but, they may also lead to chaos and decay. It all depends upon the regulatory mechanisms that are operative in society, as well as the channels into which this cauldron of human activities is being led. Here, we see the true value of leadership, and, we have argued, on many occasions, that the large and complex society, even, long before it reaches the cumbersome dimensions of our contemporary political entities, needs a set of detailed and carefully worked-out Constitutional Guidelines, in order to channel the activities of ordinary people and leaders alike.

No wonder, that each and every citizen, including those in a position of responsibility and power, can so easily become exploited and hurt. Each and everyone of us is vulnerable to abuse and injustice, as soon as the rules and regulations of society are not enforced, any longer, with precision and scrupulous impartiality. Then, the processes of corruption begin their inexorable course, and, people's attitudes become stridently egocentric, resulting in a steady erosion of good-will and trust.

Certainly, in this description, we touch upon two major problems. There is the problem, how to make a clear practical distinction between socially beneficial and socially detrimental activities. Then, there is the theoretical problem of defining harm and benefit to the social environment and an individual, and, we have to define, also, the somewhat contrasting needs of the individual and his society. However, let us begin by acknowledging, that it is possible to get a grip upon this confusion by stating, that, each and every attitude, as well as each and every behavioural activity, can lead to contradictory effects. The effects are contradictory for the well-being of the social grouping, (at the various levels social groupings may happen to exist), as well as contradictory for the well-being of the individual.

Let us review, in the final part of this essay, a number of examples, where we can clearly see, how the same attitude or behavioural act can work to the betterment, or to the detriment, of an individual and his social environment. Let us concentrate, first of all, on the field of economic activities within the framework of free-enterprise. Then, we will examine the field of religious beliefs and charitable attitudes. Following this, we should review the wide field of feelings, emotions, drives, desires and dreams, as well as the possibilities for their exploitation. Finally, we should have a close look at the concepts and attitudes of loyalty and patriotism, as well as the field of human freedoms and rights.

Everywhere, we see a fine line, and, often, a distressingly vague distinction between beneficial and harmful effects; for society as well as the individual. For example, the theory of free-enterprise predicts, so nicely, the beneficial effects for everyone, if a number of people are left free to follow their initiatives and compete with each other for the favours of the buying public. This competition leads to the most efficient way of producing a product, or, providing a service, and, the consumer gets the best value for his money. Similarly, the competition for available jobs in the manufacturing plants, leads to the best possible labour-skills for the most reasonable price; a bonanza for the manufacturers, which will ultimately be passed-on to the consumer, according to the theory of free-enterprise.

It sounds so good, and, one gets the impression that it has to lead to an economic paradise, where everyone works hard and efficiently, and can do wonders with the money that has been earned. Yet, we all know, that, in reality, the picture is completely different. In stead of an economic paradise, we see a social night-mare, with heart-breaking examples of oppression and injustice, exploitation and poverty, especially, in city slums.

We have no time, here, to explain, in detail, why the theory of free-enterprise fails so miserably, except, when a number of stringent rules and regulations are applied, or, when a set of peculiar circumstances happen to be present, which delay, but do not prevent, the manifestations of a polarisation between the rich and the poor. As we have explained before, this polarisation always takes place as the result of an unregulated, free-enterprise process. The crux of the matter lies in the fact, that, any form of competitive strife, be it economically, in a free-enterprise society, or in nature, in the ruthless struggle for existence, the competitors are quickly divided into winners and losers. The winners grow bigger and more powerful, and, in nature, this translates into an increased population density for a successful species, while the losers get weaker. They become slaves or economic vassals of the rich land-owners or manufacturers, while the losers in nature often lose their life, (as the prey of a predator), and eliminate themselves as a problem and a target for chronic exploitation.

Even, in a game, we see the same polarisation or division between winners and losers, but, the essence of a game lies in the fact, that, winners and losers return, again, to a position of equality, after the game is over. Certainly, the return to equality after a game is not absolute. The winner remains a winner, and, as a rule, he or she gains in popularity and prestige, but, before the commercialisation of the sports, such as we see in our contemporary, affluent societies, the participants' financial situation or existential security was not altered significantly as the result of a win or a loss in a game.

The point we want to emphasise, here, is the fact, that the mechanisms of competitive strife within a social unit tend to destroy the principles of the tacit agreement of essential equality, which replaced the cumbersome process of hierarchical differentiation in the much larger social units. We have discussed, on several occasions, how, and why, the hierarchical stratification became a severe burden in the larger society, and, why there was a universal trend, in every civilisation, to replace the hierarchical order with a "social contract" of essential equality. Under such a social contract, the large majority of the members would be placed on an equal footing, and this principle of operation was expressed in the emergence of "laws", or principles of justice, which found their strength, precisely, because these laws or principles treated everyone the same. The processes of competitive strife, which are never far from the surface, tend to bring back the hierachical order. They tend to destroy the principles of essential equality and divide, once again, the social environment into winners and losers.

Whithin a social context, even, if it is a rather loose and tentative one, the losers are not eliminated, as is so often the case in nature, but, they remain as impoverished, dependent and weak members of society, and, they become vulnerable to continued exploitation. This was made abundantly clear by the developments that took place during the "Industrial Revolution", but, throughout the societies of recorded history, there was always a tendency for a population to become divided into layers or classes, where the upper and more powerful layers would dominate and exploit the lower classes. These phenomena are so persistent, and they recur so regularly, that they are accepted as "normal", or, at least, as an inalienable part of "human nature". This is, of course, in essence correct, but, now, we can see, a little more clearly, what sort of mechanisms are at work.

