The Mainspring of Human Progress

Chapter 3

NETWORKS AND PITFALLS

THE modern world is an intricate network of living human energies linking all persons in co-operative effort and in one common fate. The Turks have bread because the Americans smoke cigarettes. New Yorkers eat pineapple ripened in Hawaii because the Burmese mine tin. We drink coffee at breakfast because Brazilians need our iron, machinery, and wheat. And Japanese babies grow strong and healthy when American women buy silk lingerie.

This is the kind of world in which men and women naturally want to live. And it is the kind of world they begin to create when they are free to use their individual energies and are free to co-operate among themselves – voluntarily.

Thus the brotherhood of man is not an ideal of selflessness which human beings are too sinful to achieve. It is stern reality. All persons are bound together in the one imperative desire to survive. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is not only a sound moral precept, it is also the hardheaded advice of practical self-interest. Whoever injures another injures himself because he decreases the opportunities for gain that come through co-operation and exchange.

But how can we reconcile the principle of co-operation with the conflicts of competition? The answer is that there is nothing inconsistent between the two. Competition is the practical manifestation of human beings in free control of their individual affairs arriving at a balance in their relationships with one another. Free competition is, within itself, a co-operative process.

Competitive bargaining, for example, is essential to equitable transactions. The buyer wants a lower price; the seller wants a higher price. This may give rise to conflict and argument. But the temporary period of debate that may precede the exchange of goods and services is in no sense contradictory to the co-operative relationships underlying the whole idea of exchange. Nor are the conflicts and rivalries of opposing viewpoints confined to the market place. They are found in the home, the church, the club, the schoolroom, the playground – everywhere.

Eternal Dilemma

Since the uses of human energy are innumerable – and since there is wide variation in tastes and desires – individual persons, left to their own volition, rarely choose to do the same things in the same way at the same time. All friends, lovers, playmates, family groups, business associates have experienced the dilemma in varying degrees: Shall we stay at home or go to the movies? Shall we listen to the symphony or to the soap opera? Shall we plant alfalfa or peanuts? Shall we buy or build this or that?

Life is a continuous series of conflicts and compromises; and, generally speaking, the co-operative actions growing out of such conflicts and compromises are sounder than if each one of us were able to carry out his own ideas, in his own way and without regard for anyone else.

But from the viewpoint of the individual, it sometimes appears that the efforts of others are unnecessary obstacles to his own direct action in achieving his own personal desires. Thus, it occurs to him that maybe there should be some centralized control or overriding authority to govern all human energies as a unit. This concept has a strong appeal because lurking beneath it is the alluring assumption that the right kind of authority would direct the affairs of all mankind in harmony with the individual’s own personal views – thus relieving him of the trouble and responsibility of making his own ideas work.

Just by way of illustration, let’s suppose I have an idea; and while we’re at it, let’s make it something really big.

Let’s assume that I have a plan or a program which would, in my opinion, improve the lot of all mankind – especially that portion of mankind that’s in the same position as I. I’m completely sold on the virtues of my idea. But there are those who disagree. I get tired of trying to persuade them. There ought to be an easier and a quicker way. I’m feeling a bit frustrated; and in bolstering my ego, I forget that others are entitled to have different views. I conclude that coercion is the only way, and I find comfort in the reassuring alibi, the end justifies the means.

Rationalization

But so much for the background. Now let’s eavesdrop while I lull my conscience and build up my own case in my own mind, to wit:

No one can doubt my sincerity, and I’m wholly unselfish in my motives – or at least almost wholly unselfish. I don’t stand to make any money out of it – at least not much – and anyway, the total benefits to others will far outweigh the benefits to me. Naturally, I’ll get some honor and glory; but after all, it is my idea….

Those of my friends who are in the same position as I am understand all this, and they agree with me – or at least most of them do. But what about these others – the ones who seem determined to block my efforts? It’s true that my program would cost them a little money at the start; but in the long run, everybody would be better off, including them….

