-Caveat Lector-
http://www.worldservice.org/whoowns.html
WHO OWNS THE WORLD?
by Garry Davis
"The fact is that now-- for the first time in the history of man for the
last ten years, all the political theories and all the concepts of political
functions-- in any other than secondary roles as housekeeping
organizations-- are completely obsolete. All of them were developed on the
you-or-me basis. This whole realization that mankind can and may be
comprehensively successful is startling."
-Buckminster Fuller, Utopia or Oblivion
In recognizing the human race as a viable species, a drastic revision in
economic thinking is
imposed. Referring to humankind as a fact deserving immediate attention, as
do myriad
organizations from the United Nations through UNESCO to religious, social,
labor, and
educational, implies global or total thinking to cure economic as well as
other ills.
Nataraja Guru, in a remarkable essay on economics1, wrote, "There is no
textbook on
world economics, though economics as a science-- if it is really a science--
should
necessarily be most directly concerned with the happiness of humanity as a
whole.
Instead, economists visualize a world consisting of differently-colored
Hitlerish patches of
territories from within which each man is thinking hard economically so as
to defeat his
neighbor."
This conception of wholesale human welfare is even more explicitly spelled
out by
Buckminster Fuller when he writes:
"It is scientifically clear that we have the ability to make all of humanity
physically
successful. Industrialization itself relates to the resources of the entire
earth, the entire
universe. The industrial system is a comprehensive system and if
reversingly fractionated
will fail." 2
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
The religious world view of former centuries endowed governments of the
Western world
and the political state system as it exists today with a quasi-divine
character. The principle
of "supreme authority," monopolized by the church and the monarchical
system, was
refashioned by the 18th and 19th century revolutions to serve as the moral
basis of nation-
state sovereignty.
World War I effectively eliminated the last remnants of the monarchical
state which
embodied the notion of divinity through the king and queen. What remained
and remains is
the "sovereign" state, each one a surrogate "world-state" of "absolute"
power over the
particular parcel of the planetary soil, wherein political democracy briefly
flowered in
exclusive nations only to flounder as the new "modern" institutions slowly
bankrupted
themselves in inter-national wars.
Fuller writes that "The world's people and their politicians think
erroneously in terms of
sovereign states with colonial empires. . . Today's world people think
naively that
politicians have always run things. They never have and they never will.
Politicians were
only the pirates' visible stooges."3
The colonial empires, he claims, were never the product of the ambitions of
the people of
any nation. The British Empire was built on the greed of the great pirate's
admirals and
captains. It was the stock market crash of 1929 which eliminated the
pirate's power, due
principally to the breaking away of science from economic monopoly and
mechanism
which developed far beyond the financial capabilities of the old pirates to
cope with. "Only
nations and groups of nations could now cope with the magnitude of capital
undertaking."4
Accelerated means of communication coupled with crisis survival conditions
triggered by
the '29 crash, precipitating ten years later World War II, leads Fuller to
conclude that ". .
.because of the dawning awareness that the weaponry phase and its
quarter-century lag can
be eliminated, the second half of the tool-invention revolution is to be
identified as the
consciously undertaken continuance of the accelerated doing-more-with-less
by world
society as world society. (Emphasis added.)5
Nation-State System An Anachronism
Thus it seems fairly obvious that a major if not the major problem in
translating the theory
of the human species as an economic reality into realisable fact is the
necessity to reject a
priori the notion of the absolute exclusive sovereignty, i.e., supreme
authority, of the
nation-state and its now anachronistic and suicidal system.
Economic analysts from hard-line socialists to monopolist capitalists and
all grades in
between operating from within the nationalistic framework stop far short of
the obvious
and vital relationship between global politics and global economics. While
analyzing
today's deteriorating economic situation as "crisis-ridden," with its
soaring inflation,
exorbitant interest rates, stagnating industrial productivity, ballooning
national deficits6 ,
wobbling and absurd "floating exchange rates," rising unemployment,
shortages of critical
materials and parts, exponential increase in bankruptcies in both business
and nations
themselves, , and monstrous, futile and suicidal armament budgets in the
midst of
agonizing human misery and need, they myoptically reject a world political
government as
"impractical," "utopian," or simply "irrelevant."
The World Revolution
During the first half of the century, little awareness percolated through
either the public or
official consciousness of the greatest revolution in history:"
"It is not surprising that man, burdened with obsolete 'knowledge'-- his
spontaneous
reflexing conditioned only by past experience, and as yet unable to realize
himself as
already a world man-- fails to comprehend and cope logically with the birth
of Universe
Man."8
Yet the dynamic relationship between economic failure and political failure
is becoming
highly visible even to those who still hold political power. National
candidates for political
office must address themselves, albeit somewhat mystically, to global
economic problems
speaking grandly and inconsistently of an "interdependent world economic
order." Their
very political framework, however, precludes realistic legislation capable
of regulating such
an "order" which could not exist in the first place without such legislative
apparatus.
"National governments are inadequate when it comes to dealing with the
planet's
necessities, and we may legitimately wonder whether the importance of
nation-states isn't
greatly exaggerated and whether politicians deserve star status.9
"Established" economists, pretending to be experts in the dismal science,
with rare
exceptions, are beyond redemption, holding fast to antiquated and obtuse,
even whimsical
ideas, partial, grounded in scarcity, and basically unmindful of either
political or moral
realities.10
Yet, while hopelessly divided as to solutions, most economists are by now
agreed, if only
by sheer necessity, that world recession has reached a crisis stage where
draconian and
wholesale measures are necessary if total collapse is to be averted.
No less an expert than Lenin spelled out the consequences of unbridled
inflation's
consequences to citizens:11
"By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly
and
unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. And as the
inflation proceeds
and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month,
all permanent
relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation
of capitalism,
become so utterly disorganized as to be almost meaningless."
National "Security" vs, Global Affluence
As national economics are increasingly linked with "national security" and
yet the inevitable
outcome of a total arms race between them is war, let us start from the
opposite polarity:
general and total disarmament strictly from an economic viewpoint.
"World military expenditures since 1960 reached the $3 trillion mark
($3,000,000,000,000) in 1975."12 Then from 1975 to 1981, one-third the
period, world
military spending rose another $3 trillion. "National security" today costs
the citizens of all
states between 8 and 9% of the world's gross national product. Five
nations, however,
contribute 75% of the monstrous sum for sheer destruction: the U.S.A., the
USSR, Great
Britain, France and West Germany, the first two making up 60%.
The relationship between total disarmament and raised standards of living
was indisputably
established by a 1962 report13 entitled "The Economic and Social Consequence
of
Disarmament," prepared by 25 leading economists from both socialist and free
enterprise
countries and commissioned by the Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations.
"The present level of military expenditures not only represents a grave
political danger but
also imposes a heavy economic and social burden on most countries. It
absorbs a large
volume of human and material resources of all kinds which could be used to
increase
economic and social welfare throughout the world-- both in the
industrialized countries
which at the present time incur the bulk of the world's military
expenditures and in the less
developed areas."
The unanimous agreement "that the diversion to peaceful purposes of
resources not
absorbed by military expenditures can and should be of benefit to all
countries and lead to
improvements in the social and economic conditions for all mankind" led
former U.N.
Secretary-General U Thant, in transmitting the study to Member-States for
comment, to
state that "The most fundamental way in which disarmament affects economic
life is
through the liberation of the resources devoted to military use and their
re-employment for
peaceful purposes."
In that year, roughly $120 billion spent on armaments was at least
two-thirds of the entire
national income of all the developing countries, close to the value of the
world's annual
exports of all commodities, and corresponded to about one-half of the total
resources set
aside each year for gross capital formation throughout the world.
However, no decrease in military spending is envisaged by the Super-Powers
themselves
in the foreseeable future despite the common recognition of former as well
as present
leaders of both the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union of the absolute necessity
for total
disarmament if the human race is to survive.14
In its response to the 1962 Report, the U.S. delegation noted:
"The motivating force behind the efforts of the United States to achieve
general and
complete disarmament is to save present and future generations from the
scourge of war,
and to attain for them more certain and beneficent security. This basic and
vital objective
completely overshadows any economic calculations of gain or loss connected
with
disarmament." 15
The Soviet delegation, in perfect geo-dialectical harmony, echoed:
"The Soviet Union has resolutely and consistently championed the cause of
disarmament.
In our time, military technology has made colossal progress. States have
stockpiled, and
still are stockpiling, such vast quantities of nuclear and thermonuclear
weapons, together
with the means of delivering them to any point on the earth's surface, that
this abnormal
situation, if allowed to continue, will in itself constitute a mortal danger
to peace and to the
survival of entire countries and peoples. . . The world, therefore, is
faced with a choice
between two alternatives -- either a monstrous thermo-nuclear war or
disarmament." 16
We have the right to conclude that both the United States and the Soviet
Union are
unilaterally opposed to the arms race, both politically and economically.
Further, neither
sees any major problem in converting from a war to a peacetime economy."17
The Multinationals
The economic clout generated by the "multis" is too well-documented to bear
repeating
here. Suffice it to say that the annual sales volume of General Motors
alone-- around $65
billion in 1982-- was greater than the gross national product of 130
developing states. In
terms of the 100 world's largest economic units of 1980, GM rates 23rd.
Thirty-nine of
the hundred were multinational corporations!18
Operating in many countries with diverse currencies, and subject to floating
exchange rates,
multinational corporate management can and does manipulate resources,
accounting,
revenue and even government-- as the recent ITT-Chilean episode revealed--
and for one
purpose alone: to maximize short-term profit.
