Future revolutions

The illusion of "Objective Truth" is the most alluring trap for human thought. It makes people believe they discovered - rather than constructed – “Truth”, This convinces them they are infallible and often leads to more killing than epidemics ending in disillusion and cynicism. Reality is far more complex than any linguistic description but we try to understand it through words. Words and grammar contain implicit assumptions about reality. They bias our thinking. Language and logic are fixed yet reality evolves. Language represents - thought invents. Thinking must grope beyond language. Constant critique of assumptions embedded in words can reduce their grip on thinking but cannot liberate it. In her fascinating book “Animals in translation” (Scribner 2006) Temple Grandin provides many examples of thinking in pictures rather than with words. This reveals many limitations of verbal thinking. However, pictorial thinking too has its limitations.

2. Priority Principles

The Nazis began to rule Germany in 1933 and immediately passed new laws against Communists and Jews. Both were forbidden to teach Germans. Communists were imprisoned and all Jewish teachers in German schools were dismissed. Jewish children had to sit on special "Jew benches" in German schools. In 1934 the Nazi Minister of Education Bernhard Rust asked David Hilbert, the Head of the famous Mathematics department in Göttingen University: "How is mathematics in Göttingen now that it has been freed of the Jewish influence?"

Hilbert replied: "Mathematics in Göttingen? There is really none any more".

But the Nazis also persecuted homosexuals and the mentally ill. Communists and homosexuals were sent to concentration camps. The mentally ill were killed. Order T-4 signed by Hitler in 1939 caused the extermination of 100,000 mental patients in Germany. Most of them were Germans. This killing was described as "Euthanasia" ("Mercy killing"). The Nazis argued that as such people are incurable; keeping them alive is a constant burden on the state and on their families. Their housing, upkeep, medication, and treatment, cost a lot yet they contribute nothing towards it. Killing them will relieve their families and the state of a burden. Most mental patients were killed by gas - long before this method was used to kill Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs.
In 1941 the Nazis began to kill millions of Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs by gas in special camps built for this purpose. Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland was the largest. The Nazis destroyed most of it before the "Red Army" liberated the inmates. Camp ruins became a memorial to those killed there. People from all over the world visit Auschwitz every year to honour those killed there. Their conclusions differ according to their priority principles. A priority principle is a conviction that shapes preferences.

People have four different priority principles:

1. Ego-centric. 2. Ethno-centric. 3. Theo-centric. 4. Anthropo-centric.

1) A visitor to Auschwitz with an egocentric priority principle concludes:

My relatives did not put their own interests above all else. I did. I emigrated but they stayed behind and perished. One must always give top priority to one's own interests.

2) A visitor to Auschwitz with an ethnocentric priority principle concludes:

Jews died here because they had no State to protect them. No state accepted immigration of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. Existence of a Jewish State must be top priority for Jews. Only it can save them from a new Holocaust. Concern for the Jewish State - not for private interests - must be top priority for Jews.
3) A visitor to Auschwitz with a Theocentric priority principle concludes:

Everything - including the Holocaust - is due to God's will. God punished the Jews because they worshipped the Jewish State instead of worshipping Him. The Holocaust is God's punishment for the sin of Zionism, the sin of worshipping a State and a Nation instead of worshipping God. State and nation are man-made and must not be worshipped. Only when all Jews repent, abandon all false gods, and worship God alone, will God relent, forgive, send His Saviour to ingather all exiled Jews, re-build the Temple in Jerusalem and resurrect the Kingdom of God.

Worship of God alone - not of Self, Nation or State - must be top priority for Jews.
4) A visitor to Auschwitz with an anthropocentric priority principle concludes:

The Nazi killing of Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs was motivated by racism. The Nazis believed these groups are inferior races, while Arians are the Superior Race. Racism motivated the Nazis to enslave, and exterminate, millions of people. To prevent recurrence of slavery and mass-murder one must abolish racism. Only when people's top priority is the welfare of all human beings, not of some particular group, will racism disappear. Only concern for all human beings can prevent a new Holocaust.

Although most people are unaware of it, all have a priority principle motivating them. This principle enables us to choose. Without it we cannot prefer, choose, or decide. We can change our priority principle, but at any moment we have one. To the four priority principles above a new one was added in the 1960s - Eco-centrism. It puts the welfare of all life on earth above that of any single species, including Humanity. All decisions people make and all lessons they draw are shaped by their priority principle. Facts do not determine decisions, nor do they determine the lessons drawn from them. The same facts cause different people to make different decisions due to different priority principles. Priority principles are not "Natural" or "Self evident". They are arbitrary. Without them we cannot prefer. Different priorities determine different preferences. To “prefer” is to choose one option from a number of options. Priority determines preference. We can only prefer one option, never two.

This means that each priority principle rules out all the others.

A chilling example of this fact is the following true story:

When Nazis began to rule Germany in 1933 they built the Dachau concentration camp for their main enemy - the German Communists. Communist leaders and many rank-and-file communists were imprisoned in Dachau. In later years others, including Jews, were sent there. The US Army liberated Dachau on 29.4.1945. On the last roll-call before liberation (28.4.1945) the Nazi commander of Dachau called forward two prisoners: a young German communist and an old Jew, and said to the communist:

"I give you a choice: Kill this Jew and I'll let you go so tomorrow you'll be free. If you refuse to kill the Jew, I'll kill you. What do you prefer? "

The communist preferred to be killed rather than kill the Jew and was shot in front of all prisoners. Some reported this later. Why did the communist refuse to kill the Jew?

