Notes and references have been omitted from this abridged version to make it reader-friendly.

For the full article with endnotes, click here

Adam Smith summed up the vile maxim of the elite class as follows (back in 1776): “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” To be sure, there was only contempt in the US for the “vile maxim” during the 19^th century among industrial workers (including the lively and vibrant working class press), who bitterly condemned the advance of the Industrial Revolution and much of what it entailed, more concisely, the “‘New Spirit of the Age’: gain wealth, forgetting all but self.” This would have been inconceivable under conditions of brotherly love, solidarity and subsequent equality of condition (not just opportunity), which is a democratic imperative.

Even though money-hungry marauders (political and economic masters) know that only very few of the many who seek wealth will find it, still, it is of inestimable importance for them to peddle “rags to riches” stories with great enthusiasm, because they are a useful myth for control. By mindlessly and pathologically seeking wealth, forgetting all but self, we surely destroy our sense of community without which we cannot renew democracy and regain, or gain for the first time, our status as sovereign citizens, hence cannot thrive as a human race, cannot realize our fullest human potentialities. In other words, seeking wealth for self and one’s kin entails cutthroat competition among the have-nots, which cunningly keeps them diverted (from what is being done to them by the rich and powerful) and controlled, thereby allowing the few to continue fattening on the many, literally and proverbially, while selling the seductive illusion of wealth and power to the many. This is why Eduardo Galeano said: “The majority must resign itself to the consumption of fantasy. Illusions of wealth are sold to the poor, illusions of freedom to the oppressed, dreams of victory to the defeated and of power to the weak.”

This kind of alienation is dangerously inimical to democratic equality, encouraging as it does a widening gap between the haves and have-nots, inevitably, since wealth is narrowly concentrated, so that most people who seek wealth do so in vain. Case in point: as the highly respected Harold Lasswell (chief founder of the policy sciences) observed, “capitalistic society is a great confidence game, for it feeds on fantastic hopes. Millions throb with the prospect of fabulous riches in an economic system which is inherently destined to disappoint most of them.”

Put differently, democratic equality will never be achieved as long as we are alienated from human values, from nature, and from social and political reality, as long as we fail to challenge the disdainful superiority that men have over other men. Nor can this problem be resolved as long as we choose the having mode over the being mode of existence. We live in a soulless culture that promotes and glorifies the former at the expense of the latter.

Since authentic love has been a rare phenomenon in the modern period particularly, it is no surprise that the ideological quest for money is a defining cultural trait throughout much of the world, since it is not just a reflection of, but an overcompensation for, lack of authentic love:

Our seemingly insatiable quest for money and material consumption is in fact a quest to fill a void in our lives created by a lack of love. It is a consequence of dysfunctional societies in which money has displaced our sense of spiritual connection as the foundation of our cultural values and relationships. The result is a world of material scarcity, massive inequality, overtaxed environmental systems, and social disintegration. As long as we embrace money-making as our collective purpose and structure our institutions to give this goal precedence over all others, the void in our lives will grow and the human crisis will deepen. (David Korten)

The solution, according to same source, is to “create societies that give a higher value to nurturing love than to making money.” And by love, it must be understood that we are talking about non-hegemonic love, as opposed to sadomasochistic attachment, which is the prevailing form of love today, between parents and children, husbands and wives, teachers and students, etc. (in the second instance, the roles are not fixed but switch according to caprice).

Erich Fromm, in The Art of Loving, shows compellingly that “love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. …all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation; that satisfaction in individual love cannot be attained without the capacity to love one’s neighbor, without true humility, courage, faith [in reason and the potential for good in humanity] and [self-]discipline.” And he correctly concludes that “In a culture in which these qualities are rare, the attainment of the capacity to love must remain a rare phenomenon.”

