The Radical Edge

Articles that seek to go the root of the matter with regard to issues that are sometimes avoided by mainstream and even progressive news outlets.

The Sparks of Rebellion

OccupyOccupyI am reading and rereading the debates among some of the great radical thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries about the mechanisms of social change. These debates were not academic. They were frantic searches for the triggers of revolt.

Vladimir Lenin placed his faith in a violent uprising, a professional, disciplined revolutionary vanguard freed from moral constraints and, like Karl Marx, in the inevitable emergence of the worker’s state. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon insisted that gradual change would be accomplished as enlightened workers took over production and educated and converted the rest of the proletariat. Mikhail Bakunin predicted the catastrophic breakdown of the capitalist order, something we are likely to witness in our lifetimes, and new autonomous worker federations rising up out of the chaos. Pyotr Kropotkin, like Proudhon, believed in an evolutionary process that would hammer out the new society. Emma Goldman, along with Kropotkin, came to be very wary of both the efficacy of violence and the revolutionary potential of the masses. “The mass,” Goldman wrote bitterly toward the end of her life in echoing Marx, “clings to its masters, loves the whip, and is the first to cry Crucify!”

The revolutionists of history counted on a mobilized base of enlightened industrial workers. The building blocks of revolt, they believed, relied on the tool of the general strike, the ability of workers to cripple the mechanisms of production. Strikes could be sustained with the support of political parties, strike funds and union halls. Workers without these support mechanisms had to replicate the infrastructure of parties and unions if they wanted to put prolonged pressure on the bosses and the state. But now, with the decimation of the U.S. manufacturing base, along with the dismantling of our unions and opposition parties, we will have to search for different instruments of rebellion.

We must develop a revolutionary theory that is not reliant on the industrial or agrarian muscle of workers. Most manufacturing jobs have disappeared, and, of those that remain, few are unionized. Our family farms have been destroyed by agro-businesses. Monsanto and its Faustian counterparts on Wall Street rule. They are steadily poisoning our lives and rendering us powerless. The corporate leviathan, which is global, is freed from the constraints of a single nation-state or government. Corporations are beyond regulation or control. Politicians are too anemic, or more often too corrupt, to stand in the way of the accelerating corporate destruction. This makes our struggle different from revolutionary struggles in industrial societies in the past. Our revolt will look more like what erupted in the less industrialized Slavic republics, Russia, Spain and China and uprisings led by a disenfranchised rural and urban working class and peasantry in the liberation movements that swept through Africa and Latin America. The dispossessed working poor, along with unemployed college graduates and students, unemployed journalists, artists, lawyers and teachers, will form our movement. This is why the fight for a higher minimum wage is crucial to uniting service workers with the alienated college-educated sons and daughters of the old middle class. Bakunin, unlike Marx, considered déclassé intellectuals essential for successful revolt.

It is not the poor who make revolutions. It is those who conclude that they will not be able, as they once expected, to rise economically and socially. This consciousness is part of the self-knowledge of service workers and fast food workers. It is grasped by the swelling population of college graduates caught in a vise of low-paying jobs and obscene amounts of debt. These two groups, once united, will be our primary engines of revolt. Much of the urban poor has been crippled and in many cases broken by a rewriting of laws, especially drug laws, that has permitted courts, probation officers, parole boards and police to randomly seize poor people of color, especially African-American men, without just cause and lock them in cages for years. In many of our most impoverished urban centers—our internal colonies, as Malcolm X called them—mobilization, at least at first, will be difficult. The urban poor are already in chains. These chains are being readied for the rest of us. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread,” Anatole France commented acidly.

Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan examined 100 years of violent and nonviolent resistance movements in their book “Why Civil Resistance Works.” They concluded that nonviolent movements succeed twice as often as violent uprisings. Violent movements work primarily in civil wars or in ending foreign occupations, they found. Nonviolent movements that succeed appeal to those within the power structure, especially the police and civil servants, who are cognizant of the corruption and decadence of the power elite and are willing to abandon them.

History teaches that we have the power to transform the nation,” Kevin Zeese said when I interviewed him. Zeese, who with Dr. Margaret Flowers founded and helped plan the occupation of Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., continued: “We put forward a strategic framework that would allow people to work together in a common direction to end the rule of money. We need to be a nationally networked movement of many local, regional and issue-focused groups so we can unite into one mass movement. Research shows that nonviolent mass movements win. Fringe movements fail. By ‘mass’ we mean with an objective that is supported by a large majority and 1 percent to 5 percent of the population actively working for transformation.”

Zeese said this mass resistance must work on two tracks. It must attempt to stop the machine while at the same time building alternative structures of economic democracy and participatory democratic institutions. It is vital, he said, to sever ourselves from the corporate economy. Money, he said, has to be raised for grass-roots movements since most foundations that give grants are linked to the Democratic Party. Radical student and environmental groups especially need funds to build national networks, as does the public banking initiative. This initiative is essential to the movement. It will never find support among legislative bodies, for public banks would free people from the tyranny of commercial banks and Wall Street.

The most important dilemma facing us is not ideological. It is logistical. The security and surveillance state has made its highest priority the breaking of any infrastructure that might spark widespread revolt. The state knows the tinder is there. It knows that the continued unraveling of the economy and the effects of climate change make popular unrest inevitable. It knows that as underemployment and unemployment doom at least a quarter of the U.S. population, perhaps more, to perpetual poverty, and as unemployment benefits are scaled back, as schools close, as the middle class withers away, as pension funds are looted by hedge fund thieves, and as the government continues to let the fossil fuel industry ravage the planet, the future will increasingly be one of open conflict. This battle against the corporate state, right now, is primarily about infrastructure. We need an infrastructure to build revolt. The corporate state is determined to deny us one.

The corporate state, unnerved by the Occupy movement, has moved to close any public space to movements that might reignite encampments. For example, New York City police arrested members of Veterans for Peace on Oct. 7, 2012, when they stayed beyond the 10 p.m. official closing time at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The police, who in some cases apologized to the veterans as they handcuffed them, were open about the motive of authorities: Officers told those being taken to jail they should blame the Occupy movement for the arrests.

The state has, at the same time, heavily infiltrated movements in order to discredit, isolate and push out their most competent leaders. It has used its vast surveillance capacities to monitor all forms of electronic communications, as well as personal relationships between activists, giving the state the ability to paralyze planned actions before they can begin. It has mounted a public relations campaign to demonize anyone who resists, branding environmental activists as “ecoterrorists,” charging activists under draconian terrorism laws, hunting down whistle-blowers such as Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who shine a light on the inner secrets of power and condemning them as traitors and threats to national security. The state has attempted—and in this effort some in the Black Bloc proved unwittingly useful—to paint the movement as violent and directionless.

Occupy articulated the concerns of the majority of citizens. Most of the citizenry detests Wall Street and big banks. It does not want more wars. It needs jobs. It is disgusted with the subservience of elected officials to corporate power. It wants universal health care. It worries that if the fossil fuel industry is not stopped, there will be no future for our children. And the state is using all its power to stymie any movement that expresses these concerns. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show Homeland Security, the FBI, the Federal Protective Service, the Park Service and most likely the NSA and the CIA (the latter two have refused to respond to FOIA requests) worked with police across the country to infiltrate and destroy the encampments. There were 7,765 arrests of people in the movement. Occupy, at its peak, had about 350,000 people—or about 0.1 percent of the U.S. population.

Look how afraid the power structure was of a mere 1/10th of 1 percent of the population,” Zeese said. “What happens when the movement grows to 1 percent—not a far reach—or the 5 percent that some research shows is the tipping point where no government, dictatorship or democracy can withstand the pressure from below?”

The state cannot allow workers at Wal-Mart, or any other nonunionized service center, to have access to an infrastructure or resources that might permit prolonged strikes and boycotts. And the movement now is about nuts and bolts. It is about food trucks, medical tents, communications vans and musicians and artists willing to articulate and sustain the struggle. We will have to build what unions and radical parties supplied in the past.

The state, in its internal projections, has a vision of the future that is as dystopian as mine. But the state, to protect itself, lies. Politicians, corporations, the public relations industry, the entertainment industry and our ridiculous television pundits speak as if we can continue to build a society based on limitless growth, profligate consumption and fossil fuel. They feed the collective mania for hope at the expense of truth. Their public vision is self-delusional, a form of collective psychosis. The corporate state, meanwhile, is preparing privately for the world it knows is actually coming. It is cementing into place a police state, one that includes the complete evisceration of our most basic civil liberties and the militarization of the internal security apparatus, as well as wholesale surveillance of the citizenry.

The most pressing issue facing us right now is the most prosaic. Protesters attempting to block the Keystone XL pipeline can endure only for so long if they have nothing to eat but stale bagels. They need adequate food. They need a system of communication to get their message out to alternative media that will amplify it. They need rudimentary medical care. All of these elements were vital to the Occupy movement. And these elements, when they came together, allowed the building of a movement that threatened the elite. The encampments also carried within them internal sources of disintegration. Many did not adequately control some groups. Many were hijacked or burdened by those who drained the political work of the movement. Many found that consensus, which worked well in small groups, created paralysis in groups of several hundred or a few thousand. And many failed to anticipate the numbing exhaustion that crushed activists. But these encampments did provide what was most crucial to the movement, something unions or the old Communist Party once provided to militants in the past. They provided the logistics to sustain resistance. And the destruction of the encampments, more than anything else, was a move by the state to deny to us the infrastructure needed to resist.