In its present "dinosaurean" state of development, the corporate "state"
represents the most
deadly and widespread exploitive tool ever devised, not only to protect the
wealth of the
few but to circumvent government control which has proven too narrow a base
for modern
technology.
National legislators, such as U.S. Senator Gary Hart (D. Colo.) have asked
the obvious
questions: Has concentrated economic power now extended its reach so far
that no
government can control it? And more to the point, does the scale of world
trade necessitate
giant conglomerates which their home government cannot afford to defy? The
late
Emmanuel Celler, U.S. congressional representative, in consideration of
ITT's
"extraordinary jumble" of companies, questioned "whether the good Lord has
given
anybody the prowess and the expertise, the ingenuity, to be able to control
all these
operations. . ." And Senator Estes Kefauver, as far back as the forties, in
introducing the
Celler-Kefauver Act to strengthen a controversial section of the Clayton
Act, stated bluntly,
"The people are losing the power to direct their own economic welfare."
Ralph Nader, along with consumer movements in other countries, attempts to
instill in the
popular consciousness that we, as consumers, are also part of the
fundamental economic
equation and the most important part. In his introduction to "America,
Inc." by Morton
Mintz he writes of the "sovereignty of the consumer" as the ultimate
countervailing force to
concentration of corporate power.
"Irresponsibility toward public interest becomes institutionalized whenever
the making of
decisions is so estranged from any accountability for their discernible
consequences. . .
The modern corporation is the engine of the world's largest production
machine. If it is to
be more than a mindless, parochial juggernaut, the hands of diverse values
and trusteeships
for future generations must be exerted on the steering wheel. There should
no longer be
victims without representation. In any just legal system a victim would
have the right to
decide with others the behavior of the perpetrator and his recompense." 19
Nader claims that the "corporate involvement pervades every interstice of
our society.
Companies are deep in the dossier-credit, city, building, drug, medical,
computer
intelligence, military and education, health and military-theater
contracting. . . and with
these engagements come the parochial value system and insulation of the
corporate
structure."20
A United Nations report of August 12, 1973, stated that "The question at
issue is whether a
set of institutions and devices can be worked out which will guide the
multinational
corporations' exercise of power and introduce some form of accountability to
the
international community into their activities." The report, while
acknowledging that
MNC's "are depicted in some quarters as key instruments for maximizing world
welfare. .
." yet are seen in other quarters "as dangerous agents of imperialism."
inadvertently admits
the UN's own impotence as a global authority able to control the MNC's by
concluding
that ". . .Unlike national companies, they were not subject to control and
regulation by a
single authority which can aim at ensnaring a maximum degree of harmony
between their
operations and the public interest."
We may conclude with Anthony Sampson that ". . .The sovereignty of the
multinational
corporation has emerged. . .in its independence of government, in its
self-contained
organization and trade, in its private diplomacy and communications, in its
avoidance of
taxes, and in the security of the company record."21
Who Owns Them?
The underlying and largely ignored question concerning corporate
accountability is: Who
owns the corporations? In other words, where do the profits go?
Despite all the nonsense about people's capitalism and the millions of
orphans, widows and
wounded war veterans living off a share of America's capitalist pie,
corporate profits go
only to the stockholders and America's stockholders are mostly upper
middle-class to rich.
About 5.2% of America's adult population owns 66% of the privately-held
shares of the
nation's corporations.22 The owner percentages in other countries are far
less.
The Individual vs. the Multinational
How then can the multinationals be brought to accountability? Further, how
can the
"sovereign" consumer benefit from the phenomenon of the MNC's as the
dominant
economic factor of our century, given the two worlds of "haves" and
"have-nots," that is,
owners of corporate equity and non-owners of corporate equity?
Louis Kelso tells us in Two-Factor Theory that "Any society wishing to be
free must
structure its economic institutions so as to widely diffuse economic power
while keeping it
in the hands of individuals."23
The United Nations, in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),
proclaimed by
the General Assembly on December 10, 1948, defines the goal of global
economics
likewise in individual terms:
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living for the health and well
being of himself and
his family including food, clothing, medical care, housing, social services
and the right to
security against unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
lack of
livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." 24
With regard to the ownership of property, the same Declaration reaffirms
George Mason's
third "inalienable right" enshrined in the Virginia Declaration of
Independence of 1775 and
for sectarian motives unfortunately omitted from that of 1776 of the
Continental Congress:
the right to private property. Article 17 states:
"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with
others."
"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."
The definition and ownership or non-ownership of "property" would seem to be
at the
heart of the entire question of economics, whether worldly or local. Until
we analyze this
controversial word more closely in the light of today's technological
society, any
discussion of economics remains sterile.
What is Property?
What exactly is "property" in terms of economic theory? Is it a home, a
car, a TV set,
jewelry, clothes? Or is it a set of rights one has with respect to things
owned? Karl Marx
wrote that "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single
sentence:
Abolition of private property in the means of production." In Das Capital,
he defines
property as "an institution essential to controlling income distribution
patterns."25
If a few individuals own and control industrial capital and the majority of
workers own
little or no capital, according to Norman Kurland26 ". . .income patterns
will become
grossly distorted and lead necessarily to the abandonment of the orderly
processes of
supply and demand, and eventually to a breakdown of the property system
itself."
In a paper delivered to the Eastern Economics Association of Hartford,
Connecticut, April
15, 1977, Kurland minced no words as to property's meaning:
"Many people erroneously equate property with material objects, such as
land, structures,
machines, tools, things. In law, however, property is not the thing owned
but rather a set
of rights, powers and privileges that an individual enjoys in his
relationship to things. It is
the social 'link' between a particular human being and the social levers of
power to choose
and use particular things to meet one's needs. And property says who can
share its profits.
Since power [i.e., the means to influence change] exists in society whether
or not particular
individuals own property, those who are concerned about the corruptibility
of concentrated
power should be reminded of Daniel Webster's eloquent statement: 'Power
naturally and
inevitably follows the ownership of property.'"
The Homestead Act
In early America, the Homestead Act, under the genius of Abraham Lincoln,
made it
possible for men born without capital, by their courage and efforts, to
acquire real
property, i.e., capital. But when the land frontier ran out, the
possibility of realizing this
historic dream seemed to run out with it. The world was no longer primarily
an agricultural
world, but an industrial one, and the yearning of the average man for a
"piece of the action"
could only be satisfied within the context of industrial "land," i.e.,
capital tools.
No National Ownership Strategy
Despite the overwhelming importance of corporate-owned capital as a
production input and
means of income, however, no industrialized nation has ever adopted a
democratic
"ownership strategy," i.e., an institutional means of assuring popular
private ownership of
productive capital comparable to the now outdated Homestead Act. During the
130 years
since its passage, the world experienced an enormous expansion of production
capital
formation, but contrary to pre-industrial efforts to diffuse capital
ownership-- at least in the
United States-- national economic policies and institutions have permitted
massive amounts
of productive capital to become owned by a small minority.
The consequences are paradoxical and appalling:
-A small minority earns income far in excess of their capacity and
desire for
consumption;
-A majority have unmet consumption desires and inadequate purchasing
power;
-Yet we have unused and potential physical capacity and technical
know-how to
fulfil unmet consumption if only we had sufficient widespread purchasing
power.
Outmoded Methods
The present inability of our national economies to achieve broad private
ownership of
productive capital and to significantly raise everyone's income, is largely
the result of
outmoded private capital investment financing methods-- the financing of new
capital
formation exclusively out of the accumulated financial savings of
individuals and/or their
narrowly-owned corporations. The consequence of this method of financing is
to bring
massive amounts of capital into existence without creating new owners. This
conventional
capital financing method virtually guarantees that all new capital formation
will be owned
by an existing minority of wealth-owning citizens.
The method further weakens an already weak market mechanism--still the most
democratic
yardstick for measuring economic value-- since it limits purchasing power
for the
propertyless many. Lastly, it frustrates the economic growth necessary to
permit the
economy to be able physically to produce general affluence, the only humane
and rational
goal for a democratic, post-industrial economy.
Big Brother
As a counterforce to concentrated, economic power in corporations owned by
only a
handful of the total population, we have turned ironically to "big
government" to protect the
propertyless many. Once again, this development has demonstrated that power
is linked to
property. In a society where political and economic power is combined in
the hands of a
monolithic, elitist government, whether acting "in the name of the
proletariat" or for
"democracy," the future of individual freedom is dim indeed.
To rely on government bailouts from corporate oppression is tantamount to
seeking judicial
redress from the accomplice to the swindler who robs us in the first place.
In this regard,
Nader reminds us that ". . .there has emerged a fundamental change in our
political
economy. The arms-length relationship which must characterize any
democratic
government in its dealing with special interest groups has been replaced,
and not just by ad
hoc wheeling and dealing, which has been observed by generations. . ." but
by . . .the
institutionalized fusion of corporate desires with public bureaucracy--
where the national
security is synonymous with the state of Lockheed and Litton, where career
roles are
interchangeable along the industry-to-government-to-industry shuttle, where
corporate
risks and losses become taxpayer obligation." 27
And what is the major labor unions' reaction to this cosy,
corporate/government incestuous
relationship? "For the most part," Nader writes, "the large unions do not
object to this
situation, having become modest copartners, seeking derivative benefits from
the
government." 28
Thus linked to big business including private banking interests as well as
labor, national
economic policy legislation of income in direct relationship to productive
output makes no
commitment to fostering widespread ownership of capital.