The communist priority is Anthropocentrism. Genuine Communists are committed to promote the welfare of Humanity, not their own, or that of their nation. This forbids killing an innocent person. Egocentric urge to survive required killing the Jew. But Anthropocentrism forbids this. The communist stuck to anthropocentrism knowing he would pay with his life. He was not different from those who prefer death to dishonour. Survival is not always top priority. Every suicide proves this. Millions who volunteered to die for "King and Country" in WW1 prove this. So did the communist.
Egocentrism is the source of capitalism. Ethnocentrism is the source of nationalism. As they exclude each other private interest contradicts national interest. Egocentrism motivates people to pursue private interests even when this harms their society. It overrules Ethnocentrism (the interests of one's nation, tribe, or class) since "My life matters to me most" negates "to die for King and Country".
Theocentrism is the source of theocracy. The suicide bombers who destroyed the World Trade Centre in New York in 9/11/2001 were motivated by Theocentrism.

It overruled their Egocentrism.

Leaders like Gandhi (India 1948) Sa'adat (Egypt 1981) and Rabin (Israel 1995) were assassinated. Their assassins were not ordinary criminals seeking personal gain, or revenge, but people whose priority was Theo-centrism. They believed they serve God by killing sinners, even if their act causes their own death.

This demonstrates that Theocentrism overrules Ego- Anthropo- and Ethno- centrism.

Each priority overrules all others. This is the nature - and meaning - of “Priority”

The different conclusions drawn from the Holocaust raise the following question:

Which priority should one prefer? To answer this question we need to determine preference among priorities. This too must be justified by some priority. So choosing a priority depends on a priority. Suppose we decide which lesson to prefer by evaluating its consequences. Evaluation too depends on a priority. Slaughtering animals for food is a crime for vegetarians but not for meat-eaters. Positive or negative value is bestowed on slaughter by peoples' priorities. Slaughter itself has no inherent value. Facts do not contain their own value. Value is bestowed on facts by people according to their priorities.
Many believe that sheer physical survival has a positive value independent of any priority. This is false for three reasons: 1) whose survival are we talking about? One's own? One's family? One's species? One's nation? Humanity's? Each choice implies a different priority. 2) All who commit suicide or who volunteered to die "For King and Country", or prefer "Death before dishonour", subordinate their survival to another priority. For them sheer physical survival is not an "Objective Priority".

3) Many religious believers are convinced that after death they will continue to exist in Heaven much better than they did on earth. For them death is a door leading to better life in Heaven. Nature does not define "Good" or "Bad", Society does.

Quest for physical survival motivates many creatures in nature (though some sacrifice themselves to save their offspring) but animals in groups often subordinate their own survival to a new priority - the survival of the group. People today no longer act like animals. Our animal drives are restrained by society. Society was created by primates who are products of biology, but once it emerged its members' behaviour is no longer subordinated to biological drives. People today are biological systems produced by nature but run by programs produced by society. Software dominates hardware.
A metaphor from physics can clarify this point. Ice, water, and steam are different forms of existence of the same molecule – H2O (consisting of two atoms of hydrogen combined with one atom of oxygen). If we heat ice till it melts it turns into water. The molecules of ice and water are the same, but in water they do not behave according to the same rules as when they were in ice. Ice can be cut with an ice pick but not water. Whirlpools and turbulences can form in water but not in ice. If we heat the water till it becomes steam we meet again the same change of rules. H2O molecules in steam behave differently from the way they behaved in water. Steam can be easily compressed but water is almost incompressible. In steam they obey the rules of gases but in water they obey the rules of fluids. The fact that ice, water and steam consist of the same molecules does not imply that their molecules behave in the same way. This applies also to the difference between animals living in a group and animals living in isolation. Primates in society and in Nature have the same physiology, but their psychology, behaviour, and responses, are utterly different.
Many explain Society as a means designed by nature to ensure survival of a species, but most species survived without forming any society.

Moreover, societies create wars that don't exist in nature and are harmful to survival.

This indicates that society is not essential for physical survival and may even harm it.
Society is not an instrument of biology designed to ensure the survival of a species.

Many ignore this fact and try to explain human behaviour by biological drives. Such drives exist but they are harnessed by society. Behaviour of people in society is only partially motivated by biological drives. Behaviour of society - and in society - is determined by priorities created by society, not by nature. Biological explanations of social behaviour assume our priorities are determined by Nature. This is false and harmful. Biology does not determine sociology or morality.

"Survival of the fittest" may be a rule in Nature, but it is not a rule of society.

If society accepts this rule then woe to the unfit. The Nazis believed history is ruled by "Survival of the superior race". They killed races and people they considered "inferior". Germany was defeated in WW2. Does this mean the Germans are "inferior" or "unfit" - as Hitler said before he committed suicide?

Society has emerged from nature but is not subordinated to "Laws of Nature".

Death is a fact of nature but nature does not bestow value on facts. There is no awareness of existence in Nature. Nature is oblivious of existence and extinction, of life and death, of good and evil. Nature is unaware and amoral. Society - not Nature - produces moral choices and priorities. Only socialized hominids create priorities, identities, theories, histories, and awareness of all these, and of existence itself.

3. Society creates individuality
Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s Prime Minister during the 1980s, once said: “There is no such thing as society, there are only individuals and families.”   She said this to justify her policy of privatization, arguing that coal mines, railways, electricity plants, must be run exclusively for profit, not as a service to ‘Society’, which is - according to her - a fiction, not a reality.

 

At first it seems she is right.  We see no entity called ‘Society’. We see only people. But if she is right, then one can also say: “There is no such thing as an Army, there are only people wearing uniforms.” We know this is nonsense. An Army is more than people wearing uniforms. The difference between an Army and people wearing military uniforms is not in the way they look but in the way they behave. People wearing military uniforms as a fashion do not obey orders and do not act together according to a plan. They do not kill others or risk their lives, even if ordered to do so.   Only soldiers in an Army do so.