Infrastructure alone, however, will not be enough.  The resistance needs a vibrant cultural component. It was the spirituals that nourished the souls of African-Americans during the nightmare of slavery. It was the blues that spoke to the reality of black people during the era of Jim Crow. It was the poems of Federico Garcia Lorca that sustained the republicans fighting the fascists in Spain. Music, dance, drama, art, song, painting were the fire and drive of resistance movements. The rebel units in El Salvador when I covered the war there always traveled with musicians and theater troupes. Art, as Emma Goldman pointed out, has the power to make ideas felt. Goldman noted that when Andrew Undershaft, a character in George Bernard Shaw’s play “Major Barbara,” said poverty is “[t]he worst of crimes” and “All the other crimes are virtues beside it,” his impassioned declaration elucidated the cruelty of class warfare more effectively than Shaw’s socialist tracts. The degradation of education into vocational training for the corporate state, the ending of state subsidies for the arts and journalism, the hijacking of these disciplines by corporate sponsors, severs the population from understanding, self-actualization and transcendence. In aesthetic terms the corporate state seeks to crush beauty, truth and imagination. This is a war waged by all totalitarian systems.

Culture, real culture, is radical and transformative. It is capable of expressing what lies deep within us. It gives words to our reality. It makes us feel as well as see. It allows us to empathize with those who are different or oppressed. It reveals what is happening around us. It honors mystery. “The role of the artist, then, precisely, is to illuminate that darkness, blaze roads through the vast forest,” James Baldwin wrote, “so that we will not, in all our doing, lose sight of its purpose, which is, after all, to make the world a more human dwelling place.”

Artists, like rebels, are dangerous. They speak a truth that totalitarian systems do not want spoken. “Red Rosa now has vanished too. …” Bertolt Brecht wrote after Luxemburg was murdered. “She told the poor what life is about, And so the rich have rubbed her out.” Without artists such as musician Ry Cooder and playwrights Howard Brenton and Tarell Alvin McCraney we will not succeed. If we are to face what lies ahead, we will not only have to organize and feed ourselves, we will have to begin to feel deeply, to face unpleasant truths, to recover empathy and to live passionately. Then we can fight.

An earlier version of this column incorrectly attributed the sentence “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.” The author of the quotation was Anatole France.

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

The Madness That We Inhabit

Why Our Civilization Is Insane

teapartyIn his introduction to “Columbus and Other Cannibals,” by Jack Forbes, Derrick Jenson writes that he thinks this is “the most important book ever written on one of the most important topics ever faced by human beings: why is the dominant culture so excruciatingly, relentlessly, insanely, genocidally, ecocidally, suicidally destructive? … How could any group of people, no matter how insane, no matter how stupid, actually destroy the planet on which (or rather, whom) they live?"1  Its a good question. I doubt that anyone has a complete answer, and surely I do not claim to. But if we are to have any hope of curing this illness, then perhaps we need a better understanding of its nature and causes. The purpose of this essay is to make a contribution to this understanding.

The full title of Jack Forbe's book is “Columbus and other Cannibals: the Wetiko disease of Exploitation, Imperialism and Terrorism.”  As a Native American,  Forbes writes as a member of a culture that has seen the full fury of western insanity.  The central thesis of his book is that western civilization has suffered for centuries from a mental/spiritual disease he calls by the Native American term “Wetiko” --  a Cree term which means "cannibal" or a person who terrorizes his neighbors with violent acts. He goes on to explain: "Cannibalism, as I define it, is the consuming of another's life for ones own private purpose or profit" 2 In western parlance, we in the dominant civilization on the planet are collectively insane.  

Perhaps one of the clearest illustrations of this madness is found in the words of Christopher Columbus in his description of his first astonishing encounter with Native Americans.

"The lands... are all most beautiful... and full of trees of a thousand kinds, so lofty that they seem to reach the sky. And some of them were in flower, some in fruit, some in another stage according to their kind. And the nightingale was singing, and other birds of a thousand sorts, in the month of November... The people of this island, and all of the others I have found and seen... all go naked, men and women... they are artless and generous with what they have, to such a degree as no one would believe but he who had seen it. Of anything they have, if it be asked for, they never say no, but do rather invite the person to accept it, and show as much lovingness as though they would give their hearts... they believed very firmly that I, with these ships and crew, came from the sky; and in such opinion they received me at every place where I landed, after they had lost their terror. And this comes not because they are ignorant; on the contrary, they are men of very subtle wit, who navigate all those seas, and who give a marvelously good account of everything... And as soon as I arrived in the Indies, in the first island that I found, I took some of them by force, to the intent that they should learn and give me information of what there was in these parts. And so it was, that very soon they understood and we them, by what speech or by what signs... To this day I carry them who are still of the opinion that I come from heaven, from much conversation which they had with me. And they were the first to proclaim it whenever I arrived; and the others went running from house to house and to the neighboring villages, with loud cries of "Come! Come see the people from heaven!..."
And he adds,

"These people are very unskilled in arms... with fifty men they could all be subjected and made to do all that one wished..." 3

Now that is madness. As we know, this willingness to destroy a paradise and enslave a people that welcome you with open arms was not an idiosyncratic characteristic of Columbus. He was not more insane than others his culture. Rather, he accurately reflected the madness of his civilization. And, of course, the Native People were helpless against the this insane aggressiveness.

Have things improved in the last 400 years? When we look around us what do we see? A huge number of people who cannot tolerate life without the aid of drugs – whether illegal,  or prescribed. A phenomenal insensitivity to the suffering of others, as we see in the routine use of torture in Abu Ghraib and other prisons. A preoccupation with gaining dominance over others, as in the US drive toward the creation of a world empire. People of all political persuasions bombing one other on a daily basis. Endless war. Religious leaders cheering all this on. The destruction of the ecosphere upon which we depend for our very survival. In some areas we seem to see progress. At least no-one believes slavery is a good thing anymore. Capital punishment is outlawed in most civilized societies, and where it is used, it is used more rarely. Headway with regard to racial equality is very real. There appears to be more acceptance of sexual diversity. Other examples could be cited.

I do not suggest that no progress has been made. But given the huge capacity for destruction our technologies have given us, it appears that our spiritual evolution -- that which is needed to save us from our madness -- may be too slow and too late.  The core problem is that our technological evolution has outstripped our spiritual evolution. Revolvers are now in the hands of Chimpanzees, and mentally deranged ones at that.

In an effort to bring some order to multitudinous facts that give evidence of our madness, I would suggest that we might subsume them all under two overarching symptoms:

queen_0f_hearts1. The continuing emergence of ruthless hierarchies that exploit, repress, and when necessary,  slaughter the people so that an elite few might live in comfort off the labor and suffering of the rest. We are all familiar with Stalin, Hitler, and Bush. Certainly these are examples of people who were deeply infected with the madness. Paul Levy, for example, wrote a book entitled "The Madness of George Bush."4 Using a Jungian frame of reference, he argues convincingly that Bush is insane. Unfortunately, as in the case of Columbus, Bush was simply a reflection of a larger madness -- an assessment with which I am sure Levy would agree.  

2. And now a second symptom of the madness of civilization has surfaced: governments and  unregulated multinational corporations and banks aggressively pursuing policies that are known  to endanger the ecological balance of the earth as a whole, very likely making it uninhabitable by the human species.

The diagnosis seems clear. Western Civilization is mad. Perhaps other civilizations are, or have been, mad as well. We will touch on this point shortly.  But the primary focus of this essay will be the madness of our own civilization. That is what we know best.

The Primary Locus of The Madness Is In Society Itself

As I have attempted to make some sense of this astonishing and confusing world we inhabit, I found the discrepancy between two kinds of data most confusing. When I encountered people on a personal basis I found them, on the whole, to be decent human beings who would be quite incapable killing or torturing other human beings, or even inflicting unnecessary suffering on them. Ordinary people did not seem especially saintly. Even the most altruistic had feet of clay. But most people did not seem to be killer apes or monsters. Yet every day I read of the horrendous things that were being done on the political level: torture and killing in the name of fanatical delusions, lies and deceit.

It was strange. What was going on here? Then I became aware that the truly great atrocities were almost all committed by nations and groups rather than by individuals. Certainly nations kill many more people than do their private citizens. This led me to suspect that the primary locus of the difficulty might be more in the collective rather than the private sphere. 4

A second discrepancy also forced itself into my consciousness. I think it came home to me most forcibly one day when I took a plane trip. I was amazed at the technology. It enabled this huge hunk of metal I was on to get off the ground, fly through the dark at two-thirds the speed of sound, and arrive at a fore-ordained destination without mishap. Then I thought of other uses of the airplane. I thought of the fire bombings during the Second World War, and the atomic blasts over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How was one to understand such a discrepancy between the incredible technical intelligence of creating an modern airplane, and the utter stupidity and brutality with which we handle our political affairs -- especially those between nations and different ethnic groups?

This was more than strange. It was surreal. If our propensity for transforming heaven into hell, as Columbus did, was not a matter of stupidity, what then? In general two possible explanations offered themselves. Either we really were hopelessly evil or we were insane. For reasons I will come to shortly, I decided that insanity was the more accurate diagnosis. Given the collective nature of the wrongness from which we suffer, the most reasonable hypothesis was that our civilization is itself psychotic. It is mad. As individuals we imbibe this madness, and we reflect it in our thinking, our feelings and our actions. We have some responsibility for how we respond to it. But we did not create this madness, nor are we as individuals its primary location.

Having come to the conclusion that we are collectively mad, I was pleased when I ran into the books by Levy and Ford. On all major points I am in agreement with them. But believing that complex matters can sometimes be fruitfully explored from a variety of angles, I wished to explore this issue from a slightly different perspective. My own professional background in social work predisposed me to see human dysfunction as something that emerges out of a problematic interaction between individuals and the societies they belong to. So it is from psycho/social perspective that I will attempt to add some clarification as to the specific nature of the madness that we inhabit.