Full Employment A Panacea?
Economists as well as politicians like to promote "full employment" as a
panacea for
economic recovery. But full employment, without simultaneous redistribution
of all the
wealth or income produced by capital to the non-capital owning employed,
will never
provide the fully-employed with sufficient purchasing power to buy all the
goods and
services produced.
Furthermore, as an economic goal, full employment is deficient if the
function of the
economy is to provide general affluence instead of universal busywork and
equalized
poverty.
In plain fact, full employment in itself is a socially hazardous goal. It
aspires to restore
through political expedients the pre-industrial state of toil that science,
engineering,
technology and modern management are pledged to overcome. Thus national
political
leadership finds its prestige contingent upon the success of an unnatural
policy against
which the most rational forces of the economy are aligned, a policy which it
cannot enforce
except at the cost of the demoralization and ultimately the destruction of
the economy's
productive sector.
Every Man A Producer
In the uncomplicated pre-industrial world, every man not an invalid knew he
was an
economic producer, that he possessed in his own mind and body the power to
produce
wealth. Productive power was his as a gift of nature. He knew he was
needed, and the
knowledge gave him both dignity and self-assurance. Industrial man has lost
that primal
security. For while capital instruments are needed "extensions of man," as
Marshall
MacLuhan has pointed out, in the economic sense, they are extensions only of
the man
who owns them, and who, as a consequence of ownership, is entitled to
receive the wealth
his "extension" produces.
In a world where capital instruments are owned by the few, technology
enhances the
productive power of the few.
Thus, under today's "wage systems," where most people own little or no
productive
wealth, the great majority of men are robbed of their productive power by
technological
advance. They are deprived of their economic virility. This loss has
disastrous social
effects, especially on the family unit, first organism of social life.
Leaders of national society do not yet recognize their obligation, by
deliberate social policy,
to enable every man legitimately to acquire private ownership of viable
holdings of
productive capital, restoring thereby and indeed enhancing the productive
power he has
lost, or stands to lose, as technology shifts more and more the burden of
production from
men to machines. 29
"We are, therefore, required by justice to do more than abolish chattel
slavery. We are
required to organize the economy in such a way that every man or family can
use his or its
property to participate in the production of wealth in a way that earns a
living for that man
or that family." 30
The Human Right to Property
One of the new principles of economic justice in one physical world is that
when wealth is
produced primarily by non-human capital instruments, men must
have the right to acquire viable amounts of capital as a supplement to their
labor power.
Thus economic opportunity in an industrial economy is not merely the
opportunity to work,
but the opportunity to own capital, and to acquire capital without having to
invade the
property of others, or to cut down on one's already inadequate consumption.
"The harnessed energy, production, distribution, communication tools, and
techno-
scientific literacy thus inadvertently established-- all of which can
produce peace-
supporting-- is the wealth." 31
Results of National Policies
Today's short-sighted and absurd national economic policies are in no small
way
contributing factors of:
-continued concentration of capital ownership;
-perpetuated class and group conflict and violence;
-rising crime against property;
-rising cost of living and uncontrollable inflationary forces;
-mounting tax rates and imminent taxpayer's rebellion worldwide;
-widespread alienation among the young, the working "class,"
minority groups,
and the disadvantaged from the leaders of government,
business and other
basic institutions;
-resistance and fear among workers to new technology;
-self-defeating and harmful demands of organized labor for increased
income
through wages rather than through ownership of industry;
-loss of traditional autonomy of local government, business and the
academic
community because of the growing dependency on Big
Government for
economic survival;
-historically high interest rates;
-inability to plan rationally our economic growth and produce a more
livable and
humane environment;
-the "privileged class" mentality that says only an elitist few can
take full advantage
of leisure;
-failure to exploit fully the technological potential for improving
the material lives of
the general public.
In summation
1) Individual liberties and a democratic form of government cannot exist
unless every
person has the means to become a "have" rather than a "have-not;"
2) The nation-state, as an institution of economic legitimacy, has been
overtaken by
industry and technology in general and by rise of the multinational
conglomerates in
particular;
3) The multinational corporation, while effectively producing goods and
services in
quantities sufficient for the general needs of the public, has no
countervailing equitable
distributive philosophy or system whereby the worker can benefit directly
from ownership
of the corporate assets of the world's productive instruments.
4) The elimination of armaments from the national economic scene will result
in the raising
of living standards worldwide with social, cultural and spiritual benefits
beyond measure;
5) A world government, representing the sine qua non not only of economic
survival but
of survival itself, is the goal of the 20th century; the alternative is
possible extinction;
6) Neither doctrinaire Communism nor monopolistic Capitalism can encompass
both the
material as well as the spiritual needs of humankind as a species and as
free individuals;
7) A distributive economy based on democratic ownership of the means of
production
emphasizing affluence while retaining contingent values of freedom, equality
and justice,
must be incorporated into the present-day situation without disruption.
The Global Mandate
The ownership of the world of tools and their institutional instruments of
income-
distribution, in other words, must now be considered globally "by world
society as world
society," translated by right into individual ownership of income-producing
property by the
sovereign individual, i.e., the world citizen.
Therefore, economically speaking, the World Citizen claims by right
ownership of a share
of the new industrial, wealth-producing frontier which, according to
Buckminster Fuller,
"can support all of the multiplying humanity at higher standards of living
than anyone has
ever experienced or dreamed."
To claim world citizenship is to claim partnership with the planet earth
"homeship", with
the world community as such and therefore possession of one's rightful
domicile and all it
contains. Just as no human can claim to have chosen his parents or place of
birth, so no
one can rationally justify exclusive ownership of resources needed by one
and all. The
atmosphere, the oceans, the soil, the water, the sun even, are common to the
human
species as much as to each and every individual human.
We must first assert that global citizenship, however, in order to
acknowledge that
ownership as our rightful heritage. No one will hand it to us. The claim
of exclusive
national citizenship perpetuates the philosophy of economic scarcity as
defined by Malthus
and later fortified by Darwin's survival-only-of-the-fittest. World
citizenship, on the
contrary, is the corollary of earth ownership as it is of human survival
since, unless the
individual human, who is the microcosm not only of the earth but of the
cosmos itself,
assumes ownership of his world, false ownership, i.e., exploitative, unjust,
monopolistic,
elitist, will soon destroy the earth itself and all humans thereon as it is
already doing at an
accelerated rate.
P. 289
World Ownership
The new formula then for economic democracy and freedom for one and all
becomes:
World Citizen = World Owner
No national leader would or indeed could oppose a global institution
functioning with the
sovereign support of declared world citizens, the raison d'etre of which was
precisely to
eliminate the necessity of armaments amongst states to the mutual economic,
social and
spiritual benefit of the entire human community.
The very nature of the common crisis facing humankind, as well as each
individual is
obviously beyond the mandated power of any national leader or group of
national leaders to
resolve. Former U.N. Secretary-General Dr. Kurt Waldheim, in addressing the
opening
session of the 29th General Assembly said that the world's problems "were
beyond the
control of any group or nation." He warned that "profound economic and
social problems
are threatening the world with a crisis of extraordinary dimensions."
Willy Brandt's introduction to the Brandt Commission's 1980 update on the
global
economy reconfirmed this dire warning:
"The world's prospects have deteriorated rapidly; not only for improved
relations between
industrialized and developing countries, but for the outlook of the world
economy as a
whole. . . Further decline is likely to cause the disintegration of
societies and create
conditions of anarchy."
World citizenship as a dynamic concept and ownership of the earth have not
so far been
linked except in theory by such writers as Buckminster Fuller.33 The reason
is simple.
Till now, no single global and sovereign organization existed which could
translate
theoretical ownership of the earth into practical ownership for the
individual world citizen
and humankind. Nations, caught in their dualistic, archaic,
duel-to-the-death, oppose by
definition world citizen ownership of the earth. Either nations are
sovereign or humanity
is. Either world law is valid or exclusive national law. . .but not both
together.
The multinationals in their turn, with their pitifully few owners, are
making a near-
approach to total ownership, but with the built-in, self-defeating defects
of specialization,
maximizing short-term profit philosophy plus nationalistic political
orientation. Even
should they combine into one monolithic world corporation-- as Art Buchwald,
tongue-in-
cheek, prophesied for the United States-- the inevitable result would be
violent world
revolution between the billions of have-nots and the 5% or less haves,
owners of the Total
Corporation.
"Earth, Inc." is only valid if economic justice reigns as the guiding
philosophy.
So if we refer back to Nataraja Guru's definition of economics as being
concerned
primarily with the happiness of humankind as a whole as well as each
individual as its
microcosm, and if we consider the two factors involved in the production of
wealth, that is,
capital and labor, it becomes clear that only through
P.290
direct participation in the profits of the entire industrial machinery of
the world, i.e., the
capital assets, can everyone achieve affluence, or put negatively, eliminate
disaffluence or
poverty.
Mutual Affluence System
A global "mutual affluence system" therefore may be said to be the economic
philosophy of
the embryonic World government.
Its fundamental tenet is expressed in the geo-dialectical formula: "One for
all and all for
one."
As such, it is the logical extension of the fundamental human rights
expressed by such
documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It correctly revises both Marxist and capitalist theories to provide the
"synthesis" --
necessarily divorced from the vitiating nation-state system -- whereby Man's
true nature is
fully realized: spiritual, social, biological.