 

What makes “people” into “society” is behavior. ‘Society’ is not merely people living next to each other but people behaving according to rules accepted by most of them.  These rules - known as ‘laws’ - are made to resolve conflicts between people, and are accepted by most people in a society. Obedience to laws makes “people” into a ‘society’.  People valued the laws so much that they attributed their creation to God. Moses claimed he got the "Ten Commandments" from God on Mount Sinai. Anyone claiming Muhammad created the Koran is denounced as a blasphemer by all Muslims. They insist ALLAH created the Koran and dictated it to Muhammad.

Different societies invent different laws, but only when most people in a group accept the same laws do they become a society.  People obeying private laws, as in frontier towns in the ‘Wild West’ of the United States in the 19th Century, are not a society but a crowd without cohesion.  Such crowds lack stability and viability. Their members are in constant mutual strife, they lack communality, and tend to fall apart. American Indians used to say "The “Wild West” became ‘Wild’ only after the whites arrived."  It became wild because each white settler obeyed only his private laws.  When people obey only private laws they constantly fight each other and ‘society’ does not exist. They become a society only when all obey the same laws

Before creating societies, hominids were just another species of apes lacking speech and thought. Life in society produced speech and thought thus ‘humanizing’ primates.  Speech and thought are produced by Society, not by Nature.  

If, as Margaret Thatcher said, Society does not exist, then speech, language, thinking, and - individuality, could not exist either.

                    

Ernst Hemingway's best selling novel "For whom the bell tolls" (1940) owes its title to an essay written by John Donne in 1623 where he wrote:

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee"
Despite reading Hemingway's novel most people in societies with Big Business economies are convinced that every individual is an isolated island. They draw this conclusion from the experience of competitive life in a BB economy not realizing that in different societies, with different economies, attitudes to life are very different.

To Donne's assertion that each individual is a "piece" of a continent one can add, that each piece has the shape of its continent. Every individual is unique but shares basic features with other individuals in the same society.

To clarify this idea let us consider the first English novel - "Robinson Crusoe", written by Daniel Defoe in 1719. It is based on the real life of Alexander Selkirk who sailed from England in 1704 and lived five years on an uninhabited, isolated, island. Defoe describes how Crusoe built himself "A Castle", tamed animals, and grew vegetables. When a savage appeared on the island Crusoe used him as "a slave". It is a story of survival in the wild. How did Crusoe survive on "his" island ? He had with him a musket, gunpowder, carpenter's tools, a knife, a Bible, and his clothing. He used them and the knowledge he acquired in England. The story is about an individual but it implies an entire society since Crusoe's thinking, attitudes, responses – and tools are a product of - and represent - English society. When Crusoe arrives on the island English society arrives with him programmed into his mind, shaping his behaviour.

Suppose a modern shipwreck survivor arrives today on a remote island with a laptop computer. A computer's hard-disk contains programs written by many programmers. What a computer does, and how it does it, represents its programmers. The programs running the computer were not invented by its owner yet they shape the computer's behaviour. Crusoe's mind is like programs stored on a computer's hard disk. He did not invent the English language, the musket or his tools. His society did. His society - not he - programmed him. His behaviour is shaped by his society. Crusoe is a miniaturized England, not a new continent.

To illustrate this idea I use the Hologram. This is a photo on glass made by Laser light. It cannot be seen in ordinary light but if illuminated by the same laser light that created it a 3D image appears in front of the glass. Every detail of the photographed object, as seen from every angle, appears. More surprising, if the glass breaks, every little splinter reproduces - when illuminated by the laser light - the image of the entire photographed object. The smaller the splinter the more blurred the image, but it is an image of the entire object. Each splinter represents the entire object.
Using this as a metaphor for the relation between individuality and society makes sense. A newborn baby learns by imitating its parents. They "program" it consciously - and unconsciously. It imitates their behaviour, thus learning to walk, talk, eat, defecate, and behave. But parents' behaviour - and language - are creations of their society. Language is the substance of thinking but no individual created it. Our society, over its entire past, did. Thinking is silent speaking and we learn speaking by imitating our parents. Parental behaviour (walking on two legs. talking, controlled defecating) are not "natural", they are created by society. Chinese parents do not behave like British parents. Eskimo parents do not behave like Zulu parents. Each society invents its own language and behaviour. Societies "program" their newborn. Individuals are miniaturized versions of the society in which they grew up.
A newborn baby reared in total isolation - as happened by accident to babies snatched by animals and reared by them – will behave like the animal that reared it. Two well documented cases are the Bengali sisters Amala and Kamala discovered in 1921 in Bengal and reported in the book "Wolf children of Midnapore" (see the Internet) and the boy in Morocco reared by gazelles, discovered in the 1950s and reported in the Penguin book "Gazelle boy". Even without reading these books it is clear that most human behaviour, including basic behaviour like walking and talking, depends on the presence of adults whom the newborn imitates. But these adults themselves became individuals only because they grew up in a society. Without thinking, individuality is minimal, but thinking depends on language. Language is created by society.
Individuality is awareness of oneself as unique by comparison to others. It depends on the presence of others, on ability to compare oneself to others, and to recognize oneself as similar - but different. Whoever grows up isolated from all individuals cannot develop individuality. Individuality depends on society, on the presence of others who have already acquired it. Our individuality is not programmed in our genetic code. It is programmed by society and learned anew by each new-born from other individuals around it. It is not genetic hardware but social software.
A baby reared in total isolation will not become "an individual". This happened to Kaspar Hauser who was found in 1828 in Germany. (For details see the Internet). Such a creature does not know how to use its legs, how to walk, talk or think. Until it meets other individuals it will exist without being aware of its own existence. Only after meeting other individuals did Kaspar acquire these abilities. Individuality is created by society and contains rules created society even when it does not obey them. Each society shapes individuals in its own image. “Individuals” ensure perpetuation of the society that created them. Many experience society like fish experience water - being constantly immersed in it from birth to death they are unaware of its existence. They believe, like Margaret Thatcher, that "There is no such thing as society. There are only individuals and families". But where do individuals come from? Is anyone born as “individual”? a simple, repeatable, experiment refutes this. Take any newborn baby and rear it in total isolation. It will not emerge “an individual”. It will not know how to walk, talk or think. It will not even know it exists. It is immoral to do such an experiment, but when it happened by accident the answer was clear: a newborn baby reared in total isolation does not become an individual. It grows up as any animal becoming a biological creature, not “an individual”.
Society creates individuality but there is often a conflict between society’s interests and those of individuals. The problem is not: “What to do?” but “Who will decide what to do?”. As society’s wellbeing and that of its members are interdependent any one-sided resolution of this conflict will harm both. Only participation of all members of society in resolving this conflict ensures acceptance - and a balanced solution.