We have a better insight into what is happening, and, we can see, now, that there is always this struggle taking place between those subconscious social forces, supported by the conscious efforts of far-sighted leaders, which restore or create the conditions of an essential social equality, or a "social contract", and those forces, primarily, those of competitive strife, which tend to destroy this fragile balance of social equality and re-introduce the elements of hierarchical differentiation, or social stratification.

It is interesting to note, that a controled measure of competitive strife, such as in a game, can be exhilariting and invigorating, as long as the rules and regulations are shaped in such a way, that everyone gets an equal opportunity at the start, the participants are more or less equally matched, and, the conditions of essential equality are returned to, after the regulated game of competitive strife, is over. This gives the losers another chance, some other time, and, it stimulates the development of talents and the exploration of possibilities of existence. If the losers remain in a vulnerable and socially inferior position, they become immediately vulnerable to exploitation. This would be comparable to a situation, where the losers in a competitive game of sports, would have to run errands or carry-out serivces for the winners, in perpetuity.

Unfortunately, the competitive game of free-enterprise is expressed in the uneven accumulation of assets, and, since assets or a substantial financial income represent a powerful tool to buy a luxurious life-style, health and relaxation, education and influence, money tends to make more money, while those, who lose-out in the competitive game of free-enterprise, have to trade precious time, as well as their physical strength, in return for meagre earnings from a rich and powerful employer, who often, takes these earnings right back, because he sells lodging, food and other facilities or services to his employees.

Unless a constant effort is made to re-distribute income and give everyone a share of the wealth and property created by industrial and economic activities, we see, invariably, that, all wealth and power gravitates into the hands of a small elite, which, then, attracts, also, the political and military powers into its own hands, completing the picture of a right-wing military dictatorship.

Therefore, competitive strife, or, rather, the effort to compete and excel may be stimulating and productive, as long as the leadership of a social grouping ensures, that the losers do not lose their essential equality with the winners, and, as long as they get another chance, again, under scrupulously fair and equal circumstances, to excel at something else, next time. Under such circumstances, the competitive strife for intellectual, artistic, economic or inventive excellence can produce highly desirable and socially beneficial results, such as new and better ways to live, to do things, or, to interpret reality in a new and more illuminating perspective.

Here, we slide from the economic realm into the world of mental images, beliefs, opinions, science and philosophy. Here, too, essentially the same mechanisms are at work. We have discussed, on previous occasions, how the mechanisms of re-stimulating experiences or memory-traces led, eventually, to a large number of symbolically representable awarenesses, which need categorisation and classification, giving rise to the emergence of classifying principles as separate awarenesses or "abstractions". We have also emphasised the idea, that these processes are essentially communal in nature, and, that the emergence of conscious awareness is a communal affair, where a small group of socially living human beings developed the art, and the ability, to re-stimulate a large number of awarenesses into a focus of conscious awareness.

The emerging sphere of conscious reality perceptions is, therefore, quite uniform, at least, in the initial phases of the emergence of such a sphere of reality perceptions. This sphere provides a strong bond of togetherness between those who belong to this same sphere of reality perceptions, but, a number of largely isolated groupings, which are all developing their own particular sphere of reality perceptions, will begin to diverge from each other in the way they see and relate to their realities.

This leads to a cultural diversity, which characterises the individual groupings, as well as alienates these groupings from each other. While the emergence of a sphere of reality acts as a cementing factor for the members within a "cultural entity", the fact, that cultural characteristics diverge from one community to the next, interferes, at least, to some extent, with the ability to recognise each other as members of the same species. We have discussed these ideas more extensively elsewhere, and, we want to empasise, here, only, the "cohesive effect" of the emergence of a "cultural code" within groupings, as well as the "dispersive effects" of differing cultural patterns of belief and behaviour. (The reader may notice, here, a resemblance with the mechanisms that mark the beginning of a "species differentiation").

Yet, even, within a grouping, the cultural cohesion became, eventually, more difficult to maintain, especially, after the groupings became larger. First, we see the emergence of complexity. A large number of symbolic representations meant, that not all members were able to absorb or manipulate the cultural diversity in the same manner. We see, that, each memer absorbed a certain part or "basic core", but, at the same time, differences came to the fore in the content of the cultural code of individual members.

Besides, a more sophisticated manipulation of concepts, symbols, ideas or conscious awarenesses, led to the art of "asking questions", in order to refine a conceptual picture. It did not take long before each community was faced with the problem, that it had to "work-out" differences in interpretation. From then on, there has always been the problem of "true and false". As more and more members learned to manipulate a reality perception and learned, thereby, to influence the attitudes and behaviour-patterns of other people, it became clear, that a clever manipulator would always be tempted to "tell his side of the story", and, man has faced the laborious task, ever since, to separate fact from fiction, and bias from impartiality.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

The factor of persuasiveness in leadership functions.
The reality-perceptions of the leader became an important part of his influence and authority.
The art of being diplomatic.
The problem of complexity, and the need for generalising concepts.
We are still evolving the scope and depth of commonly acceptable principles of conduct.
Competitive strife has to be complemented by social integration.
Abstracting ethical guidelines from scientific reality perceptions.
Individualisation, and the art of asking questions.
A tool to take distance from our own emotions and drives.
There is no essential difference between a tool and a weapon.
It is tempting to reach for dogmatic beliefs and attitudes, but our ability to manage reality effectively, will suffer.
The strength that comes with a narrow point of view is balanced by the weakness of a rigid attitude.
The distinction between benefit and harm is, often, extremely vague.
There are many vague boundaries, wherever we look.
The same ambivalence applies to an evaluation of inter-personal relationships and the state of health for our social environments.
The many ways in which we can be robbed or deceived.
As soon as the mechanisms of a fair system of taxation fail, the society is in deep trouble.
It is always easier to tax the poor and the ordinary people than to extract a fair contribution from the well-to-do.
The mechanisms of free-enterprise have to be carefully regulated, in order to preserve a semblance of health for the social unit in which they operate.