Capital Formation Process Defective
If everyone is to have a chance to own his share of capital, then the
current process
whereby most newly formed capital automatically flows into the hands of the
upper 5 to 10
per cent of families who already own all the existing capital is defective.
Ways must be
devised to allow the acquisition of newly-formed capital to be acquired by
the remaining
90% of families.
The single laborer, lacking capital, credit or effective political power as
a consumer, is
virtually helpless to pull himself up by his own economic bootstraps. True,
he may
organize into unions but only as a worker, neither as a consumer nor, more
reasonably, as
a potential owner. There is as yet no labor union advocating more
purchasing power
through capital ownership for less work. On the contrary, workers organize
irrationally for
higher wages and full employment thereby fueling the inflationary fire.
He already has the necessary potential power, however, if he combines his
single
identity/forces: consumer, worker, citizen, tax-payer with investor, i.e.,
owner. In other
words, to counter-balance the now-monopolistic corporation, he must be
allowed to share
its profits as an "insider" or investor. The existence and growth of mutual
funds and
money market funds are highly instructive arguments for the creation of a
worker/consumer
global mutual fund to share a "piece of the world action." The details of
the organization of
such a mutual fund must be worked out and then made part of an overall
economic strategy
of the aggregate of world citizens of the World Government.
The Missing Link
Vital to any consideration of global economics is the one element which can
make a "mutual
influence system" actually work: world money, the "lubricant"
P. 291
without which no plan however just can be effected practically. While
economists avoid
the subject like the plague, I must try to demystify the word "money" since
ostensibly this
is the "name of the game."
What exactly is money? There is a subtle mystery here. Is it only, as
Webster defines it,
"metal as gold, silver or copper, coined or stamped, and issued as a medium
of exchange"?
Or "wealth reckoned in terms of money"? Or "any form or denomination of
coin or paper
lawfully current as money"? Or "Anything customarily used as a medium of
exchange or
measure of value, as sheep, wampum, gold dust, etc."?
Obviously, without exchange value, the coin or paper is not "money." But
exchange value
is not limited to single transactions; it is public and general. Enter the
conceptual side of
money: trust. Without trust or confidence in its exchange value in the
market-place, the
"medium" itself, be it shark's teeth, clay disks, or gold bullion, would be
of ornamental
value only or objects to hold paper in place.
The subject of money is disposed of by the United States Constitution with
extreme
brevity.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have the power to coin
money, regulate
the value thereof and of foreign coins."
The fundamental definition of money is here taken for granted! And for good
reason since
trust as a psychological and emotional value cannot be legislated. And that
leads to a
startling fact: There is no legal definition for money!
Implicit in "medium of exchange" is the confidence that he who accepts a
dollar bill, a
kroner, franc, mark, ruble, rupee, yen or cedi can pass it on to another and
receive
commensurate value. A dollar bill, however, may circulate all week buying
bread, light
bulbs, toothpaste, and paying the rent but on Friday, at the bank, when the
teller informs
the last unfortunate holder that the bill is "no good," it suddenly loses
its exchange value,
its trust side. In other words, people's trust made it "work" despite its
forgery. A Mickey
Mouse certificate would also have worked if it had trust as a "medium of
exchange."
The essence of money is therefore trust.
National money, historically, is as provisional as sea-shells, sperm-whale
teeth, round
stones with holes, mud tablets and even gold dust. While the actual or
material side of
national money still exists, its conceptual or trust side is fast
disintegrating.34
If nations, as exclusive political and economic units, by definition don't
trust one another,
how can confidence exist for their respective monies? In Emery Reves'
words:
"What we usually call world economics, international trade, has little if
anything to do with
economics or trade. They are, in fact economic warfare, trade warfare. The
dominating
motive of all economic activity outside existing national barriers is not
trade, is not
production, is not consumption, is not even profit, but a determination to
strengthen by all
means the economic power of the nation-state."35
The "game" of money exchange is itself big business, a whole breed of men in
exchange
offices throughout the world parasitically engaged daily in reaping the
benefits of this
institutionalized distrust at the expense of the world public.
Central bankers, speculators, special departments of multinationals, in
fact, anyone who
understands there is a profit to be made from monetary distrust is in
reality ripping off the
public which naively considers money only as Webster did, a "medium of
exchange."
The game aspect of money was brilliantly exposed by Adam Smith (a pseudonym)
in "The
Money Game," a biting satire of the daily play of the New York Stock
Exchange: "The
irony is that this is a money game and money is the way we keep score." As
to the vital
element of trust, Smith writes, "Markets only work when they believe, and
this confidence
is based on the idea that men can manage their affairs rationally."36
National citizens, today, more than ever, are being made aware by inflation
that their
particular national currency is literally unstable, no longer able to serve
their economic
interests as a constant thus valid means of exchange. The U.S. citizen in
particular
suffered as much a psychological as economic shock in the '70s by two dollar
devaluations
in less than three years due principally to massive national deficits and
dollar drains to pay
for foreign wars.37
The reestablishment of confidence in money in terms of public service as a
medium of
exchange for goods and services and not as a means of exploitation of the
poor by the rich,
can come about only on a global scale. For only globally can problems of
exchange of
goods, equitable distribution of wealth-producing capital and the
elimination of the have-
nots be accomplished.
"American corporations are outwardly bound. Their evolution is, however,
the
evolutionary prototype for all of society. All of humanity are soon to
become
worldians."38
Contrary to what timid and inwardly-looking economists and finance
ministers, not to
mention the whole clique of central bankers and money changers admit, this
implies-- as it
did in 1787 for the separate states of the newly-formed United States of
America-- the total
relinquishment of money issuance and control by sovereign states.
Conversely it means
global and sovereign institutions designed to serve the citizens of the
world in their entirety
and to protect their individual rights.
The multinational corporations, no doubt inadvertently, are moving
inexorably in this
imperative direction:
"National profiles are hard to distinguish in many cases because
multinationals shy away
from being identified with any one country; most are proud of the fact
their subsidiaries are
indigenous everywhere. . . The trend is toward increasingly global
structures and
decision-making, and toward allocating corporate resources on a world
scale." 39
As I have pointed out, world man and world ownership are indissolubly lined.
World
money, both conceptually and actually, is thus the indispensable-- and
heretofore missing--
ingredient for the two to be joined and begin working.
P. 293
Who Issues Money?
The key question remains, who or what can issue world money? The history of
the
contending forces at work in money issuance in the United States is highly
illustrative.
Contrary to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution which gives power to
Congress alone
to "coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin," according
to those who
considered money as a profit-making commodity and method for gaining control
of labor
by capital, mostly London bankers at the time, the issuing institute must be
in private
hands.
Those who considered money-- as did most of the founding fathers, notably
George
Washington. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin-- as only a medium of
exchange
for goods and services, that is, real wealth, at the service of the people,
know that it had to
be authorized and issued by representative public institutions, under public
control since it
was and is the general as much as the individual welfare which must be
considered by any
democratic government.
During America's development in the 18th and 19th centuries, the running
battle between
private banking interests and public spokesmen was bitter and often deadly.
In Oliver
Cushing Dwinnel's words:
"There is little doubt but that the financial monopolists have brought about
the wars when
their control of the issuance of money was threatened. It was not a
coincidence that the
Revolutionary War took place after the British Empire was unable, after many
years of
effort to control the Colonies by controlling their money; and it was not a
coincidence that
the War of 1812 was prosecuted against us after Congress refused to renew
the bank
charter. Much of the stock had been bought by England. It is pretty
obvious from our
history that the financial hierarchy of the world will go to war if
necessary to gain control
of money issuance, and they will do so to renew control, and to maintain
control,
regardless of how many wars it may take."
Abraham Lincoln, Economist
The importance of government control of money issuance was endorsed by the
great
emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, who believed that the spending power of the
government
and the buying power of the consumer could and should be created and issued
by the state
free from interests, discounts and other charges imposed as a profit of the
private money
system. Lincoln's monetary program offered the means of paying debts and
current
expenses of government without profit to the bankers and without disaster to
the taxpayer.
As Gerald McGreer records:
"Quite naturally the bankers opposed Lincoln's 'National currency Program,'
for under it
he proposed to take away from the bankers the privilege of issuing an
effective substitute
for money. The bankers' plan for controlling money was for the government .
. . to farm
out its power to issue money to the bankers. Having thus lost its power to
issue money,
the government would be reduced to the position of a perpetual borrower at
interest from a
private monopoly which secured its power to issue a SUBSTITUTE FOR MONEY FOR
THE GOVERNMENT." 41
The issue, then as now, was vital to economic well-being, the fundamental
question being:
Shall government be subordinate to moneypower with money changers ruling
democracy,
or shall democracy rule the money changes? Lincoln knew that it was upon
the
determination of the primal issue in favor of democracy that the progress,
prosperity and
peace of humanity depended.
In a Congressional Report to the 76th Congress of 1862 written by Robert L.
Owens, then
chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, was a summary of
Lincoln's
monetary views, as relevant today in the global context as they were then in
the national:
"1. Money is the creature of law and the creation of the
original issue of money
should be maintained as an exclusive monopoly of. . .Government.
"2. Money possesses no value to the State other than given it by
circulation.
