Golo Mann (born Angelus Gottfried Thomas Mann, 1909-1994, third son of Thomas Mann,) wrote his History Of Germany From 1789, published as “Deutsche Geschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts,” in 1958 and reprinted by Penguin Books, 1990.] In this work, Mann remarks, treating of Bismarck’s administration, “There is no ideal form of government.” This is a widespread opinion to which I subscribe, with the proviso that it be adjusted by saying: No, there is only the twin ideal of understanding-participation and reciprocal-commitment.
Thus, for instance, if a government administers a civil economy based on interacting class-roles, then the classes require (1) distinct moral identities, (2) interlinking or complementary if not common definitions of the situation, (3) harmonious images of each other reinforced by actively considerate relations, (4) clear perception of mutual obligations and (5) the will to sustain all these with love for others and pride in each one’s own conduct thereby. Lose or abandon any one of these five requirements, then that civil economy turns uncivil and fractious.
We contemporary generations grew up in both an increasingly uncivil polity and a fractiously unsocial economy. Yet even a capitalism combining free stock-markets with heavy controls over production and distribution can work well and equitably under these five conditions indicated above. A government can be Monarchic, Feudal-Corporate (i.e. fascist), Representative-Oligarchic, Plutocratic, Social-Democratic or indeed any other conceivable form of power management — it does not matter. Property and the means of production can be managed privately, administered publicly or in various mixtures as happen today — and the system will work smoothly.
Troubles begin with rampantly irresponsible individualism, abrasively defensive or aggressive group feelings usually incited by inconsiderate disrespect, such as gets inflicted on general community by quasi-conspiratorial class-buccaneering. What if a government administers a civil economy based only on differentially interacting individuals? What applied to classes in the previous case now applies to individuals. (1) Distinct moral identity, (2) shared definition of the general situation, (3) harmonious images of others maintained by considerate behavior, (4) clear understanding of obligations to government, community and others — perhaps as part of the definition of general situation, (5) benevolence toward others and pride in personal conduct.
How can people understand others whom they categorize as hateful? Hatred is reductive. It primes the human animal for combat and domination. There is much more intelligence and understanding among Occupy Wall Street participants than people supporting the “one percent”give them credit for. A fraction of the 1% try to defend themselves by attacking the 99%+ as confused and misled, but it is the fraction of 1% who are misled, having confused themselves about values, along with plain facts on almost all the important issues, past and present. They are infected with greed because they are intensely fearful both of truth and the future. They distrust everyone but their own set. In fact, they hate everyone they distrust, but cannot admit it’s all too complicated for them. Yes, there are, as always, a few bad actors and anarchists in the crowd, but it is wrong to characterize the whole movement that way. OWS is practicing the moral non-violence of Mahatma Ghandi: Awaken To Yourselves!
No Comments