It seems reasonable to assume, that the manner in which the leadership of a small community would come to the fore, was influenced profoundly by the emergence of the faculties of symbolic representation. The quality of dominance acquired another dimension, as the factor of "persuasion", or, the ability to influence people's perception of reality, became as important as the ability to dominate by physical strength. Persuasion became as important as physical coercion in "aligning" the members of a small community.

The emergence of conceptual communications, together with the art of influencing reality perceptions and attitudes, were important factors in the development of the art of persuasion, which became a significant tool in the struggle for dominance. As the social unit grew larger, the ability to physically dominate came second to the ability to secure the cooperation of the other members of the group. This meant, however, that the reality perception of the leader became a part of his prestige and authority; and, to disagree with his statements or doubt his beliefs, had the same effect as physically challenging the leader. We see, then, a gradual rise in the art of "diplomacy", where the need to ask questions, or obtain more details about a particular communication, was done in such a way that it did not challenge the authority of a leader or dominant member of the group.

As long as a society is small, the members have a nearly identical perception of reality, and, this included the commonly accepted hierarchical realities. However, when societies became much larger, it became more difficult to know each other intimately. As a result, society consisted of a number of sub-groupings, each with their own hierarchical order and cultural core. There was a shift away from the acceptance of one particular, absolute reality, which would, and could, guide the entire society. In stead, a trend arose to formulate "principles of conduct". These principles began to emphasise abstracted or generalised rules of behaviour, regardless of the precise manner in which the realities were perceived. In other words; because of an increasing complexity, we see a process of generalisation take place, with the abstraction of common denominators. This is a universally human way of coping with an unmanageable complexity, and, it is not specific to the formulation of generalised rules of conduct.

This shift away from a specific reality perception to a principle of conduct represents an important step in the evolution of the management of reality, and, we are still evolving the scope and depth of such principles of conduct. It is logical, that these principles still reflect the basic perception of man's existence, and, it has remained difficult to abstract behavioural principles from view-points that are diametrically opposed to each other.

For a long time, now, it has seemed nearly impossible to abstract useful moral principles from an evolutionary concept of man, because we saw only the ruthless mechanisms of the "survival of the fittest" when we looked at the evolutionary history of the living organisms. Now, we have a much more sophisticated and complete picture of evolutionary mechanisms, and, we have learned to appreciate the fact, that the mechanisms of ruthless competitive strife are only one aspect of the evolution of life. We have learned, that, ruthless competitive strife was always complemented by another, equally important principle of evolutionary progress; the solution of socialisation, with the essential outlines of the social unit already visible in the images of pre-cellular, or biochemical mechanisms of inter-dependence within the protoplasmic primordium.

Therefore, we can, indeed, abstract moral guidelines for the conduct of human behaviour, without invoking a religious imagery of man, and, without the need to rely upon a set of divine commandments. It is remarkable, how close the moral conclusions of the religious and evolutionary systems of behavioural principles are, especially, if we compare the moral guidelines abstracted from philosophical and evolutionary insights, with the intuitive wisdom of our ancestors, who formulated moral and ethical guidelines with the help of their religious reality perceptions.

However, this is an aside. Let us come back to the inevitable occurrence of intellectual differentiation, which took place, as soon as societies became larger, and the interpretation and manipulation of a reality became more complex and difficult.

The art of asking questions evolved rapidly, and, the ever greater awareness of, and appreciation for, the numerous differences in the way people saw and interpreted the realities around them, led, eventually, to the concept, that, in the final analysis, each and every individual creates his or her particular sphere of reality; with the help of the cultural tools of the environment in which this individual has grown-up.

On the one hand, this process of "inividualisation" exerted a fragmenting influence upon the mechanisms of social cohesion, because people became more aware of their particular uniqueness and importance, and, they were less easily "bullied" into accepting a particular reality merely on the authority of someone else. On the other hand, the process of individualisation, together with the art of reflection, became a powerful intellectual tool to "take a distance" from one's own emotional and instinctive drives. Hopefully, it will become a tool to overcome our collective tendencies to opt for the solution of combat, and, ideally, the tool of individualised reflection will let us see the essential similarities between the members of mankind.

The tool of reflection and intellectual understanding can be used to scrutinise and, then, accept, in a fully conscious manner, the social mechanisms that provide the strength and cohesion of our society, or, this tool may become a weapon with which to fight for dominance and control. As we have mentioned, so often, there is no essential difference between a tool and a weapon. They are "devices", or instruments, that can be used in a socially responsible and constructive manner, or, they can be used during the "solution" of combat, and, then, these devices become weapons. Whether they are offensive or defensive weapons, depends, again, on the way we use these instruments, and, we come back to the conclusion we have elaborated so often before. Any instrument, or ability, can be used in an exploitative, egocentric manner, or, it can be used in an understanding, broad-minded and "socially constructive" mode of behaviour.