Are We Hardwired as Killer Apes  -- the Evidence

There is a certain plausibility about the idea that we are a war-like species because this kind of aggression is hardwired into our biology. Chimpanzees in the wild, after all, are known to conduct wars on other bands of chimps. They are one of our closest relatives. But so are bonobos, who are far less prone to such violence. In any case arguing from one species to another is, at best, rather speculative. So that kind of evidence did not seem to lead to anything conclusive. In time I discovered two rather compelling kinds of evidence in support of my disinclination to accept the "killer apes" theory of human violence. The first bit of solid evidence I became aware of  came from a book entitled  "On Killing" by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman.5 There I learned that War Historian S.L.A. Marshall came to the conclusion that under actual conditions of battle no more than 25% of combatants were willing to try to kill an enemy soldier.  Grossman quotes Marshall as follows:

"It is therefore reasonable to believe that the average and healthy individual -- the man who can endure the mental and physical stresses of combat -- still has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance toward killing a fellow man that he will not of this own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility ... At the vital point he becomes a conscientious objector."6

Although there was initially considerable resistance to accepting the truth of this observation, further research came to provide overwhelming support of Marshall's observation. This evidence does not support the "killer ape" theory. Quite the contrary. It was discovered that there was such resistance to killing that very aggressive techniques had to be instituted in boot camp to overcome it. There were exceptions. A small minority of men exhibit no such resistance. Grossman believes about 2 or 3 percent of soldiers fit this category. As he describes this 2 or 3 percent, and tries to understand them, he touches on the issue of empathy. His remarks on this are instructive:

"But there is another factor: the presence or absence of empathy for others. Again, there may be biological and environmental causes for this empathic process, but, whatever ins origin, there is undoubtedly a division in humanity between those who can feel and understand the pain and suffering of  others, and those who cannot. The presence of aggression, combined with the absence of empathy, results in the sociopath. The presence of aggression, combined with the presence of empathy, results in an completely different kind of individual from the sociopath."7  

We will return to this issue of empathy.

From a military point of view, the reluctance of the majority of people to kill is a problem to be overcome. Richard Holmes describes the problem in "Acts Of War".

"A soldier who constantly reflected upon the knee-smashing, widow-making characteristics of his weapon, or who always thought of the enemy as a man exactly as himself, doing much the same task and subject to exactly the same stresses and strains, would find it difficult to operate effectively in battle... Without the creation of abstract images of the enemy, and without the depersonalization of the enemy during training, battle would become impossible to sustain. But if the abstract image is overdrawn or depersonalization is stretched into hatred, the restraints on human behavior in war are easily swept aside. If, on the other hand, men reflect too deeply upon the enemy's common humanity, then they risk being unable to proceed with the task whose aims may be eminently just and legitimate."8

Let us set aside the question of just how often the aims of war actually are "eminently just and legitimate." In an odd sort of way Holmes conclusions are very similar to the message of a well known song from "South Pacific".

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a different shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!

Grossman lists three key factors that facilitate killing. The Richard Holmes quote touches on one of these factors -- which is distance. The sort of distance that makes it easier to kill can be either psychological or physical. Holmes obviously is talking about the need to create psychological distance through depersonalizing the enemy. The other two factors are obedience to authority and the support of ones peers. A forth factor, that is probably less powerful in the immediate situation of battle, is ideology. It helps if we believe we are fighting for a worthy cause.

The data that Grossman offers constitute a powerful indictment against the killer-ape theory. It would simply not be so hard to get killer apes to kill. The same data is equally fatal to the view of human beings as innately depraved and evil. Actually the "killer ape" idea and the "humans as innately evil" idea are probably the same theory dressed up in two different vocabularies.

The second source of evidence about whether a propensity for interspecies violence is an integral aspect of the human genome comes from anthropology. Studies of a variety of cultures reveal a wide range of patterns with regard to this attribute. This little interchange with a man from the Batek culture shows just how non-violent the people in some cultures could be:

"The Batek abhor interpersonal violence and have generally fled from their enemies rather than fight back. I once asked a Batek man why their ancestors had not shot the Malay slave-raiders, who plagued them until the 1920s. [They could easily have defended themselves with poisoned darts shot from their blowpipes.] His shocked answer was: 'Because it would kill them!'"9

This sort of consideration for the well being of one's enemies is not what one might expect from killer apes. The disinclination to perpetrate violence on other members of one's own species turns out to be quite common among the members of less complex societies. Some societies are quite violent and some are not. It is an important fact, however, that many societies have been studied in which warfare is unknown, and violence within the  group quite rare.  Some of these have been complex societies. More have been simpler ones. Minimally this suggests that a high level of violence directed against one's own species is not an invariant aspect of human nature. We must turn then to social factors to explain why some groups of  people are more violent than others. It is important to determine what factors correlate with high levels of violence as opposed to low levels.

A common way of categorizing social organization among various groups of people is to divide them into band, tribes, chiefdoms, and states. Most of us are quite familiar with states, as this is the organization of modern societies. Yet in archaeological terms this is a very recent development. We human beings have spent over 99% of our existence living in bands. Bands tend to be small -- maybe 25 to 50 members on the average. They are egalitarian, and are generally nomadic, or semi-nomadic as they go from place to place in search of food.  As anthropologist, Donald Henry, comments, they were quite successful.

"The replacement of simple hunting-gathering societies composed of small, highly mobile, materially impoverished, egalitarian groups by a society that was characterized by large, sedentary, materially rich and socially stratified communities represented a dramatic shift from an adaptive system that had enjoyed several million years of success."10  

Comparative studies with regard to war and the four categories of human organization lead us to a curious fact. As summarized by Jonathan Haas who studied the matter, "the level, intensity, and impact of warfare tend to increase as cultural systems become complex."11 The evidence suggests that serious interpersonal violence of any kind within hunting gathering  groups is the exception rather than the rule. Many of the accounts that intend to provide proof  that "primitive" tribes tend to be violent do not distinguish between bands on the one hand and tribes and chiefdoms on the other.

Lee and Daly summarize the anthropological findings about hunter and gathering societies in this manner:

"Hunter-gatherers are generally peoples who have lived until recently without the overarching discipline imposed by the state. They have lived in relatively small groups, without centralized authority, standing armies, or bureaucratic systems. Yet the evidence indicates that they have lived together surprisingly well, solving their problems among themselves largely without recourse to authority figures and  without a particular propensity for violence. It was not the situation that Thomas Hobbes, the great seventeenth century philosopher described in his famous phrase as "the war of all against all."12

Or as John Gowdy sums up the matter even more simply, "Judging from historical accounts of of hunter-gatherers, for most of the time humans have been on the planet we have lived in relative harmony with the natural world and with each other. "13

It would seem that we can lay the killer-ape theory to rest. Yet it is obvious that, short of a nuclear war or some other catastrophe that leaves only a small remnant of humanity to begin again, a reversion of the hunting gathering mode of adaptation is not a realistic option for humanity. Nor is it clear that such a reversion would be desirable. Some values have, after all, been furthered by our evolution. The enhancement of knowledge through science, beauty through the arts, and health through medicine come to mind. In general, our capacity for self-reflection has been increased by civilization. Also, though organized religion seems to have had a generally negative impact on societies, I believe there is great value in spiritualities that open us to new forms of consciousness, that emphasize our mutual responsibility for each other and that make us aware of our essential oneness with all human beings and, indeed, with all of creation. It is possible, of course, to ask whether we have paid too dear a price for the enhancement of these values. But perhaps the most useful question is whether we can identify those aspects of culture that are responsible for the negative aspects of civilization, and use our capacity for self-reflection to create social structures that will enhance the loving and creative aspects of our nature. Our hypothesis will be that those societies that create and promote individuals who have a high capacity for attachment and empathy will tend be the least violent. Therefore we now turn to the matter of empathy and upbringing.

The importance of early experiences that facilitate attachment and empathy

pig_babyIn his influential trilogy on attachment,14  John Bowlby built on the work of Harry Harlow. Harlow discovered that a infant monkeys preferred soft terry cloth mothers to wire mothers even when both provided milk.  This suggested that much more than simply physical nourishment was being sought by the infants.  He felt that one of the most important motivations for the infant's developing strongly bonded relationships with the adult had to do with the need for protection and safety in a dangerous world.  But he also observed that these early experiences of bonding with the mother had important developmental consequences.  Females who were deprived of intense nurturing relationships with their mothers were not able to develop normal relationships with their peers as they grew into adulthood.  Also, maternally deprived adults failed to bond with their own infants and were abusive and neglectful of them. To quote Harlow, “failure of normal gratifications of contact-clinging in infancy may make it impossible for the adult female to show the normal contact relationships with her own infant.  Likewise, maternal brutality may stem from inadequate social experience with other infants within the first year of life.”15

Bowlby documented the importance of attachment in human relationships.  He suggested that attachment was a motivational complex that was essentially independent from either seeking food, or sex. He also emphasized the importance of attachment in the development of individuals.  Mary Ainsworth, a colleague of Bowlby's, set up experiments that studied the effects of short separations on young children, and demonstrated the need that a child has for a secure base from which to explore the world.