Fromm’s postulation that love for one’s flesh and blood is no achievement, since even animals are capable of loving and caring for their offspring, is a damning implicit indictment of the nuclear family, since the (totalitarian) family is a miniature state in which submissive and hegemonic values are reproduced in the young pursuant to their preparation for societal life. The more the child is exposed to arbitrary authority during its upbringing, the more smoothly (as opposed to naturally) it will execute its function later in life by submitting to state, church and corporate authority (all of which are coercive hence illegitimate), while also dominating those he can dominate insofar as his social position allows domination (to the detriment of psychosocial health in himself and others, of course). If he doesn’t, then he always has the possibility of procreating, since children are always fair game, towards whom society (even Western society) generally shows nothing but the most depraved  indifference, even in cases involving extreme—physical, psychological/emotional, and sexual—abuse (indeed, loving parents are the exception rather than the rule, since toxic parenting is a very pervasive problem throughout the world, as many studies have shown). The point is simply this: there is a strong connection between the having mode and the authoritarian structure. Fromm elaborates this point thus: “…in the having mode, and thus the authoritarian structure, sin is disobedience and is overcome by repentance → punishment → renewed submission. In the being mode, the non-authoritarian structure, sin is unresolved estrangement, and it is overcome by the full unfolding of reason and love, by at-onement.”

The implication of this analysis is quite staggering in terms of international peace and conflict, which is a question of paramount importance in today’s world particularly, because unless war is renounced once and for all by all states (virtually impossible as long as brutal hierarchies exist), but especially by the most powerful ones (since they have acquired the capacity to obliterate human society, as they sooner or later will), the chances of survival for the species are extremely slim. Case in point: “Peace as a state of lasting harmonious relations between nations is only possible when the having structure is replaced by the being structure. The idea that one can build peace while encouraging the striving for possession and profit is an illusion, and a dangerous one, because it deprives people of recognizing that they are confronted with a clear alternative: either a radical change of their character or the perpetuity of war.” (Fromm)

It is noteworthy that true peace within and between nations cannot be realized without equality of condition, solidarity, and loving acts (pretty much in that order). And these are impossible as long as we are what we have, which is a very precarious structure of existence. If our sense of identity is based on what we have, then it is always threatened, because what we have can be lost. “If I feel I am what I have, and I have nothing anymore, then I am not” (Fromm), I cease to be sane, to be potent, to love, to enjoy life, to be enlightened, creative and free. The only way to free ourselves of the anxiety and danger of losing ourselves because something may be taken from us, is if we restructure our whole existence around the being mode, that is to say, on the expression of our inner faculties and potentialities in the world, in what we do, not necessarily in an outward sense, but in the sense of the contemplative life, rooted in humanistic ideals. Such an expression does, of course, necessitate outward activity too (in this case, I am what I think and do), with the proviso that it serves humanistic ends through socially and morally desirable means (i.e., unalienated activity), always guarding against the very real danger that constructive means do not become destructive ends, as has been the case so far.

Benedictus de Spinoza made an insightful observation regarding irrational passions, such as pursuing wealth, power, fame, etc. He called such strivings a form of insanity: “But if the greedy person thinks only of money and possessions, the ambitious one only of fame, one does not think of them as being insane, but only as annoying; generally one has contempt for them. But factually, greediness, ambition, and so forth are forms of insanity, although one does not usually think of them as ‘illness’.”

Not only is the quest for money an overcompensation for lack of genuine love, but, in parallel, for Marx the “struggle between capital and labour (sic) … was the fight between aliveness and deadness, the present versus the past, people versus things, being versus having. For Marx the question was: Who should rule whom – should life rule the dead, or the dead rule life?” Put differently, “Being refers to life and to the present; having, to death and to the past.” (Fromm)

