CIVILIZATION

The history of humanity reveals life has been bad for common people of past societies who, for the most part, lived under threat of death in oppressive brute-force regimes ruled by kings, emperors, or dictators.

But, common workers of today haven't fared much better in contemporary "civilized" societies, such as the pseudo-democratic United States, ruled by greedy financiers, arrogant corporate leaders, and corrupt politicians.

The word-symbols "civilized" and "civilization" are two of the most misunderstood words in the English language. The word-symbol "civil" relates to affairs of a peaceful people living collectively, as opposed to the affairs of warriors living in a military camp. A "civilian" is a non-militant person, as opposed to a "militant" warrior who is combative, aggressive, engaged in warfare. The word-symbol "civics" pertains to the rights and duties of people living in a civil society, and "civilize" means to raise a primitive, barbaric people to the state of civility.

Is a nation civilized if it annually spends a large portion of its wealth to produce the machinery and tools of war, while underfunding social programs essential to the welfare of its citizens? After all, isn't the basic reason people gather and live together in collective societies to better provide for the general welfare? Is such a nation "civilized" if many of these advanced technologies were originally developed to provide more efficient ways to kill or incapacitate real or imagined enemies?

Nations have been labeled "civilization" because they possess, or possessed, a complex social structure and advanced technologies." But is a nation truly civilized when so much of this structure is corrupt and allows comparatively few aggressive, greedy citizens to grasp extraordinary amounts of the nation's wealth, while millions of other citizens live in hopeless poverty? Especially if it is the raw physical energy of these millions that actually produces the nation's wealth and keeps the wheels of the nation turning?

Throughout all of history, and with rare exceptions, human societies—past and present—have possessed hierarchical social systems: pyramidal systems controlled and benefited by comparatively few individuals or groups at the top of the structure. Normally, these systems have enabled those at the top to establish oppressive laws and social institutions to control the masses of poorer, common people below. Consequently, and with few exceptions, the common masses of all these societies have dreamed of "freedom " from political, economic, and religious oppression. Freedom is often called "liberty,"

Today, in the so-called "representative democracy" of the United States, millions of working class Americans believe they are "free," because, until the recently declared American "War on Terror," they have been free to travel anywhere in the world, and say whatever it is they want without fear of government interference. But this belief is due to an enormous national ignorance of what the word "freedom" truly means. These Americans, and you might be one of them, also believe they live in a true democracy, as they can go to the voting polls and select a political leader of their choice. This is also due to a gross ignorance as to what a true democracy is, how it should work, and the benefits such a political system could—and should—provide its citizens.

It might surprise you, but true democracy isn't merely a political system, but an economic system also. One without the other isn't true democracy. This section describes a theoretical democracy, structured the way a true democracy should be, and some of its many benefits. Another section offers a logical plan to create such a social system in the real world, for many people firmly believe only such a system—in which all citizens nourish their society so that in turn it will nourish them—can curb the accumulation of excessive wealth, and the abuse of power excessive wealth spawns.

GOVERNMENT

The people of planet Earth have long been programmed to believe the U.S. is a prosperous democracy, and the best form of government possible. This despite the truth the republic has never been more than a pseudo-democracy, the federal government, state governments, and hundreds of municipalities are financially bankrupt, the country has more of its citizens behind bars than any other, it is one of the few large industrialized nations without a national healthcare program, its public school systems are among the poorest rated on the planet, it is an anti-semitic and racially prejudiced nation, and it's political system is so poorly structured, fascists have taken over the government and transformed the U.S. into a warmongering nation feared by all others.

The dictionary defines government as "a system of rule:" a system of "political administration." This is true, but it is not a clear enough explanation. It can also be said:

...government is a system of organization essential to the maintenance of social order, the central headquarters where important decisions affecting all citizens of a society, or portion of society, are made. It's the institution—the human invention—that provides society its basic stability and meaning...

Ancient Greeks identified three basic systems of government: rule of one, rule of few, and rule of many, but not all. All three are hierarchical systems, in which the few are privileged and the masses are deprived. All three systems produce them-against-us forms of government. "Them" are the privileged rulers, and "us" are the deprived common folk.

