So, since the masses cannot rule themselves and the outcome cannot be anything but technocratic fascism, shouldn't we be looking for a new alternative? I believe it is the duty of every capable and responsible person to participate in the search for such an alternative by thinking hard, sharing his or her views and ideas with the rest of the public, and suggesting concrete solutions. I, for one, would submit that the only constructive alternative is a world government, which would serve as the first step towards a saner, wiser, and more humane society.
7.1 Can We Survive and Why Should We?
The chances of our survival may be slim, but they still exist. If we realise in time (and the time is now) that we are on the road to self-destruction, we might be able to use our reason and change our attitude to life, to our fellow human beings, and to nature.
I have been asked a very tricky question: "Why should we care about whether the human race will survive or not?" I had never expected to be asked such a "ridiculous" question, and the first time I heard it, I found myself lost for an answer. But deep in my heart I felt there was a reason. Later, of course, I thought about it. For those who believe in God the answer may be simple: we are all in God's hands and whatever happens on Earth is part of God's scenario. So why should we bother our heads about our survival? But since I didn't consider myself a religious person in the conventional sense of the word, I had to find a more or less "rational" answer, which is this: If all humans died instantaneously, all at once (e.g., as a result of some cosmic calamity), that might not be a great loss to anyone (especially as there wouldn't be anyone left on this planet) or to the universe, because life is very likely to exist in a variety of forms in other galaxies. The problem is that as we destroy our habitat, the subsequent generations, if not ourselves, will not die an easy death. They will suffer horribly because they will die slowly, poisoned by polluted air and water, from epidemics, wars, and other disasters. And we are getting the taste of it already today.
For nonbelievers, this is both a philosophical and spiritual problem. If we assume, on the philosophical plane, that there is no reason why we should survive, it follows then that there is no reason why we should exist. And if we exist for no reason, then what does it matter whether people live or die, whether they enjoy life or suffer? Then all our concepts and ideas of freedom, justice, happiness, love, etc., would completely lose their meaning. In other words, there would be no meaning in anything that happens in or around us. On the spiritual plane, we come up against something that science cannot explain in any rational way, at least today. Here I have to accept some notion of Absolute. I have been forced to this conclusion by my own logic. But this Absolute, unlike the God described in the Bible or some other religious dogmas, defies description.
We cannot find solutions to our problems without understanding their root causes and consequences. We cannot do that without using our powers of thinking and reasoning, as well as our imagination, without trying to find a meaning in our life. In other words, we need to do some philosophizing, whether we like it or not. I am not talking about philosophy in general, about abstract or relativistic forms of philosophy. I am talking about pragmatic and moral philosophythat is, philosophy of life.
Philosophy should not be regarded as an end in itself, but rather as a means, a tool, a method for achieving goals, especially long-term ones. It must be closely associated with practice. Otherwise it would be just an intellectual exercise, as it has been for the most part. The role of philosophy in solving mankind's problems is crucial, although not exclusive. It helps us better understand our present and visualize our future. For example, we'll never be able to fix our economy simply by spending more, by stimulating the consumers' greed and appetite for material values and fun; we'll never be able to solve the problem of drugs by hiring teenagers' idols and "heroes" (movie stars, rock singers, famous athletes, and other celebrities) to teach youngsters through TV advertisements how to have safe sex or say no to drugs; we'll never be able to resolve armed conflicts and eliminate war if we think only of our own national economic interests and continue to sell weapons to anyone who can pay for them; we'll never be able to raise our children as intelligent, reasonable, and responsible human beings if we allow them to be brainwashed by the entertainment industry or educate them by teaching only technical skills and no moral values; etc., etc. The solutions are to be found on a higher philosophical plane. We must understand the whole picture, which comprises our individual selves, humanity as a whole, and the entire planet. Our future leaders will have to be pragmatic philosophers, while today's politicians might, if bound by a proper code of greater accountability and ethics, make good executives. It is by no accident that Plato believed that philosophers should rule the world.
In previous sections of this book, I have suggested a number of partial solutions to the basic problems facing our society today. However, it would be naive to believe that these problems can be solved in isolation of each other, one at a time. This, in my opinion, is the biggest and most common mistake of all, because they are all interrelated and stem from the same root causethe unholy trinity of ignorance, immorality, and stupidity. We cannot do much about stupidity except resist accepting it as a norm, but ignorance and immorality are two most crucial areas where society should start making changes as soon as possible.
