democracy capitalism

1DEMOCRACY and CAPITALISM Fourth World Services, POBox 1666, Denver, Colorado 80201 A. Allen Butcher, 1996

Democracyand

Capitalism

Are they Critical Elements ofa Climax Human Culture?

A. Allen Butcher1991


Foreword

This paper was written in 1992, prior to that year’s Presidential Campaign, and al-though the issues have not substantially changed since then, a number of relevant factorshave. The problems are today more advanced than at the beginning of the decade,while at the same time there are now more organizations advocating or creating differentaspects of the solution. Therefore, the need is only greater for an understanding of theissues and of the trends toward change in our civilization and culture.

This work is offered as a new perspective on the old question of identifying what wouldbe the best new world order toward which we would most want to work. That future ispresented here as the “egalitarian commonwealth,” a culture characterized as having aneconomy which balances private and common ownership of property, through a politicalstructure facilitating increasing degrees of popular participation.

Naming the goal toward which we want to work, and explaining some of the strategiesto be used to get there, is essential if we are uncomfortable with the concept advancedin recent years called “The New World Order,” and its agenda sometimes described asmaking the world safe for capitalism and for democracy. Through explaining that a“capitalist economy” actually relies upon forms of common ownership of property tosupport its health and growth, and that “democracy” can be a facade for a governmentcontrolled by the wealthy, we can see the need to redefine what kind of society wouldbest result in a politically stable and economically sustainable, future global humanculture.

Any comments which you would like to return to the authro concerning this work wouldbe greatefully accepted.

A. Allen ButcherJune, 1996

P.O. Box 1666Denver, CO [email protected]


Many of those who are commenting upon thepolitical and economic transformations that aresweeping the world in this latter part of thetwentieth century are concluding that the lessonof our time is the preeminence of the democraticand of the capitalist systems. With so manycountries turning from communism and social-ism toward democracy and capitalism, we aretempted to think of the latter two as comprisingnot only a superior political/economic system,but perhaps even as representing the ultimateform of civilization. Indeed, what other moresuccessful model have we? As the countries of the world become moreintegrated into a global civilization, there is agrowing sense that human culture is movingtoward some type of climax. At times this isexpressed in prophetic terms, suggesting someimminent consummation of history, or end of theworld. Other commentaries employ an ecologi-cal analogy which, through extension, may helpus to understand what we are experiencing. The ecological analogy suggests that thehistory of human society is like an ecosystemchanging from a swamp to scrub-land to theclimax forest. Kenneth Boulding, for instance,wrote in 1970 in his book, Economics As AScience, that the primitive tribe or village is agood example of a climactic social system,remaining stable until some fundamental changetakes place. Recorded history begins with onesuch change, the advent of civilization and theend of the primitive climax human culture. Wehave been working ever since, through the city-state to empire and now to global culture, toarrive at a new level of cultural stability, a moreadvanced climactic social system. The questiontoday is whether democracy and capitalism arethe definitive elements of a global climax humanculture. Due to the problems in the definitionsof and uses of these political and economicterms, the answer which this paper offers is aqualified no. The terms democracy and capitalism gener-

ally do imply progress, yet they are either soambiguous or so prone to misapplication thatthey may be used in a context which is contraryto the goal of progress. The problems involvedin measuring progress are first in naming thegoal, which is referred to in this paper as a“climactic social system,” or a “climax humanculture,” and then in defining it and determiningwhat constitutes progress toward it. Throughengaging in such a process we find that only bygenerally defining democracy and capitalism canwe use these terms to describe the best of allconceivable social systems. Rather than usethese general terms in this very specific context,we may do better by employing different termswhich more clearly convey our meaning. In discussing human culture we need to startfrom a base provided by a precise, unambiguousterminology. Ambiguity is precisely the prob-lem with the term “democracy,” and as for theterm “capitalism,” we tend to use it for morethan what its actual definition provides. Defining terms is the first step. With thesetools we may then identify the patterns andtrends which anticipate our future. If we areaware of a succession of events in our historywhich imply some logical pattern, we can de-duce from those patterns certain trends into thefuture. There is a degree of risk involved inbasing predictions upon perceived trends, yetwhen we consider the succession of eventsleading to the present, we offer no service at allwhen we merely state that we have no ideawhere we are headed, or perhaps worse, that wehave no further to go. The purpose of this paper is to offer a freshlook at the progress of human civilization —past, present and future. Through first devising anew conceptual framework offering clear termsand definitions for the many different political/economic systems which we have experienced,or may yet create, we can then arrive at someconclusions concerning the nature of a futureclimactic, global human culture.