A society can be either a them-against-us society or an all-of-us-together society; it can't be both forms simultaneously, for it is either government's function to allow select groups to grasp as much wealth and power of a society as they can get away with—as it does in the United States and other nations—or it is government's function to attend the collective welfare of the total population. It cannot do both at the same time.

Traditionally, hierarchical social systems have been established by brute-force conquest. In modern instances, the use of a greater financial force has helped to expedite conquest.. Societies ruled by kings, dictators, aristocracies, or witch doctor/priests have been hierarchical systems and bad for commoners, for none has truly been concerned with their welfare. Modern day societies under the influence of industrialists, merchants and moneylenders are also hierarchical systems and have proven to be just as bad for commoners. All, including the United States, are examples of them-against-us governments. Planet Earth has seen more than its share of such systems.

The rule of all is the only form of government remaining untested on planet Earth. Theoretically, it's the only form of governance that won't tolerate lavish wealth side by side with massive poverty and ignorance. Such a society holds the promise of full physical and financial security for all of its citizens, for if all participate in governance, all are privileged, and all will have access to the fruits of fair government. The knowledge and technology to produce such a society exists today.

This political form has been labeled democracy. However, in modern times the concept of "true" democracy has been hijacked and warped by the oppressors of the world. Their "representative" democracy bears no likeness to true democracy, which has also been called "direct" or "participatory," because in a truly democratic society all adult citizens "directly participate" in political decision-making. It is only by the use of such a form of government, in which political and economic powers are so diffused, that neither individual nor group can ever grasp control.

A human society, which is a collective of individuals, is neither good nor bad. The reason all so-called "civilized," hierarchical societies have proven to be bad for the majority of their citizens is because they have been deliberately designed to favor the wealthy minority, who have always abused their power.

The reigning neoconservative American philosophy holds that unregulated capitalism is the best possible economic system, and socialism the worst. It is wrong on both counts. Unregulated capitalism is nothing more than official approval of the uncontrolled plundering of a nation by the wealthy and the powerful. The neocon's opinion of socialism is based upon Friedrich Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom, in which Hayek condemns social planning by government as the path to slavery.

Hayek argues that many progressives have ignored all the warnings about the consequences of a socialist-type government. He claims the concept of democracy conflicts with the concept of socialism, and on that point he's right. True democracy does conflict with both the "collective-style" and the "hierarchical them-against-us style" of socialist governments. But a true democracy is a society governed by all of its members for the collective welfare of all, which makes it the epitome of true socialism.

Hayek's is a fine argument, but it's mostly sophistry with little recognition of what distinguishes a true from a false democracy such as found in the U.S. Nor does Hayek's argument recognize the benefits a properly structured true democracy could provide for its citizens, for If properly structured, true democracy provides its common workers with many benefits not provided by hierarchical political systems.

Hayek begins his argument by asking:

..have not our many of our finest minds incessantly worked to make this a better world? Have not all our efforts and hopes been directed toward greater freedom, justice and prosperity?...

The answer to the first question is "yes," our brightest, most curious and imaginative people have worked to discover the many truths of the universe and ways to make life better for us all. The answer to the second question is "no." For it is the wealthy and the powerful who have monopolized the ideas and the inventions of these bright people for their own gain. Any benefits derived by the common masses has been incidental, for these powerful men haven't, in the least, been concerned with the "greater freedom, justice or prosperity " of the masses, whom they have freely abused. History verifies this truth.

Hayek then laments:

...we had progressively been moving away from the basic ideas on which Western civilization has been built...

But Western civilization has been built upon the Law of the Jungle in which the strong take whatever they want, whenever they want. Nowhere does Hayek speak of the realities of life. Nowhere does he speak of the bullying of the masses by the wealthy and powerful few. Nowhere does he speak of the brutal beatings or the torture inflicted because some people possess the power to practice their cruelty over others. Nowhere does he speak of the massive starvation suffered due to the unquenchable greed of the rich. Nowhere does he speak of the arbitrary wars that have extinguished so many innocent lives; wars fought not for the cause of survival, but merely to gain more wealth for the few. These are the basic realities of Western civilization for which Hayek laments.