Dealing with a system of interfused problems requires a long-term integrated approach that necessitates drastic political, economic, educational, cultural, and social reforms. In other words, what we need is a "revolution" (a peaceful one) in thinking and attitudes, which would involve significant sacrifices on our part. This does seem like an awesome, if not impossible, task to achieve, but I believe that this is the only choice we have. I may not sound like an optimist, but then I don't believe very much in the notions of optimism and pessimism, which to me simply mean positive and negative wishful thinking. But if I were forced to make the choice, I would call myself an optimist. Why? Because I believe there is still a lot of ignorance in our worldmuch more so than immorality and stupidity. An ignorant person, if he or she has a sense of morality and at least an average intelligence and is provided with proper information, may be capable of understanding reality and making the right choice.
Most of us are afraid of facing reality because we sense that it is indeed scary. We seek security in dreams and fantasies; we hope against hope that someday somehow someone will stumble upon some magic formula that will finally solve our problems. This, however, is not going to happen. There is no magic formula. All of us who realise this must accept responsibility for the future of the human race, as well as of our own children and grandchildren, and do what is feasible. So, what can we do? I'll try to be as realistic, logical, and practical as I can in making my suggestions, whose purpose, at this stage, is to alleviate the problems and improve the existing system rather than offer a total solution and present a vision of a new society.
Any conscious and rational effort starts with a concept. The concept needs to be well understood and morally justified before it can be accepted. It takes a certain amount of time for ideas to spread and sink into people's minds. As societal problems grow and the fallaciousness and barbarity of the existing systems become more evident, more and more people will start looking for alternatives. Since we may not have much time left before our habitat is irreversibly damaged, we must start developing such alternatives now , remembering Fromm's words ( The Sane Society , p. 310) that "this time, mankind is at one crossroad where the wrong step could be the last step."
Changes must be made on three main levels: personal, national and global.
At the personal level , we must learn again to identify true virtue and true vice, i.e., good and evil . We must realise that no positive results can be achieved unless we recognize the necessity to preserve, further develop, and observe the basic moral code of social behaviour. Such notions as honesty, kindness, consideration, love, temperance, modesty, self-control, responsibility, and dignity should again become qualities to be appreciated and emulated.
The greatest evils that possess modern society are greed, lust for power, and craving pleasure. Greed is a disease that warps and obscures man's perception of reality. It is the destructive driving force behind our urge to acquire, amass, and hoard material values by producing and overproducing, by working like robots, by swindling, by stealing, and even by killing other humans. That is why there is more poverty and suffering than sufficiency and happiness in the world; that is why we have economic crises, wage wars, and are destroying our environment. So, in order to get things right we must first recognize greed as our weakness and learn to control it. We can start this learning process by doing other people small favours that cost us nothing, sharing things we can afford or no longer need, and giving up some of the pleasures we can easily do without. Gradually, more and more of us will get into the habit of, and even feel the need for, doing good to each other.
We should also redefine our true needs and stop producing and acquiring things that are of little use to us or give us short-lived pleasure. This only drains the resources and contributes to environmental pollution. Stores such as Toys-R-Us sell tons and tons of plastic trash to satisfy every silly whim of children and adults alike. Physical and material pleasure is particularly corruptive. Instead, we should seek pleasure in useful creative work and spiritual activities such as art, science, and contemplation.
And finally, we must realise that the road to self-improvement is not unlimited individual freedom. If it is not founded on conscience, self-discipline, and responsibility, individual freedom is destructive. It borders on anarchy and, as we know, anarchy has never worked. We can become better human beings only by developing our reason, morality, and spirituality. Huxley ( Jesting Pilate , p. 192) believed that "leading a virtuous and reasonable life, practising the arts of meditation and recollection, we shall unbury all our hidden talents, shall attain in spite of circumstances to the happiness of serenity and integration, shall come, in a word, to be completely and perfectly ourselves."
