Archive for November, 2004

Working Together

Friday, November 12th, 2004

Humans eventually discovery that there are only three types of relationship–Adversity, Neutrality or Synergy. Today our world is still dominated by Adversity and Neutrality. Most of us know about Adversity, but what is Neutrality?



Escape from Loss


Timothy Wilken, MD

Adversity dominated human life at the time of the American Revolution in 1776. Slavery, indentured service, serfdom, and child labor were all common. Most humans suffered from overwork and underpay. Life was hard and then you died. Most of America´s early immigrants were fleeing Europe to escape the loss from Adversity.

Neutral mechanisms had emerged in the old world. Trade began with the inception of Civilization in 3500BC. The Phoenicians invented money in 1500BC. Barter and local markets were a common. However, more modern mechanisms of Neutrality were just emerging, as Hazel Henderson explains:

ìUntil the sixteenth century the notion of purely economic phenomena, isolated from the fabric of life, did not exist. Nor was there a national system of markets. That, too, is a relatively recent phenomena which originated in seventeenth century England.

ìOf course markets have existed since the dawn of Civilization, but they were based on barter, not cash, and so they were bound to be local.”

However, the presence of neutral mechanisms do not make a neutral world, human economics and politics were heavily dominated by Adversity in the eighteenth century.

By 1776, one group of humans had their fill of Adversity and the worst of times. They felt the same as all other humans when it came to losing. They didn´t like it. All humans seek to avoid the loss. How do I protect myself from injury. How do I protect myself from being robbed or cheated? And, what about crime and war? All living systems seek to avoid loss. Loss is inevitable in the adversary world. If humanity was to learn to avoid loss, things would have to change.

This would require a new way of thinking. Earlier in The Science section, I discussed Knowing, Nature, Universe, and the ‘laws´ of Nature. It may not have been apparent to the reader that these subjects can have an effect on the everyday lives of humans, they can as Cosmologist, Timothy Ferris explains:

ìOne can, of course, ask what difference cosmology makes to our everyday lives. The answer to this question, oddly enough, is that it seems to matter a lot. For some reason ≠and nobody seems to know just why ≠virtually every human society, from ancient Egyptians to Native Americans to the residents of just about every towering city and tiny village today, has developed models of the universe and explanations of how it came into being. And these models influence our thinking in ways that are not always readily apparent.

ìOne product of the interaction between cosmology and daily life is the Declaration of Independence. Impressed by the elegant, clockwork precision of planetary motions revealed in Newton´s laws, Western thinkers of a liberal bent dismissed God from his old role of personal intervention≠ since his services were no longer required to move the planets around≠ while retaining the concept of God as Creator of the universe. Having done so, they increasingly turned their attention to the study of nature as a way of appreciating God´s marvelous design. From this concentration on natural law it was a short step to John Locke´s assertion that there are also natural laws that address human beings and their governance. The thrust of these laws is, as Locke put it, that ìthe natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the laws of Nature for his rule.” By the late eighteenth century Locke´s ideas were so much in the air as be echoed by Thomas Jefferson in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence: When Jefferson wrote of ìthe separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature´s God entitle” a people, he meant that human equality and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are natural laws, based in nature as are Newton´s laws of gravity.”

Thus a new way of thinking set the stage for the birth of the human Neutrality. But, recall that Neutrality can only work when there are unlimited resources. The plants have an unlimited supply of sunlight. As solar collectors, they are the truly independent form of life. Independence requires unlimited resources.

For Neutrality to work for humans, there must also be unlimited resources.

The American colonists were in the right place at the right time. The right place was the empty continent of North America. With the opening of the Americas to European immigration, millions of acres of arable land and forests, filled with abundant water in millions of steams, rivers, and lakes and stocked with uncountable numbers of wildlife were available for the taking. This was further enriched with enormous reserves of iron, coal, copper, aluminum, zinc, lead, gold, silver, oil, and much more. The right time was 1776, by then the collective power of Humanity´s Time-binding had discovered, invented, and developed the tools and know-how that created the mechanism of the Agricultural, Industrial, and Transportational Revolutions.

The level of knowledge and technology available to the American colonists coupled with enormous North American reserves, provided them with cheap land, cheap food, cheap power, and cheap transportation and would bring an end to scarcity for those humans fortunate enough to reside in the new world. Conditions were perfect for the success of human Neutrality.

The midwives of human Neutrality were to be two Englishmen. Thomas Paine much influenced by the writings of John Locke was living in colonial America when he published a small pamphlet entitled Common Sense on January 10th, 1776.
 
Thomas Paine

In the pamphlet, Paine told the people that they were free and independent with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He told the people that they were smart and quite capable of taking care of themselves without the need for a King.

Thomas Paine told our ancestors that Kings had no right≠, divine or otherwise, ≠to rule free and independent people. He told them that as free and independent people they had no need for a King to tell them what to do, and then tax them heavily for the privilege.