"3. Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every
protection. The wages of
men should be recognized in the structure of and in the social order as more
important than
the wages of money. (In this vital recognition of the primacy of men's
'wages' over
money's 'wages,' i.e., interest, Lincoln was laying the groundwork for
ownership of
capital by labor in which 'wages' were derived both from labor and
wealth-producing
capital instruments. Author's note.)
"4. No duty is more imperative on the Government than the duty
it owes to the
people to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency. . .so that labor
will be protected
from a vicious currency (controllable by private interests).
"5. The available supply of gold and silver being wholly
inadequate to permit
the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into
coin in the volume
required to serve the needs of the people, some other base for the issuance
of currency
must be developed. And some other means than that of convertibility of
paper currency or
any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.
"6. The monetary needs of increasing numbers of people advancing
toward
higher standards of living can be served by the issuing of National currency
and Credit
through the operation of a National Banking System. The circulation of a
medium of
exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated. . .
Government
has the power to regulate the currency and credit of the Nation.
"7. Government should stand behind its currency and credit and
the bank
deposits of the Nations. No individual should suffer a loss of money
through depreciated
inflated currency or bank bankruptcy.
"8. Government, possessing the power to create and issue
currency and credit
as money, and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from
circulation by
taxation and otherwise, need not and should not borrow capital at interest
as a means of
financing governmental work and public enterprise.
"9. The Government should create, issue and circulate all the
currency and
credit need to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying
power of the
consumer.
"10. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the
supreme
prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative
opportunity.
"11. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt need for
an uniform
medium of exchange will be satisfied. The tax-payers will be saved immense
sums of
interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises.
. .the
maintenance of stable government and ordered process, and the conduct of the
Treasury
will become matters of practical administration.
"12. Money will cease to become the master and become the servant
of
humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."
In his introduction42, Owens summed up the underlying concept of trust in
Lincoln's
monetary views:
"The plan is founded on benevolence, justice and righteousness. It is based
on reason, on
thoroughly well-established facts, and on sound precedents that cannot be
disputed by
intelligent men of good will and honest purpose. . . The plan is
Constitutional. . . The
Supreme Court of the United States has justified (if) on its opinion in the
Legal Tender
Cases. It is based on the exclusive right of the Government to create money
and on the
explicit duty 'to regulate the value thereof.' (The Plan) points the way by
which the
Government, representing all the people, shall prevent either inflation
(which is
indefensible expansion of credit or money or the corresponding undue and
indefensible
contraction of credit: deflation, through which people have suffered. . .
The Plan
proposes to end the suffering of one-third of the American people because of
undeserved
poverty."
This remarkable and superbly relevant testament could be considered the
forerunner to
modern economic democracy and finance. Oliver Dwinnel rightly concludes
that "As
Washington is the symbol of the political democracy of the coming world of
his day, so
Lincoln foreshadowed the economic and financial democracy of the world to
be."
Gold
This brings us to the question of gold as a worldly "medium of exchange."
Does it fulfil
the exacting requirements?
According to Stuart Chase, "The international monetary problem will not be
solved when
the U.S. achieves a strong domestic economy with full employment.
International trade is
bound to expand in a shrinking world, but, as the New York Times has pointed
out, 'any
further expansion in the business that nations, and their citizens, do with
each other would
be limited by the newly-minted gold that enters the world's money system
each year.' It
isn't enough." The search is on, he adds, "for a new invention to make it
enough, and to
take the place of gold in international exchanges."43
There are many who think that a dynamic relationship exists between gold and
one world
economics. Was General de Gaulle correct in his famous press conference at
the Palais
Elysee in 1965 in announcing the monetary exchange standard between nations
was no
longer effectiveand that a "true gold standard" was essential? "We consider
it necessary,"
he stated regally, "that international trade should rest, as before the two
world wars, on an
indisputable monetary basis having the mark of no particular country. What
basis? Indeed
there can be no other criterion, no other standard than gold. Yes, gold,
which never
changes, which can be shaped into ingots, bars, coins, which has no
nationality and which
is eternally accepted as an alternative fiduciary value par excellence."
The economic "warfare" between nations was never better illustrated than by
this unilateral
declaration of de Gaulle who then led a "run" on the gold in Fort Knox by
Western
European nations. This led inexorably to President Nixon's "unilateral"
decision in
August, 1971, when U.S. gold reserves had fallen from a record $24 billion
in 1947 to
$10 billion (due to concurrent deficits throughout the Vietnam War years),
to declare that
dollars would no longer be exchanged for gold. This in turn left billions
of unwanted and
unredeemable "Eurodollars" in central banks throughout Europe. Nixon's act,
"to save the
dollar" was as much directed against "friendly" as against "enemy" nations.
The hold gold retains on the public is more emotional than logical. "Apart
from its aesthetic
appeal," writes Timothy Green, "gold has no intrinsic value. It is hard to
imagine being
cast up on a desert island with anything more useless than a bar of gold."
Lord Keynes referred to gold as "that barbaric relic," while others have
sung paeans of
praise for its beauty, its indestructibility, its scarcity and its almost
mystical appeal as a
symbol of power. Ancient alchemists sought the "elixir of immortal life" by
extracting the
oligo-elements of gold for concocting the godlike ambrosia. Astrologers
link gold with the
sun and the nervous and circulatory system in a mystical triumvirate.
Again, these are
fascinating sidelights to gold's history and may serve to explain in part
the tenacity with
which it is considered of high value. But from a strictly economic
viewpoint, it lacks vital
factors to serve as a basis of a one world system.
To answer the "gold bugs" definitely as to why gold cannot adequately serve
as a basis for
a one world currency, we must again appreciate, in Arthur Kitson's words,
that "The entire
financial factor presents itself from two distinct and entirely opposite and
conflicting
standpoints. The one is the bankers as 'moneylenders;' the other, the
producers. To the
banker, money represents itself as a valuable commodity from which he must
draw
dividends in the shape of interest. . . For this reason the banking
interests have waged
unceasing warfare against State Banking and what they term 'cheap money
expedients.'
Moreover, the histories of cheap currency expedients have mostly been
written by bankers,
their employees, or hired professors, who have invariably presented the
subject from this
interested class' point of view. It is for this reason that so much
importance has been
attached to gold for currency purposes. Its scarcity, its dearness, gives
weight to the
demand for high interest charges. On the other hand, the producer regards
money more
from the standpoint of its utility-- his interest requires the cheapest form
available--
consistent with its ability to perform its work."44
World Money
A true world currency, relating itself directly to world consumer needs
vis-a-vis world
production of goods and services, is not a commodity in itself like shoes,
chewing-gum or
computers, but a "medium of exchange," a convenience at the service strictly
of the
producer and consumer, made one by the aforementioned new right of world
ownership
for world man and woman.
World Economy - World Accounting System
Carried to its logical conclusion, "world money" becomes a simplified
bookkeeping system
which, according to Buckminster Fuller, "must be converted from agricultural
metabolics
to an eternal world-around accounting which includes all generations to
come, and which is
consistent with the cosmic accounting of an eternally regenerative physical
universal
system. The accounting system would include a redefinition of wealth with
the scarcity
model of economics to be made obsolete by the magnitude of man's
participation in the
irreversible amplification of the inventory of information, i.e.,
know-how."45
World or cosmic accounting then "assumes omnivalidity" which, translated
into individual
terms means the right to ownership of the means to wealth. While humans
today,
conditioned by the archaic "earning the right to live," scarcity-oriented
ethic, still compete,
ergo fight each other, as do states, for bare sustenance, World Citizen
Fuller reminds us
that:
"The Universe is not operating on a basis in which the Star sun opines
ignorantly that it can
no longer afford to let Earth have the energy to keep life going because it
hasn't paid its last
bill."
The sun does not have to make a profit. And just as the world moral view is
synergistic,
that is, wealth-producing,46 so an economic overview radically reverses the
failure-prone
Malthusian and Darwinian theories to support a totally successful and
totally human
economy. In Buckminster Fuller's words:
"Ephemerization, a product of the metaphysical conservation being more
effective and
coherent than physical entropy, is the number one economic surprise of world
man. Up to
ten years ago, all world economists counseled the world political leaders
that there never
had been and never would be enough vital sustenance to support more than a
very few. . .
The invisible, inexorable evolution will soon convert all nationally and
subnationally
identified humanity into worldians, universally coordinate, individual
'people.' The
inexorable trending to one-world citizenship is ignorantly and expeditiously
opposed by the
sovereign nations' self-perpetuating proclivities." 47
International "Money" of States
In order to bring inter-national economic programs more in line with global
needs, in
March, 1967, the International Monetary Fund, an outgrowth of the Bretton
Woods
Agreements of 1944, following a meeting of the "Group of Ten," finance
ministers and
central bank governors of the ten most developed nations, announced a new
"reserve
asset," i.e., inter-national "currency" to supplement gold-- which accounted
for a mere 30
per cent of the monetary reserves of the membership of the IMF dollars,
sterling and
existing IMF credits. There were the "Special Drawing Rights" (SDRs) which
started out
as a unit of credit based on the then official value of gold, $42.22 per
Troy ounce. Once
issued, however, they could not be reconverted into gold.
In other words, the States, through the IMF, created a new "legal tender" in
order to
increase liquidity between States. There was, and is, of course no single
sovereign
governmental authority sanctioning that creation. The concept is not new.
Lord Keynes
had proposed his "bancor," along with gold, would be the international
reserves available
to all States on a long-term, low interest basis, and, as with the SDRs,
gold could buy
"bancors," but "bancors" could not be reconverted into gold. Thus would be
created a
phony "paper" gold.