INTRODUCTION


With the recent demise of communism to justa few remaining hold-outs, we are today at apoint of having to reassess our positions, and ofhaving to anticipate the parameters of futuredebates concerning how to carry on humanprogress. The value of personal freedom and theefficacy of the market economy seem to havebeen proven by recent events, yet there is alreadya debate about what this suggests for the future. One view is that as a result of the loss of ourtraditional nemesis, known as communism, weare suddenly adrift from our ideological anchor-age. The political landscape we relied upon toorient ourselves is sinking below the waves ofhistory. Now the political winds and economiccurrents are changing, and we suddenly findourselves in a new uncharted sea. The old mapsand paradigms are no longer of use to us as weseek to make sense of a whole new world order. The opposing view is that we are no longer atsea at all, but are in fact now on solid ground.Whatever storms and ghost ships we encoun-tered on the way, we have now landed and mayas well plant our flag and get on with buildingthe new world order. One representation of thisview is that we have reached the “end of his-tory,” as Francis Fukuyama wrote while servingas a State Department policy planner. “With thetriumph of the Western liberal idea, Mr.Fukuyama said, there will be no room for anymeaningful evolution of the human spirit.”(Bernstein 1991) Mr. Fukuyama’s view suggests that theevolution of civilization has reached its conclu-sion with the ascendancy of the democratic idealand of the capitalist system to global suzerainty.The implication follows that the utopian assump-tions which the concept of dialectical material-ism held out for the future are now totally vacu-ous. Further, the utopian ideal is once againavailable for redefinition, and in the absence ofany other worthy contender, the promise of thebest of all feasible human societies must fall tothe political/economic structures of democracyand of capitalism. This is it. We’re home.

However, contrary to the view that things arenow settled once and for all, the reality that all ofour problems are not solved must eventuallyresult in new ideological demarcations beingdrawn. At some point while we are celebratingour new-found global consensus in favor ofpolitical freedom and of a market economy,someone or something will likely interrupt ourreverie to point out that we are in fact adrift.Worse, we will find out that the old maps andassumptions are no longer reliable in our searchfor new ideological moorings. The problem inthe assumption that democracy and capitalismcan provide for us what world communism failedto do — that is build a just and sustainableglobal human culture — is that the terms “de-mocracy” and “capitalism” are themselves proneto misapplication and misunderstanding. As with most things that we focus intentlyupon, we will find that democracy and capital-ism are not simple, straight forward, easilygrasped concepts. Indeed, they will likely serveas a new basis for ideological debate. As Profes-sor Joseph Nye of the Kennedy School of Gov-ernment at Harvard University stated, “Eventhough there’s now ... no real alternative toliberal democratic ideology, there’s going to be adiffusion of power and ideas. In a sense, it’s notthe end of history but a return of history.”(Bernstein 1991) Anticipating the imminent return of history,we may consider that a great opportunity existsfor casting a new framework by which to struc-ture the coming debate on the most productivedesigns and applications of democratic and ofcapitalist theory. One of the dangers in explor-ing a new world with the old maps and paradig-matic assumptions is that we may end up goingin circles, repeating history without really apply-ing the lessons of the times. Therefore we woulddo well to recognize that landfall is yet some-where over the horizon and that we had best sitdown for the moment, place some fresh parch-ment upon our ship’s table, and get some newbearings on our place in time and space.

THE RETURN OF HISTORY


One of the characteristic factors of the capital-ism-versus-communism debate was the clarity ofthe respective positions on the ownership ofwealth. Capitalism stood for private propertyownership, and communism for the commonownership of wealth. Today this dichotomy canstill be useful, but it needs a little more develop-ment. One of the themes of this new age or newworld we are entering could be said to be theconcept of integration of opposites. In the caseof the ownership of wealth, this view wouldresult in the recognition of a middle groundbetween private and common ownership. Thatwould be what is called the “mixed economy,” inwhich both private and common or publicsectors are recognized as having equally impor-tant roles in a national economy. This points out a major problem with our useof the terms “capitalist economy” and “capitalistcountry.” Although capitalism means simplyprivate property and private profit, the fact is thatthere is no such thing as a nation based entirelyupon the private ownership of wealth. Everynation has a government and the wealth it holdsis not private property but is owned in commonby all the citizenry, whether or not the leaders ofthe government recognize that fact. In addition, in many societies family wealth isconsidered to be undivided, or owned by thefamily as a whole. Although divorce may resultin a division of family wealth, marriage isconsidered a union or a small scale level ofcommon ownership of wealth —again, regard-less of whether the adults involved recognize thefact. In the case of communal societies, adultsactually extend this ideal of domestic sharing ofproperty to the village level where even industryand business falls within the common ownershipstructure. In aggregate, unpaid labor in domesticproduction, such as housework and sweat equity,must account for a significant part of the wealthof any nation, yet that portion of wealth is totallyoutside of our economic indicators and indexessuch as the Gross National Product (GNP).

The value of exchanges and services in thehousehold economy alone has been estimated tobe more than all the wages and salaries paid outby all of the corporations in the U.S. .... Thesocially indispensable work of the informal (or“counter”) economy has always provided thecooperative social framework within which thehighly regarded competition of the marketplacecould achieve its “successes.” (Harman andHormann 1990, p. 112) A third form of common ownership of wealthin a mixed economy is that of the non-profit, tax-exempt organization. Schools, churches, muse-ums, foundations, charities, all of these andmany other educational, scientific and religiousorganizations are forms of common ownershipby virtue of the fact that upon dissolution theirwealth is not divided among individuals butgiven to other similarly organized groups. All ofthese forms of common ownership togetherconstitute a significant portion of our economy,and thus it is most appropriate to refer to ourcountry as having a “mixed economy” ratherthan as having a “capitalist economy.” This point is supported by the fact that thetotal economic activity of governmental and tax-exempt organizations probably equals more thanhalf of our gross national product (GNP). Totalfederal, state and local government spendingequaled 35.5% of the U.S. GNP in 1983.(McEachern 1988) That percentage is likelyhigher today. The balance, or 10% to 15% ofour GNP, is easily covered by the more than800,000 tax-exempt organizations listed by theIRS in 1978. (Oleck 1980) Today that numberhas likely grown. If the U.S. adopts a nationalhealth care system, much of the medical systemwill then move from the private sector to thepublic sector. That part of our mixed economy which doesrepresent the private ownership of wealth is thefor-profit sector. This includes sole-proprietor-ships, partnerships, stock corporations and mostforms of cooperatives, since co-op stock isdivided among the membership. At times the