If the art of persuasion and conceptual communication is used to strengthen a social unit, the effects will be beneficial, but, if they are being used to deceive, to misinform, to lead the society or an individual into an attitude or reality perception that will be inadequate or erroneous, the society, or the individual, is being harmed and exploited.

Many actions do not lead to the expected results, but, this does not mean, that all harmful effects have been initiated with a malicious intent. Many acts are miscalculations, and, we know, how difficult it is to make rational decisions and avoid miscalculations, if the situation is extremely complex, and, if we lack the means to receive and analyse data adequately. Leaders are often forced into a situation, where they make decisions more or less intuitively, and, if the decision turns-out to be wrong, based on a miscalculation, they get blamed. Therefore, it is logical to see leaders adopt a defensive stance, where decisions are, primarily, designed to fortify their position of privilege and power, in spite of the fact, that such a decision may harm the interests of the social unit they are supposed to lead.

It is tempting, for leaders and ordinary people alike, to accept dogmatic, clear-cut reality perceptions, because it is, then, much easier to manage the complex realities and separate the numerous sense impressions into "good and bad", or desirable and undesirable categories. Yet, such a dogmatic image of reality can lead easily to harmful results, because a dogmatic stance tends to make us less sensitive to the numerous details that are present for examination, and, we lose, then, many opportunities of understanding and manipulation. A dogmatic approach to a complex reality may also introduce many situations of injustice, because it tends to polarise society into those, who are for or against a leadership.

As a rule, the strength, given by a narrow view, is balanced by the weaknesses that are inherent in a rigid attitude. Flexibility and the ability to adjust quickly and intelligently to changing circumstances, is a mark of viability. On the other hand, too great a flexibility may lead to indecisiveness, and, we may come to the conclusion, once again, that, any attitude, tool, faculty, or ability, can lead to beneficial or harmful effects. They may lead to results that are beneficial for the individual, and harmful for society, or vice versa. They may lead to results that may be beneficial now, but harmful in the long run, and, this may apply to a social environment, as well as an individual. In other words; it is not easy to know, what is a gain or a loss; it is not easy to decide, when we are benefitting or harming ourselves, or our societies, and, it is often difficult to know, whether we are being helped, or taken advantage of.

As a child we want, and need, affection, attention, love and stimulation, but too much affection and attention will make us into a spoiled, whining child, while, not enough affection and attention will make us frightened and insecure, unable to enter into satisfactory emotional relationships with other people. But, who can define, exactly, what is too much and too little? Nevertheless, modern insights give us, now, a fairly good idea what is required for a healthy development, and, we can formulate, better, the range of normality, as well as the boundaries with the abnormal.

In the realm of physical requirements, we see the same, vague boundaries, where our needs have vaguely defined borders with the realm of "excess"; where too much or too little is greatly harmful, while the range of "sufficient" is poorly defined, in spite of the fact, that it is important to be exposed to satisfactory conditions of existence. For example, too much water, and, we literally drown, either internally or externally, and, the same applies to oxygen; too rich an oxygen-content in the atmosphere can do all sorts of harm, especially, to an infant, and, we all are aware what too little oxygen does to us.

There is no physical element, or parameter, that can not be harmful or beneficial, depending upon its intensity or concentration. Look at heat; without it, we freeze to death, and, too much heat leads to burns or a circulatory collapse, such as in a "heat-stroke". Salt; we need a certain amount, but too much salt is harmful. The list of examples is endless. Let us, therefore, come back to the generalised statement, that all physical, mental and emotional contacts, stimuli or influences have a beneficial range, bordered, on either side, by a harmful range.

The same ambivalence applies to inter-personal relations and the state of health for our societies. We may profit, temporarily, from an attitude that exploits someone, or, some feature or institution in society, but, in the long run, we are harming the sense of good-will, and, we contribute to the rise of mutual distrust, or, even, hatred. However, we are so easily tempted to contribute to this process of social decay, not realising, or, not wanting to realise, that, eventually, we are digging our own graves.

If we look upon the laws of society, merely, as obstacles in the way of our personal ambitions, we do not know the meaning of laws and regulatory mechanisms, nor, do we understand the meaning of society, and, as a result, we behave defectively, destroying the essential mechanisms of society without knowing it. Perhaps, the most important and wide-spread group of violations against the well-being of society occur in the field of economic and financial transactions. There are a large number of rules and regulations that deal with the distinction between the legal and illegal acquisition of monies and assets. The common denominator of all illegal and immoral ways of acquiring property, is the fact, that these methods and practices are harmful to other people, or, to the common interest of society as a whole.

Obviously, robbing and stealing from individuals, companies, institutions or the State, is detrimental and criminal, but, if we look at the wide-spread abuse of financial transactions, we see, that the people of society are being robbed, almost continuously. We are robbed by people who waste the investment of others, and, in particular, the investments made by governments. We are robbed by people, who waste tax-payers monies. This practice may range from the inefficient bureaucrat, who gives little in return for the salary he receives, to the unscrupulous entrepreneur, who is able to obtain, by hook and by crook, (usually, by a system of bribes and kick-backs to influential officials), large sums of monies that disappear without a trace. Ultimately, the tax-payers will have to shoulder the burden of such a wasteful and illegal use of public monies.