Different individuals wish to shape their society in different - even conflicting - ways, but the task stimulates all. This is no wonder as by shaping society individuals shape themselves. Self-shaping is more stimulating than any drug. It fuses our awareness and our selfhood. Instead of being shaped by outsiders the social self shapes itself.

Most societies subordinate the individual to society. This curbs creativity. Conflict between society and individuality can be resolved by enabling all individuals to shape their society. This stimulates creativity and produces new insights, new ideas, new institutions. In Athens, when all free men participated in deciding policy, the conflicts between them produced novelties like Theatre, Tragedy, Comedy, Logical thinking, Philosophy, Proof by reasoning. all still useful to us today. Nearby Sparta, where two Kings decided everything, lack of inner conflicts produced nothing useful to us today.
Most societies exclude most citizens from shaping their society. People prevented from participating in shaping their society become indifferent to their society. Indifference breeds boredom. To overcome boredom people seek distractions. Eventually all distractions become boring. New distractions must constantly be produced. The media has become the provider of distraction. BB owns it and uses it to divert attention from its power. A handful of BB or BG people decide what citizens will see, hear, do. Most citizens are excluded from shaping the media activity. This creates frustrated individuals infected by boredom, seeking distractions, exploited by a media that sensationalizes trivialities and trivializes the significant. All societies are infected by this malaise today. In all societies most people suffer mental misery and economic anxiety, boredom, indifference, frustration, depression, and loneliness. This is not caused by Nature, by History, or by Society but by excluding most citizens from taking part in shaping their society. Most misery can be avoided by enabling all citizens to participate in shaping their societies. Different views on what society should do will cause conflict, but it is a creative conflict stimulating creativity and alleviating mental misery, boredom, frustration, loneliness and depression. Participation of all citizens in deciding all policies is possible today by using electronic communication - mobile phones, the Internet, and TV. Participation of all citizens in policy-making will inspire and stimulate people, as by shaping their society they shape themselves. Shaping social reality rather than watching Reality shows on TV is the antidote to boredom, mental misery and frustration. It will greatly reduce mental and material misery - and costs of governance.

4. Processes produce events
Most people in the 20^th Century were utterly surprised by four major political events:

1. The outbreak of WW1 in August 1914.

2. The general Strike in France in May 1968,

3. Khomeini's religious revolution in Iran in 1979.

4. The collapse of the USSR (see p.69) in December 1991
These events were utterly unexpected - even by those who participated in them.

WW1 broke out at a time of unprecedented economic expansion. It occurred at the height of the industrial revolution. Motor cars and airplanes just appeared. Building the Panama Canal captured the imagination. Many diseases were eliminated. Science and technology flourished. Standards of living rose and people expected them to keep rising forever. Then an accidental occurrence - the assassination of the Austrian Crown Prince - plunged Europe into the worst war the world has ever known.

WW1 hit people everywhere like a bolt out of the blue. They expected continuous economic progress, not war. Many said "Until that war I understood the world. Since that war I don't understand the world and cannot resurrect my understanding".
When WW1 broke out in August 1914 all expected it to end by Christmas 1914.

It lasted till November 1918. Even today many do not understand its causes.

As for the general strike in France in May 1968. On May 1^st 1968 no one imagined that in two weeks France will be paralyzed by a General Strike of 10 million workers striking for 20 days. This was not a failure to predict a date but a failure to understand a social process. France was in a period of economic expansion after President De-Gaull extricated it from its last colonial war in Algeria (1954-1962). No Strike was expected during an economic boom. However, after WW2 political frustrations of people in industrial societies differed from what they were before WW2. Before WW2 peoples' politics were motivated by material misery. After WW2 political frustration began to rival economic frustration. People no longer accepted “Historical circumstances” as something they could not change. The spectacular explosions of Atom bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, convinced many that what was accepted in the past as constraints imposed by nature - or by history - can be changed. Frustration caused by policies people oppose but lack means to change became a powerful political motivation. The fall of the Iranian monarchy in 1979 demonstrated this. Frustration in Iran was mainly cultural. It was caused by the forcible repression of traditional Islamic culture by the Iranian Shah, and by flooding Iran with modern Western culture. Many Iranians felt their cultural identity eroding. Many turned to religion to defend their traditional values. Political experts and analysts ignored cultural frustration. No expert on Iran imagined that an 80-year old obscure religious leader will overthrow the Shah's regime and create a religious State in Iran in 1979.

As in France, so in Iran, the slow process of accumulation of frustration in people was not driven by material misery. It was a process driven by political and cultural misery.

A process is a sequence of tiny - linked - changes. Often the changes are so small that most people fail to notice them. In France and in Iran the process of accumulating frustration went on for a long time but all political experts ignored it.