ECONOMICS - THE OWNERSHIP OF WEALTH


for-profit sector seems to work in competitionwith the non-profit sector, and other times thetwo function complementarily, one providing forour real needs when the other is ineffective orincapable of doing so. We may conclude fromthis that the integration in the Americaneconomy of the private and the common owner-ship systems provides for much of the balancenecessary for our stability and growth. Diagram-matically we may represent these points concern-ing the ownership of wealth on an economiccontinuum. When we refer to the U.S. as a capitalistcountry, we imply that the private propertysystem is the primary characteristic of ourculture. Yet we would do well to recognize andaffirm that some forms of common ownershipare essential to the American way of life. Theneed to accept the concept that there are appro-priate forms of common ownership is the firstpoint to be made in the coming debates on the

nature of any preferred new world order. The second point to be made is that using theterm “capitalism” in reference to a society whichmay be more correctly described as a “mixedeconomy” only serves to negate the importanceof common ownership structures to a stablesociety, thus preventing us from transcending theold capitalism/communism conflict. If we wereto respect the balance of common and privateownership in our use of language, the termcapitalism would be used only when we meantprivate property, or that part of our economywhich is based upon the exchange of privateproperty, and never in reference to a nation-stateor to our economy as a whole. As we attempt as a people or as a society toplan our course through the uncharted waters ofa new global economy, it will be helpful to keepin mind the different forms of the ownership ofwealth, common and private, and to recognizethe value of each when applied appropriately.

As we have seen that the coming debatesconcerning the further development of oursociety requires a reevaluation of economicsystems and the careful definition of economicterms, so a similar effort is necessary withrespect to political systems and political termi-nology. Similar to the misapplication of theeconomic term “capitalism,” the political term“democracy” is also problematic in that it is avery general term lacking the specificity neces-sary when debating the issue of political control. Decision-making, in relation to the control ofwealth, is the political aspect of any questioninvolving ownership. There are two basic issues

ECONOMIC CONTINUUM

Common Property & Equity Mixed Private Property & Equity————————————————————————————————

Ownership of Wealth Economy Ownership of Wealth

in relation to wealth — who owns it and whocontrols it — and the two can be very different.For instance, we may “own” a parcel of land, asin fee-simple absolute ownership, but since thegovernment may tax it or appropriate it entirelyunder the doctrine of eminent domain, we do notultimately control the property we “own.”Therefore the control of wealth is a politicalquestion relating to the degree of participationwe may practice in the decision-making pro-cesses of the institutions which affect our lives.These institutions may be government, work-place, association or family. With respect to the issue of the differentforms of the control of wealth, politics may be

POLITICS — THE CONTROL OF WEALTH


results in the need to use some modifying wordalong with it in order to create a term which canbe used without confusion in debates concerningpolitical process. Thus, to clearly state ourmeaning we might use the term “consensualdemocracy” when we mean consensus decision-making. This is the most egalitarian decision-making process available to us. The term “directdemocracy, or as Jurgen Habermas suggests“substantive democracy,” (and now we have“deep democracy”)may also be used to describean egalitarian process. Habermas further offersthe term “formal democracy” for use in situa-tions where an ostensibly democratic processmerely provides an aura of legitimacy to a rulingelite. (Habermas 1973, 36-37) In any debate concerning decision-makingprocesses on the level of the democratic nation-state, it can be difficult to determine whether thedemocratic process in use is more appropriatelytermed substantive or formal. The determiningfactor is whether the will of the people or thewill of some elite has the greater political influ-ence. The criteria by which to judge where thegreater power lies, and therefore the type ofdemocracy in practice, is first in the number andtypes of avenues which a people use to expresstheir individual wills in the political decision-making process. These include referenda,lobbies, meetings of constituents with represen-tatives, the voting system, media access, andvarious forms of activist politics such as streetdemonstrations. The second, yet more importantcriteria, is in the accountability of the politicalleaders to the people. If the political officeholders are proven to be beholden to specialinterests, unrepresentative of the popular will as

represented as a continuum ranging from partici-patory to authoritarian decision-making pro-cesses. An individual or a small group maydominate governmental decision-making insociety through an authoritarian process, ordecision-making in government can be decen-tralized and involve a large number of people ina participatory process. Democratic majority-ruleis more participatory than is an autocracy or anoligarchy, and consensus decision-makingprocess is the most participatory of all. Asconsensus process focuses upon substantialindividual effort toward addressing the needs ofeveryone involved, it is considered a win-winprocess, seeking a solution which all may at leastaccept, if not entirely agree with. The middle range of the political continuumrepresents mixtures of authoritarian and ofparticipatory decision-making such as the major-ity-rule process. Both majority-rule and themore authoritarian decision-making systems maybe considered win-lose processes. The problem with the term “democracy” isthat it has tended to be used in a number ofdifferent situations. Generally democracy refersto one-person-one-vote, but it can also refer to aconsensus decision-making process. In addition,we generally use democracy to refer to govern-ment by elected representatives. Persons in thesepositions then most often tend to consider theirroles as trustees, representing their own con-science more than the desires of their constitu-ency. (Harrigan 1991, 228) In the case of theUnited States in the 1990s, our representativedemocracy may seem to resemble a plutocracy,or government by a wealthy elite, rather thangovernment by the people. The ambiguousnature of the term democracy, as we use it today,