Some economists consider it excellent that nations "are acting together"
because together
they are bigger than the speculator or the businessmen hedging against
currency problems.
Adam Smith saw the SDRs however as "only a device which gives more time to
resolve the
problem." 48 "These problems," he claims, "are universal. They arise
because
governments are now held responsible for the welfare of the people. . .
What this means is
that if governments have a choice between attempting full employment and
defending their
economies, they will nearly always pick jobs over the worth of the currency.
Currencies
doe not vote. . . the Full Employment Act (of the U.S.) spells this out.
The government is
committed to full employment and if it must pump money into the economy to
achieve this,
and if there isn't enough money, it creates the money. Long-range inflation
is the policy,
articulated or not, of every country in the world." 49
Timothy Green tells us that "so far, the SDRs represent a very small part of
reserves, but
their very existence is a significant step along the road that is gradually
by-passing gold as a
monetary metal." 50
Of particular interest to world citizens in this monetary creation by States
is the precedent
which is pregnant with implications. I note in passing that the existence
of SDRs has in no
way relieved the individual of the inflationary crisis facing him presently
since they are only
a supplement to the entire State-oriented economy and not a true step toward
a one world
economy.
Neither gold nor "paper gold" can serve as a viable, permanent monetary base
for a world
market as such. It can at best be considered a stop-gap measure in lieu of
a true world
legal.
"After all, if the mines are running out of gold, the problem of finding an
alternative is all
the more acute." 51
Super-analysts like Dr. Harry Schultz, Harry Browne, James Dines and Louis
Rukeyser
propose an economy based on gold and a "new political system" though they
fail to go the
full way to world government. On the other hand, world government advocates
sidestep
the delicate question of world economics which requires a spelling-out in
down-to-earth
monetary terms how we get from here to there without blowing everything
apart. Vague
theory won't do. "Prayers will not make a mango fall."
In all fairness to the "gold bugs," they realistically assess the
international muddle as it is
with no holds barred. Dr. Schultz bluntly states that "My job is not to
idealize on what the
world should be like. Those who think we've already evolved enough to do
without gold
discipline. . . will sink while singing their individual national anthems. .
. My job is rather
to offer a lead toward real patriotism, i.e., to humanity and to yourself &
your family (not
to a gov't. or nation). My job is to tell it like it is and show how to
survive." 52
We can only applaud and affirm patriotism to humanity and oneself at one and
the same
time which is the essence of world citizenship along with revealing the
know-how of
survival. What concerns us more directly, however, is not survival of the
privileged few
because, apart from considerations of simple justice and humanity, living on
an island of
plenty surrounded by a sea of misery is hardly conductive to happiness,
economic or
otherwise.
Only through survival of the Total Species can any single member of the
human species
survive in any manner resembling a human condition. The late Justice Wm. O.
Douglas
wrote prophetically, "The liberty of one man will hereafter be closely
linked with the
hunger of another. The world economy is more and more the testing ground
for every
man's freedom." 53
Who or What Can Issue World Money?
Guru Nataraja's Memorandum on World Government gives the clue as to how
world
money can come about. "It would not be impossible for the World Government
to have its
own credit and currency the world over, and planned on some rational human
basis." 54
Travelers going abroad are urgently advised to convert their ready cash into
traveler's
checks which if lost are easily replaced. The largest bank in the world,
BankAmerica,
advertises its traveler's checks as "world money." Being backed by a
negotiable currency,
they are literally "mediums of exchange" for goods and services worldwide.
The extrapolation of this already recognized public service to a true global
medium of
exchange as envisaged by Lincoln is far simpler than generally realized
requiring only the
proper institutional framework for its immediate functioning.
Just as the SDRs are "legal tender" between nations, sanctioned by
international "law,"
i.e., the Washington Agreement of March, 1968, and thus could be considered
an
"international money," so the Mondo, sanctioned by World Government, may be
considered "legal tender" between world citizens "outside" the jurisdiction
of national
frontiers-- as is gold-- who seek a sound, global, real currency with which
to do business
and exchange needed goods and services. The Mondo will be initially an
inter-world
citizen money, legal, logical and functional. Whereas the SDRs only
complement the
economic warfare practised between nations and do not meet our needs, the
Mondo,
possessing immediate intrinsic value as a global medium of exchange, backed
by today's
"negotiable" currency and emitted by a legally-founded bank will supply the
missing
liquidity to lubricate the Mutual Affluence System.
Besides being a peace currency, further considerations will convince the
public of the
Mondo's value. As national currency preserves pockets of wealth for those
who already
possess far in excess for personal luxury, maintaining a system of economic
serfdom for
the rest of the populace, as exacting and degrading a condition as any of
our ancestors
faced under a despotic monarchy, the Mondo will be a general affluence
currency, freeing
us of our economic servitude, unattached to monopoly, ". . .founded on
benevolence,
justice and righteousness." In short, it will be the first truly human
rights currency.55
The Duties of Economic Democracy
The right to economic democracy implies duties as well. Ownership of a
piece of industry
means owning equity or corporate shares in that industry. While it is no
doubt true that we
exercise "economic democracy" with our money as a consumer at the
marketplace, that is
not the whole story. It is an indirect "vote," not a controlling one. A
true economic vote
would be one linked directly to the entire productive apparatus just as a
political vote relates
to the entire governmental apparatus guaranteed by constitutional right.
If therefore we are all economic "citizens," what is the total economic
framework in which
we can exercise our "vote" for determining our personal and general economic
well-being?
It must obviously be allied with the entire productive apparatus, not
governmental. In
brief, it must be as an economic world citizen with an
across-the-multinational-
corporation-board vote!
To illustrate, a share in one multinational corporation owned by a worker of
that
corporation is already an international economic vote by definition. If
that same worker
buys one share of other multinational corporations, he increases his
international voting
power horizontally in direct proportion to the number of corporations he
buys into. This is
the principle of the mutual fund, an across-the-corporate-board portfolio.
Now if he manages to buy a share in all the multinational corporations, his
voting power in
each is compounded by his ownership strategy which now includes all. But he
is not only
an international economic citizen. He is also an international economic
legislator! His one
vote permits him to introduce actual resolutions at the yearly general
assembly of
stockholders.56
Since his one vote permits him to propose policy changes in each
corporation, should he
introduce in each and every general assembly the same resolution, i.e., his
economic
"ticket," the very accumulative effect would reinforce the voting power of
each separate
introduction.
The Economic World "Ticket"
If the "ticket" were designed to upgrade his ownership stake as a worker--
along with his
fellow workers-- by means of the widely-accepted Employee Stock Ownership
Plan
(ESOP), boards of directors, not to mention fellow shareholders, would
quickly appreciate
what real economic democratic power meant. The strike for higher wages
would quickly
be seen for what it was: an obsolete strategy for perpetuating the status
quo inequality
between owners of capital equity and the work-serf in the name of "justice."
"Big labor"
management must collude in this work-serf versus capital owners conflict
otherwise it
would lose its power hold over the individual worker.
A worker owning a share of shares in the corporation for which he works is
already a
potential world owner. No doubt he presently disregards totally his voting
rights-- as do
most shareholders-- turning his proxy back to management for their disposal
as they see it.
Viewed objectively, he thus deserves the economic rip-off of which he is the
perpetual
victim.
Shares Equal Votes Also
Although the United States vaunts itself as the most enlightened nation in
the world as
regards its economic philosophy, economic voting is not taught in schools or
even
universities. Perhaps the best kept secret among the financial elite is
that "Shares represent
ownership votes, i.e., control." But since no political party or labor
union unites share
owners in a common ownership front against elitist, monopolistic ownership--
the
Communists and Socialists have captured in the public mind the notion of
capital
ownership by the "people" (read "State capitalism")-- single individual or
even groups,
such as religious bodies, cultural, educational, social or other
organizations, are concerned
mainly with their corporate investments as saleable capital, in other words,
a commodity or
as a producer of dividends, but not as a democratic economic voting right.
Second "Plank"; World Public Order
Let us carry our worker/owner analogy a step farther. Realizing that his
multinational
ownership shares are highly vulnerable in an anarchic political world, in
order to protect his
stake-- which now crosses the economic "frontiers" between the multi's-- he
must
introduce into his economic "ticket" the notion of overall political
protection as a corporate
policy. Not to seek such political protection in a world of over 170
nation-states would be
in effect to deny his new global economic civic status. Indeed, the
continuance of an
anarchic political world in an interdependent economic industrial world
where the right of
ownership beyond national frontiers by the national citizen is increasingly
apparent and
exercised, is the guarantor of its eventual destruction. Common-sense alone
dictate the
protection of our productive tools, providing our well-being.57
No organization yet exists, however, to which our worker/owner can address
his proxy
which would represent him in the global manner described. A "World
Citizens' Investors
Corporation"-- a global, democratically "elected" economic congress--
designed so as to
feed-back profits to the individual like the mutual funds is yet to be
created though
shareholders, especially those in certain religious institutions are
becoming aware that
economic ownership, however minor, of a multinational giant, connotes civic
responsibility of a new order.58
General Citizenry Property Rights
The extrapolation of the ESOP to include the general citizenry in ownership
of the
expanding industrial "pie," thereby expanding affluence, is already
theoretically developed
in Kelsonian economics.59 Various tentative proposals for direct civic
ownership of the
Washington, D.C. metro system, certain public utilities, the telephone
company, certain
bankrupt railroads, even such giants as the Chrysler Corporation have been
developed by
Kelso experts such as Norman Kurland.60
World Citizen "Labor" Union
The second economic prong necessary to complete the mechanism picture of
creating
personal affluence is the creation of a new-type "labor" union having as its
goals 1)
increased purchasing power through ownership of capital equity by workers,
and 2)
increased reliance on modern science-design technology to decrease the toil
side of "work"
in order to decrease the actual work-time. This "labor" union would support
the work ethic
only so far as it included the machine work as an integral part of the
worker's share. In
other words, just as a journeyman or even a garage mechanic owns his own
tools, so an
industrial worker would "own" his own tools in the form of income-producing
shares in
the company for which he works.