Then, there is a large and complex system of laws that try to institute a fair level of taxation for individuals and companies alike. Nobody likes to pay taxes, because we rarely feel that the public monies are used wisely, and, yet, if we think about it, we come to the conclusion that this body of law is essential for the sense of social justice. The health of a society depends, to a large extent, upon its ability to tax fairly, and, to provide a large number of services to the people, efficiently and honestly, with impartiality and for the common good. In a social system, where incomes are widely divergent and most commercial transactions fall outside the immediate control of the State, we see, that a sophisticated, efficient and fair system of assessing and collecting taxes is essential. As soon as this taxation-system fails, the society is in deep trouble, as the disparities between the rich and the poor increase rapidly.

It is always easier to tax the poor and the ordinary people, who do not have the financial means to hire expert legal advisors; who can not hide income by clever accounting techniques; who do not have tax-shelters or other devices to avoid paying their dues to society. Once the burden of financial contribution shifts increasingly to the poor, the society is in deep trouble.

During the last decade, we have seen a gigantic increase in "investment" in the developing countries. Where did all this money go to? Certainly, a few projects were accomplished and genuinely benefitted the peoples of these developing nations, but, a large part of the monies has disappeared. Undoubtedly, the powerful and the rich got hold of a large percentage of these monies, and, it is securely hidden, somewhere, in an anonymous or secret bank-account. However, when the time comes to pay these loans back, or, to pay the interest-charges, the average workers have to shoulder the burdens by accepting a devalued currency and price rises on essential commodities, leading to a drastic cut in their real income and standard of living.

The complexity of tax-laws and all sorts of income re-distribution schemes, are a clear proof, that the processes of free-enterprise have to be carefully regulated and monitored, and, that the incomes of peoples and corporations have to be taxed proportionately, or progressively, in order to be able to subsidise, help or support the poorest and weakest segments of the free-enterprise society. In spite of an emotional defense of the virtues of free-enterprise, we have, in reality, and, in practice, already accepted, a long time ago, that free-enterprise only "works", if a fair and progressive system of taxation is able to keep spreading the burdens and benefits of belonging to society, to everyone.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

The worlds of finance and organised crime.
A pernicious freedom for illicit and amoral activities.
To what extent does a society need law-enforcement in order to keep the behaviour of its citizens within acceptable limits?
A careful balance between individual freedoms and social constraints.
A patient study of the mechanisms of justice in the small, viable social organisation.
The pitfalls of loyalty and patriotism.
An optimum condition of existence requires a measure of "lean vitality".
Requirements for a condition of collective and individual health.
An attitude of loyalty to the human potential.
How far do we extend the sphere of trust and cooperation?
Scrutinising continuously the conflicts our society is embroiled in.
A dialogue with "the other side".
The road of "ultimate socialisation".
When the last remnants of restraint will be cast-off in a gigantic orgy of combat and mass-suicide.

The world of financial transactions is not the only important mechanism for the maintenance of social justice. We have not even touched upon the world of organised crime, where a number of egocentric and anti-social services lead to conditions of injustice, depravity and exploitation. Yet, as long as people are willing to pay for pornography, sex, violence, drugs, as well as a host of other, egocentric and weakening activities, we will have a flourishing, if illegal trade in these commodities.

Certainly, it would be possible to stamp-out with a heavy hand most of such illegal activities and practices, but, we have to ask ourselves to what extent society should be regulated by force, and, how far the behavioural choice of individuals should be curtailed. As we discussed before, it becomes impossible, especially, in the larger societies, to align the behaviour-patterns of the members by force alone. Besides, a reliance upon persuasion to cooperate and behave for the common good, is an essential stimulus for the growth of this all-important attitude; a sense of responsibility.

Nevertheless, the freedom to organise a number of financial and other criminal activities in the chaotic free-enterprise societies, is far too great. These activities are the main reason for this atmosphere of weakness and distrust that pervades most affluent societies to such an extent, that the military and industrial establishments are relying, increasingly, on doomsday weapons to maintain their position of dominance. Indeed, they could not trust, any longer, the ordinary citizens to come to their defense!

Yet, the question remains; to what extent does a society need the enforcement of laws and regulations to keep the behaviour of its citizens within socially acceptable limits? As we have seen with physical, mental and emotional stimuli, the world of rules and regulations has an optimum range of functions, bordered, on either side, by negative and harmful side-effects. Obviously, a haphazard or arbitrary system of law-enforcement leads, immediately, to chaos, because such a system would be interpreted as discriminatory, and the leadership becomes completely paralysed, if it does not have the means to enforce its guidelines impartially. However, an overzealous, oppressive set of laws and restrictions turns any society into a cauldron of hatred and dissent, especially, since the practices of a "police state" become always arbitrary, discriminatory, and, often, outright criminal, violating basic human rights and the contract of essential equality on a gigantic scale.

We need a careful balance between individual freedoms and social constraints, and, it is clear, that we are still far from understanding all the factors and psychological mechanisms that play a role in forming a happy individual and a healthy society. Certainly it is possible, even, in a large social grouping, to design a system of principles of operation and guidelines for conduct, which will create, and maintain, a sense of justice, but, such a harmonious organisation is much easier to accomplish on a smaller scale because of this essential factor of "transparence".