POLITICAL CONTINUUMParticipatory and Authoritarian and

Decentralized Mixed Centralized———————————————————————————————Control of Wealth Political Systems Control of Wealth

(Consensus Process) (Majority-rule)


expressed through the more broad avenues ofparticipation, then the type of democracy inpractice is merely formal. In this case a govern-ment maintains the appearance of democracywhile diminishing or circumventing its function-ing. With a lack of accountability to the wholepopulation, the legitimacy of that governmentmay be challenged at least, and at most, replacedby one which encourages more substantive

Recognizing that economic ownership andpolitical control are two aspects of the world weshare, we may seek a method of integrating thetwo in such a manner as to clearly portray howthe two interrelate. At one time the two were notconsidered to be separate. Prior to the mid-nineteenth century the term for economics was“political economy.” However, in keeping withthe rise of Cartesian reductionism, economicsand political science eventually became differen-tiated. (Boulding 1970, 77) Yet we may bestmake sense of our world, and better understandeach other in our political/economic debates,when we agree on a comprehensive frameworkrespecting the different issues already identifiedin relation to economic and political terminol-ogy. As we flatten out a fresh roll of parchmentupon our ship’s table, we can begin to create amap to represent the political economy of ournew world order which will be more useful to usthan any we have used before. By placing theeconomic continuum along the top of our parch-ment, ranging from common ownership ofwealth on the left to private ownership on theright, and then by placing the political con-tinuum along the left side of our parchment,ranging from participatory decision-making atthe top, where it meets the common ownershipend of the economic continuum, down to theauthoritarian process for the control of wealth atthe bottom of our parchment, we have nowcreated a two-dimensional chart. This chart

participation. When navigating the political waters of thenew world order it will be helpful for the crew ofany ship-of-state to keep in mind the differentforms of the control of wealth, and to be awarethat the wellbeing of the ship’s crew is bestassured, and therefore mutiny least likely, whencontrol is kept as broad-based as possible.

THE POLITICAL/ECONOMIC MATRIX

represents the known universe of all possiblepolitical/economic systems. (See Illustration 1.) As each of our two continua may be dividedinto three segments, extending these divisions tothe parchment chart which we are constructingresults in a matrix of nine cells. The resulting“Ownership/Control Matrix” models the entirerange of political/economic systems, yet itsimplifies this rather vast field by naming justnine specific political/economic constructs.Different applications of this model mightrequire more ranks or more files, dependingupon whether the context is a small group, avillage, city, state, region, continent, or the entireworld. It is also possible to add a third dimensionin order to consider other cultural issues, such asspirituality. A spiritual continuum might rangefrom secularism, or minimal spiritual expressionin society, to a multi-faith society, to a spirituallyuniform culture. Adding a third dimensionwould result in a twenty-seven cell model similarto the “Communitarian Relationships Model.”(Butcher 1991) This is, however, a discussionbeyond the scope of the current subject. Joining the political and economic continua atthe ends at which both are characterized by theprocesses of sharing — that is common owner-ship of wealth on the economic continuum andparticipatory control of wealth on the politicalcontinuum — we find that the opposite corner ofthe resulting matrix represents processes whichresult in an alienation of one person from an-other. These are private ownership and authori-tarian control of wealth. The labels given these


cells are respectively, “Egalitarian Communal-ism” and “Plutocratic Capitalism.” All of thematrix cells represent particular combinations ofpolitical and economic systems in relation totheir relative degrees of sharing and of alienatingqualities. For example, the other two corners ofthe matrix represent systems characterized ashaving either high or low degrees of sharing andof alienation in opposite measure. Either sharedcontrol with private ownership, labeled “Egali-tarian Collectivism,” or authoritarian controlwith shared ownership, labeled “Totalitarian-ism.” The center of the matrix represents themid-point of both continua. This would be asystem characterized as a mixed economy with amixed political system, labeled “DemocraticCommonwealth.” There are also four other cellsfilling out the matrix. These are described ashaving a mixed economy with either a participa-tory or an authoritarian political process, labeledrespectively “Egalitarian Commonwealth” and“Authoritarianism,” or as having a mixed politi-cal system with either common or private owner-ship, labeled respectively “Democratic Commu-nalism” and “Economic Democracy.” Of the many uses of the ownership/controlmatrix, its greatest value is in its identificationand placement of the many different political/economic systems in relation to each other,within a coherent context. Consider especiallyhow the ownership/control matrix illustrates thedifferent aspects discussed above of the demo-cratic political system and of the capitalisteconomic system. (See Illustrations 2A & 2B.) Democracy is represented in the middlehorizontal rank of the matrix as a mixed politicalsystem, while capitalism is represented as thefurthest vertical file to the right. They intersectin the cell called “Economic Democracy.” Theterm “economic democracy” refers primarily todifferent types of cooperatives since theseorganizations practice one-member-one-votemajority-rule, and have no amount of commonownership of wealth. Nations such as the UnitedStates actually have a mixed-economy, and soappropriately appear in the center file in the celltitled “Democratic Commonwealth.” When we

