Click here for PDF format of this essay
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.
1 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.
2 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.
3 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?
4 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.
5 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.
6 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.
7 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 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.
11 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.
12 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.
13 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"?
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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.
18 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.
19 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.
20 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.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 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.
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.
5 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?".
6 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?
7 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 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.
11 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.
12 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.
13 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.
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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.
18 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.
19 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.
20 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.
21 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.
22 "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.
23 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.
24 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.
1 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.
2 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!
3 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".
4 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.
5 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.
6 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.
7 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 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?
11 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.
12 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.
13 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.
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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?
18 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.
19 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".
20 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.
21 Only the living survivors of
22 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.
23 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.
24 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.
25 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.
26 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.
27 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.
28 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.
29 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.
1 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.
2 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.
3 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?
4 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.
5 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.
6 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".
7 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 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.
11 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.
12 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.
13 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.
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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.
18 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.
19 "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.
20 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.
21 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?
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.
5 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.
6 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.
7 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".
8 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.
9 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.
10 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.
11 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".
12 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.
13 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.
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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.
18 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
19 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.
20 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.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 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".
25 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.
26 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.
1 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".
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.
5 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.
6 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.
7 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 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.
11 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.
12 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.
13 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.
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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.
18 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.
19 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.
20 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.
21 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").
22 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.
23 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.
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.
5 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.
6 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.
7 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 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.
11 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.
12 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.
13 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.
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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.
18 he 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.
19 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.
20 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.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 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.
1 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.
2 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.
3 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!
4 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.
5 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".
6 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.
7 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 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?
11 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.
12 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.
13 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.
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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?
18 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.
.......