At the national level , we must stop living by tribal instincts, protecting only the interests of our family, community, ethnic or religious group, or nation, and ignoring the rest of the world. The troubles that occur outside other nations' borders will ultimately boomerang to affect our own nation in all spheres of lifepolitical, economic, and cultural. This is already happeningimmigration problems are one good indication. We must understand that we are all stuck in the same leaking boat.
It is also important to realise that simply appealing to the consciences of individuals and groups will have no appreciable effect on the state of affairs. The changes have to be introduced and enforced by the government, which, after all, is elected by the people. When choosing our political leaders we should look not for pleasant, smiling faces and glib tongues, but for personalities of strong will and integrity who are unequivocally committed to making the necessary changes, have worked out a comprehensive programme of political, economic, social, and cultural reforms, and are prepared to serve the public in response to the voice of their conscience rather than the lure of lavish privileges.
Specifically, the following measures need to be taken:
This organisation would have to develop a clear program based on moral principles transcending racial, national, religious, ethnic, and cultural distinctions. Its goals would be:
Those educators, philosophers, historians, ethicists, scientists, and writers who understand the social problems facing humanity and have a sense of responsibility must share their knowledge and insight with the broad public and serve as a guiding light on the path towards a better, more humane society. "It is my conviction," wrote Fromm ( To Have or to Be? , p. 161), "that our future depends on whether, given awareness of the present crisis, the best minds will mobilize to devote themselves to the new humanistic science of Man. For nothing short of their concerted effort will help to solve the problems..."
7.4 Constitutional World Government (CWG)
With the rapid advancement of technology, nations can no longer exist in isolation: they become increasingly dependent on each other politically, economically, ecologically, and ethically. For the world to survive, nations need to cooperate rather than compete. One of the first necessary steps on the road to a more orderly and humane society is the creation of a global social structure, perhaps patterned after the United Nations. It could be started by the US, Europe, the CIS, and other countries forming a CWG based on international law and a constitution that would guarantee balanced national representation and fundamental human rights and freedoms.
The CWG's constitution would stipulate that member nations renounce their national armed forces and retain only police or militia to maintain internal law and order. Each member nation would contribute a proportionate military contingent to be uniformly dispersed throughout the CWG's armed forces, whose purpose would be to safeguard peace and, if necessary, suppress aggression on the part of any military blocs or nations that had not yet joined the CWG. Thus, having at its disposal a sufficiently high military power equal to or surpassing that of the UN coalition in the war against Iraq, the CWG would, at the same time, be able to release huge monetary resources that are now being spent by countries to maintain their armed forces and modernize their weapons. These resources could then be used to solve the most important and urgent global problems, such as the destruction of the environment, overpopulation, depletion of energy resources, poverty, crime, drugs, illiteracy, etc.
Another advantage of such a government is that it would eliminate the need for creating, consolidating, and preserving (by violent and artificial means) multinational empires and federations, since its constitution would guarantee and ensure to each member nation or ethnic group, however small, national security and sovereignty. Any country would be welcome to join the CWG and enjoy its protection on condition that the new member country completely disarm itself and adopt a system of democratic elections. One of the CWG's responsibilities would be to prevent and stop local wars (such as the one currently raging in former Yugoslavia), using military force, if necessary, when all peaceful options have been exhausted.
The constitution and legislation of the CWG would be worked out by the best humanist thinkers from all over the world, with the participation of anyone who could present a comprehensive system of ideas on all aspects of human society. The constitution would clearly define the government's functions, obligations, and powers so as to prevent abuse and usurpation of power.
A CWG is envisioned as a transitional step towards a planetary constitutional government, which is the subject of my second book, Nostalgia for the Future (a Realistic Utopia) .
The ideas and measures suggested in this book will be perceived by many as too radical and unrealistic to be taken seriously. The typical argument is: "But there is no better system!" I might agree with that, but if the best available system is still a bad one, then a new system must be worked out. Centuries ago, most people probably believed that slavery was the best alternative. Only a complete cynic could logically defend the existing system, which is based on greed, self-interest, and an irresponsible waste of resources and which is bound to self-destruct. Unfortunately, people do tend to ignore signs of an approaching danger until it is too late to avert it.
I don't believe in imposing my ideas on others. But I consider it my
moral duty to express them before the public; then it will be up to each
individual to accept or reject them. USE YOUR REASON! Give it a chance!
There is no other viable alternative.