Such a "world citizen's labor union," like the multinationals themselves,
would cross
national frontiers thus equalizing the now unequal power of the multi's to
bypass labor
pressure in one country by switching production, resources and even whole
plants to
another.
The debate rages among statesmen, lawyers, jurists, and laymen around the
question: Is
there a body of international law, institutions, procedures and precedents
which can
appropriately be described as the "law" of human rights? We have dealt with
the political
side of this question in other chapters. But who is debating the question
of the economic
"law of human rights?" What labor union is representing the economic rights
spelled out in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Article 17: [1] "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association
with others."
[2] No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. .
."
Article 23: [1] "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of
employment, to just and
favourable conditions of work and to protection against
unemployment."
[2] "Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to
equal pay for equal
work."
[3] "Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable
remuneration
ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of
human dignity,
and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social
protection."
Article 24: "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including
reasonable limitations of
working hours and periodic holidays with pay."
Are Labor Unions Thinking "Global"?
Under the rubrique, "Multinational Business Enterprises," the 1970-71
Yearbook of the
Union of International Associations referred briefly to "the union point of
view on
industrial and commercial concentration."
"A special August 1970 issue of the economic and social Bulletin of the
International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions was entitled: 'The International Free
Trade Union
Movement and Multinational Corporations.' It contains a report by Mr.
Herbert Maier
who, whilst acknowledging that the unions are not unaware of the positive
aspects of the
multinational corporations (improvement of employment and income levels,
potential
benefits arising from the application of new technologies, the help provided
in developing
and increasing both home and export markets, and speeding up the
industrialization of
developing countries), expressed a whole set of reservations, fears and
demands which
would be too long to mention here. He considered it fundamentally necessary
to draw up a
code of behavior to govern multinational company operations applicable both
to the
industrialized nations and to the developing countries. . ."
Eleven years later, in the July-August, 1982 edition of Economic Notes,
editor Dr. Joseph
Harris, Executive Director of the Labor Research Association, in an article
entitled
"Multinationals and U.S. Workers" writes ". . .in the era of multinational
corporations, the
closest cooperation between the various industrial unions in each country--
and with unions
in other countries where the multinationals have spread their tentacles--has
become the
necessary next step for the trade union movement." (Emphasis added.) In
other
words, to date, trade unions are still struggling to achieve a truly global
viewpoint and thus
unity. Where a "confederation" of trade unions remains the ultimate in
cooperation
between workers-- which, in plain language, means "equally sovereign"
national trade
unions, a sort of trade union United Nations, no "code of behavior"
necessary to govern
multinational company operations can be devised or implemented. 61
Human economic rights can only be spoken for by representatives acting in
the name of all
concerned, individually and wholly.
"A qualitative change that will enhance trade union effectiveness is
coordinated union
bargaining on a global scale with the MNCs on all matters relating to
employment, wages
and conditions." 62
Who Can Represent the "Worker of the World"?
The worker/owner of the world, as an economic World Citizen, can only be
represented by
a global organization transcending national boundaries. This fundamental
right of global
association is sanctioned by Article 20, Universal Declaration of Human
Rights:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."
A world-wide trade union is likewise sanctioned by Article 23(4) of the same
declaration:
"Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection
of his interests."
Is the Mutual Affluence System Realizable?
Therefore the major elements required to evolve a "mutual affluence system"
(MAS)
worldwide are:
1. A legitimate world bank under the aegis of the World
Government;
2. A global currency based on the conception of money as a
"medium of
exchange" between producers and consumers having no intrinsic value in
itself, i.e.,
monetary world citizenship divorced essentially from monopolistic
nation-state system;
3. A democratically-organized and controlled investment
corporation of, for
and by world citizens whereby they may cooperate and individually profit on
the basis of
economic justice (equity) in the purchase of approved securities of
industries throughout
the world; popular ownership of voting equity will lead inevitably to its
legitimate
protection on a global scale;
4. A world citizen labor union based on increased purchasing
power through
employee stock ownership plans with progressive decrease in the work/week
due to full
utilization of design-science, automation, ephemerization, robotics, and
ecologically-sound
energy sources;
5. A world institute of economic justice staffed by
wholistic-thinking
economists 1) to educate the world citizenry to the new global ownership
philosophy and
strategies, 2) to educate national and world leaders to the "new look" in
affluent economic
thinking as opposed to obsolete scarcity economic thinking, and 3) to
educate multinational
management and personnel as to the economic, social, technical, ecological
and moral
advantages of adopting the new economic philosophy and strategies.
Discerning readers will note there is no single element here incapable of
practical
realization. Indeed, the seeds of all have been sown many years ago and are
already
breaking ground.
Certain national, enlightened trade unions, for instance, are becoming
sympathetic to
ESOPs for their own members in the realization that the collision course
between "big
labor" and "big management", which encompasses government as well as
industry, can
and must be avoided at all costs. (The experience of Solidarity in Poland
and industry-
wide labor strikes in so-called capitalist countries leads to similar
results in sheer economic
terms, though not in political.)
Furthermore, both management and labor, given the totality of nuclear war,
are beginning
to assess their responsibility to a world public order to guarantee peace.
Former president
of IBM Thomas Watson's call for "World Peace Through World Trade" was a
forerunner
of multinational corporate recognition that war is a no-growth business, a
truth which
unfortunately has yet to penetrate the board rooms of many of Fortune's 500.
Labor representatives likewise, such as Ernest DeMaio, World Federation of
Trade Unions
representative to the United Nations, see the dead-end of the nationalistic
arms race, no
matter how lucrative to certain industries in the short term:
"The military cost of bolstering deteriorating spheres of vital interests
are counter-
productive and can be maintained only by further reducing the living
standards at home.
Nor can this trend be reversed by military adventures abroad." 63
The President of the United Electrical Workers of Canada, Dick Barry, in
citing the
conservatism of the national leaders of the major American labor unions,
notably the AFL-
CIO, as regards global responsibilities, writes that "In a climate where the
peace question is
coming increasingly to the forefront, we should be taking the lead to see to
it that it gets
discussed in our local unions." 64
The Mutual Affluence System eliminates the need for nationalization, the
chimera of
old-line socialism, by implementing ownership directly to those concerned,
the individual
and his or her family.
As to the World Government, it already exists in the legitimate pledges of
individuals
throughout the world to the status of world citizen, Indeed, if human
rights themselves are
legitimate, then the human right to choose one's global political status is
likewise
legitimate.
"Everyone is entitled to a social and international order so that the rights
and freedoms set
forth in this Declaration can be fully realized."
Article 28, UDHR
In sum, extending globally, there is no reason why, given our electronic,
computerized,
technically-advanced world that this individual ownership principle coupled
with the
dynamic fact of a political recognition of our species cannot transform the
world in which
we live so that promised land of general abundance and world peace with
freedom in order
to maintain the age-old thrust toward higher intellectual, cultural and
spiritual worlds which
have been revealed to us throughout the ages by the sages and poets.
Who owns the world?
The citizens thereof.
But we must claim it or there will be no one and nothing to claim.
-------------------------
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1 Values Magazine, Vol 4, No. 2, Gurukula Press, Varkala, India.
2 Buckminster Fuller, Utopia or Oblivion, (The Overlook Press, 1969), p.
242.
3 Ibid., p. 276
4 Ibid., p. 277
5 Ibid., p. 176
6 A 1982 study by the National Taxpayer's Union reveals that the U.S.
Government is saddled with a "Taxpayer's Liability Index" (TLI) of over
$11.6
trillion, a hidden burden of approximately $145,000 on each taxpayer.
According to the report, there are now only an estimated 80 million real
taxpayers left in the U.S. This TLI includes the public debt of $1,050
trillion,
accounts payable, $167 billion, undelivered orders, $487 billion, long term
contracts, $21 billion, loan and credit guarantees, $360 billion, insurance
commitments, $2,227 billion, and annuity or pension programs, $7,281
billion.
Interest payments alone on the "official" Federal debt of 1980 cost
taxpayers an
estimated $57 million, six times the Federal interest costs in 1960 and $14
billion more than the total Federal budget in 1950.
7 Third-world nation debt is now over $500 billion, up from roughly $100
billion a decade ago. Over 60% of that debt is owed to Western banks.
Mexico is
60 billion in debt, Brazil, $87 billion, and Poland, $26 billion. With
regard to
African nations according to the Christian Science Monitor (February 3,
1983,
p. 13), "What is significant about Africa's foreign indebtedness is not its
size,
but the rapidity of its growth--from under $20 billion in 1975 to almost $45
billion in 1979 (reflecting the impact of the rise in oil prices), to $56
billion in
1981, and $66 billion in 1982." The debt problem threatens to overwhelm the
world economic system. . . ." (Christian Science Monitor, January 25,
editorial.)