speak of our country we may refer specifically toeither the private ownership or capitalist sectorof our economy, or to the common ownership orpublic sector, but as a whole we need an eco-nomic term which respects both private andcommon ownership. The best that we haveavailable appears to be the term “common-wealth.” “Commonwealth” is derived from the term“commonweal,” which according to The Ency-clopedia Americana, originally meant the com-mon well-being and general prosperity of acommunity or realm. The term came into con-ventional usage in the 16th century and wasassociated with political reformers who champi-oned the principle of popular sovereignty.Today the term is used in the official designa-tions of the states of Kentucky, Massachusetts,Pennsylvania and Virginia, in the name of onecountry, the Commonwealth of Australia, and ina few associations such as the (British) Com-monwealth of Nations, and in the new Russianconfederation, the Commonwealth of Indepen-dent States. As the term commonwealth suggests prosper-ity through popular sovereignty, it may be usedto include a fairly wide range of countries,including many of those which have largenumbers of state-owned industries. The term“socialism” specifically refers to public owner-ship and operation of the means of productionand distribution, and even the U.S. has somestate-owned industries, notably Amtrack and theU.S. Postal Service. Therefore “socialist”countries are another form of mixed-economyand are only different from “capitalist” countriesby their degree of common verses private owner-ship. In order to avoid the distracting debate andconfusion over the terms “capitalism” and“socialism,” we may adopt the term “democraticcommonwealth” when we mean a country with amixed-economy and a majority-rule politicalsystem. As we saw in the application of the terms“democracy,” “capitalism” and “socialism” tothe ownership/control matrix, certain political/economic terms cover more than just one cell.


(See Illustration 3.) Libertarianism, for example,seems to include all four of the upper rightmatrix cells. (Kymlicka 1990) Liberalism andConservatism may be considered as splitting thematrix on a diagonal line from the upper leftcorner (emphasizing the sharing of wealth andpower) to the lower right (emphasizing thealienating aspects of private wealth and ofarbitrary power), since each could be said toevidence some aspects of both sharing and ofalienating qualities. Marxism would constitutethe whole left column as Karl Marx focusedupon common ownership but did not adequatelyspecify control processes. Feminism wouldconstitute the top two rows as it concentratesupon participation but does not emphasize anyparticular form of ownership structure. Anar-chism would occupy only the top row as thetheory provides for both private and commonproperty ownership, but tolerates neitherauthoritarianism nor majority-rule. Finally, communitarianism should encompassthe entire ownership/control matrix since theterm itself is applicable to any social group orcommunity, regardless of its structure. Popularusage of the term by Amitai Etzioni and others(Etzioni et al. 1991) tends to equate communi-tarianism with conservatism in opposition toliberalism. The logic behind Etzioni’s

communitarianism is that liberalism is equatedwith individualism, so individual rights are oftenin conflict with the community’s need to main-tain laws and behavior norms. Yet it would be amistake to identify communitarianism only withauthoritarianism and common ownership sincethis is not always the case. Therefore, we needto recognize that communitarianism involveselements of both liberalism and of conservatism.This discussion about the nature of communi-tarianism recalls Walter Shapiro’s words thatcommunitarianism, as suggested by Etzioni andfriends, is “... less than a coherent philosophy.”(Shapiro 1991) Other groups use the term communitarianismin the context of deliberate social design, makingintentionality the primary criterion for the use ofthe term rather than the debate of liberalismversus conservatism. (Butcher 1991) Once we have identified all of the differentregions on our new map, with respect to variouspolitical/economic terms, we can now use it toplot the course of any ship-of-state, or of anyother size social organization, as those political/economic units change their form over time.Political/economic transformations can becharted on the ownership/control matrix in anydirection, whether toward greater degrees ofparticipation or of authoritarianism, or toward

more private or common ownership of wealth. As we sit around our ship’s table discussingthe parchment chart we have created, it graduallybecomes apparent that the ownership/controlmatrix models not only individual social units,but the progress of human civilization as awhole. Further, this chart represents not onlyour history and our current state of affairs, butmay even be read so as to identify the apparentdirection and future of our global human civili-zation. In considering this revelation, we might dowell to remind ourselves that current trends may

not be consistent with long-term trends, and thatit may be necessary to take some backward stepsat times before forward progress can be made.Futurology is a rather inexact discipline. Somehelp may be found, however, in considering thatcertain long-term trends may be explained withthe aid of the following theories. First, consider the concept of unity in diver-sity. Since humans are active in both the mate-rial universe, through our physical bodies andour manipulation of matter, and in the spiritualuniverse, by virtue of our consciousness, thenthese two worlds meet in the human mind.