It would, of course, be considered by most people to be unethical to repeat the kind of maternal deprivation experiments that Harlow performed on monkeys with human infants, even if it provided important information about the importance of strong early attachment. Two virtual experiments did, however, emerge that threw some light on this question.  One such “experiment” took place in various foundling institutions in the United States in the late 1800s and into the second decade of the 20th century.  Most of the foundling institutions in which infants without parents were kept were quite clean, and the infants were well fed.  However they had a death rate among the infants that approached 100% . The infants were dying from a disease called “marasmus.” The term for this disease came from a Greek word meaning “wasting away” which is precisely what the infants were doing.  Why did almost none of these infants survive?  The obvious was finally discovered.  The infants were not receiving a sufficient amount of holding and cuddling.  When the homes began bringing in women to provide holding, cuddling, smiles, and cooing the survival rate improved dramatically and immediately.16

An older experiment that was documented by the 13th century historian Salimbene is quoted in Ashley Montagu's book, “Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin”:

“It seems that Frederick the second, Emperor of Germany, “wanted to find out what kind of speech and what manner of speech children would have when they grew up if they spoke to no one beforehand.  So he bade foster mothers and nurses to suckle the children, to bathe and wash them, but in no way to prattle with them, for he wanted to learn whether they would speak of the Hebrew language which was the oldest, or Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or perhaps the language of their parents, of whom they had been born.  But he labored in vain because the children all died.  For they could not live without the petting and joyful faces and loving words of their foster mothers.  And so the songs are called 'swaddling songs' which a woman sings while she is rocking the cradle, to put a child to sleep, and without them a child sleeps badly and has no rest.” While Frederick the II's rather ill-conceived experiment provided us with no information with regard to the original language spoken by humanity, the historian, Salimbene, did not fail to notice that when children were forced to live 'without the petting and joyful faces and loving words of their foster mothers' they died.”17

How the self is born

who_youWithin the psychoanalytic tradition an important understanding was developed regarding how people as psychological beings come into existence. As I would formulate it, the idea was this:

Our self -- that is, who we are in the world -- emerges out of our becoming one with, and then differentiating ourselves from, the succession of people we love, and then integrating these internalized others into a coherent identity. This understanding was an overarching construct that was formulated by different theorists who focused on different aspects of the process and used somewhat different terminologies.

In this essay I can only touch on some of the contributions of a few of the key thinkers who helped develop this understanding.

In Freud we see this idea of the introjected other in his concept of the "superego" -- the internal representative of societies norms and laws -- which has its origin the internalization of the parenting figures, primarily the father, as a means of resolving the "Oedipus complex".

Margaret Mahler, a key thinker with regard to the emergence of the self, did not see the developmental process as beginning with a self that then internalizes others. She brought the focus of the developmental process back to the first year of life. She came to see the self in its very first stage as being already merged with the mother in a symbiotic oneness. It is only at about 5 months of age that the infant begins to experience a discontinuity between itself and the mother. At this point the infant begins the process of individuation -- of becoming a separate self. But the child continues to return to the oneness with the mother for sustenance. The self develops, in other words, in an ongoing dialectic process of oneness and individuation.  We can see this process, for example, in a toddler who ventures out away from the mother to explore, but then periodically has to return of comfort and re-assurance.18

As she developed her theory about the dialectic between symbiosis and separation/individuation, Mahler used the language of inner experience. She speculates about the kind of experience an infant might have that would lead it to behave as it does. Bowlby, who we touched on earlier, was skeptical of efforts to describe the subjective states of infants, or to build theories on such speculations. He wanted to ground his theory in the observation of behaviors that can be perceived from the outside. Yet despite their different vocabularies and points of view, the two theorists were actually quite close. Susan W. Coates clarifies this point:

"The casual observer might suppose that Mahler is saying that separation is necessary for individuation, while Bowlby is stressing, to the contrary, that individuation occurs optimally only within the framework of secure attachment. But even a moment’s reflection will reveal that for Mahler separation from the object is an inner mental process that involves distinguishing oneself from an object who otherwise is libidinally available on a continuous basis. Put in Bowlby’s terms, separation is a process that occurs within the envelope of attachment. There
are differences between their two theories, to be sure, but they are in agreement on these

The agreement is that both attachment and individuation are essential aspects of a healthy development. To put it in my words, oneness and individuation are equally important aspects of the ongoing dialectic of growth.  

Empathology -- the madness of our civilization

Building on the work of theorists like Bowby, Ainsworth,  and Mahler,  my thesis is that as a society we have largely failed to develop the capacity for what I would call individuated oneness. What I intend to convey by this term is our capacity to experience our “oneness” with other people, with other creatures, and with the earth itself, while at the same time maintaining a clear sense of our own boundaries and individuality. The term “empathy” – “feeling with” – is perhaps the single word that comes closest to designating the capacity that we lack. The initial  capacity for individuated oneness is formed in the symbiotic relationship with the primary parenting person, and expands from there in the context of loving relationships with others.

Lack of empathy is generally considered to be one of the defining characteristics of the "psychopath" the "sociopath," or, as it has been more recently labeled, the one who suffers from “antisocial personality disorder”. A second characteristic of the sociopath, as he or she is usually understood, is a willingness to disregard the norms of society. Lack of empathy and a willingness to violate the norms of society are two very different and often contradictory characteristics. Consider Thoreau in prison as he protested slavery, Bonhoffer when he opposed the Nazi establishment, Gandhi when he deliberately disobeyed the English tyrants, Rosa Parks when she refused to sit in the back of the bus, or Martin Luther King Jr. who promoted civil disobedience. Were they sociopaths? Ah, but those are special cases, some might protest. But consider the other side of the coin – the support of, and participation in, projects of the larger society even when they create unspeakable suffering for a great many people. What about ordinary citizens who condone capital punishment, who fail to rise in protest and outrage against the torture of other human beings in Abu Ghraib and similar prisons, who are indifferent  to the destruction of the ecosphere, or who condone the terrible suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people through the destruction of their infrastructure – are they not exhibiting a remarkable degree of insensitivity to the suffering of others? I would suggest that very often obedience – being a good citizen – belies a profound lack of empathy for the suffering of others. Perhaps the most vivid experimental evidence of what I am suggesting derived from the famous experiments of Milgram20 when he discovered that people would cause intense pain for helpless others simply because a person who was perceived to be an authority told them to. Also it is worth noting that firm orders by authorities is one of the regular techniques used in the military to force people to overcome their reluctance to kill.

The terms "psychopath" or "sociopath" (which are more or less interchangable) include in their definitions a unwillingness to follow the norms of society and to obey authority. Whether conformity to social norms is a desirable trait depends entirely on the circumstances. To the extent to which society is mad, disobedience is a virtue.  It is because of the merging of two quite different, and at times contradictory, concepts that I reject terms such as "psychopath," and "sociopath." I wish to emphasize that "good" and "obedient" are not synonyms. So perhaps a new term needs to be coined.

The quality I am concerned with is not disobedience, but a lack of empathy resulting from an inability to attain a reasonable degree of individuated oneness.  Perhaps the term "empathology" could be used to convey this meaning.  I would define empathology as the inability to resonate with the joys and sufferings of the other sentient beings of which one is aware – human and otherwise. I think I mean something very close to what Forbes had in mind when he used the term "wetiko" in his book “Columbus and other Cannibals." As he puts it:

"Killing is a serious business and it requires spiritual preparation. Moreover, one should feel the pain or sorrow of killing a brother or sister , whether it is a weed, a tree or a deer. If one does not feel the pain, one has become brutalized and "sick." One is, in short, out of harmony with the Universe."21

Only a little reflection is needed for us to realize that empathy is not an either/or sort of thing. Most of us encounter situations in which we experience great empathy and others in which we do not. Probably the most important factor here has to do with which human beings or other forms of life we see as “like us.” We divide the world into countries, social classes, religions, races, species, etc., and see some of the people and creatures in these various divisions as being like us, as opposed to others who are not. Those who are like us belong to our group. With those we may feel great empathy, while with others we may be callous and indifferent to their suffering to a shocking degree. Probably the most important indication of spiritual growth has to do with how wide a range of sentient beings we are able to identify with. At one end of the continuum we would find those who care only for their family and a few friends. At the other, those who resonate with all sentient beings.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that a number of other factors influence our capacity for empathy even with people who are in our group. Anything from whether the other person has offended us in some way to whether we have a head ache can influence our capacity from one moment to another. Also, unexpected events may break through our usual defenses and enable us to feel empathy with people we would normally consider to be very different from us. So we have here a complex continuum that allows room for growth.

People who fit on one point or another on the continuum described above are not those who are normally labeled sociopathic. This term is reserved for those whose capacity for empathy is so minimal as to be ineffective with regard to the members of any group or in any situation. This suggests that it might necessary to expand the terminology I have given for this phenomenon. Perhaps we can speak of  “selective empathology” when we refer to the general continuum within which most people fit, and “pervasive empathology” to designate the condition of those who feel little or no empathy in any situation. Thus the term pervasive empathology would correspond in a rough way to the term sociopathology as it is usually used.

In 1941, in his seminal work “Mask Of Sanity” Hervey Cleckey22  gave a description of the sociopathic person that was quite influential. It was his belief that some people were simply born with the inability to develop empathy. Although I disagree very strongly with his assumption that life experiences have nothing to do with why this sort of adaptation to life emerges, he made an interesting observation that is reflected in the title of his book. There are people whose lack of empathy enables them to kill people, cheat them, or manipulate them ruthlessly with no sense of guilt or remorse. These are the 2 to 3 percent of natural killers that Grossman spoke of. These people seem normal. In fact they are often quite charming. They are able to give lip service to high ideals. They have no obvious delusions, and are able to imitate the behavior of caring people when they choose to do so. They look sane, but are actually quite mad.  Needless to say they tend to leave a path of suffering in their wake.  

Theorists of many persuasions have very plausibly attributed "psychopathology" to a wide variety of interpersonal and psychological difficulties, from marasmus and failure to thrive, to incapacitating emotional problems in adults, to the absence of an adequate primary bond to nurturing adults.  Of particular importance to us in this essay is the association between early attachment problems and serious difficulty in developing empathy with other human beings and living entities – a difficulty that entails both emotional and behavioral mal-adjustments.  