Paine´s writings invited the American colonists to withdraw from the game of Adversity. His words would be formative in the creation of the Declaration of Independence and in igniting the America Revolution.

Simultaneously, the other midwife of Neutrality, Englishman Adam Smith published an economic treatise entitled The Wealth of Nations. In which he wrote ìthe propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another is an intrinsic characteristic of human nature”. Smith also observed that the expansion of commerce is a critical component of the process of modernization. The creation of the new national system of markets brought with it an opportunity for expansion of commerce. According to Smith, a country that trades internationally should specialize in producing only those goods in which it has an absolute advantage, ≠that is, those goods it can produce more cheaply than can its trading partners. The country can then export a portion of those goods and, in turn, import goods that its trading partners produce more cheaply.
 
Adam Smith

Smith envisioned an economy based on scientific objectivity with fair trade between free and independent men, ≠self-sufficient men. Free and independent men with the right to private ownership of property were essential to Smith´s doctrine.

Smith went on to assert ìthat government regulation is justified only to the extent necessary to ensure free markets, because the national advantage represents the sum total of individual advantages, and national well-being is best served by allowing all individuals complete freedom to pursue their economic interests”. This was known as the laissez-faire economic doctrine, ≠letting businesses make their own decisions without government interference. Smith argued for limited government≠ except for the functions of defense, justice, and certain public works, the state should refrain from interfering with the economic life of the nation. Economic Neutrality was to be the basis of fair and just society. Neutrality would give every free and independent man the opportunity for great economic success, and successful citizens would make a successful nation.

Another important feature of Smith´s new economics was the automatic balancing effect of supply and demand by the ìinvisible hand”. Free and independent sellers would seek to create those products wherein they held the absolute advantage≠, those products that they could create and offer for sale at a price lower than their competition´s. And free and independent buyers would seek out and buy the products they needed at the best possible price. This process would produce an automatic balancing of supply and demand. The new economy would be automatically organized by free and independent men simply seeking their own interests as if guided by an invisible hand.

Neutrality focuses on freedom from loss≠ protecting free men and their property. The driving force behind this transition from Adversity to Neutrality was to avoid loss. The new values of the American colonists were neutral values. Free and independent citizens relating to each other as equals. All citizens were prohibited from hurting other free and independent citizens. The mechanism of neutral relationship was a free and fair market with the honest exchange of merchandise of good value at a fair price. The market place is where the bartering takes place to insure that the exchange is fair–≠to insure that the price is not too high or too low–≠to insure that neither party loses.

Neutrality was a great advance over Adversity. The prohibition of losing makes neutral organizations much more effective than adversary organizations. The Time-binding power of humanity is unleashed. Humans using neutral organization are much more successful than those using adversarial organization. Human needs and wants are many and diverse, and no single individual could hope to supply all these needs and wants. Only the great market can supply the many and diverse needs and wants of humanity, thus satisfying the human need for interdependence.

Humans participate in the great market as independent producers and independent consumers. Each neutral citizen is individually responsible for purchasing their own needs and wants. Thus human Neutrality brings two great advantages over Adversity–≠freedom from loss and interdependence. The great market provides neutral interdependence and neutral interdependence provides great advantage over adversary dependence. However, neutral interdependence is not the same as synergic interdependence. The differences will be discussed later in the book.

The unlimited resources of an empty American continent allowed the new citizens of the Unitied States of America the privilege of claiming independence. They were free and independent citizens. Beginning in 1776, it became possible to not play the Adversary game. Institutionalized Neutrality produced a safe haven for humans. They were free to work without fear that others would hurt them. They were free to create products or provide services and sell these in the great market for a fair price.

Neutral Values

The values of the American colonists were parallel to the laws of Neutrality. Free and independent men relating to each other as equals. Prohibited from hurting other free and independent men. The mechanism of relationship to be conducted through a free and fair market with the honest exchange of merchandise of good value at a fair price. The newly formed government of the United States was committed to fairness and justice for all its citizens. The government´s only legitimate purpose was to insure economic independence and protect individual freedom. To insure a safe and stable environment that would allow the free market to work best.

The American colonists were among the most fortunate humans who had yet lived. They were beneficiaries of a unique circumstance that would provide the conditions necessary for human Neutrality to work. The Agricultural, Industrial, and Transportational Revolutions coupled with the enormous North American reserves, provided them with cheap land, cheap food, cheap power, and cheap transportation. America would have the equivalent of unlimited resources for the next 150 years. They would be the only independent humans in the history of our world.