TREND VECTOR ANALYSIS


Integrating opposites in this way suggests thathumanity is a part of a whole system. So thefirst aspect of, or trend in civilization, is that ofintegration or of holism, in which we are able tofind a balance between disparate ideas andforces. The second aspect of civilization is thatof change or of progress. We are all part of anongoing process, often represented as cycles. Aswe gain experience in manipulating both ideas(representing the spiritual plane) and things(representing the material plane), we are in-volved in a process of growth and development. Both of these trends in human civilizationhave philosophical schools of thought built uparound them, as well as various spiritual con-cepts. In Western traditions there is the conceptexpressed as “everything flows” by the Greekphilosopher Heraclitus. In Eastern traditionsthere is Tao or “the way.” In both is found thebelief in an ultimate reality, the belief that allthings are a part of a cosmic whole, and that allthings are in a state of change, or are part of anongoing process. This is called Brahman inHinduism, Dharmakaya in Buddhism, andprocess theology in Christianity. In Western traditions the philosophicalconcept called process theory begins its moderndevelopment with nineteenth century GermanIdealism, expressed by Kant and Hegel, and itsEnglish school, T.H. Green’s teleological theoryand A.N. Whitehead’s process theory. We caneven interpret Abraham Maslow’s concept of ahierarchy of needs as suggesting that as individu-als we are engaged in a process of growth towardself-actualization. The concept of unity in diversity, or of thebasic interconnectedness of nature, is becominga tenet of modern physics. Relativity theory andquantum mechanics, or the theory of atomicphenomena, is replacing the Cartesian view of abasic dualism or split between mind and matter.Fritjof Capra makes this point in The Tao ofPhysics.

It is fascinating to see that twentieth-century science, which originated in theCartesian split and in the mechanisticworld-view, and which indeed only

became possible because of such a view,now overcomes this fragmentation andleads back to the idea of unity expressedin the early Greek and Eastern philoso-phies. (Capra 1975)

In applying these two concepts of integrationand of process to the task of understandinghuman civilization, we may recognize that eachhas a surprising correlation with a particularcomponent of society — integration with eco-nomics, and process with politics. If we look at the development of politicalprocesses through at least Western civilization,we may observe a trend away from authoritarian-ism and toward greater degrees of participation.We no longer have autocratic kings and emper-ors but instead, majority-rule. On the local leveland within some corporations, there is a trendtoward consensus process. Today elements ofconsensus, such as open debate and compromise,are applied on ever larger scales. Thus, thepolitical continuum represents the basic aspect ofcivilization referred to earlier as process, with itsantecedents in nineteenth century Idealism andearlier philosophies. Economics follows a different historicalprocess in our civilization than does politics.Although political evolution has tended to movefrom one end of its continuum to the other,economic evolution appears to move from bothends toward the middle. This developmentevidences a different aspect of our civilization;this being the concept of the integration ofopposites, or of unity in diversity. It suggeststhat the most stable economic systems are thosewhich can best support long-term growth andmaintain a balance between extremes. Theseextremes are represented on the economiccontinuum as common ownership and privateownership of wealth. If we accept the points made that our civiliza-tion is simultaneously moving toward greaterlevels of political participation and toward amore even balance of private and of commoneconomic ownership, then the direction of theevolution of civilization is toward the top centercell of the ownership/control matrix. (See


Illustration 4) This combination of the two trendvectors, labeled “process” and “integration,”indicates that the political/economic structure ofthe future may be termed the “egalitarian com-monwealth.” Although from time to time various ships-of-state may be caught in the doldrums, the eddiesor whirlpools, or blown about by storms and

prior to this, humanity knew a sustainable cul-ture which at least in some cases resembled anegalitarian commonwealth. With the advent ofcivilization the primitive climactic social systemwas displaced and only a few remnants of ittenuously hold on today. We may interpretrecorded history then as humanity’s quest torediscover the utopia which our ancesters experi-enced in tribal society, and which is identifiedhere as the egalitarian commonwealth. We spent thousands of years on the“authoritarianism” level of the ownership/controlmatrix, getting to know it very well. The numberof terms we use to describe the different forms ofauthoritarianism attest to our extensive experi-ence with this form of political control. Suddenly, in the last decade of the twentiethcentury, democracy is springing up all aroundthe world. At least three-quarters of the world’spopulation are now building democratic politicalstructures, and much of the remaining quarter isat least thinking about it. It was just a little overtwo-hundred years ago that democracy was firstadopted on the nation-state level, and it has takenthese two centuries for democracy to win globalacceptance. Remember that at the time of theAmerican Revolution many Europeans did notbelieve that a nation-state could exist in anyother form than the authoritarian model. We might wonder about this relatively rapidtransformation. Yet in fact the democratic con-cept has its roots far back in time, beyond theFree Spirit movements which preceded theReformation and “the doctrine of the inner light”arising at that time, and back even before the

contrary winds, it appears that the prevailingwinds and currents are generally driving us to thetop center of our parchment chart. Having anidea now in which direction landfall lies, wemight consider how it is that we got this far, andanticipate some of the characteristics of this newworld we are approaching.

Earlier the concept was presented of the“climactic social system” as being a stable,sustainable culture, and primitive tribal societywas presented as being a good example of aclimactic social system. The ownership/controlmatrix suggests that a process beginning with thefirst civilization approximately six-thousandyears ago will eventually culminate in a new, farmore advanced climax human culture, identifiedon the matrix as an “egalitarian commonwealth.” It is interesting to note that the politicaleconomy of certain tribal cultures resembles thedescription of an egalitarian commonwealth.The political structure which some of themexhibited was participatory, at least among themen, and in a few cases even egalitarian in thatwomen held important roles in the tribal politicalprocess. This was particularly the case withcertain Native American tribes. The structure ofthe Iroquois Confederation in fact actuallyinfluenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution.(Weatherford 1989) It is documented that among the ancestors ofNorthern Europeans a participatory form ofgovernance was practiced. The Roman historianTacitus recorded this about the German tribes in98 A.D., and also reported that at that time someof the German tribes still worshipped goddesses.Julius Caesar in his writings stated that the “...king of ... a German nation, described his author-ity so limited, that, though he governed, thepeople in their turn gave laws to the prince.”(Murphy 1908, 316-317) With the end of the primitive lifestyle and therise of civilization came the dominance ofvarious forms of authoritarianism. For eons

THE CLIMAX HUMAN CULTURE


practice of democracy within the Greek city-states. We first see it in the concept of divineinspiration in the individual as found in theEgyptian mystery religions, which in turn haveroots in the primitive, pre-civilization era. TheEgyptian mysteries and other ancient philoso-phies later influenced the Masonic Orders. TheMasons rose with the fortunes of the CatholicChurch; their autonomy growing with theirimportance as builders of the great cathedrals.