The connection between character structure and the social structure

James Prescott, in 1975, in a seminal article entitled, “Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence," raised some fundamental questions with regard to why some societies (and individuals) are more prone to violence than others. He felt that progress in answering these questions was crucial to the goal of creating a more peaceful world:

“Unless the causes of violence are isolated and treated, we will continue to live in a world of fear and apprehension. Unfortunately, violence is often offered as a solution to violence. Many law enforcement officials advocate 'get tough' policies as the best method to reduce crime. Imprisoning people, our usual way of dealing with crime, will not solve the problem, because the causes of violence lie in our basic values and the way in which we bring up our children and youth.”23

His major thesis focused on the tendency for many societies – our own included – to deprive children and youth of needed sensory gratifications.  As he states it, “The reciprocal relationship of pleasure and violence is highly significant because certain sensory experiences during the formative periods of development will create a neuropsychological predisposition for either violence-seeking or pleasure-seeking behaviors later in life.”23

His first area of concern was infancy. He felt that the “deprivation of body pleasure during infancy is significantly linked to a high rate of crime and violence.” Infants need a lot of cuddling, stimulation and pleasurable interaction between themselves and a nurturing adult.   The data he presents led him to the conclusion that our society is seriously deficient in its ability to provide the requisite amounts of such stimulation.

“I am convinced that various abnormal social and emotional behaviors resulting from what psychologists call 'maternal-social' deprivation, that is, a lack of tender, loving care, are caused by a unique type of sensory deprivation, somatosensory deprivation. Derived from the Greek word for 'body,' the term refers to the sensations of touch and body movement which differ from the senses of light, hearing, smell and taste. I believe that the deprivation of body touch, contact, and movement are the basic causes of a number of emotional disturbances which include depressive and autistic behaviors, hyperactivity, sexual aberration, drug abuse, violence, and aggression.”24
His second area of concern involves an even more radical critique of our society. He felt that the repression of sexuality in children and youth was highly damaging.
“Premarital sexual freedom for young people can help reduce violence in a society, and the physical pleasure that youth obtains from sex can offset a lack of physical affection during infancy. ”25
The data upon which Prescott based his conclusions was derived in large part from primate studies -- especially those done by Harlow, which we have already described. Prescott supplements this with  anthropological data, and his own neurological investigations. From the combination of these three sources he amassed rather compelling evidence in support of his main theses. (Cite his page here.)

In anthropological studies Prescott found evidence which is too powerful to be ignored. With regard to early infant stimulation,  “Societies ranking high or low on the Infant Physical Affection Scale were examined for degree of violence”.

“The results clearly indicated that those societies which give their infants the greatest amount of physical affection were characterized by low theft, low infant physical pain, low religious activity, and negligible or absent killing, mutilating, or torturing of the enemy. These data directly confirm that the deprivation of body pleasure during infancy is significantly linked to a high rate of crime and violence.”26

It might be worth commenting in passing on Prescott's concern for “low religious activity.” One may place a high value on forms of spirituality that are life affirming, and non-hierarchical, and that emphasize the need for living in harmony with the  order of nature, and still find oneself in fundamental agreement with Prescott. Organized religion has a long history of supporting oppressive hierarchies, of imposing sex-negative norms and laws on people, and of seeing pleasure, in and of itself, as something sinful or otherwise contrary to spiritual growth. This kind of religion should be opposed by thinking and progressive individuals.
With regard to his thesis about the benefits of sexual permissiveness, Prescott also found support in anthropological studies. He points out that “other research also indicates that societies which punish premarital sex are likely to engage in wife purchasing, to worship a high god in human morality, and to practice slavery.”
Wilhelm Reich, a psychiatrist who worked closely with Sigmund Freud during the 1920s, wrote "The Mass Psychology of Fascism," which was published in 1933. Throughout his life Reich was concerned with liberating people both sexually and economically from power structures that he perceived to be oppressive and exploitive.  During the rise of the Nazi power structure in Germany, Reich observed that “It was precisely the wretched masses who helped to put fascism, extreme political reaction, into power.”27  This was good for the rich elite, but hardly in the interest of the ordinary citizen. This observation led to the basic question that he addressed in “The Mass Psychology of Fascism.”  “What was going on in the masses that they followed a party whose leadership was objectively as well as subjectively in diametrical opposition to the interests of the working masses?”28  To answer this question he turned to the psychoanalytic perspective in which he was trained.

Both Reich and Freud believed that society imposed a painful renunciation of sexual freedom on its members, and that the repression of sexuality was internalized to become a part of the character structure of the individual. Freud's term for this internalized repressive voice of  society – as funneled to the individual through parenting figures – was the “super-ego.” Reich's concern with regard to the issue of liberation, however,  led to a profound break with Freud who was more conservative and who saw sexual repression as being the price that had to be paid for the development of civilization. Reich saw the same internalized structure as a Trojan Horse  that consistently led individuals to betray their true interests, and to deny their own most intense desires. Yet if love energy is indeed so strong, what force would be strong enough to oppose it? This is where psychoanalytic theory takes a curious turn. The object of every child's desire is first the mother and then the father. If the father (with the support of the mother) prohibits the expression of sex love – even of a harmless infantile variety --  on pain of losing parental love, then the child turns against his or her own sexuality and learns to love and seek the approval of the repressive person. In other words fire is fought with fire. Love turns against love. The child turns against his or her own sexual desire in order the secure the love of the repressive adult. This establishes the character structure of a person who will, for the rest of his or her life, seek the love of authority figures, no matter how repressive they are. In Germany, of course, the supreme authority figure whose love was courted was Hitler. The Fuhrer.

Reich states that "every social order produces in the masses of its members that structure which it needs to achieve its main aims.”29 This would suggest that the specific patterns that internalize society's agenda might vary somewhat from one culture to another, or even from one individual to another. It might not always display the exact dynamic that Freud described as the “Oedipus complex”. But the character structure needed for oppressive forms of government always requires two things: sexual repression and an ideology that justifies repression and blind obedience. As Reich sums up the process as he sees it, “In short, morality's aim is to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order. Thus, the family is the authoritarian state in miniature, to which the child must learn to adapt himself as a preparation for the general social adjustment required of him later. Man's authoritarian structure – this must be clearly established – is basically produced by the embedding of sexual inhibitions and fear in the living substance of sexual impulses.”30 Character structure is, in short, the link between between child rearing practices and the political sphere.

It is important that the very real contribution that Reich made to our understanding of the relationship of character structure to political dynamics not be dismissed because of his later rather controversial theories about the collection and use of "orgone energy." With any highly intelligent and creative person it is necessary to sort out what is of value in their thinking and what may have been less productive avenues of exploration.

Prescott and Reich approach the issue of development quite differently. Prescott is oriented to physiological data, while Reich comes from a psychoanalytic tradition. Yet they both come to a similar conclusion: deprivation with regard to loving physical intimacy in the primary relationship, and the prohibition against other erotically desired relationships ultimately leads to  a rigid, authoritarian personality capable of great violence.  Prohibition of what people most desire must be enforced with severe threats and/or punishments if it is to be effective. When one encounters these prohibitions and punishments and discovers them to be insurmountable, he or she often ends up seeking the love the prohibiting and punishing person, thus introducing a sado/masochistic dynamic to the whole process. I am suggesting that something of this sort is the “normal” – that is to say by far the most common – developmental sequence in Western society. This is our madness.

The Central Importance of Persons -- Object relations theory

Although thinkers and researchers like Harlow, Reich and Prescott have clearly contributed a great deal of importance to our understanding of human behavior, they all seem to suggest that it is pleasure itself (the orgasm in Reich's case) rather than relationships that provide the conditions for positive human development, and for healing when something has gone wrong. A bias of this sort was embedded in Freudian theory. The Freudian school of thought saw human activity as motivated by “drives.” Hunger and sex are perhaps the most obvious drives we are acquainted with. Interpersonal relationships were driven mainly by the sex drive. The sexual act served the purpose of releasing painful physiological tensions that built up within the organism. It does not seem to me that Freud was entirely consistent regarding this, and his thinking shifted and matured throughout his life. Nevertheless, it is hard to get away from the notion that for Freud the primary significance of other people was that they provided an occasion for gaining release from painful sensations. As the meaning of a piece of pie was that it allowed one to overcome the painful sensation of hunger, the primary meaning of another person was that he or she allowed one to overcome the discomfort of sexual tension.

I would suggest there are two biases that have plagued psychology from its inception. The first is that it should be built exclusively on the basis of observations that are available from the outside. Behaviorism, for example,  prided itself on this. "Subjective" knowledge was not knowledge at all, and introspection was a waste of time. The second problem was the effort in the human sciences in general to reduce human reality to mechanics. Freud, of course based his theory on information provided by introspection, but was as guilty of the mechanization of human reality as was Skinner. Theories that are grounded in either or both of these biases may enable us to predict and control behavior in some situations. But even their predictive value has its limitations. It should be mentioned, for example, that it was behaviorism that was at least in part responsible for the creation of the marasmus babies wasting away in institutions we talked about earlier. But even when such theories are capable of predicting and controlling, they tell us little or nothing about the psyche -- the person qua person. They are psychologies without a psyche.

Thinking that we best understand human beings only from seeing them from the outside and conceptualizing them as machines, is a little like thinking that the equation "32 feet per second per second" gives us significant information about Newton's famous apple. In certain situations the equation can help us to predict and control how an apple will behave, but little else. The apple, qua apple, eludes such calculations. Within their sphere of application physiological descriptions of behavioral events are interesting and in some cases useful. But if we want to understand what it means to be a human being we must access the data of subjective experience and employ a vocabulary that is appropriate to the data. Let me illustrate this point by a love poem:

My Amygdala Sighs For You

My frontal lobes worship your loveliness.

You titillate my sensory cortex
which craves the opportunity to
brush up against you
more or less.

My superior colliculus scans the horizon in hope of glimpsing
your yellow shorts
no one else's
walking by.
I do not mean to stare.
My optic tectum made me do it.

My amygdala sighs
as it rummages through my memory cortex
seeking the sustenance of past images
images of your bright eyes,
your slender legs
your shapely t-shirt.

My olfactory bulbs want to snuggle their nose in your arm pits.