Time-binding was leveraged with Capitalism all through the Institution of Neutrality. It was this unique set of circumstances that would allow the American revolution to succeed. And, the result was described perhaps most elegantly by Henry Grady Weaver when he addressed these words to the Earth´s population in 1947:

Puzzling Questions of Vital concern to 2,155,000,000 Individuals

For 60 known centuries, this planet that we call Earth has been inhabited by human beings not much different from ourselves. Their desire to live has been just as strong as ours. They have had at least as much physical strength as the average person of today, and among them have been men and women of great intelligence. But down through the ages, most human beings have gone hungry, and many have always starved.

The ancient Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians, and Greeks were intelligent people; but in spite of their intelligence and their fertile lands, they were never able to get enough to eat. They often killed their babies because they couldn´t feed them.

The Roman Empire collapsed in famine. The French were dying of hunger when Thomas Jefferson was President of the United States. As late as 1856, the Irish were starving to death; and no one was particularly surpised because famines in the Old World were the rule rather than the exception. It is only within the last century that western Europeans have had enough food to keep them alive≠–soup and bread in France, fish in Scandinavia, beef in England.

Hunger has always been normal. Even to this day, famine kill multitudes in China, India, Africa; and in the 1930´s, thousands upon thousands starved to death on the richest farmlands of the Soviet Union.

Down through the ages, countless millions, struggling unsuccessfully to keep bare life in wretched bodies, have died young in misery and squalor. Then suddenly, in one spot on this planet, people eat so abundantly that the pangs of hunger are forgotten.

The Questions

Why did men die of starvation for 6,000 years? Why is it that we in America have never had a famine? Why did men walk and carry goods (and other men) on their straining backs for 6,000 years≠ then suddenly, on only a small part of the earth´s surface, the forces of nature are harnessed to do the bidding of the humblest citizen.

Why did families live for 6,000 years in caves and floorless hovels, without windows or chimneys≠then within a few generations, we in America take floors, rugs, chairs, tables, windows, and chimneys for granted and regard electric lights, refrigerators, running water, porcelain baths, and toilets as common necessities?

Why did men, women, and children eke out their meager existence for 6,000 years, toiling desperately from dawn to dark≠barefoot, half-naked, unwashed, unshaved, uncombed, with lousy hair, mangy skins, and rotting teeth≠ then suddenly, in one place on earth there is an abundance of such things as rayon underwear, nylon hose, shower baths, safety razors, ice cream sodas. lip-sticks, and permanent waves?

What Are the Answers?

It´s incredible, if we would but pause to reflect! Swiftly, in less than a hundred years, Americans have conquered the darkness of night≠ from pine knots and candles to kerosene lamps, to gas jets; then to electric bulbs, neon lights, fluorescent tubes.

We have created wholly new and astounding defenses against weather≠–from fire places to stoves, furnaces, automatic burners. insulation, air conditioning.

We are conquering pain and disease, prolonging life, and resisting death itself–≠with anesthetics, surgery, sanitation, hygiene, dietetics.

We have made stupendous attacks on space≠from ox-carts, rafts, and canoes to railroads, steamboats, street cars, subways, automobiles, trucks, busses, airplanes≠ and attacks on time through telegraph, telephone, and radio.

We have moved from backbreaking drudgery into the modern age of power, substituting steam, electricity, and gasoline for the brawn of man; and today the nuclear physicist is taking over and finding ways for subduing to human uses the infinitesimally tiny atom–≠tapping a new source of power so vast that it bids fair to dwarf anything that has gone before.

It is true that many of these developments originated in other countries. But new ideas are of little value in raising standards of living unless and until something is done about them. The plain fact is that we in America have outdistanced the world in extending the benefits of inventions and discoveries to the vast majority of people in all walks of life.

How Did It Happen?

Three generations≠–grandfather to grandson–≠have created these wonders which surpass the utmost imagining of all previous time. How did it come about? How can it be explained? Just what has been responsible for this unprecedented burst of progress, which has so quickly tranformed a hostile wilderness into the most prosperous and advanced country that the world has ever known?

In America, the political-economic conditions are such to allow for the effective use of human energy. Human energy operates best under its own natural control. This is only possible with individual freedom. In America, individual freedom is the natural heritage of each living person. Freedom cannot be separated from responsibility. You are free to act as long as you do not injure someone else. In America, freedom is born in you along with life itself. It is part of life itself. No one can give it to you, nor can you give it someone else. Nor can you hold any other person responsible for your acts. Control simply can´t be separated from responsibility; control is responsibility.

To use any kind of energy effectively, it is first necessary to understand the nature of the energy and then to set up conditions that will permit it to work to the best advantage. To make the most effective use of human energy, it is necessary to reckon with the nature of man. Man is a human being and he has the powers of reason, the power of imagination, the ability to capitalize on the experiences of the past and the present as bearing on the problems of the future. He has the ability to progress and to keep on progressing.

Man has enormous powers, of unknown extent, to make new things and to change old things into new forms. He not only owns property, but he also actually creates property. In the last analysis, a thing is not property unless it is owned; and without ownership, there is little incentive to improve it.