The most pressing need today is to recognize the oppressor ‘within’ the oppressed, so that the fear of freedom (which is a very potent fear) can be discarded in the service of life. Once the oppressor ‘within’ the oppressed is annihilated (thereby more easily leading to liberation from external constraints on freedom, e.g., freedom from state, corporate and ecclesiastical authority and coercion, from exploitation and from the irrational authority of a boss or foreman), then it will be time to fight for positive freedom, e.g., “freedom to spend one’s energy in a meaningful, productive way, by being an active, responsible, unalienated participant in the total work situation” (Fromm); freedom to engage in creative labor as a means of life and for the sake of intrinsic rewards (which is the highest want in life), rather than for the sake of income, profit, fame or whatnot; and last but not least, freedom to create the cultural and institutional conditions that will foster the wonderful expansiveness of life on an egalitarian basis, which the love of money blocks, since money = faeces (for, among other reasons, those who have money look down their noses on those who don’t, which is a scandalous social crime, since the haves would not have unless they robbed the have-nots, who are rich in the aggregate). Small wonder that much of the world (but especially the West), then, is drowning in a morass of dung, at least in terms of morals, since in a number of very important respects we are already far gone in the direction of necrophilia! Our cesspool morals are a result of our obsession with materialistic values, which do nothing but outrageously stifle the miracle of life and stink the world with a perfidious odor.

In sum, it certainly stands to reason that if we do not stop measuring wealth and well-being in material/monetary and other superficial terms—naturally allowing a certain amount of latitude for existential or functional having (since predominantly cultural terms coupled with the latter exigency are the only sane standards by which to measure wealth and well-being)—if we do not start creating the conditions that will enable us to stop “prostituting” ourselves, stop rendering unto Caesar what never was and never will be Caesar’s, and change course soon (as there is still some time for constructive action before all hell breaks loose), if we fail to create libertarian structures centered around the being mode of existence (in accordance with anarcho-syndicalist goals and visions), then before long there won’t be any history left to talk about (since the powerful will obliterate human society, sooner or later, if we let the status quo evolve along its present paths). It’s that simple.

Choosing positive freedom over wage slavery; free, creative labor over dead, predatory capital; non-exclusive, non-hegemonic love over pathological love of money and sadomasochistic attachment; life over death—these are all moral imperatives, rooted both in our biological instinct for survival and in our human nature in a cultural sense (just because these are repressed doesn’t mean that they don’t exist). Those who have lost this basic biological and moral instinct due to decades of overwhelming toxic indoctrination and propaganda need to be assisted in the art of de-programming and humanization, so that they may come to life and bring to life everyone in their orbit.

“Dissatisfaction with our way of life is the first step toward changing it.” (And what greater dissatisfaction could there be in life than lack of love manifesting itself through the mindless quest for material wealth, which stems from greed and envy, not to speak of lack of positive and negative freedoms, thereby living as “happy slaves”?) “As to these changes, one thing is certain: They must take place in all spheres simultaneously—in the economic, the social, the political and the spiritual. Change in only one sphere will lead into blind alleys, as did the purely political French Revolution and the purely economic Russian Revolution. Man is a product of circumstances – but the circumstances are also his product. He has a unique capacity that differentiates him from all other living beings: the capacity to be aware of himself and of his circumstances, and hence to plan and to act according to his awareness.” (Fromm)

In the event that the shackles of oppression are successfully broken one day on a significant scale, a far-sighted and compassionate approach should entail challenging and medically treating former oppressors (there should also be punishment of course, but it should be as mild as possible, since punishment does not deter crime, but primarily for humanitarian reasons), so that they do not perpetuate the old patterns of oppression with other newfound victims, even on a small scale. This is an act of solidarity not only towards victims-to-be, but even towards the oppressors, so that the latter can recognize and reclaim the humanity that they have negated in themselves, which was/is done by negating the humanity of their past and/or present subjects/victims. For, as Paulo Freire duly opined, it is “Only power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed [that] will be sufficiently strong to free both” the oppressed and the oppressors. Only then can we reasonably hope that the vicious cycle of human destructiveness can be undone (not just killing and physically and psychologically harming people but depriving them of their rights and needs through distant institutional forces is also a form of destructiveness!). Only then can the shameful inheritance of moral and social backwardness be disinherited, so that both the oppressors and the oppressed can emancipate themselves from this symbiotic existence in which each derives his self-esteem from oppressing or from being oppressed, since the fear of freedom is quite potent for many people, as a result of the wrong kind of upbringing and wrong education.