The whole of my limbic system
gathers at the foot of your image

Wanting nothing more
than to sit in your general vicinity

while it awaits
synaptic mail
Suggesting to it

of  love.

The matter is complex and can't really be argued here. But it was in large part the desire to conceptualize human beings as "persons" rather than machines, and to understand them on the basis of direct experience and introspection, that led to object relations theory.  Above all, object relations theory was concerned about how we as human beings reach out to other human beings, and how the desire for human relatedness is at the very core of what it means to be human. Human relationships are from the beginning the soil in which the ego grows. And they are the soil in which ongoing development takes place. If the soil lacks nutrients, something goes wrong. If it is absent, the person dies.

The word "object" in psychoanalytic theory does not mean object, but subject. I'm am not being entirely facetious in this remark. I mean that the term "object" refers to other human beings, as in the "object of my desire."  Referring to the work of Fairbairn, one of the founders of object relations theory, Harry Guntrip states that he "makes object-relations, not instinctive impulses, the primary and important thing. It is the object that is the real goal of the libidnial drive. We seek persons, not pleasures."31 Much of psychoanalytic theory was stood on its head by this understanding. At least in healthy development, relationships with other people were sought out not only, or even primarily, because they offered the possibility of release from physiological tension -- though in satisfying hunger or sexual needs they certainly did so -- but because interpersonal relatedness was itself the supreme value that people looked for.  What then was the importance of physiological desire and the experience of its satisfaction? Hunger, obviously, led to the search for food, and sexual desire led eventually to procreation. Also, pleasure is itself a value. There was no puritan mistrust of pleasure hidden away in object relations theory. However, as Fairbairn put it, "pleasure is the sign-post to the object."32 At least from a psychological point of view, the primary significance of desire (libido) is that it draws us into important relationships with others.

The babies in the institutions that deprived them of human interaction were well fed and physically comfortable but they wasted away and died anyhow. Survival itself seems worthwhile only in a social context -- in a state of relatedness with other real human beings. And the growth of the self occurs only in such a context. As Guntrip put it, "the basic drive is to self-development and self-fulfillment as a person. The importance of object-relations lies in the fact that without them the ego cannot develop."33 And of course, one of the most important accomplishments of the self as it emerges is that it develops a capacity for resonating with others -- for empathy. By establishing our relatedness to others as the centerpiece in its theory, object relations theory clarifies how this capacity it learned. It is a corrective to theories that see us simply as self-gratifying organisms, or even worse, as machines. Persons seek relatedness to others in an evolving matrix of relationships. That's how they grow and find meaning in life. When I speak of spiritual growth in this essay I have in mind the growing capacity of the individual for relating to an expanding range of sentient beings, while retaining his or her sense of individual autonomy and identity.

The Teaching and Propaganda Factor

Reality is multifaceted. I would certainly not claim that in this brief essay I have captured all the factors that contribute to the madness of our civilization. Not everything is determined by our interactions with our primary caregivers in the first few years of our lives. Societies do not create persons who will comply with their aims and rules solely through the kind of early nurturing that is provided. They reproduce themselves also through the teaching and propaganda to which children are exposed as they enter the larger world beyond their homes. Universally children learn that their nation, their religion, and their social class or ethnic or racial group is somehow superior or more human than any other group. If their early nurturing was adequate to facilitate at least some capacity for empathy, as in most cases it is, the growth toward a universal empathy is truncated by such teaching. This creates individuals who are selectively empathologized. They can relate to the members of their own group but are capable of treating human beings from other social classes, nations, religions or ethnic groups with remarkable cruelty. As the world has become a global community, unified as a single system, selective empathology of this kind is a serious matter. Indeed, given the power that technology has placed in our hands, it could be fatal to our species.

Pulling It all Together

In an article entitled "The Rise of the Second-String Psychopaths," David Schwartz tells us that "The great writer Kurt Vonnegut titled his final book "A Man without a Country." Schwartz tells us what Vonnegut meant by this title:

"He was the man; the country was the United States of America. Vonnegut felt that his country had disappeared right under his – and the Constitution’s – feet, through what he called 'the sleaziest, low-comedy Keystone Cops-style coup d’état imaginable.'”34

He was talking about the Bush administration Swartz explains, and goes on to summarize some of Vonnegut's thinking on this matter:

"How had our country disappeared? Vonnegut proposed that among the contributing factors was that it had been invaded – as if by the Martians – by people with a particularly frightening mental illness. People with this illness were termed psychopaths. (The term nowadays is anti-social personality disorder.) These are terms for people who are smart, personable, and engaging, but who have no consciences. They are not guided by a sense of right or wrong. They seem to be unaffected by the feelings of others, including feelings of distress caused by their actions. ...They suffer no remorse, no guilt, no shame. They are free to do anything, no matter how harmful. ..."

And Swartz concludes as follows:

"It is no secret that the Koch brothers and others of the super-rich seem to have undertaken a final push to consolidate control through the conversion of a marginally democratic to an essentially fascist state; extreme right-wing, authoritarian, and demagogic. This kind of government is ideal for control of a populace by the moneyed elite. ...Lest the citizenry realize who stole their money and storm their castles with torches, the rapacious elite need politicians who will carry out the work of re-directing anger at teachers, or labor unions, or the poor. I can only conclude that the people who now own the country couldn’t find any first-rate psychopaths to carry out their work. Or maybe the smart ones were all occupied. So they had to go to second-stringers, people who could actually believe what they were told to say."

"We are a country who has become second-best, even in the quality of our psychopaths."35

The diagnosis given here is largely the same as in our analysis. For reasons I have already given, I use the term "empathology" to designate what Vonnegut called "psychopathology." But, yes. We as a country are mad. I would point out that this madness did not start with the Bush administration. Our current state of madness is one manifestation of a larger madness that has infected western civilization for centuries. But certainly this country -- with increasing intensity since the election of Ronald Reagan -- has developed an especially pernicious form of the madness. At this point I'd like to pull together the data and theory that was touched on in previous sections of this paper, and sketch the probable dynamics by which a nation becomes even more mad than average.

One of our core conclusions is as follows:

A deficiency of touch and bodily pleasure in the context of loving relationships --  whether caused by neglect, unfortunate circumstances or actual repression --  produces both the character structure of the followers of authoritarian leaders, and the character structure of the leaders themselves.

In our society this deficiency is very much in evidence from birth through late adolescence. Tiffeny Field, for example has demonstrated in carefully designed studies that American children touch less and are more aggressive than French children. This study as well as additional useful information can be found at the Touch Institute.36

The impact of this deficiency is greatest during the early formative years, but it continues to be a important factor throughout the developmental process. An initial deficiency of touch and loving bodily contact, followed by an aggressive repression of sexuality, produces in individual who for his or her entire life longs for the love of the repressive and punishing parent. This is by far the most common character structure of people in our civilization. It prepares people to be obedient and mindless followers. Typically people with this character structure are capable of a degree of empathic relationships within their own group, but they are quick to demonize any person or group that their leaders tell to. They exhibit, in other words what we have called "selective empathology."

A more severe deprivation appears to produce an almost complete incapacity for empathy, or pervasive empathology.  It is not true that people with this problem are, as a group, especially intelligent. My experience is that due to their capacity to manipulate others without having to put the  human suffering they are causing into the equation, they appear on the surface to be more intelligent that those with a greater capacity for empathy. This is simply because they have simpler equations to deal with. However, if we take those who are both highly intelligent, and pervasively empathologized, we have the perfect Entrepreneur, Banker, CEO, or military strategist in today's ruthless, unregulated and criminal form of capitalism.  People simply do not rise to the top of such systems if they feel the pain of the business associates they have deceived and betrayed,  the people in the sweat shops that they exploit, the animals that they subject to lives of endless suffering, the deaths, mutilations and birth defects that their wars produce, the employees that they dis-empower, and the environments that they destroy.

Still, the most fundamental  problem is not that our leaders are, to use Vonnegut's term, psychopaths.  The problem is that we have a system that requires a person to be a psychopath to rise to the top. Any significant capacity for empathy would be a fatal flaw. By its failure to facilitate physically expressed loving relationships throughout childhood and adolescence our society provides intelligent individuals who are pervasively empatholigized. Precisely these people rise to the tops of our Banks, corporations and political institutions. By the same failure facilitate loving contact, our society creates a large number of selectively empatholigized people who are anxious to seek the love of these leaders. Even so, the specific individuals who are at the top are merely symptoms. Put them all in jail without changing the system and tomorrow you will have a new batch that will look pretty much like the old batch. It is first and foremost in our collective patterns of interaction and organization that our madness resides.


Character structure and social systems interact to create history and politics. When problems arise it is generally necessary to intervene both on an individual level, and on a social level. From a political point of view, however, social structures and processes must be given priority. An unchanged social structure will continue to grind our the same old problems. What are the political implications of our conclusions? It is beyond the scope of this article to address this question in any detail. However, it is possible to identify some of the goals that must be given high priority if we want to create a more just and less violent world:

  • The encouragement of  much more loving physical contact between infants and their primary caregivers, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

  • The elimination of both humiliation and corporal punishment in the upbringing and education of children and youth.

  • The use of techniques that teach children to think and to weigh evidence rather than to simply obey and believe authorities.

  • The increase of sexual education and permissiveness for children and adolescents.

  • The use of pedagogical techniques that will imbue both children and adults with ethical and spiritual principles that expand the range of people and living systems with which they are able to empathize.

  • The creation of more egalitarian and less hierarchical forms of social organization.

  • The development of economic patterns that do not reward those who are the most consumed by pervasive empathology.