The trouble is that they are nonprogressive and downright selfish; but they aren’t honest enough to come out and admit it. They contend that my plan has certain shortcomings. Well, what of it? Sure, there may be a few things that need to be ironed out, but why not get started and worry about the details later on? The advantages would more than offset any minor defects, and there’s been too much delay already….

This is the Atomic Age, and the human race must no longer be deprived of the benefits that I am ready to bring it. Those who don’t see the light must be made to see the light. I’m not going to compromise my principles by giving in to a bunch of self-seeking reactionaries. They’ve got to be forced into line, and that calls for government assistance. (There ought to be a law!) If we had the right kind of people in government, they’d have stepped in and supported my cause long ago. That’s what governments are for….

What we need is a stronger government, run by men who would turn a deaf ear to the kind of folks who are blocking my program. There’s been too much compromising, too much dillydallying. It’s about time we had a new form of government – a more progressive government, run on truly democratic principles but with enough power to get things under control and really do a job. Maybe we ought to have a “strong man at the helm” – not a despot, mind you, but a truly beneficent dictator – one who would have the real interests of the real people at heart; one smart enough to run things the way I know they ought to be run….

And maybe, just to be on the safe side, it ought to be me!

That concludes the example. I agree that it is a bit extreme – or, to say the least, it is rather bluntly presented. Few people would consciously try to force the entire world into line with their own pet ideas. But almost every individual, at one time or another, gets the feeling that there should be some kind of centralized authority which would control human energies as a unit and “run things the way they ought to be run.”

There’s nothing new in the idea. Since the beginning of recorded history on down through the present time, it has captured the imaginations of people everywhere, in all walks of life. Of course, different individuals have different views as to just how things ought to be run, but the idea persists that there should be a unified control; and each proponent, in his own imagination and with the best of intentions, fondly visualizes the kind of control that would favor his own personal ideas.

Among the learned philosophers, the age-old problem has been to determine just who or what is in control, or should be in control, of living persons. From Plato to Spengler, the problem has been to identify the authority – and then to turn over to it all the troubles of the human race.

At one time or another, every conceivable form of authority has been tried, but each has failed for the simple reasons that:

1. Only an individual human being can generate human energy.

2. Only an individual human being can control the energy he generates.

The lack of understanding of these simple, basic truths has, for over 6,000 years, stagnated human progress and kept the vast majority of people underfed, poorly clothed, embroiled in wars, and dying from famine and pestilence.

Foundation of Faith

In the following chapters, we shall briefly review the various types of authority and try to appraise their results in terms of human good. The best way to go at it is first to consider the religious beliefs which underlie the different kinds of authority, political structure, or what is generally called government.

I am using the word religious in its broad sense, but I think it can be shown that any form of human organization, whether it be political, commercial, or social, reflects the deep-seated faith of the people who organize it and keep it going. Individuals direct their energies and build their organizations according to their views of reality – what they conceive to be desirable and good.

Every human act is preceded by a decision to act, and that decision is based on faith. One cannot even think without a deep-seated faith that he exists and that there is a supreme standard of good in the universe. This is true of every living person – whether his god is the God of Abraham and Christ, Zeus or Isis, reason or fate, history or astrology, or any other god, whether it be true or false.

When the belief is false, the result will be different from what was expected. But the fact remains that every action of every human being springs from the desire to attain something which he considers to be good – or from the desire to avoid something which he thinks is evil or undesirable.

Since the actions of any individual are determined by his beliefs, it follows that the underlying control of the energies of any group of persons is the religious faith prevailing among them.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of variations in religious faith; but for purposes of this discussion, they all may be grouped under three general headings:

1. The pagan view, a fatalistic belief in the mythical gods – the will-of-the-mass, the all-powerful earthly ruler or living authority.

2. The nonpagan view, as reflected in the Hebrew, the Christian, and the Moslem faiths.

3. Compromises between the two, as typified by the feudal system.

Just what are the basic differences in these views? How do they affect the uses of human energy? What are the results in terms of progress – spiritual as well as material? What do these three religious views mean to you and to me as bearing on the present and the future?