Politics of last century mainly was a struggle between employers and employees, givers and
takers of work. The first employees in the first, still steam-engine driven, factories did not have any rights concerning conditions of employment, wages, social security, welfare, education, accommodation, holidays and the like.
Without regulation of these human rights, a situation could come to existence in the end, wherein only a few owners of factories owned the whole country. Of course trade-unions and socialistic movements rose against this situation. And in the course of time, they have achieved much.
The role of trade-unions and socialists therefore is played out now. Most employees with a steady job now are quite satisfied and content in the rich countries, can buy a house, a car, can go on holiday, have built up a pension, have a good social security in case of illness and unemployment, can give their children every education they wish et cetera.
The arising of communism was understandable as well, as an extreme opposite against the extreme
form of capitalism. Instead of in the hands of a handful of private-owners, factories and land came in the hands of the community, the state. But people take better care of their own houses, stables and cows, like for their own children, than for state-property. The communistic countries therefore were never able to really become productive and competitive.
At the moment we world-wide prefer a mixture of capitalism and communism as ideal form of
government. Starting point then is the (capitalistic) individual freedom, however with
(communistic) limitation of freedom in the interest of general and public affairs. And we all then decide and write down in laws what these public interests are, while an independent judge takes care of interpretation and judgement. And we pay tax for these public affairs.
It therefore is not right, I think, to say that communism has lost the battle, since extreme
capitalism also has lost.
Nevertheless there still is a big gap between the rich and the poor, seen world-wide but also in the rich countries. This gap however no longer exists between givers and takers of work, but
between people with many papers and people with few or no testimonials.
How much do the 20% richest people on earth own? I think they possess the absolute majority,
directly or via banks and other financial institutions. These 20% richest own the world.
The chance-less people of course are not content with their situation, especially since they all know that the world can supply enough for all; we now have the technical possibilities to give everybody on earth a good life. And we of course are all equally human as the millionaire, in essence, just as intelligent as well, on average.
And discontent piles up as energy and then becomes a soil for violence, aggression, terrorism,
war et cetera. Or people take refuge in drugs, or choose a scapegoat with as result racism. Modern Hitlers then take advantage of this discontent, abuse it. And do you kill them, then other Hitlers come, as long as discontent exists.
The justifiable discontent living in many people on earth, is the source and cause of most
social problems, I believe, also in the rich countries. The chance-less people also are more and more concentrated in the most worn out quarters of our cities. Employees with a steady job more and more leave these quarters, while the empty houses are filled up with more chance-less people, without papers but with discontent.
Solving problems therefore firstly is changing discontent into contentment, by taking care that
everywhere where people live, a humanly living is possible. Providing the poor countries with a
permanent water-supply then is most important. In waterly soil, vegetables grow, and grass for cow and goat, so there is milk and meat then as well, and people can wash of course in and with water. And with the remainder of the crop, people can trade, and then everything turns well automatically. Permanent water-supply is the foundation. And it is possible of course, because the earth is a water-ball. We for instance can easily make salt water sweet, change deserts into gardens.
And in the rich countries too, something must be improved in the conditions millions of chance-less people are living in. We could start with less concentrating the problems. How often it happens that the buildings wherein homeless people find a temporary shelter, or where drug-addicts can find care, or where refugees find a refuge et cetera, also are situated in these poor quarters of our cities? While the people who make the rules always stay out of these problems.
That is where we should invest our billions. Because every human has the right to live.
Furthermore it also would save us the billions thrown away now in war and military equipment. It also would save us the millions we now spend on refugees. And satisfied people will no longer destroy their environment, so we would also save the millions now spent on repair and maintenance of destroyed street-furniture and the like. And we also would be paid back, in the form of good news on TV and in newspapers.
And as long as more than half of the population on earth has a justifiable discontent, and at
least 20% in the rich countries, we will have to deal with war, terrorism, violence, aggression, everywhere on earth.
That is why I made this website, this philosophy. Because the relational view also has a practical value. To start with, we must try to get a better theoretical grip on the relations between the many problems we have, for example by making the relations the central issue of science instead of the parts (see the philosophy, conclusion 3). And science, especially the scientists working in the industrial circles, no longer can have this value-free attitude towards the products they invent and produce. The relational philosophy makes perfectly clear that these values always are the essence of our products (see the philosophy, II.8).
I think that we never will be able to solve our environmental problems, without first taking care of good conditions of living for everyone on earth. Only content and prosperous people will protect nature and endangered species. First they need sufficient food, like we all do.
I therefore think that the rich countries no longer must be busy with only their own economical
growth, but instead of that must invest in the poorest residential areas on earth.
We also should learn a lesson from the past. If the first factory-owners would have had a more
righteous attitude towards their employees, by dividing the profits more equally, then communism would not have been necessary. Now we have lost millions of people in that useless battle about capital.
We, rich countries, can avert a lot of future misery by taking care of everyone on earth, by giving them a reason to be content. Because content people do not want war.
end 1999 - beginning 2000