1. Jack D Forbes,  Columbus and Other Cannibals, (Seven Stories Press, 1992) pg. 9

2. Ibid., pg. 23.

3. See my article "The Collective Face of Evil" at :

4. Forbes takes his quotes of Columbus from  Cecil Jane,  Voyages of Christopher Columbus. (London,  Argonaunt 1930)
5. Paul Levy, The Madness of George W. Bush, (Author House, 2006)
6. David Grossman, On Killing, (Little, Brown and Company, 1995)
7. As quoted in Grossman,  pg. 1
8. Grossman, pp. 81, 182
9. As Quoted in Grossman, pg. 186
10. Kirk Endicott, as quoted in Douglas Fry, The Human Potential For Peace, (Oxford University Press,  2006), pg. 97
11. Donal Henry, as quoted in Fry, Pg. 135
12. Johnathan Haas, as quoted in Fry, pg. 100
13. Lee and Daley, as quoted in Fry, pg. 171
14. John Gowdy, as quoted by Fry, pg. 171
15. (1) Attachment,  (2) Separation: Anxiety, (3) Anger and Loss: Sadness and Depression
16. As quoted in Ashley Montagu, The Human Significance of the Skin, pg. 42.
17. One place where this is described is in Montagu, The Human Significance of the Skin, pp 97, 98
18. As quoted in Montagu, pp. 101, 102
19. See, Margaret S. Mahler, Fred; Pine, and Anni Bergman, The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant: Symbiosis and Individuation, (Basic Books Inc. New York, 1975). Especially Part II. She includesan "autistic phase" here, an idea she later abandoned. In essence she came to see Human Reality as profoundly social from birth.
20. Susan W. Coates, John Bowlby and Margaret Mahler: Their Lives and Theories. (Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 53,2) pp. 589, 590.

21. This experiment is quite adequately described in the Wikepedia article, Milgram Experiment."

22. Forbes, p. 14.
23. Hervey Cleckey, Mask of Sanity (William a Dolan, November 1988).   
24. James Prescott, Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence (The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists",  November 1975, pp. 10-20), p. 10.
25. Ibid., 11.
26. Ibid., 12.
27. Ibid.
28. Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux), p. 10.
29. Ibid. p. 40.
30. Ibid. p. 23.
31. Ibid. p. 30.
32. Harry Guntrip, Schizoid Phenomena, Object Relations and the Self (New York: International Libraries Inc.) pg. 21.
33. Ibid. 19.
34. Ibid. 91, 92.

35. David Schwartz, Are We Ruled By Seccond String Psychopaths?   ( psychopaths)


36. Ibid.

37. Touch Research Institute. ( ). This site is full of material that is relevant to this article.


    The pain in our shoulder comes you say, from the damp; and this is also the reason for the stain on the wall of our flat. So tell us: Where does the damp come from?

    Bertholt Brecht

    Note by HealthWrights Staff

    When we ask deeply and persistently enough about the fundamental sources of unnecessary human suffering, we will always eventually arrive at a description of certain socio/economic conditions that build the comfort of one group of people upon the suffering of another. These conditions are neither natural nor inevitable. They are deliberately created by human beings. Farmer aptly refers to the suffering inflicted by these socio/economic conditions as “structural violence.”

    That’s where the damp comes from.


    On suffering and structural violence:

    A view from below

    by Paul Farmer

    American Academy of Arts and Sciences

    Everyone knows that suffering exists. The question is how to define it. Given that each person’s pain has a degree of reality for him or her that the pain of others can surely never approach, is widespread agreement on the subject possible? Almost all of us would agree that premature and painful illness, torture, and rape constitute extreme suffering. Most would also agree that insidious assaults on dignity, such as institutionalized racism and sexism, also cause great and unjust injury.

    Given our consensus on some of the more conspicuous forms of suffering, a number of corollary questions come to the fore. Can we identify those most at risk of great suffering? Among those whose suffering is not mortal, is it possible to identify those most likely to sustain permanent and disabling damage? Are certain “event” assaults, such as torture or rape, more likely to lead to late sequelae than are sustained and insidious suffering, such as the pain born of deep poverty or of racism? Under this latter rubric, are certain forms of discrimination demonstrably more noxious than others?

    Anthropologists who take these as research questions study both individual experience and the larger social matrix in which it is embedded in order to see how various large-scale social forces come to be translated into personal distress and disease. By what mechanisms do social forces ranging from poverty to racism become embodied as individual experience? This has been the focus of most of my own research in Haiti, where political and economic forces have structured risk for AIDS, tuberculosis, and, indeed, most other infectious and parasitic diseases. Social forces at work there have also structured risk for most forms of extreme suffering, from hunger to torture and rape.

    Working in contemporary Haiti, where in recent years political violence has been added to the worst poverty in the hemisphere, one learns a great deal about suffering. In fact, the country has long constituted a sort of living laboratory for the study of affliction, no matter how it is defined. “Life for the Haitian peasant of today,” observed anthropologist Jean Weise some twenty-five years ago, “is abject misery and a rank familiarity with death.”l The situation has since worsened. When in 1991 international health and population experts devised a “human suffering index” by examining measures of human welfare ranging from life expectancy to political freedom, 27 of 141 countries were characterized by “extreme human suffering.” Only one of them, Haiti, was located in the Western hemisphere. In only three countries in the world was suffering judged to be more extreme than that endured in Haiti; each of these three countries is currently in the midst of an internationally recognized civil war.

    Suffering is certainly a recurrent and expected condition in Haiti’s Central Plateau, where everyday life has felt like war. “You get up in the morning,” observed one young widow with four children, “and it’s the fight for food and wood and water.” If initially struck by the austere beauty of the region’s steep mountains and clement weather, long-term visitors come to see the Central Plateau in much the same manner as its inhabitants: a chalky and arid land hostile to the best efforts of the peasant farmers who live here. Landlessness is widespread and so, consequently, is hunger. All the standard measures reveal how tenuous the peasantry’s hold on survival is. Life expectancy at birth is less than fifty years, in large part because as many as two of every ten infants die before their first birthday. Tuberculosis is the leading cause of death among adults; among children, diarrheal disease, measles, and tetanus ravage the undernourished.

    But the experience of suffering, it is often noted, is not effectively conveyed by statistics or graphs. The “texture” of dire affliction is perhaps best felt in the gritty details of biography, and so I introduce the stories of Acephie Joseph and Chouchou Louis.2 The stories of Aciphie and Chouchou are anything but “anecdotal.” For the epidemiologist as well as the political analyst, they suffered and died in exemplary fashion. Millions of people living in similar circumstances can expect to meet similar fates. What these victims, past and present, share are not personal or psychological attributes–they do not share culture, language, or race. Rather, what they share is the experience of occupying the bottom rung of the social ladder in inegalitarian societies.3

    Acephie Joseph’s and Chouchou Louis’s stories illustrate some of the mechanisms through which large-scale social forces crystallize into the sharp, hard surfaces of individual suffering. Such suffering is structured by historically given (and often economically driven) processes and forces that conspire–whether through routine, ritual, or, as is more commonly the case, these hard surfaces–to constrain agency.4 For many, including most of my patients and informants, life choices are structured by racism, sexism, political violence, and grinding poverty.


    For the wound of the daughter of my people is my heart wounded, I mourn, and dismay has taken hold of me. s there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then has the health of the daughter of my people not been restored? O that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people! –Jeremiah 8:22-9.1



    Interpretive Note by HealthWrights staff

    The forces that actually determine what happens in the world are effectively hidden to people in the United States who rely on the mainstream media. As Petrov’s article makes clear, there are three issues that actually underlie the US policy in the the middle east: 1. a concern that the value of the dollar will not be radically undermined, 2. a desire to preserve the American Empire, and 3. a determination to keep the oil in the region under the control of the multinationals.

    In analyzing this situation it is important to keep in mind that the multinationals have no particular commitment to the United States as such. They really have gone global. Many multinationals are based in the US, and the American Empire and the power of the dollar have served them well. Certainly they have made regular use of the United States military machine. But preserving the American Empire and supporting the dollar are instrumental rather than primary aims. The primary concerns of the multinationals are, as always, control of the world, and profit for the themselves and their stock holders.

    If those in power judge that maintaining the American Empire and the value of the dollar are necessary to the interests of the Multinational Corporate Empire, we will almost certainly see an attack of some sort on Iran – probably an attack that would use tactical nuclear weapons. If we see an upsurge of propaganda in mainstream US media that is aimed at convincing the American people that it is both necessary and noble to bomb Iran immediately, this will indicate that the multinationals have decided to preserve the hegemony of the American Empire and its dollar. It is possible, however, that the multinationals will decide that the risks outweigh the advantages in this situation and they will abandon any effort at all to protect the economy of the United States. In this case they will allow Iran to be successful in the Bourse, let the dollar fall, and allow the US economy the collapse. Then they will strengthen their control of the other economies of the world by other means.

    In any case I think that the primary issue is that the Multinational Corporate Empire rules the world. The American Empire, thought real and important, is secondary. This is not exactly the point that Petrov makes in his article, but he lays all the groundwork that is needed for seeing this clearly.

    The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

    Aticle by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.

    Austrian Macro Economist/Investment Strategist 1/20/2006 Originally published on

    Abstract: The American Empire depends on the U.S. dollar. The proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the U.S. dollar and hence the fall of the American Empire.

    I. Economics of Empires

    A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations or of their subjects. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military that peacefully or militarily enforced the tax. One part of those taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire and the other part went to reinforce the military dominance necessary to enforce those taxes.

    Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms, usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, the taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the money (gold/silver) or the economic goods directly to the empire.

    For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly—not by enforcing the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but by distributing its own currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of devaluing over time those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods. The difference between the value of the dollar during the initial purchase and the devalued dollar during the repayment was the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

    Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. At the time the U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the dollar neither increased, nor decreased its value, but was always convertible into the same amount of gold. The Great Depression with its the preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 substantially increased the amount of paper money in circulation without the correspondent increase in gold. This rendered the effective backing of the U.S. dollar by gold impossible. As a consequence, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt decoupled the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not technically an empire. The fixed value of the dollar for gold did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with gold-backed dollars.