We have elaborated these ideas before. Let us emphasise, here, the principle, that, almost any stimulus, regulation, guideline or behavioural act can be harmful or beneficial; to the individual, the community, or to both. A patient study of the mechanisms of social justice in the small, viable society, will show us, clearly, into what direction we have to evolve, in order to create adequate regulations and guidelines for a healthy society of global dimensions, and, a large, happy majority of mankind.

We have seen, how strong the temptation is for national leaders to unite their quarreling citizens behind them with the diversion of a "national threat", or an insult to national pride. Let us, therefore, discuss in the final pages of this essay, the mechanisms, the virtues, as well as the pitfalls of the attitudes of loyalty and patriotism. We will discuss these ideas in the context of the concepts of individual freedoms and social responsibilities.

The crux of the matter is the fact, that, we all seek an optimum condition of viability, where we live under the best possible circumstances, but, in an analogy with the optimum range of stimuli, a condition of optimum existence does not mean, that all our wishes, desires or dreams should be fulfilled. Far from it; a vigorous, healthy condition requires a certain "leanness"; it requires a somewhat spartan condition, where all the basic requirements of existence are met, but, it has to be a condition of existence leading to the insight, that we should not indulge in luxuries or a soft and egocentric life-style. It has to be a condition, where we enjoy, fully, the basic essentials; where we appreciate to be healthy and alive; to be able to think and work; to have a family and friends; to be confident about what we are doing; not to waste anything; to be concerned about the possibilities of existence for the generations that come after us, regardless, whether they are the generations of our own societies, or the generations of other peoples. Such attitudes would qualify as a life under optimum conditions of viability.

In order to acquire, and maintain, such conditions of optimum viability, we will have to come to grips with the problems of competitive strife, in particular, the problems of competitive strife on a world-wide scale, because they may lead to a nuclear war. This means, that, our allegiances have to vary a great deal in order to maintain a healthy, long-term viability under the circumstances. In the first place, we should be "loyal" to ourselves, but, this does not mean a short-sighted indulgence in all kinds of stimuli and euphoric moods, such as the euphoria of a drug-induced happiness or a narrow, belligerent patriotism. Loyalty to ourselves, means, a conscious effort to live a frugal and sober life-style, which lets us master our drives and desires, as well as our tendency to indulge. Loyalty to ourselves, means, a life-style that makes us free and self-confident; to the point, that we lose this neurotic pre-occupation with ourselves, and, that we are able to look forward and outward, recognising the similarities between peoples, including the similarities of the competitive drive, which underlies so much of the strife between people.

This is our primary loyalty, but, these same insights which let us see what is healthy and what is a situation of neurotic self-indulgence, will also show us, that man is a social creature, and, that we desperately need a willingness to cooperate with others. The question is; how far do we extend this sphere of cooperation? When do we have to band together and defend our legitimate rights and self-interests against the aggressive efforts of another grouping to take these rights away from us, and, when are our feelings of being threatened the result of a desire to maintain a privileged position; a position, that is essentially unfair, and, which should be abolished and replaced with a contract of essential equality, making us secure, but not privileged?

If we are convinced that the struggle, be it defensive or aggressive, is fully within the definition of social justice, as well as the social principles we believe in, we should be able to give our loyalty, unswervingly, to such an effort, but, we have the moral obligation to scrutinise, constantly, whether or not our leaders are falling for the temptation to take a little more from our adversaries than is justified under the concepts of a social contract.

This is the reason, why it is such a fundamental weakness in the doctrine of Dogmatic Socialism, to see the rich elite as a hated enemy, which should be destroyed and annihilated. If the doctrines of Dogmatic Socialism would recognise the general human nature of all of us, rich and poor, and, if they could recognise the fact, that we all, including those who are poor and "socially pure" today, could become a conservative, entrenched elite, tomorrow, then, it would be easier to come to a reasoned compromise between those, who have built their societies on the doctrines of Capitalist, free-enterprise, and those, who believe, strongly, in the virtues of Dogmatic Socialism.

Loyalties on a social scale should be flexible, therefore, because the guiding principle is the essential equality of human beings. Let us not hesitate to acknowledge our social obligations to the social grouping upon which our security rests, but, let us continuously scrutinise the reasons of any conflict this social grouping may become embroiled in.

If we keep scrutinising the causes and events that led to a particular conflict-situation, and, if we have the courage to point-out, calmly, but persistently, whenever we see, that the motivations of the grouping we belong to, are in violation of the principles of justice, then, I am sure, we can avoid a lot of unnecessary strife and warfare. Then, we could sit-down on both sides of the Ideological Divide and compare our social ideals and our concepts of social justice, and, it woud not be so difficult to hammer-out a common Constitution and a generally acceptable set of principles, which could be acceptable to the peoples on both sides of this Ideological Divide.

We have elaborated, before, the idea of a common Constitution for all the countries and societies of the world, including the "Socialist Countries" and those calling themselves "Free Democracies". Here, we want to come back to the balance between the trends, desires, drives, wishes and aspirations of the individual, and the constraints and controls that are necessary for the sake of social harmony. We should not forget, that, all life-forms evolve within a balance of opposing force-fields, and, the instinctive drives of man are an expression of the fact, that the members of mankind need a strong drive of courage, ferocity, fearlessness and aggressiveness to survive the harsh and precarious conditions that were, so often, a dominant feature of his evolutionary past, and may, once again, become a feature of the future.