This repeated itself in the 1991 collapse of BG in the USSR (see p.69). The USSR was a superpower. Its military might was second only to the USA. It had the world's largest land army. In 1957 it sent the first space satellite - "Sputnik" - into orbit around earth, years before the USA could do so. In 1961 it sent the first astronaut -Yuri Gagarin - into space long before the USA. Yet to everybody's surprise this Superpower collapsed like a pack of cards - without civil war - in December 1991, giving rise to a new State that replaced its 74 year old state-owned, planned, economy by a Big Business economy. Citizens of Leningrad, the second largest city in the USSR, voted to restore their city's pre-revolutionary, name: Saint-Petersburg. This expressed their rejection of Lenin and his BG regime - in which they were born and educated for 74 years. US experts and Intelligence officers studied every detail of the USSR for years but not one of them predicted its collapse. All experts, journalists, Marxists, and Communists everywhere were utterly surprised by it. Only one Russian dissident - Andrei Amalrik - predicted it, (in his booklet: "Will the Soviet Union survive till 1984?" published in 1969) but no one paid him any attention.
The fact that four major political events surprised all (including all experts) reveals a basic flaw in people's understanding of politics. As this flaw blinded all experts everywhere it cannot be attributed to personal - or local - causes, to individual psychology, or to lack of knowledge. Such factors cannot affect all experts everywhere. Such misunderstanding is caused not by lack of information but by faulty evaluation of information. The facts were known but their interpretation was wrong. Only material misery was seen as the main motivation in politics. Cultural and political miseries were marginalized. According to traditional thinking if the economy prospers no upheavals are expected. Most people ignored the process of accumulation of frustration. They still do. They notice events but not the processes causing them. Current education - at all levels - focuses on events not on processes.
Political misery - produced by policies people oppose while lacking means to change them - breeds political frustration in many individuals. In all societies today accumulation of political frustration is widespread. It is driven by disgust inspired by all politicians and all political parties. Occasionally it erupts in spectacular events unexpected by those who ignore the accumulation of political frustration. People see events but not the processes that build them up. No wonder they are surprised when the accumulated frustration suddenly erupts in an upheaval they failed to foresee.

.

The first thinker to focus attention on processes was the Greek philosopher Heraclites who lived some 2500 year ago. Called "The Riddler" or "The Obscure" (because many considered his ideas "Obscure") he is the first thinker emphasizing the importance of underlying processes. His most famous saying was "Panta Rey" ("All flows" in Greek). This may seem odd as most of our surroundings seem fixed. Our house does not flow, nor does the book we hold. However, if we use science to analyze appearances we come up with the following observations: Our house, together with the entire earth, circles the sun at the speed of 30 kilometres per second. So by the time you read this sentence your house moved more than 30 kilometres in space. The sun itself circles round the centre of our galaxy at a speed of 217 km per second. So we certainly flow through space. This hardly affects us as we sit on earth like passengers in a plane. When all our surroundings move at the same speed we notice no movement. Yet we move. But there is more to Heraclites' idea.

Matter consists of atoms. In each atom electrons race around the nucleus at high speed. The nucleus itself rotates. At the atomic level all is in frantic, permanent, motion. Neutrons disintegrate; atoms are bombarded non-stop by millions of particles racing from outer space. On colliding with stable atoms they cause their disintegration. Molecules mutate by disintegrating. This change may be too slow - or too fast - for our senses to notice, but it happens all the time. In every leaf of a plant a process occurs every second - a photon of sunlight hits a water molecule and absorbing a carbon dioxide molecule converts them into sugar and oxygen. These two enable plants - and us - to live. This flow is invisible but it occurs non-stop. Heraclites may be obscure but he did not talk nonsense. Though he was unaware of the facts just mentioned, his point is valid. He said: "One cannot dip twice in the same river". Why not? Because between two dips we - and the river - changed. We lost old cells and grew new ones. The water in the river changed, its banks eroded slightly, etc. The changes may be small but they exist - and accumulate. When we dip in the river the second time we are already slightly different and so is the river. All we see as fixed is in a state of change.
The emphasis on process (i.e. a sequence of small changes linked to each other) rather than on events was ignored for some 2300 years. It was revived in the early 19^th century by the German philosopher Hegel (1770-1831) He was a Professor of Philosophy and wrote many books but what concerns us here are his views on the process of evolution of ideas. He saw the evolution of ideas as a permanent process of conflicts between opposing ideas. It is a process driven from within, not from outside. It starts with an idea that dominates our thinking as we accept it uncritically. Gradually drawbacks of dominant ideas emerge and criticism starts. Criticism confronts the dominant idea. Confrontation with criticism modifies it.

It is either replaced by a new idea or modified by its criticism. Later the new idea itself is confronted by new criticism and the process repeats itself. This conflict never ends and forms the process of evolution of ideas - the history of ideas.

Hegel called this type of process - "Dialectics", and its stages: 1) "Thesis". 2) "Anti-thesis" 3) "Syn-thesis". The original Thesis is confronted by an anti-Thesis and the confrontation produces a Syn-thesis. Hegel was convinced this is the Objective Truth about the way ideas develop. He saw the history of ideas as a permanent process of dialectical change, of constant inner conflict. It is a creative process. It creates new ideas that are an improvement on the old ones. Conflict of ideas creates innovation.