9 Axel Madsen, Private Power, (Wm. Morrow & Co., NY, 1980), p. 11.
10 In a January 31, 1983 U.S. News & World Report article, "How To Get The
Country Moving Again," six Nobel Prize economists, Milton Friedman, Paul
Samuelson, George Stigler, Lawrence Klein, Kenneth Arrow and James Tobin
expose their grasp of fundamental economic realities by ignoring: 1) the
gross inequality of ownership of wealth-producing machines not only in the
United States but in all other countries; 2) the dynamic relationship
between
war economy, i.e., the nation-state, and today's global recession; 3) the
interdependence of all national economies implying that economic solutions
must be wholistic or global to be realistic; 4) the imperative need for a
world
political order as concomitant to a world economic order.
11 J.M. Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1923.
12 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook, 1979, MIT
Press.
13 U.N. Publications, Sales No. 62.IX.1 (E/3593/Rev. 1).
14 Leonid Brezhnev on October 20, 1983 stated that "Only he who has decided
to
commit suicide can start a nuclear war." President Ronald Reagan on October
21, 1983 stated that "In a nuclear war, all mankind would lose."
16 Reply of the Government of the U.S.S.R., p. 194.
17 Stuart Chase interviewed Michael Bohr, a high official of Gosplan, the
central planning agency of the Soviet Union, in Moscow in 1961. In his book
Money to Grow On, p. 146, he recalls the following conversations: "What are
you going to do about the transfer from bombs to butter; won't that bring
economic disruption and unemployment?" The reply was, "Not too much. We
have the transition pretty well planned. Besides, we've been through it
before.... In 1959 we reduced the armed forces by two million, principally
personnel for land armies and ships, now obsolete. Because of previous
planning...we had no great trouble relocating the enlisted men... Placing
the
officers, however, gave us a good deal of trouble; they only knew how to do
one thing...."
18 "Sixty firms control the capitalist system," Der Spiegel headlined a
three-
part inquiry into global enterprise in 1974. By 1985, the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates, some 300 companies
will produce more than half the world's goods and services, but already in
1967, Fortune magazine could say that the inner core of capitalism
consisted of
60 enterprises, controlled by less than 1,000 individuals." Axel Madsen,
Private
Power (Wm. Morrow & Co., NY 1980), p. 40.
19 Morton Mintz, America, Inc., (Dial Press, 1971), p. 12 & 18.
19a Ibid., p. 15
20 Multi-national Corporations & World Development
21 Anthony Sampson, The Sovereign-state of ITT (Viking Press, NY 1975), p.
302.
22 M. Blume, S. Franklin, D. Wion, The Distribution of Financial Assets,
1973
Conference on Wealth Distribution, People's Policy Center, Wash., D.C.
Also,
Broadening the Ownership of New Capital: ESOP & Other Alternatives, Staff
study, Congress of the United States, June 17, 1976, p. 13.
23 Louis O. Kelso & Patricia Hetter, Two-Factor Theory (Vintage Books,
NYC,
1967), p. 11. "The heart of an economic system is its principle of
distribution.
Real wealth is goods and services; its production takes place in the
physical
world under natural laws that are everywhere the same. Regardless of an
economy's political structure, production problems must be solved
pragmatically through science, engineering, technology, management and
skills of labor. Out of the production process, however, arises wealth or
income, and distribution of this wealth or income involves problems of a
different order. There is a political dimension to distribution as well as
a
physical one; its character is derived from the economy's principle of
distribution." P. 12.
24 Article 24(1).
25 Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1843.
26 Director, Center for Economic & Social Justice, Arlington, VA.
27 Ralph Nader, The Monopoly Makers, (Grossman, NY, 1973), p. x.
28 Ibid., p. x.
29 The duplicity of national leaders was exposed by President Ronald Reagan
in his January 25 State of the Union message wherein, with over 10 million
unemployed in the U.S., he made no mention of the gross inequality of United
States' ownership patterns whereas in a letter of June 12, 1981 to Delaware
Governor Pierre du Pont IV, on the occasion of that state's General Assembly
adoption of House Bill 31 making it the policy of the state to encourage
broadening the base of capital ownership among the citizens, Reagan wrote
that "I have long believed that the widespread distribution of private
property
ownership is essential to the preservation of individual liberty, to the
strength
of our competitive free enterprise economy and to our republican form of
government."
30 Louis O. Kelso & Mortimer Adler, Capitalist Manifesto, (Random House,
1958), p. 79.
31 Ibid., Note 2.
33 "Essence of the world's working will be to make every man able to
become
a world citizen and be able to enjoy the whole earth, going wherever he
wants
at any time, able to take care of all needs of all his forward days without
any
interference with any other man and never at the cost of another man's
freedom and advantage." Utopia or Oblivion, p. 158.
34 "The war on (U.S.) inflation is not being won. Inflation at the fiscal
level is
simply being transferred from dollar inflation to interest rate inflation.
This
new inflation is clearly measured by ominous increases in budget deficits
and
national debt." ("Washington Wonderland", Sid Taylor, Dollars & Sense, Vol.
13,
No. 6, National Taxpayers Union.)
35 Emery Reves, Anatomy of Peace, (Random House, Inc. 1945), p. 14.
36 Adam Smith, The Money Game (Dell, 1967), p. 20.
37 The U.S. military expenditures jumped from $44 billion in 1960 to $81
billion in 1970.
38 Ibid., Note 2, p. 262.
39 Axel Madsen, Private Power (Wm. Morrow & Co., 1980), p. 26.
40 Oliver Cushing Dwinnel, The Story of Our Money, (Meador Publishing Co.,
Boston, 1946), p. 88 (Note).
41 Gerald G. McGreer, Conquest of Poverty, (The Garden City Press,
Gardenvale,
Quebec, Canada), p. 174.
42 Congressional Report (Senate), Document No. 23, 76th Congress, 1st
Session
"The National Economy and Banking System of the United States." p. 80.
43 Stuart Chase, Money to Grow On, (Harper & Row, 1964), p. 79.
44 Arthur Kitson, Trade Fallacies, (P.S. King & Son, Ltd., Orchard House,
London), p. 25.
45 Ibid., Note 2.
46 Sages express this notion as the law of fulfilment: "To he who has, it
shall
be given, etc." while modern-day psychologists call it the "Law of
Expectations."
47 Ibid., Note 2, p. 302.
48 Ibid., Note 36.
49 See Note 34.
50 Timothy Green, The World of Gold, (Walker & Co., NY, 1968).
51 Ibid., Note 50, p. 217. "Even then, the SDRs will be introduced
cautiously and
will not provide enough liquidity to keep up with the expansion of world
trade." Ibid., p. 216.
52 International Harry Schultz Letter, (July, 1975).
53 In 1974, the world's hungry totalled 740 million, according to President
Carter's Commission on World Hunger, headed by Sol Linovitz. Three years
later, after good world harvests, the hungry totalled 800 million. "The
principal cause of world hunger," the Commission reported, "is not the
occasional disaster that captures world attention, but the enduring
condition
of subhuman poverty that afflicts as many as 1 in 5 members of the human
family." According to Linovitz, "While recent international events have
heightened concern for national security, we as a people (USA) must
understand that the U.S. and other developed countries can never be secure
in
a world of widespread hunger and intensive poverty."
54 Nataraja Guru, Memorandum on World Government, Section V, Part 2.
55 In the words of United States Senator Charles Mathias, as quoted in
today's
Monitor, "The dilemma we face is not just an economic one, but also one of
general confidence in our financial system." Editorial (Christian Science
Monitor) January 24, 1983.
56 In 1975, only 370 shareholder proposals were submitted to the SEC of
which
half eventually appeared in the proxy statement. Ref.: International Human
Rights and Practice, ABA, 1978.
57 "With the firm's (Lockheed Aircraft) resources spread out all over the
world and the firm's threats and opportunities similarly dispersed, the
managers have seen themselves as exposed and vulnerable. As they see it,
the
sovereign states can apply force with little or no restraint. With
impunity,
they can break previous commitments, raise taxes, cancel patents,
nationalize
properties, and expropriate assets." Raymond Vernon, Director, Harvard
Center for International Affairs, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
58 Such as: The Religious Order for Corporate Responsibility, New York,
NY.
59 Ibid., Note 23.
60 Ref.: Center for Economic & Social Justice, P.O.B. 40849 Wash., D.C.
20016.
61 "Theoretically, labor should have no difficulty countering the challenge
of
global enterprise. In reality, however, unions are stuck in neutral,
benevolent monopolies too chauvinistic and too parochial to accommodate to
modern economics. Although their early leaders called upon workers to
unite,
unions pay only lip service to the brotherhood of the laboring masses when
it
comes to risking jobs to support workers in other lands. In thinking,
structure and goals, they are rooted in the last century." Axel Madsen,
Private
Power, p. 181.
62 Ernest De Maio, Taming the Multinationals, Economic Notes, July-August,
1982.
63 Ibid., p. 4.
64 Ibid., p. 6.
Return to World Government documents page
Copyright (c) 1997 World Service Authority. All rights reserved.
If you would like to send mail to World Service Authority,
please use this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The World Service Authority, and the human-in-globe logo are
service marks or registered service marks of the World
Service Authority throughout the world.
"Belief is the enemy."
-- John A. Keel, The Mothman Prophecies
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