Man is a tool maker. The introduction of tools marked the beginning of man´s progress in three important directions: 1) More effective use of energy. 2) Specialization of effort. And 3) Advances in human co-operation and improvements in living conditions, through the peaceful exchange of goods and services.

Also, the introduction of tools brought into sharper focus the importance of individual property rights. Unless a person has a chance of gaining some direct benefit from his extra efforts, there is not much inducement for him to think ahead and to make the sacrafices necessary to provide the tools of production. And without the tools of production, human beings would sink back into a state of barbarism. Today almost everyone depends for his welfare≠–for his very life≠–upon exchanges of ownership.

In the last analysis, all of these avantages are the natural, normal outgrowth of a political structure which unleashed the creative energies of millions of men and women by leaving them free to work out their own affairs≠–not under the lash of coercive authority, but through voluntary co-operation based on enlightened self-interest and moral responsibility.

Thats why plows are now made of steel. That´s why America has led the world in production accomplishments. That´s why we´ve been able to win wars started by nations that make a regular business of fighting. That´s why we are able to feed the victims of pagan aggression.

And last but not least, that´s why the people of the United States, who occupy only 6 percent of the world´s land area and who represent less than 7 per cent of the world´s population, own:

  85 per cent of the world´s automobiles
  60 per cent of the life insurance policies
  54 per cent of the telephones
  46 per cent of the electric power capacity
  35 per cent of the world´s railway milage
  30 per cent of the improved highways
  92 per cent of the modern bathtubs

Before the war, Americans consumed:

  75 per cent of the worlds silk
  60 per cent of the world´s rubber
  50 per cent of the world´s coffee
  40 per cent of the world´s salt.

This leads to the conclusion that the people of the United States are exactly nine times better off than the people in the rest of the world.

The American Revolution that set men free has made the great grandchildren of the revolutionary leaders the best-fed, the best-clothed, the best housed, and the most prosperous people on the face of the globe. Many of the things that we have come to take for granted as commonplace necessities of life would have been beyond the fondest dreams of luxury-seeking kings and potentates a few years ago.

These words written in 1947 described the magnificent success of the United States of America. And the United States of America was not only a success, it was the greatest success in the history of humankind.

However, Weaver mistakenly gives all the credit to Institutionalized Neutrality. This is not the case. The great success of the United States of America was the result of Time-binding freed from the adversary way by Institutional Neutrality. The combination of Time-binding with Institutional Neutrality coupled with unlimited resources ≠then was the force behind the American success story≠–America with its free and independent citizens with their rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would change the human world in just three generations.

With the unlimited resources of the American continent, there was great opportunity in the new United States. It was possible to start from nothing and become enormously wealthy within one´s lifetime. The history of the United States is filled with stories of rags to riches, and of self-made men.

Another marker of this change was the emergence of the modern middle class. Within Institutional Neutrality, free and independent citizens had the right to a decent education, and the right to work and earn fair wages for their work. They were entitled to make something of themselves. The great middle class was the result of this opportunity. Millions of citizens who were self-reliant, owned their own homes and automobiles, lived comfortable lives with access to most of the good things in life. And today, most Americans consider themselves to be members of the middle class.

Despite the Institutionalization of Neutrality in the United States. The Adversary mechanism was still very much present in the free world.

Capitalism was frequently influenced by adversary mechanisms. The price of a commodity was based on supply and demand. Scarcity would cause a rise in prices and adversary acts often occurred to create artificial scarcity where none really existed. Although, the focus of the free market was to establish a fair price between buyer and seller. Those selling their labor often did not receive fair pay. Capitalism was modified over many years to end the adversary excesses of child labor, 14 hour working days, company stores, and other exploitations of the working classes. Adversary excess persisted as late as 1933 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt became President of the United States. As Arthur Schlesinger explains:

ìLaisses-faire had undermined the temples of capitalism, thrown a quarter of labor force out of work, cut the gross national product almost in half and provoked mutterings of revolution. No one knew why things had gone wrong or how to set them right. Only communists were happy, seeing in the Great Depression decisive proof of Karl Marx´s prophecy that capitalism would be destroyed by its own contradictions.

ìThen F.D.R. appeared, a magnificicent, serene, exhilarating personality, buoyantly embodying new ideas, new courage, new confidence in America´s ability to regain control over its future. His New Deal swiftly introduced measures for social protections, regulation and control. Laissez-faire ideologues and Roosevelt haters cried that he was putting the country on the road to communism, the only alternative permitted by the either/or creed. But Roosevelt understood that Social Security, unemployment compensation, public works, securities regulation, rural electrification, farm price supports, reciprocal-trade agreements, minimum wages and maximum hours, guarantees of collective bargaining and all the rest were saving capitalism from itself. ìThe test of our progress,” he said in his second Inaugural, ìis not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” The job situation improved in the 1930s, aided by the Works Progress Administration, the famous WPA, with which government as employer of last resort built schools, post offices, air-fields, parks, bridges, tunnels and sewage systems; protected the environment; and fostered the arts; by the 1940 election, the anticapitalist vote, almost a million in 1932, had dwindled to 150,000.”