Today we know that change can occur also in other - non dialectical - processes, but Hegel's emphasis on creativity of inner conflicts is still very useful. Karl Marx (see next chapter) admired - and criticized - Hegel. Marx applied Hegel's idea of dialectical change (i.e. change by inner conflict) to society. He argued that the history of society is the history of conflicts between classes within each society. The classes themselves originate from the technology the society uses. Technology in antiquity was based on muscle power hence the confrontation was between slaves and slave owners. In the feudal era - when shipping and trade developed, the confrontation was between land-owning nobility and city merchants. In the industrial era - between owners and employees. In public-ownership - between managers and managed. These conflicts create revolutions that replace the current system of running society by a new system better adapted to the new technology. Revolution upgrades evolution. It increases freedom and affluence of most people in society. Revolution - like birth - may cause bloodshed and pain but gives birth to a new, improved, society. Birth, despite all blood and pain, is a creative, not a destructive, process. Obviously, rulers deposed by revolution see it as a collapse of law and order, as a conspiracy by criminals steeped in lawlessness and violence. No wonder all rulers despised Marx.

Rulers reject the idea of a permanent process of political evolution. They see their own rule as final, and believe politics cannot evolve further. They see revolutions as criminal conspiracies causing chaos. All Kings were convinced Republics are "Rule of the rabble". Actually a republic is not a dis-order but a new order where representatives elected by citizens decide policies. This replaced an antiquated order where hereditary Monarchy and Nobility decided policy. Throughout history, those who benefit from a particular political system refuse to see it as a phase in a permanent process of evolution of politics. They believe their system is the final - and best - of all possible systems. They believe attempts to replace their system are conspiracies to destroy all "Law and Order". Rulers cannot see that what they defend is a particular "Law and Order" favouring them. Every ruling class believes its demise will plunge society into chaos. This was the case with Roman Emperors, European Kings, and Communist General Secretaries. Rulers cannot accept that society can function without them. They cannot accept the idea of a new political order, run without them, where most citizens have more freedom. In Europe the Church legitimized Monarchy. Every coronation ceremony highlight was the moment the Head of the Church placed a crown on the head of the Monarch symbolizing that God chose this person to decide policy for the entire society. The coronation ceremony signalled that whoever opposes the Monarch opposes God. In industrial societies the educational system performs the same task - it justifies the current system of ruling and legitimizes it historically and rationally. It creates the belief that whoever challenges the setup where a handful of representatives decide policies for millions of citizens, is behaving illogically, irrationally, and a-historically.

Educational systems legitimize existing political systems since they depend on them. Education is an essential component in every political system. It presents the current political system as an inevitable necessity, justifies it, and teaches skills required for its maintenance and continuation. It presents a particular expediency as a necessity.

Reality is more like a video than like a sequence of stills. Experiencing reality as a process, focuses on emergence - not on existence. Nothing is final. But rulers want to remain rulers. They want their rule to be the final system. Seeing reality - including States - as stages in an ongoing process challenges the finality of everything, including every system of rule. No wonder rulers - and educators - do not focus on processes. They adore what exists not what emerges. Hence the thinking of those educated by a system focussed on existence marginalizes the primacy of processes.

.

The psychoanalyst Victor Frankl, imprisoned during WW2 in Nazi concentration camps, noticed that camp inmates who viewed WW2 as a process, retained hope of a Nazi defeat. This kept them optimistic and helped them survive. Others, overwhelmed by their situation, were unable to see beyond it, saw no process, despaired, and perished. Hope gives strength to survive. Hope depends on being able to see behind current situations the processes that create them. Reality is an ongoing process, not isolated events. Some events terminate a process, or occur by accident, but most events are phases in an ongoing process of change. Those who do not see process cannot foresee the events it may cause. Therefore they believe current situations cannot be changed. Emerging events surprise them.

Processes have a quality that baffles many people, namely, they may give rise to new domains with new constraints, utterly different from those that produced them.

For example, processes in molecules and atoms (which obey rules of physics and chemistry) create living cells which have a goal-seeking behaviour that cannot be explained by physics or chemistry. Cell behaviour aims to achieve a goal, namely - to perpetuate the cell’s existence, to survive. No molecule or atom does this. Living cells originate from atoms and molecules, and consist of atoms and molecules, but their behaviour cannot be fully explained by the rules governing atoms and molecules.

Many find this odd, though no one expects a building to behave like its bricks.

Likewise, processes in cells produce organisms, whose behaviour cannot be fully explained by rules governing cell behaviour. Organisms follow new rules of behaviour. This applies to human society - and to consciousness. Though processes in nerve cells produce consciousness no knowledge of nerve cells can explain consciousness. Consciousness differs qualitatively from nerve-cell activity.

Observing the Grand Evolutionary Process - from Big Bang to Consciousness - from diffused energy to elementary particles, atoms, molecules, from molecules to living cells, from cells to organisms, from organisms to society, from society to language, from language to consciousness - we notice how tiny changes at one level cause - at certain points - leaps into new levels governed by new rules that cannot be explained by the rules of the previous level. Small changes can produce a leap into a new quality. Reality is divided into separate layers each obeying different rules. A monistic view of Reality assumes all reality obeys the same rules. This view has lost validity. Entities belonging to a particular layer obey the rules of that layer, but not the rules of other layers. Reality is divided into separate layers obeying separate rules.
Politics and Geology have something in common - both consist of slow, invisible, processes producing spectacular events. Geology produces earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, politics produce wars and revolutions. People notice earthquakes and volcanic eruptions but not the slow, invisible, processes producing them. Wars and revolutions draw attention, but not the slow, invisible, processes that produce them. Those who cannot see the underlying processes cannot foresee the events they cause.
Predicting an earthquake requires an understanding of the process that produces it. A variety of theories may explain this process. The theory predicting events that occur in reality becomes credible but it may fail to predict future earthquakes. So a new theory is required. This applies to Politics too. Most people see - and respond to - political events, not to political processes. They see wars and revolutions but not the processes that cause them. It is not easy to see an underlying process in politics. In August 1914 most people were surprised when WW1 broke out. They were surprised again when the Russian Revolution broke out in 1917. Very few saw the processes building up these events. Lenin and Trotsky were among the few who saw the process, predicted the events, prepared for them, and used them.