Since the authoritarian underpinnings of the having structure of existence are not very pervious to reason and love, how, one may ask, can one “win over” to the libertarian side those whose money lust and thus soulless authoritarian characters are “deeply” entrenched? Since the problem is one of being uninformed and heavily propagandized, and ultimately about potent (hence peaceful) life versus impotent (hence violent) death and destruction, it would not be unreasonable to postulate that there is a very good chance of overcoming this problem, because “the propaganda that inundates [most people] is effective when unchallenged, [as] much of it goes only skin deep.” Such people “can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence,” thereby “quickly escap[ing] the confines of the doctrinal system” (Chomsky), in the service of libertarian goals and visions.

If implemented, the ideas of the Enlightenment could produce free human beings whose values are not the prevailing ones (accumulation and domination) but rather free association on equal terms and sharing and cooperation, with efforts geared toward achieving common, democratically conceived goals. (Chomsky; paraphrased) To keep the ideas of the Enlightenment alive amounts to nothing less than attempts to kill the culture of darkness and death that we are surrounded by, in the hope that the submerged culture of light and life will gain the upper hand and start flowering. If and when it does, we must never let our guards down again, since the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. But for the here, now and foreseeable future, let us—instead of indulging in the immoral luxury of not caring about humanity—dare to care, which is the greatest lesson in life (Maya Angelou); so that historic continuity and universal welfare can be safeguarded.

The planet is burning. As we have seen, this is very much a consequence of the cult of having, since the process of capital accumulation, however it may be framed and disguised if it is ever even fully acknowledged by the rich and powerful, is the basic cause of human suffering. (Gabriel Kolko) This cult’s intrinsically dark, empowering sense of dominance over victims leads to escalating acts of cruelty and lasting emotional disorders, primarily for the dominators themselves, since they suffer a dangerous expansion of ego that cannot be appeased except by escalating acts of cruelty. Either we are putting out the fire or adding fuel to it. There is no middle ground. Those who are immobilized due to one or another form of disgraceful rationalization naturally belong to the latter group, hence bear the much more onerous burden of that mortal sin called alienation. Which will only deepen and widen as long as the Cult of Having morbidly triumphs over the latent City of Being, ultimately leading to extinction of the species, which appears to be an imminent threat. Like much else, that is a matter of will and choice, not just by the powerful, but, at least by default, by the powerless as well, since those who are silent are understood not just to consent but to be complicit in terrible crimes against peace and humanity, war crimes, economic crimes, social crimes and environmental crimes (the cumulative effects of which already have been devastatingly enormous)—contrary to our calling as human beings.

The problem is that “Things are in the saddle and ride mankind.” (Emerson) How do we get back on the saddle in order to direct the horse? Is it enough to have the feeling of putting ourselves back on the saddle? No, for demagogic politicians can easily create that feeling in us. Nor is it enough to have the feeling of having freed ourselves from the domination by natural forces. The immediate problem is to free ourselves from the shackles imposed on us very consciously by the so-called intellectual classes, in order to be able to create lasting, non-hegemonic peace within and between nations (bearing in mind that the nation state system in the modern form is an artificial structure that should be brought down, since it is neither viable nor necessarily the natural form of human organization); which can only be done if we institutionally create equality of condition (thereby eradicating material wealth and, consequently, material poverty, since both are vices that block the possibility of realizing human potentialities), subjecting ourselves only to the laws of reason, following only our own decisions. But the latter must be subordinated to collective rights if historic continuity is going to be safeguarded, by substantively democratizing every aspect of life—political, industrial, economic, social, cultural and spiritual, forever vigilant about new signs of crude and subtle oppressions and never complacent, no matter how secure the new libertarian structures that humanity one day creates, if it does so, may appear.

It seems apt to round off our discussion by pondering the words of Kant, who justifiably said that he cannot accept the proposition that certain people “are not ripe for freedom.”