Freemasonry ... was a behind-the-scenesinfluence throughout the development ofWestern civilization, and in the latter halfof the eighteenth century it played aleading role in the emergence of demo-cratic philosophies of government. ...Most particularly, its concern focused onthe development of human knowledgeand the arts, and on the reformation ofgovernments toward a “philosophiccommonwealth” and democratic forms.

(Harman 1988, 161) Freemasonry carried on centuries of quietorganizing and was ready when the opportunitycame to apply its ideals in the New World. Mostof the signers of the Declaration of Independencewere Masons, and they received substantial aidfrom European Masonic lodges. The legacy ofFreemasonry lives on in the Great Seal of theUnited States, printed on the dollar bill.

The most obviously Masonic symbol isthe uncompleted pyramid capped by aradiant triangle enclosing the All-seeingEye, which occupies the center of thereverse side of the seal. Whatever othermeanings this ancient symbol may havehad ... it clearly proclaims that the worksof men ... are incomplete unless theyincorporate divine insight. This symbolis meant to indicate that the nation willflourish only as its leaders are guided bysupraconscious intuition. (Harman 1988,163)

The primary points to remember in all this isfirst that change does not just happen, it onlyfollows a long period of preparation. Secondly,it may be best to avoid the temptation of thinking

that democracy and capitalism, as we practicethem today, comprise the ultimate form ofhuman civilization. What remains is to increasethe degree of individual participation in govern-mental and other areas of decision-making, whilealso working to find a better balance of privateand of common ownership structures, until weattain the climax human culture identified as theegalitarian commonwealth. The next step mayvery well be completed in far less than the two-hundred years that it took to make the last step. An excellent model for explaining the processof cultural transformation is provided by thefuturist William Irwin Thompson. Thompsonsuggests that cultural change progresses throughphases. The four phases he identifies begins withmystical and spiritual awareness, followed by theexpression of cultural change through art, then intechnology and economics. Finally, politics andgovernment begin to respond to the forces forchange already widespread throughout society.(Ventura 1986) Thompson’s model is reminis-cent of the proverb we sometimes hear that“when the people lead, the leaders follow.” In the United States there is good reason tobelieve that we are at the third phase ofThompson’s view of the social transformationprocess. As Thompson suggests, the changes wesee in our technology and economics may resultin a powerful impact upon our governmental andpolitical systems, resulting in more participatoryprocesses. There are many sources today commentingupon “The New Capitalism” (Halal 1988) andthe transformation taking place in at least Ameri-can corporations. Much of this change is in-spired by the Japanese example, which actuallywas largely influenced by an American in the1950s, W. Edwards Deming and his 14 points ofmanagement. An article in Inc. magazine listeda number of new books explaining everythingfrom the importance of seeing businesses aslearning organizations, to how to build a com-mon vision and shared goals, to how to zappeople with energy rather than to sap them ofenthusiasm. (Brodaw 1991) Managementtextbooks today are also focusing upon the


change in human relations schools of thoughtand the changes in organizational design. Oneview presents a range of designs from authoritar-ian structures, called the “System 1” approach tomanagement, to the participatory approach called“System 4.” Through a series of steps a businesscan transform itself into a System 4 designhaving “more openness, flexibility, communica-tion, and participation.” (Fleet 1991, 242) Thereis as well a whole movement focused upondeveloping worker-owned and managed busi-nesses. One book, titled Putting Democracy toWork lists in its bibliography a large number ofrelated works. (Adams and Hanson 1987)Through the growing emphasis today uponlearning participation in the work-place, wemight expect that this practice will eventually

module. Why not interactive televoteslinked to careful civic education pro-grams and tele-assembly deliberations? ... Huge commercial computerizeddata banks, operated by MCI and Dow-Jones and Compuserve Corporation aswell as by the world’s major newspapers,make global information available ... topersonal computers via telephone lines.... So why not public-access terminals inlibraries and schools that let workers getinformation on jobs, concerned parentslearn about education issues, committedcitizens inform themselves about com-plex economic and environmental issues?... What better way to assure a civiceducation adequate for modern democ-racy? (Barber and Watson 1988, 269,270)

The authors then explain that experiments withdirect citizen involvement in government, facili-tated by the use of the communications technol-ogy currently available, are already happening.

... (T)he legislature of the State ofCalifornia has provided its members witha communications network that both

carry over into government. What might such afuture look like, and how might we get there? William Irwin Thompson offers a glimpse ofwhat a transformed, global egalitarian common-wealth might look like in his view of the“steady-state climax human culture.” (Ventura1986) The elements of this future society wouldbe an integration of Eastern and Western phi-losophy, technology, psychology and culture;innovation being a permanent tradition in sci-ence, technology and economics; and a multiplepolitical culture comprised of nations, world-class cities, non-governmental organizations,citizens’ groups and decentralism. All of thesecharacteristics involve the enhanced and ex-panded role of participatory communicationprocesses among the world’s peoples.