    Economically, the American Empire was born with the establishment of the Bretton Woods system in 1945. The dollar was made only partially convertible to gold—convertibility to gold was available to foreign governments only, but not to private institutions. At this time the US dollar was established as the international reserve currency. This was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with food and military provisions, accepting gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world’s gold.

    An economic Empire would not have been possible if the dollar remained fully backed by gold, i.e., if the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to exchange back dollars for gold at the pre-agreed exchange ratio. However, the dollar supply was actually increased far beyond its gold backing and handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods. There was no prospect of buying back those dollars at the same value—the amount of gold was not sufficient to redeem those dollars, while the quantity of dollars continually increased, so that those dollars constantly depreciated. The constant depreciation of the increasing dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax—an inflation tax.

    When in 1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payments on August 15. The popular spin of this default was that “the link between the dollar and gold was severed”. The proper interpretation is that the U.S. Government went bankrupt, just like any commercial bank is declared bankrupt.

    However, by doing so, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods. The world was effectively taxed and it could not do anything about it: it could not force the U.S. in bankruptcy proceedings and take possession of its gold and other assets for payment, nor could it take forcefully what it was owed by declaring war and winning it. Essentially, the U.S. imposed on the world an inflation tax and collected an imperial seigniorage!

    From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world via inflation, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those dollars, while those dollars depreciated. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold dollars, and that reason was oil.

    In 1971, as it became clear that the U.S. Government would not be able to buy back its dollars for gold, it prepared an alternative arrangement to hold the world hostage to its fiat dollar: during 1972-1973 it struck an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia—to support the rule of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only dollars as a payment for Saudi oil. By imposing the dollar on the OPEC’s leader, the dollar was effectively imposed on all OPEC members. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at an ever increasing oil prices, the world’s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars were no longer exchangeable for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

    The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because those dollars were needed to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist, because it would no longer be able to tax the world by making them accumulate ever more dollars. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also implied that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that none was strong enough, economically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something other than dollars. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political or by military means, to change his mind.

    The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in late 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant his demand and even converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. into Euro, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. Other countries, like Iran, also wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen. The danger to the dollar was clear and present, so a punitive action was in order. Bush’s war in Iraq was not about existing weapons of mass destruction, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields. It was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire; it was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished. Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can’t explain why Bush would need to seize those fields—he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

    History teaches that an empire goes to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Bush went into Iraq to defend the American Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was ended, the country’s accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil began to be sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended from a fighter jet and declared himself the victor: the mission was indeed accomplished—Bush successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

    II. Iranian Oil Bourse

    The Iranian government has recently proposed to open in March 2006 an Iranian Oil Bourse that will be based on an euro-based oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that much of the world will eagerly adopt this euro-denominated oil system:

    The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead use with their own currency. The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange. It will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify them with Euros. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; another portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their hoards they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing their dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.

    The Russians have economic interest in adopting the Euro – the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold: their central bank is diversifying out of dollars and accumulating gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism; if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.

    The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversification against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk.

    Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York’s NYMEX and the London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.

    At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum and accelerate, the interests that matter—those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs—will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the exchange’s operations: Sabotaging the Exchange—this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.

    Coup d’état—this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans.

    Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations—this is another excellent solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if an attempted sabotage or coup d’etat fail, then negotiation is clearly the second-best available option. Joint U.N. War Resolution—this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given the interests of all other members of the Security Council. Recent rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves to prepare this course of action.

    Unilateral Nuclear Strike—this is a terrible strategic choice for all the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total War. The American will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear job.

    Unilateral Total War—this is obviously the worst strategic choice. First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two wars. Secondly, the Americans will alienate other powerful nations. Third, major reserve countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions. Finally, Iran has strategic alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China, India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a. Shanghai Coop. Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar.

    III. The Demise of the Dollar

    The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure short-term and long-term interest rates much higher. At this point, the Fed will find itself between two equally disastrous options—deflation or hyperinflation. The first option, deflation, known in the international finance literature as the “classical medicine”, requires stopping the monetary expansion and raising interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate prices, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, most likely precipitating a total financial collapse. The alternative option is to take the easy way out by inflating, whereby the Fed pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.

    The Austrian theory of money, credit, and the business cycle teaches us that ultimately there is no in-between the mythological Scylla and Charybdis scenario—between deflation and hyperinflation. Sooner or later, as pressure on the dollar rises and inflation rears its ugly head, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the Fed to make its choice. There is no doubt that the newly-appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, an renowned scholar of the Great Depression and an adept helicopter pilot, will choose the latter course of action—hyperinflation. Bernanke has learnt well the lessons of the Great Depression and the destructiveness of deflations. He has also learnt well from the Maestro the panacea of every financial problem—to inflate his way out, come hell or high water. He has even devised ingenious unconventional ways around the deflationary liquidity trap and teaches the Japanese how to apply them. To avoid deflation, he has publicly stated that he will accelerate the printing presses and “drop money from helicopters”. If necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. He will ultimately destroy the American currency in Hyperinflation.

    Hyperinflations, however, do not happen in an instant. It usually takes years before the final collapse. The Weimar hyperinflation began around 1920 and ended in 1923 with the total destruction of the currency. Similar was the fate of some post-communist countries: it took Russia and Bulgaria 7-8 years to hyperinflate their currencies before they ultimately destroyed them.

    However, because the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, hyperinflating the dollar will be fundamentally different in two ways from all hyperinflations in history. On the one hand, there are tens of trillions of dollar-denominated debt and hundreds of trillions of dollar-denominated derivatives. Given that the ratio of currency to debts and derivatives is tiny, the coming hyperinflation must be necessarily of epic proportions. On the other hand, central banks around the world will fight tooth and nail to support the dollar, so that world financial system does not collapse and that their reserves do not evaporate into the nothingness. Many central banks will choose willy-nilly to support the dollar by inflating their own currencies. Thus, these two powerful forces will drive the dollar in opposite directions. Its inevitable demise may be swift and sudden, or it may be protracted and painful.

    Whatever the speed of hyperinflation, ordinary Americans will have few available options to protect themselves—during crises, peoples’ first instinct is to resort to more “stable” fiat currencies of neighboring countries, like the Canadian Dollar and the Mexican Peso, but their availability will prove limited and complicated as people will most likely have to cope with governmentally-imposed capital controls. Next, people instinctively convert hyperinflating currencies to hard assets like land and real estate, but sellers refuse to accept the hyperinflating currency and quickly disappear from the market. Having run out of meaningful options to protect themselves, ordinary people will have little choice, but to convert their dollars to hard currencies like gold and silver, thus driving their prices much higher. On the other hand, central banks have no other options but gold. First, in times of crises, central banks fear the risk inherent in all fiat currencies. Moreover, not even the largest fiat currencies will accommodate their need to convert their reserves. Also, it is not practical for central banks to hold real estate and land. Thus, central banks will have no alternative, but to scramble to convert their reserves to the only hard currency known to man—gold. Historically, in times of crises, gold has always been the ultimate safe haven. When people and central banks flee en masse to gold, its value has always skyrocketed. This time, it will be no different.

    Is It Wise to Desire What We Most Want?

    Reflections on Original Sin

    by Jay Edson


    “Desire came upon the One in the beginning.”

                        Rig Veda

    When we look at the photos from Abu Graib we are overwhelmed with the realization that something has gone wrong with our country. This is not, we tell ourselves, how Americans are. Yet the “few bad apples” theory crumbled almost as soon as it was expressed. The events in Abu Graib were obviously supported from on high. Torture, it tuns out, is as American as apple pie. Had we studied history more carefully from the perspective of the losers and the oppressed, as Howard Zinn suggests in his book, “A People’s History of the United States,” we would have reacted to the events with horror and disgust, but not perhaps with much surprise.

    Once we are forced to acknowledge that the events at Abu Graib were the logical outcome of the American character, our second line of defense against this shock to our national identity is to point toward the atrocities that were carried out in Iraq under the regime of Saddam Hussein. Indeed, he was a ruthless and cruel despot. But was Abu Graib a deeper hell under Saddam than under Bush? The question is pointless. The only comfort we can draw from the comparison is that something is wrong with the Arab world also.

    If we expand our perspective a bit more, and take a hard look at the history of the world, we are forced to admit that something seems to have gone dreadfully wrong with civilization itself. Whether we live in Tokyo, New York, Moscow, Khartoum, Paris, Kampala or Peking, if we wish to instill pride in the citizens of our countries, it seems that we will have to sweep a lot of outrageous cruelty and stupidity under under the rug of our carefully edited history books and newspapers. Something has indeed gone wrong.

    Perhaps there were pre-industrialized societies that did better. The civilizations of the Aztecs and the Incas, however, suggest to us that when the New World was discovered, it was well on it’s way down the same path of exploitation, genocide and empire that defined history in the Old World. The gentle Tasaday gave us hope. How painful it was to learn that all those lovely pictures in the National Geographic were based on a fraud. Perhaps, on the basis of what we hear of the Fore in New Guinea or the Native Americans that Columbus first found and enslaved, we can still entertain the notion that we are not just killer apes with opposable thumbs, big brains, and a knack for language. Perhaps some essential goodness resides in the heart of humanity, but clearly something has gone wrong.

    I do not believe that human beings are by nature violent and hopelessly depraved. In their essence, they are good and loving. Lest you think that this is a Pollyanna conviction deriving from lack of familiarity with the harshness that human beings are able to manifest, I would share with you the fact that I was incarcerated in a prison in the United States for a period of three and a half years. If my conclusions are ultimately found to be untenable, it will not be because I am unacquainted with human stupidity and cruelty.


    This Politics of Health Website is a Project of HealthWrights