If one accepts this assumption, freedom will never be achieved; for one can not arrive at the maturity for freedom without having already acquired it; one must be free to learn how to make use of one’s powers freely and usefully. The first attempts will surely be brutal and will lead to a state of affairs more painful and dangerous than the former condition under the dominance but also the protection of an external authority. However, one can achieve reason only through one’s own experiences and one must be free to be able to undertake them. . . . To accept the principle that freedom is worthless for those under one’s control and that one has the right to refuse it to them forever, is an infringement on the rights of God himself, who has created man to be free.

Protest against the having structure of existence coupled with dedicated efforts to incrementally stop being money whores (‘incrementally,’ because meaningful change takes time) and dismantle the status quo (to be replaced with far-reaching, deep libertarian structures) are moral imperatives; they are among the strongest possible affirmations of life. Those who are not imbued with the spirit of social justice are not yet fully human; their way of life is incompatible with the principle of being. They need to be humanized, which is a lifelong process for everyone. And in the face of all the terrible crimes that our leaders perpetrate in our name and with your tax dollars, silence is, again, no longer passive consent but complicity in those crimes. It is, again, not a law of nature for a minority to gorge itself on superfluities through force and fraud while the starving multitude lacks basic necessities, with tens of millions of our soulful brothers and sisters dropping like flies every year while we emulate largely white vocations, like the pursuit of money and hegemony. We need to be humanized so that the system can be denazified (not least in the sense of discarding our homophobic mindset, because homophobia, which happens to be a witch-hunting mindset and a great social injustice with the Christian church at the helm, is really a defense against latent homosexuality in heterosexual men, a scientifically proven fact documented in the seventh [1998] edition of Abnormal Psychology, p. 382), so that sweet freedom may finally reign, thereby allowing cybernetic man to stop worshipping the goddess of destruction to which humanity, even and especially religious humanity, is willing to sacrifice itself and its progeny (case in point: evangelical Christians not only look forward to Armageddon but are even precipitating it by strongly supporting Israeli power and expansionism, and help fund it and lobby for it, even though this has been severely harming the Palestinians, a people who have suffered tremendously under the hand of Israel’s 40-year long illegal and immoral military occupation and who have scant hope of national survival, thanks to America’s far-reaching and consistently rejectionist stance pertaining to a peaceful two-state settlement—willing to grant no national rights to the indigenous Arabs).

Our pathetic, highly destructive property-structured existence must give way to biophilia in all its rich diversity. It is not too late to reverse course, but the time to start acting is now. And we must never make the fateful mistake of holding out the olive branch to the masters of mankind before they have been completely disarmed and dethroned, lest we end up with slavery by another name. And we, libertarians, must do everything in our power to institute universal disarmament (of WMD and conventional weapons) while the status quo is being changed, with strong safeguards against the cropping up of new risks of weapons development, so that war (which, at bottom, is nothing more than organized lovelessness) and its absolutely devastating consequences may become a thing of the past. Biophilia and the “resistance movement against the destruction of love in social reality” (Paul Tillich) demand it (!), because the human spirit cannot endure lovelessness in social reality for long without serious detriment to the human race.

Salvation—in the form of people taking precedence over things, life over property, and work over capital—will come only through disobedience followed by dedicated efforts to democratize every aspect of life. It can be done. Indeed, it must be done, because living “for any length of time under the constant threat of destruction creates certain psychological effects in most human beings—fright, hostility, callousness, a hardening of the heart, and a resulting indifference to all the values we cherish.” Such a condition has already transformed us into barbarians, but this pathological trend can be reversed, because the human mind is malleable even under harsh and inhumane conditions, owing to the ever-present if latent and even decaying dynamism of the life instinct. The poet Percy Bysshe Shelly has left us with these powerful words (which should vitalize those of us who have become sickeningly apathetic):

Rise like lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number!

Shake your chains to earth, like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you–

Ye are many; they are few!

___________________________

© Michael Hagos 2009, 2010

All rights reserved