In 1905 a revolution in Russia was put down by the Tsar. Those who focus on events believed this terminates all revolutions in Russia. Lenin and Trotsky disagreed. They learnt from Marx the process whereby BB industrial economies produce economic crises leading to wars and revolutions. Observing this process gave them an advantage over those observing events. Like experienced surfers who know - by observing sea swell - that big waves are coming, they expected the BB industrial economies of Britain and Germany to clash and produce war - and revolution. The war began in 1914. Russia joined Britain. In 1914 millions volunteered to fight but in 1916 most soldiers were fed-up with war. Thousands of Russian soldiers began to desert. This caused the Tsar’s abdication. The desertions - not Lenin - started the revolution.

Political revolutions have two phases: 1) Collapse of the old order. 2) Setting up a new order. The first is caused by rulers. The second - by revolutionaries. Lenin and Trotsky expected the collapse of Tsarist regime but most people were surprised by it. When Tsarist Russia collapsed Lenin and Trotsky surfed the revolutionary wave to create the post-revolutionary regime they wanted. They did not cause the collapse. They were ready for it - and surfed it to set up their alternative regime. Russia’s revolutions - in 1905, in February 1917, and October 1917 - were like three eruptions of a volcano whose lava accumulated below the surface for years. Human intervention in processes can shape the events they produce. Lenin did this in 1917 and shaped BG in Russia. Many supporters of socialized economy argued that a state-run economy in agricultural Russia with millions of illiterate peasants will produce a deformed regime giving socialized economy a bad name. Were they wrong?

Revolutions are eruptions of accumulated frustration caused by rulers, not by revolutionaries. Accumulation of frustration is an invisible process. Few notice it. When frustration reaches saturation it can be ignited by any accident - and erupt. This baffles those who think the accident caused the eruption. They fail to notice the underlying process. Understanding the processes producing events, not the accidental triggers setting them off, is crucial. Triggers are accidental, processes are essential. To anticipate events one must see the processes that produce them. Focussing attention on the conduct of wars diverts attention from the processes that caused them. Books, films, and TV focussing exclusively on soldiers’ conduct in wars or on wars’ accidental triggers conceal the process that caused them. Presenting the assassination of the Austrian Crown Prince as the cause of WW1 conceals the process of rivalry between British and German big business that produced WW1.

War - like disease - can be prevented only by eliminating the process that produces it. All other responses treat symptoms but not causes, and will not stop the recurrence of war or disease. To understand and anticipate events one must study the processes that produce them. To shape events - one must intervene in these processes.

5. Means and Ends
The Cliché "The end justifies the means" is often invoked to justify the use of negative means to achieve a positive end. It turns out that even when use of negative means achieves its short-term end it ruins its long-term end. The collapse of the socialized economy in Russia was caused by long use of negative means. Some were considered negative even by their users (p.75). Their use was justified by the cliché mentioned above. But ends and means are linked. Means influence ends. If the nature of the means contradicts the nature of their ends they will, eventually, ruin their ends.
No positive end was ever served by use of negative means. Negative means ruin positive ends. They modify their ends - and their users. When supporters of a positive end use negative means their integrity cracks. This crack is irreparable. The first use of negative means transforms their user for good. Once their integrity is cracked they become cynical, depressed, indifferent, and remain so to the end of their life.

Many became disillusioned yet lived to see their grand aim crack and crumble.

Another trap awaiting all users of means is the turning of means into ends.

The classic example is money. Originally invented as a means to replace barter trade and facilitate economic exchange it became the aim of all economic activity.

The Catholic Church is another example. Created as a means to spread the message of Jesus that religion must serve Humanity, not God, it became more important than Jesus' message. Loyalty to the Church replaced loyalty to Humanity. Loyalty to the Pope replaced loyalty to Jesus' message.

Means tend to become ends, and thus subvert their original aim.

All Communist Parties fell into this trap, Originally created as means to build a society of economic equality and social justice they soon put loyalty to the Party above loyalty to a just society.

Later, loyalty to the leader of the Party replaced loyalty to the Party.

For most politicians political power - the role of deciding for others what society will do - changed from a means to improve society into an independent - personal - end.

This is a permanent, persistent, pitfall for anyone who decides for others.

Means must never be allowed to become ends. When they do they subvert their ends.

6. Marx - right and wrong
About 12,000 years ago some primates began to bury seeds in the ground to grow plants they liked to eat. No other animal ever did this - before or after.

It was - unknowingly - a revolutionary act.

"Revolution" - in any domain - is a change of the foundations of that domain.

Originally hominids were nomadic hunters-gatherers searching food. Crop growing changed the foundations of nomadic life. Wandering to find food became unnecessary. Living permanently near the fields to cultivate and guard them became necessary. This terminated nomadic life. Crop growers began to domesticate animals, so they no longer had to hunt for meat. They began to build houses. Groups of houses became villages. Big villages became towns. Towns on rivers or crossroads became trade centres, and grew into cities. Thus began citification - and civilization.

For thousands of years most people everywhere spent most of their lives cultivating plants and animals. A mere 200 years ago a new technology revolution began. Steam driven machines were invented to perform tasks hitherto done by muscles, wind, or water. This became known as the "Industrial Revolution". Britain led this revolution. Although the Scotsman James Watt had already patented an improved version of the steam engine in 1769, use of steam power accelerated after 1830 with the invention of railways in Britain. Before the railway most people spent their entire lives near where they were born. Horse-drawn carts carried few people and goods. Railways carried a lot of people - and goods - over large distances in a short time. This boosted trade, travel, and production. It created a great demand for all kinds of steam-driven machines. Factories were built to construct boilers, steam engines, steam-driven looms, locomotives, rails, pumps, iron ships, iron bridges, iron tunnels, steam cranes and lifts, and machines to build all these.