We have seen, that, man's social requirements promoted a curiously dualistic mix in the behaviour-patterns of successful human beings; a remarkable degree of courage and ferocity towards the enemy, and, an equally remarkable attitude of tenderness, cooperation and care for those who belong to his own group. Now, we realise, that these trends of ferocity towards the social groupings we feel threatened by, is a "dead-end", or, even, a suicidal attitude. Now, we know, that the road of natural evolution of the social unit via the methods of competitive strife, has come to an evolutionary dead-end, since the ultimate struggle for dominance brings all-out war, which does not produce another branching point for a new evolutionary spurt, but, in stead, it leads to the complete destruction of all higher forms of life.

Now, we know, that the solution to this problem has to come through the road of "ultimate socialisation", encompassing all the competing forces of human existence. This is nothing new, and, if we scrutinise the mechanisms of nature carefully, we see, that nature has come to this type of "dead-end" before, and, it has found, and utilised, the solution of "socialisation". As soon as a sufficient number of people realise, clearly, what sort of choice we have to make, and, what sort of dangers confront us, it will be possible for such a beneficial, collective voice, and choice, to emerge. The question is this; will the evolution of this insight of an ultimate socialisation, be swift enough to halt the trend towards a nuclear conflagration?

Unfortunately, it does not seem likely, at the present time, that such a catastrophe can be averted, and, our only hope is, that the nuclear catastrophe may be halted before it has "burnt-up" all restraints. However, even, this hope is unlikely to be fulfilled, because, during the heat of a conflagration and the unimaginable sequence of repeated nuclear explosions over all the major cities of the world, there is a tendency to revert to total madness, and, the last remnants of restraint will be cast-off in a gigantic orgy of mass-suicide.

.......

Summary

1. Who are "the common people"?
   Are we somewhat smarter than the average individual?
   We have many things in common, in spite of the fact that no two people are the same.
   A useful definition of individuality.
   We share the drive to compete and become rivals.
   A majority of the people "does all the necessary work".
   The majority always works, regardless, who is in power.
   What sort of work are average people going to do in the near future?
   A shift towards skilled functions.
   Man will rebuild after a period of warfare and devastation, if there is something left to build from.
   The human labourer versus the robot.
   An army of "common people".
   A life-style of strenuous consumerism is being encouraged in order to maintain an all-important "economic momentum".
   The vague boundaries between luxuries and necessities in affluent societies.
   An unhealthy dependence upon a high level of cash-income.
   A review of various social models.
   The varying living standards of common people, all over the world.
   Disparities that represent a heart-breaking injustice to anyone with a keen eye and a compassionate attitude.
   It is an honour to belong to the common people.
   
   
   
2. A call to rebel against our leaders?
   We have to pay dearly for our "good feelings".
   Let us listen closely; to our own leaders, as well as the leaders of our enemies.
   Putting the arguments side by side.
   When are people followers, and, when do they become leaders?
   Natural leadership qualities.
   Leadership difficulties multiply prodigiously, as the social grouping gets larger.
   The "social split".
   Over-crowding, and a rising level of competitive strife.
   The multi-individual leadership-institution of a modern, large-scale social entity.
   The widespread influence of leadership structures.
   A measure of good-will and cooperation is essential in order for a large-scale social entity and its leadership to remain viable.
   The role of the army.
   When everyone contributes, willingly, to the well-being of society.
   Mechanisms that sour the atmosphere of enthousiasm and good-will.
   Societies oscillate between the extremes of chaos and vigorous expansionism.
   The short-lived benefits of a revolutionary over-throw of the elite.
   Common people have to accept the responsibility for electing competent leaders.
   Who is to blame for the "activities of social decay"?
   Learning from history.
   We have to learn to maintain, and appreciate, a steady-state of well-being.
   
   
   
3. A closer look at the mechanisms of social decay and polarisation.
   Is it acceptable to lose nearly all the big cities and a majority of the population during a "nuclear exchange"?
   A look at the contemporary arms-race, and the "ideological divide" between Communism and Free-Enterprise.
   Is it impossible to design a set of Constitutional Guidelines, acceptable to a great majority of the people on either side of this pernicious ideological divide?
   Conducting a dialogue over the heads of political and military leaders.
   Too many common people still like their leaders to "talk tough".
   The draw-backs of a professional army.
   Most of us realise, vaguely, that we have to do more to stop the world from sliding into a fatal conflagration.
   Coping with the inexorable trend towards increasing large-scale inter-dependence.
   Why we are influenced by people, who live far beyond the horizon of familiarity.
   We can solve local problems much easier, when we have learned to look at the world as a whole.
   The importance of enlarging the sphere of our concerns.
   The fragile attributes of concern and magnanimity.
   We have to learn to control our instinctive drives.
   An unfortunate blunting of the powers of imagination.
   Let us look, closely and calmly, at the many examples of disastrous behaviour around us.
   We all tend to believe, that we can escape and hide.
   When we remain "sitting ducks", passively waiting, until disaster strikes.
   The recurrent loss of life associated with major earth-quakes.
   