The government of the United States while structured to support the free market, still held its power with Adversary mechanisms. The United States co-existed with the rest of the unfree world and to protect itself relied on the adversary way. The U.S. raised the most powerful army, navy, and air force in the history of humanity. The criminal justice system was not neutral to those who broke its laws. They were incarcerated or put to death. And the United States supported itself by collecting taxes with force–≠those who did not pay taxes were punished.

Institutional Neutrality is most developed in the United States. After the enormous success of the American way culminated in its victory of World War II, America´s methods were adopted by most of western civilization≠–earliest by England, and France. Today the free market is present in Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and Spain with varing amounts of success. Most notably, it has been very successfully adopted in those countrys, that we defeated in World War II. By destroying the adversary systems controlling Germany, Italy, and Japan, we gave them an opportunity to start over. Beginning from a much more equal status, the citizens of these defeated nations were able to exploit the mechanism of Neutrality. Similarly, we see the success of Taiwan, South Korea, and Hong Kong as later examples

Working Together

Monday, November 8th, 2004

Reposted from Ming the Mechanic.


Ignorance, Predators and Evolution

Flemming Funch

Slate article The unteachable ignorance of the red states, as part of a little series, of, as it says “depressed liberals analyzing what ails them”. Excerpt:

The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. ….

Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you–if you don’t believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.

Next, they tell you that you are the best of a bad lot (humans, that is) and that as bad as you are, if you stick with them, you are among the chosen. This is flattering and reassuring, and also encourages you to imagine the terrible fates of those you envy and resent. American politicians ALWAYS operate by a similar sort of flattery, and so Americans are never induced to question themselves. That’s what happened to Jimmy Carter–he asked Americans to take responsibility for their profligate ways, and promptly lost to Ronald Reagan, who told them once again that they could do anything they wanted. The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do–they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable.

Third, and most important, when life grows difficult or fearsome, they (politicians, preachers, pundits) encourage you to cling to your ignorance with even more fervor. But by this time you don’t need much encouragement–you’ve put all your eggs into the ignorance basket, and really, some kind of miraculous fruition (preferably accompanied by the torment of your enemies, and the ignorant always have plenty of enemies) is your only hope. If you are sufficiently ignorant, you won’t even know how dangerous your policies are until they have destroyed you, and then you can always blame others.
The thing I wanted to comment on is the changed perspective of realizing that lots of other people really don’t work like you, and you can’t particularly change it directly.

I would instinctively always expect that I could appeal to reason in other people. I’d expect that if the facts are brought together, and we talk about things, we’d all reasonably come to relatively similar conclusions about what is going on. We might have different preferences, but we ought to be able to form a common picture of what is there and what the factors are.

And the, at first, depressing truth is that there’s a large number of people that don’t seem to work like that, that certainly don’t believe in stuff like that, and that won’t respond to it. I.e. for them it is not about getting the facts together. They can’t be convinced with facts. It is not about talking it all over as reasonable people. They don’t listen to certain things at all. It is not about reaching a consensus, because they don’t believe in consensus.

But, see, it is only depressing if you mistakenly assume something different about others than what is there. You only get disappointed if you expected something to happen that then doesn’t happen. If I expect to be able to reason with somebody and I can’t, it is disappointing. But if I didn’t expect it or assume it, there’d be nothing to be disappointed about.

If I kept lions as pets, I might assume and expect certain things from them. Being able to reason with them wouldn’t be one of them. Them being sincerely concerned about my well-being would probably not be one of them either. They’re wild beasts, but within a certain framework we might enjoy each other’s company. But I’d always be on guard and knowing where the tranquilizer gun is. And I’d keep them well-fed and not turn my back on them. But I wouldn’t be disappointed if I couldn’t talk reasonably about the philosophies of societal structures with them. They probably have no concept of that, and that’s no big deal, as long as I don’t depend on it.

Likewise if certain groups of people are living within a certain worldview which from my perspective is very limiting and even ignorant concerning the facts of life. Or cruel and inhumane, for that matter. It is only something to be depressed about if I assumed it to be otherwise and only found out late that it wasn’t.

If it were very clear that people living in different cities lived by different rules, and the rules were clearly posted by the entrance, one could live with that. If I knew that in City B one could get shot on sight if one was caught chewing gum, I’d refrain from chewing gum if I went there. Or if I couldn’t live with that, I’d stay away from there.

The trouble is that the world isn’t marked up like that. Well, it is to some degree by countries, but that is too crude. It is hard to see the geography of people’s worldviews. So we tend to default to assuming that everybody else is more or less like us.