People left work in fields and came to work in factories. This changed their mentality, their attitudes and expectations. In the field, before machines, one worked alone, but in a factory with machines many work together. Work with machines requires coordination and cooperation of many workers in the work process. Peasants worked alone. They depended on nature. Machines manipulate nature. Work with machines depends on people - not on nature. In agricultural societies work (and life) was determined by Nature. The annual cycle of agricultural work repeated itself year after year for thousands of years, hardly changing. This induced a submissive mentality accepting - and expecting - a fixed life. Industrial societies invent new machines and products, constantly changing life. Innovation replaced repetition. This induced an assertive attitude to human life, accepting - and expecting - fundamental changes.

The industrial revolution reduced people’s dependence on Nature. From now on economics depended more on people, less on Nature. Coping with surpluses replaced coping with shortages. Crises of abundance replaced crises of scarcity. New problems created new responsibilities. Pollution is just one of them. Accumulated expertise and knowledge - hitherto revered - lost its value. New machines create new crafts and skills, making old ones obsolete. Young people adapt faster to new technologies so older generations become redundant in production. Technological change produced a new domain of study - Sociology, the study of societies, their structure, their features, their changes, their dynamics, and their specific problems.
The most influential thinker on the effects of technology on society was Karl Marx. Born in Germany in 1818 he moved to London in 1848, living there till his death in 1883. He studied Philosophy in Germany and wrote on history, society and politics in Germany, France, and Belgium. His closest friend was Fredrick Engels, who owned a textile factory in Manchester. At Marx's graveside Engels eulogized him saying: " Just as Darwin discovered the law of the evolution of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of the evolution of human history". He meant Marx's view of hominids as "tool-making animals" - the only animal inventing new tools - causing the creation of new mentalities, new social groups, new social confrontations and new societies. Marx's major book is called "Capital". It analyzes the BB economy. He invented ideas like "Surplus value" and "rate of exploitation". In 1848 he wrote "The Communist Manifesto" of which American economist Galbraith (1908-2006) said: “It is, incomparably, the most successful propaganda tract of all time… What before had been wordy and laboured was now succinct and arresting - a series of hammer blows”. (“The essential Galbraith” Mariner Books, Boston 2001. p.182)

The "Manifesto" starts with the declaration:

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open, fight that each time ended in either a revolutionary constitution of society at large, or in common ruin of the contending classes. …. The government of the modern state is merely a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie…."
"….The Bourgeoisie, by rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communications, draws all, even the most barbarian nations, into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese Walls… It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life…during its rule of scarce one hundred years, it has created more massive, and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. "….
The manifesto ends with the words:

“…The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution.

The workers have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Workers of all countries, unite! "

In 1864 Marx founded the first international organization of workers. Addressing the 2000 workers, trade-unionists, and intellectuals, from all over Europe, he said:

“ No improvement of machinery, no application of science to production, no contrivance of communication, no new colonies, no emigration, no opening of new markets, no free trade, nor all these things put together, will do away with the miseries of the industrial masses. Therefore to conquer political power has become the great duty of the working classes ” A statement valid today as it was 143 years ago

Marx entitled his book “CAPITAL, a critique of political economy” because industrialization turned the economy from regional to national (and global) but private owners seeking short term profits ignored its long-term effects. Mass-production without social planning and control of the entire economy causes unemployment and war. Marx’s ideas inspired many to introduce state-run economies. He proposed to run the economy by the principle - “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. As mass production in one country affected many countries this was a global project, not a local one.

State-run economies were called "Social-ism" because they aimed to care for all in society, not just for a minority of private owners of lands, factories, finance and commerce. Socialism used the profits of the economy to provide all citizens with guaranteed employment, state-paid housing-healthcare-education, and decent pensions. Marx predicted that private owners striving to maximize their profits will create “bubbles” of unchecked growth in the economy that will “burst” causing economic crises. Private owners crave profits and ignore the effects of their activity on society, on its health and future, and on the environment. They’ll do anything to maximize profits. Burst “bubbles” reduce demand and cause unemployment. Reduced demand causes reduced production and unemployment which spiral out of control.

BB “solves” such crises by producing arms and wars - employing the unemployed as soldiers. Wars “solve” economic crises by destroying goods - and lives. BB regimes killed 100 Million people in WW1 and WW2. Hobson's book "Imperialism" (1902, see the Internet) shows in Book 1, Chapter 5, the following:

UK National Expenditure and Armaments.

For the Year ending 31st March. Expenditure on Armaments, Exclusive of War Charges. Extra- ordinary War Expenditure.^*21 Total Expenditure on War and Armaments. Total National Expenditure. Army. Navy. Total. £ £ £ £ £ £ 1900 20,600,000 26,000,000 46,600,000 23,000,000 69,600,000 133,722,407 1901 24,473,000 29,520,000 53,993,000 67,237,000 121,230,000 183,592,264 1902 29,312,000 31,255,000 60,920,000 59,050,000 119,970,000 188,469,000

So already in 1900/1/2/ the very first BB industrial regime in history allocated two thirds of its budget to produce arms. The result of this budget was the "Boer War" (1899-1902) and WW1 (1914-1918). After its wars BB economy thrives by repairing the damages caused by war. BB economies of US, UK, France, Germany, and Japan - before - during - and after - WW1 and WW2 followed the cycle of: 1) economic crisis 2) re-armament 3) war 4) reconstruction. BB still stumbles from one economic crisis to the next. It breeds economic crisis, unemployment, and often - war.

To overcome this absurd waste of life and resources Marx proposed that factories, lands, and Banks should be run by society in a planned way. This idea was accepted by many, but the powerful minority of BB supporters opposed it.