   
   
4. The dangers of ignorance and neglect also apply to the ever-escalating stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons.
   We all can be driven into an attitude of suicidal madness.
   We have no psychological defense against the imagery of a nuclear catastrophe.
   Changing the course of history through the powers of a coherent Public Opinion on a global scale.
   We are now able to sketch a set of viable attitudes for world-wide cooperation.
   The evolution of the human personality.
   A mix of contradictory trends that leaves us poorly prepared for living in large-scale social units.
   How ethical codes of conduct come into being.
   Mechanisms of inter-dependence, which extend well beyond the limits of the sphere of familiarity.
   Cultivating an atittude of loyalty towards a society of global dimensions.
   A shift towards the common enemy of pollution and environmental deterioration.
   Such a shift in attitudes will, probably, have to be forced upon us by deteriorating terrestial conditions.
   The idea of a globally integrated social environment is gaining ground.
   Why we, ordinary people, have a great advantage over our national leaders.
   Where do we get the authority to enforce a global standard of justice?
   How do we create the means to teach, systematically, the principles of a global ethic?
   The common peoples of the world will have to pressure their national leaderships into transferring powers to an efficient, supra-national form of government.
   
   
   
5. I do not apologize for my beliefs.
   Being convinced of the need to become a citizen of the world.
   The same commonly accepted criteria of socially responsible behaviour apply in the large-scale as well as the small social entity.
   We do not limit the sphere of concern to a specific national entity.
   Ethical considerations have grown-up around the existential requirements of a specific social entity.
   Recognising the "socio-centric" nature of motivations and attitudes.
   Socio-centricity and ego-centricity.
   What it means to "behave for the common good".
   Is it possible to identify with a much larger social entity?
   The need for a period of thorough education.
   A natural tendency to limit the sphere of our concerns to our immediate surroundings.
   We need a sophisticated interpretation of human nature.
   The apparent "treachery" of an encompassing approach to conflict-situations.
   A globalistic approach is rarely appreciated as an act of courage and wisdom.
   When it is too late to teach the principles of a global concern.
   Leaving room for manoeuvering behind bellicose rethoric.
   The instruments of the judicial inquiry and settlement.
   The persuasiveness of competence and impartiality.
   A task for the International Court of Justice.
   A series of thorough, well balanced and fearless analyses of contemporary conflicts, set in a broadly based, historical and philosophical background.
   The objectives and methods of globalism are a logical extention of past developments.
   Why we are so easily confused and discouraged?
   The temptation to galvanise quarreling citizens with the issues of national security or pride.
   It is difficult to get a good grasp over a complex, affluent society.
   We, ordinary people, can not relax and rely upon the "society as a whole".
   Are affluent societies "rotton to the core" through wide-spread crime and corruption?
   
   
   
6. Analysing the contradictory aspects of chaotic, affluent societies.
   Nearly every activity can be beneficial or harmful to a social environment.
   The value of carefully worked-out Constitutional Guidelines.
   Defining harm and benefit for the social environment.
   Distinguishing between harmful and beneficial attitudes and practices.
   A number of examples.
   The harm and benefit of economic free-enterprise.
   An accentuation between success and failure.
   The "game".
   The mechanisms of competitive strife within a social unit tend to destroy the mechanisms of social cohesion.
   The trend to replace the hierarchical order with a "social contract".
   How to control competitive strife and harnass its beneficial aspects.
   A temporary leadership and participation in social functions.
   The results of economic success are life-long, and become, often, an inherited privilege.
   A measure of competitive strife is useful for achieving intellectual, artistic, economic or innovative excellence.
   Mechanisms of cultural differentiation.
   The factor of "cultural complexity"
   The art of manipulating mental images, perceptions and beliefs
   
   
   
7. The factor of persuasiveness in leadership functions.
   The reality-perceptions of the leader became an important part of his influence and authority.
   The art of being diplomatic.
   The problem of complexity, and the need for generalising concepts.
   We are still evolving the scope and depth of commonly acceptable principles of conduct.
   Competitive strife has to be complemented by social integration.
   Abstracting ethical guidelines from scientific reality perceptions.
   Individualisation, and the art of asking questions.
   A tool to take distance from our own emotions and drives.
   There is no essential difference between a tool and a weapon.
   It is tempting to reach for dogmatic beliefs and attitudes, but our ability to manage reality effectively, will suffer.
   The strength that comes with a narrow point of view is balanced by the weakness of a rigid attitude.
   The distinction between benefit and harm is, often, extremely vague.
   There are many vague boundaries, wherever we look.
   The same ambivalence applies to an evaluation of inter-personal relationships and the state of health for our social environments.
   The many ways in which we can be robbed or deceived.
   As soon as the mechanisms of a fair system of taxation fail, the society is in deep trouble.
   It is always easier to tax the poor and the ordinary people than to extract a fair contribution from the well-to-do.
   The mechanisms of free-enterprise have to carefully regulated, in order to preserve a semblance of health for the social unit in which they operate.
   
   
   
8. The worlds of finance and organised crime.
   A pernicious freedom for illicit and amoral activities.
   To what extent does a society need law-enforcement in order to keep the behaviour of its citizens within acceptable limits?
   A careful balance between individual freedoms and social constraints.
   A patient study of the mechanisms of justice in the small, viable social organisation.
   The pitfalls of loyalty and patriotism.
   An optimum condition of existence requires a measure of "lean vitality".
   Requirements for a condition of collective and individual health.
   An attitude of loyalty to the human potential.
   How far do we extend the sphere of trust and cooperation?
   Scrutinising continuously the conflicts our society is embroiled in.
   A dialogue with "the other side".
   The road of "ultimate socialisation".
   When the last remnants of restraint will be cast-off in a gigantic orgy of combat and mass-suicide.

.......