Which for stereotypical “liberal” people tends to be to assume that people are fundamentally good and decent and that if we just bring out the facts and talk everything over, we could reach a consensus, and everybody’s needs could be taken care of. And for stereotypical “conservative” folks, it is to assume that everybody’s out only to get the best for themselves, and it is a dangerous world out there where only the strongest and most disciplined people survive, and it is a waste of time to listen to the people who have the wrong ideas. OK, those are U.S. categories. Looks different in other countries.

The differences in worldviews are so pervasive, and so hard for any of the “sides” to perceive, that it becomes very frustrating to try to agree on anything.

But my point is that it is less frustrating once one realizes that the worldviews really are different and that it isn’t easily changed. I.e. instead of trying to reason with people who can’t be reasoned with, adopting a more simple stance of working around that, above it, below it, rather than against it. Treat lions as lions rather than as people. But put a fence around them.

On a related note, I’m right now on various mailing lists about success, entrepreneurship, wealth-building and similar things, because, well, I need to figure out some more sustainable ways of making a living, and need some inspiration. One of those newsletters sent me a thing yesterday about “Believe That You Deserve To Be Wealthy”. Which generally is a good theme, of course. If you want to be succesful and make a lot of money, you’ll have to believe it is a good thing. If you love money, you’re more likely to have it. But then they give this advice:
No amount of effort on your part will overcome a faulty philosophy. If, deep down, you believe that wealth is a sin or that money is dirty, or wicked then the first step is for you to correct this error or give up all hopes of wealth for you and your family.

What is a ‘wrong’ philosophy with regard to making money?

Anything which could be described as altruistic, socialist, collectivist, communist or any one of its thousand manifestations no matter what the label, no matter what the disguise, no matter what the smokescreen.

Without exception, every self-made millionaire I have met was a rugged individualist. Most of them despised government, although many were clever enough not to say so in public. And believe me, there were approximately zero socialists amongst them.

A socialist, whatever he calls himself, is someone who believes that brute force should be used to loot from the productive, in order to provide handouts for the unproductive. No matter how you disguise it, or make it look fancy, that’s the plain truth of the socialist doctrine.

I believe that it is impossible for you to attempt to get rich if you have some nagging doubt that money is the root of all evil, that Capitalism is bad or that wealth should be divided up amongst the needy. You have surrendered the philosophical high ground if you sign up for any of these positions.
I don’t think I’d be wrong in guessing that this guy voted for George Bush, even though he is probably an intelligent and successful person. And, now, I’m not going to swallow that at all, or that that’s any prerequisite for being successful or wealthy. First of all, it seems a bit upside down. Last I looked, it was marxism that promoted that wealth should go to the productive people as opposed to the unproductive people. I.e. to the people who do the work. Capitalism, on the other hand, is about being able to multiply money without any need to do actual work, by organizing others to be productive and to give the results to you. Oh, that’s not an easy task in itself, and not for dummies. And it is not necessarily a bad thing to be able to organize others to do work. But it certainly isn’t based on rewarding the productive people. Maybe rewarding the most inventive people, who can get the most people working for them. And one of the tools is to coerce governments into taking money from productive people and converting them into handouts to your companies. It is a different kind of socialism, the socialism of the elite, and the anti-thesis of a truly free market. Anyway, I’ve said enough things about that before.

My point here is that there are plenty of people who deeply believe that it is moral and good and right to serve only yourself, and that it would be immoral and wrong to try to do good for all people. You know, the only moral thing to do is to maximize your own profits, and if you actually think you can care about other people doing well too, you’re misguided, soft and ineffective, and probably some kind of commie subversive who wants to steal from good people.

Here’s another area where I instinctively would tend towards making the mistake of expecting that other people would work roughly like I do. I’d tend to assume that everybody else of course would prefer that everybody was doing well, and that everybody’s basic needs were taken care of. That everybody were successful. It both seems logical and feels right to have concern for the whole, for how our whole society and our environment might be organized for the maximum benefit of all.

But again, some people have absolutely no interest in making things work for everybody. On the contrary, that’s a ridiculous and immoral idea, running counter to everything they believe in. Listening to everybody’s ideas and trying to reach consensus is crazy wishful thinking and a waste of time. The only logical thing to do is to do the very best you can for yourself, whatever it takes, and to keep the losers away from you, who’d just want to steal what you’ve done.

I find it rather revolting to even try on for size that kind of mindset. Feels a bit like becoming a racist slave owner. Or a gangster. Anyway, I don’t plan to. I will choose to believe that people can be successful together and, for that matter, that they can become a lot more successful together than they can in one-on-one combat against each other.