He also claims:

...There is, in particular, all the difference between deliberately creating a system within which competition will work as beneficially as possible and passively accepting institutions as they are...

Here we have the crux of the matter. As an economist, Hayek is concerned with economic competition, but true socialism and true democracy are concerned with social cooperation. Each system of order produces a different kind of society. Each demands a different kind of personal philosphy of life. Capitalism, which is built upon economic competition demands an "individual" philosophy: "I'll take care of me first, and the devil can take care of everyone else." But both true socialism and true democracy demand a "collective" philosophy: "If we take care of each other, and see that no one harms the other, we will survive more easily and with dignity."

The proof is in the pudding. Unregulated capitalism has allowed comparatively few rich, aggressive individuals—via their big, aggressive corporations—to drive tens of thousands of mom and pop companies and small entrepreneurs out of business. Unregulated capitalism has transformed the U.S. into a nation of comparatively few corporate giants that control the essentials of life, with little other than their contemporary-style clothes to distinguish the millions of corporate employees from serfs of the past working the giant estates of their lords and masters.

Furthermore, Hayek was born in Vienna, the oldest son of a medical doctor. His background is of the upper middle-class. After serving in the Austrian Army during World War I, he entered the University of Vienna where he became an economist. What could he know of hunger and unjust justice?

Economists use complex formulas, analyze sales volumes, short and long term profits, and bottom lines, none of which helps them to accurately predict or prevent economic inflation or depression; none of which reduces poverty, human misery, unemployment, or human violence. None of these demoralizing and destructive human conditions seem to be of interest to economists.

The volume of guns sold are of equal value to economists as the volume of food sold. But of what relevance are guns to national health, when millions of children are underfed? Of what relevance is the Gross National Product when it doesn't tell us which Americans get too much and which too little? Or how much the national debt would be reduced if American businessmen weren't allowed to take their production overseas?

The point is, of what relevance is the opinion of an economist on the merit or value of one social system over another when his myopic vision is limited to such a narrow slice of a human social system?

Perhaps, the point can be better made with a more fundamentally based argument. The early English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that man existed in a state of nature, absent of any constraints living in absolute freedom. But he lived "in continued fear and danger of violent death," with a life that was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." If a collective society is to function harmoniously, he said, people must of necessity relinquish part of their natural freedom.

Philosopher John Locke then suggested that as man was a blank slate ("tabula rasa") at birth, proper institutions were needed to influence his base nature positively.

From these two theories, French philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau later developed the concept of a "social contract." that claims although man is born free, he voluntarily relinquishes some of his freedom in exchange for the safety and other benefits of collective life. This concept is at the heart of western political thought. A function of the Constitution of the United States is "to promote the general welfare." Something the wealthy elite of the American republic have never believed.

The situation in the United States, is that although most "individual" citizens of the U.S. abide by laws restraining base human instincts, and are willing to relinquish some freedoms to gain the security of collective living, the men of the corporate world insist upon their corporations remaining unregulated in any way so they may continue exercising the freedom of their greed and their quest for more power.

It may be difficult for you to envision such a society, but it's simply because there aren't any role models, and the institutions needed by such a political-economic system have yet to be invented. They don't exist.

Certainly, none of the class-inspired institutions of today, such as the two-party political system, two-part legislature, private property, and privately controlled money and credit systems, which are all devices designed to retain the status quo by a ruling elite, have a place in a society in which the entire citizenry rules.

One more insight. Throughout the history of humanity true democracy—government of the people—has been the social system feared most by privileged people, for it would limit their wealth and jeopardize their lifestyles. True democracy is the government rejected by the "Founding Fathers" of the U.S. who, if they had truly desired democracy, could just as easily have fashioned their new political system around New England's "town meeting" format.

Also, true democracy is the form of government recommended for the U.S. by young Americans in their 1962 Port Huron Manifesto, a document all of today's generations should be required to read.