But the point is, again, you can’t argue with strongly held views like that, if your basis for arguing is outside the boundaries of that which they believe in. So, you will often be more effective by recognizing that and not try to cozy up to sharks. Sharks eat you if they’re hungry and you seem to be tasty. Not because they’re mean, it’s just what they do. Arguing doesn’t make a difference.

What rather might make a difference is to step up a notch, into a meta level, below which those various worldviews live. The more effective change takes place by changing the game itself.

You might fail utterly in trying to persuade a predatory capitalist to be nice to poor people. Or in persuading a fundamentalist christian to freely discuss the nuances and assumptions in different kinds of beliefs. Or in persuading a shark to not eat people.

Sharks haven’t changed evolutionarily for several millions of years, because they’re very good at what they do already. Efficient killing machines. One human is no match for a great white. But, on the other hand, organized humans can take them out any time they want to.

Some people have fairly predictable, but effective, ways of behaving, which maybe seem repulsive to you. If you meet them alone on their turf, you might well lose. But if you’re organized enough and resourceful enough to change the environment they live in, they might suddenly be the weaker species.

A predatory capitalist who has no moral but profit can only survive well in a certain type of environment. Which exists in abundance at this point. But if a sufficient number of people, instead of trying to pursuade him to change, will rather change the rules of the game, he’ll have little chance.

And I do happen to believe that different rules are gradually emerging, which eventually, in our collective evolution, will outcompete the individualisticly predatory behaviors mentioned.

But such a different environment or a different game doesn’t exist yet, other than as a vision and as pockets here and there, and in certain areas of the internet. It is not what runs the economy or your government. A global collaborative society organizing for the well-being of all is just a dream at this point. It is a jungle out there, and there are cannibals and wild animals who’ll eat you for lunch and not think twice about it. So, organize amongst yourselves and around them, but don’t argue with them. And don’t have a battle of wits with anybody who doesn’t have any. You might lose.
More about Flemming Funch

Working Together

Thursday, November 4th, 2004

I received the following essay from a writer I much admire and respect. I found it difficult reading because if he is speaking the truth then I will have to change the way that I live.

ìAlways tell only the truth, and all the truth, and do so promptly – right now.” –Buckminster Fuller


 

 

Violence covereth them as a garment.
Psalm 73:6

 


Awakening to Blood

Craig Russell

 

If you´ve seen The Godfather, you no doubt remember very well the sequence in which Tom Hagen flies to Los Angeles to talk to Jack Woltz, a movie producer, about giving a role in his new picture to Don Corleone´s godson Johnny Fontaine.  Woltz refuses, however, so the Godfather makes him ìan offer he can´t refuse.”  We see the exterior of Woltz´s magnificent Hollywood mansion at dawn and we hear the peepers softly in the background.  As the Godfather theme quietly begins, the film cuts to inside the bedroom, where Woltz sleeps on golden sheets.  The music then takes a curious, swirling turn, building slightly but steadily, and as the camera continues to come closer, Woltz rolls over and we see red stains on the sheet near his shoulder.  It slowly dawns on him that something is wrong.    He pulls the sheet off himself a little bit and looks down to see his hands covered with blood.  Still not quite awake, he stares at them for a few seconds – and then he understands.  In a panic, he pulls more of the sheet off his bed.  There´s blood everywhere, and at the foot of the bed he finds the severed head of his prized stallion.  The camera then cuts away from him and returns to the peaceful exterior as Woltz´s horrified screams pierce the silent California dawn.

Over the past year, I´ve had much the same realization – not nearly as sudden and dramatic, perhaps, but just as horrifying: like Jack Woltz, I´ve been in bed with death and  am covered with blood – the blood that almost necessarily comes with living more than fifty years now as an American citizen.  And this blood, which is on the hands of almost every American, symbolizes not just death, not just murder – though certainly death and murder are evil enough – but also our acquiescence with, and our dependence upon, this murder, a dependence which we ignore and pretend doesn´t exist but which provides the bedrock of our culture and denies us the peace and freedom we say we want.

We´ve all heard of – and are horrified by – the Nazi Holocaust of the Thirties and Forties in which millions were murdered.  Yet every year, Americans murder more than 10 billion and then eat their butchered remains.  They purposefully execute a number greater than the entire human population just to slake their thirst for blood.  And if we bother to think about just what it is that we´re doing, we consider it good, moral, and even necessary.  The vast, overwhelming majority considers it the natural order of things, part of every day life.  It´s just ìthe way things are.”

We don´t consider it murder because, like the Nazis, we don´t consider the victims ìhuman.”  We think of them as ìanimals.”  Now no doubt most of you will question my use of those quotation marks and argue that the beings I refer to are indeed animals.  But that reaction, that very questioning, is part of my point.  We have no word in English that equates ìhumans” and ìanimals” and puts them on the same level.  Human beings use their capacity with language to define themselves as superior to all other beings, and that mental sleight-of-hand makes all the difference.

Billions of innocent, life-loving animals are slaughtered at the brutal, callused hands of man every year in the United States so that we can rip their lifeless bodies apart and use them for food, for clothing, or for whatever else we can rationalize to ourselves as ìuseful” or even ìnecessary.”  It´s a violence, a viciousness, toward life that´s only made all the more violent and vicious by our collective cultural refusal to see it as such.

Part of this refusal, of course, stems from our language, from the words we use to represent these things in our minds and from the thoughts and beliefs these words then engender.  Just by defining ourselves as ìpeople” and them as ìanimals,” we deny that their lives have as much importance to them as ours do to us.  To us, they´re ìjust” animals.  They´re ìonly” animals.  We diminish them further in our minds by calling their dead bodies ìmeat” and by calling their remains ìbeef” and ìham,” ìsteak” and ìbacon” and ìveal.”  They´re not living, feeling beings – they´re just one of the four food groups.  They´re groceries.  They´re what´s for dinner.

Another factor contributing to this holocaust´s invisibility is the fact that we very intentionally keep the helpless and innocent victims of our bloodlust hidden from our sight.  Many of us, when we can be bothered to think of them at all, imagine these animals grazing in the fields, tended by a kindly old farmer.  But think: when´s the last time you drove through the countryside and saw pigs in the barnyard or flocks of chickens in a pen?  In modern industrial America, almost all animals raised for food are kept on what are called ìfactory farms,” though ìdeath camp” is a much more accurate term.  We don´t see the horrific conditions in which we keep them: packed so close together they can´t even move in buildings where they never in their short pain- and terror-filled lives see the sun.  We don´t smell the stink.  We don´t hear the screams.  But they´re there nonetheless, and we certainly embrace the result – the bloody slices of a cow´s butchered body, or a pig´s, or some other being´s, wrapped in cellophane, for sale at the back of our supermarkets.

The third factor in this invisibility is the importance of murder to American society and our concomitant need to hide this truth from ourselves.

From the very beginning, our national culture has been built upon the domination of others for selfish ends.  America is built upon dead bodies – dead natives, dead British, dead buffalo, dead Southerners.  It thrived in the Twentieth Century by exporting death to the rest of the world, growing strong and rich by killing more of them than they killed of us.  The domination of others – this heartless viciousness towards, and callous disregard of, the lives of others – provides the foundation of the American way of life.  It runs through our past and our present.  It touches almost everything we do.  A good man´s suit, for example, is made of wool – an animal product.  Our hats are often made of wool or felt or fur.  Our shoes and belts, our wallets and handbags, are made of ìleather” – made from the skin of the dead.  And, of course, most Americans eat the dead at almost every meal, thus literally incorporating murder, cruelty, and viciousness into their very bodies with every bloody bite.

But we don´t think at it as death.  We don´t think at it as murder.  We don´t because we can´t.  What would happen to our commonly accepted reality, to our fundamental beliefs of ourselves, to our very way of life, if too many of us became conscious of just how integral murder is to that way of life?  What would happen if too many of us looked at a wool suit, a leather belt, a plate of scrambled eggs, a glass of milk, or – god forbid! – a McDonald´s and saw the murder, the violence, the death that brought them all into being?  What would happen if, like Jack Woltz, we woke up one quiet morning to the fact that the golden sheets of our beds are covered with blood?

n eating the remains of animals, in dominating their entire lives, terrorizing them, and finally killing them, we acquiesce to domination, to terror, and to death in all its forms, because if it´s all right for us to do it to them, then it´s all right for someone else to do it to us.  How can we decry injustice to humans when every single day we accept the injustice – the death, the slaughter, the holocaust –  meted out to living beings we deem beneath caring, beneath even noticing?  They´re just animals, you say?  Theodor Adorno wrote that ìAuschwitz begins whenever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they´re only animals.”

This isn´t a matter simply of opinion.  That our society is sustained by mass murder is simply a fact – one that our culture doesn´t us want to wake up to.  But if we´re serious about people, about justice, about peace and freedom, we have to open our eyes to what J. M. Coetzee called:

an enterprise of degradation, cruelty, and killing which rivals anything the Third Reich was capable of, indeed dwarfs it, in that ours is an enterprise without end, self-regenerating, bringing rabbits, rats, poultry, livestock ceaselessly into the world for the purpose of killing them.

We can not have a good world when it´s founded on, and dependent upon, murder.  We cannot have a peaceful world when it´s awash in blood.  We cannot stop the killing overseas when we support the killing on our very shores – a daily, continuing holocaust upon which we feed like bloodthirsty savages – for as Isaac Bashevis Singer wrote, ìThere will be no justice as long as man will stand with a knife or a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is.”


Craig Russell is a writer and musician in upstate New York. He has been a contributor to Strike The Root, You can read more of his writings at the Craig Russell Archive.