Considering the concept of a continuingspiritual evolution, the experience of a trans-forming business culture and global economy,and the recent general acceptance of the demo-cratic idea, we might try to project how an evenmore participatory culture and political systemmight be built. In The Struggle for Democracy, BenjaminBarber and Patrick Watson point out the impor-tance of the developing communications tech-nologies to the continuing application of demo-cratic principles. The authors stress the need tothink about individual participation in decision-making as requiring more than merely theprocess of one-person-one-vote majority-rule.

Corporations already use communica-tions hook-ups for teleconferences thatpermit executives around the world totalk face to face and make collectivedecisions without ever leaving theiroffices. Why not electronic town meet-ings? ... Another American corporation hasdeveloped an interactive televisionsystem that permits viewers to respond totheir screens via a handheld, five-button

BUILDING THE EGALITARIAN COMMONWEALTH


maximizes information exchange andoffers their constituents access to them.An electronic “bulletin board” whereindividuals can dial in thorough theirhome computers to read or post “mes-sages” has been set up under the rubric“There Oughta Be a Law!” Citizenswishing to get a suggestion for a changein laws on the public agenda can dial inand put their proposal up on the board.The legislature’s staff route each pro-posal to the appropriate committee, andsee to it that citizens and legislators cancommunicate on the matter. Here citi-zens receive access not merely to deci-sion-making, but to something even moreimportant: the making of the legislativeagenda. (Barber and Watson 1988, 272)

For an example of how communicationstechnology is aiding the trend toward participa-tory management, consider the productivitygains (in some cases up to 90%) reported inFortune magazine as a result of the use of“groupware - computer software explicitlydesigned to support the collective work ofteams.” (Kirkpatrick 1992, 93) Electronicmeetings, where participants type their com-ments (sometimes anonymously) into computerbulletin boards accessible to all, provides for anegalitarian meeting process where good ideas arereadily accepted whether they come form theboss or the newest team member. The drive for technological advance, fueledby the market economy, will encourage a moreopen access to information, and will eventuallyincrease demands for avenues of participation.Technology has always influenced society in thisway. A good example is the invention of theprinting press and the publishing of theGutenberg Bible. Subsequent popular access tothe Bible spurred on the forces for individualelection, encouraged confrontation with theChurch, and helped to bring on the Reformation.This challenge to ecclesiastic authority led toresistance to political authority, and contributedto the eventual writing of the democratic nationalconstitution.

As in the period before and during the Protes-tant Reformation, there are today many ideolo-gies and social movements focused upon in-creasing individual responsibility for society,and encouraging collective action to improve it.Many groups today focus upon ecologicalresponsibility even more than social responsibil-ity. Generally these ideological movementsinclude the concepts of a mixed economy and ofparticipatory process, even though these valuesare not their primary focus. Among the contemporary ideological move-ments are geonomics, (Smith 1991) which meansplanet or earth management, involving a self-regulating economy with “organic” feedbackmechanisms. Social ecology (Institute for SocialEcology 1991) involves the concept that humansociety can only be in balance when a balancealso exists between human civilization andnature. Eco-feminism (Plant 1989) specifies thata society balanced with environmental concernswould be diverse and focused upon caring andnurturing qualities. Bio-regionalism (Sale 1985)suggests that the characteristics of a humansociety ought best be determined by the naturalforms and features of the land which it shares.The Fourth World (Papworth 1992) relates todecentralist social, economic and political units.Its ecological focus comes as a result of itsconcern with appropriate scale, and its connec-tion to the traditions of native peoples. Socialanarchism (Social Anarchism 1989) also empha-sizes decentralism, with mutual aid, consensusprocess and minimal coercive government. Aswith municipalism (Bookchin 1986), meaningcommunity control over a local economy, socialanarchism does not express an environmentalconcern other than indirectly through its concen-tration upon local power and responsibility. Although these various movements andideologies are relatively obscure, their aggregateinfluence, along with that of many other theoriesand organizations, such as the Greens (Morse1991), is a factor in the process of change. Theyshow some of the depth and breadth of the effortto carry on the evolution of civilization beyondthe concepts of democracy and capitalism as we


generally think of them. Perhaps the most important such movementtoday is the recently formed Financial Democ-racy Campaign. This coalition of activists andorganizations is focusing upon economic fair-ness, social justice, equal opportunity, and thestewardship of our resources. (Hightower 1991)The work of this organization is particularlyimportant when we realize that it is possible thatwe may backslide as a culture toward greaterdegrees of authoritarianism. Although thegeneral trend is toward more participation, therehave been many historical periods where thisprogress has been slowed, stopped and evenreversed. A case-in-point is the response of the wealthyand powerful in the U.S. to the surge of demo-cratic organizing, and the subsequent rise indemands placed upon the U.S. government in thesixties and early seventies by formerly unorga-nized sectors of the population.

Previously passive or unorganized groupsin the population, blacks, Indians,Chicanos, white ethnic groups, students,and women now embarked on concertedefforts to establish their claims to oppor-tunities, positions, rewards, and privi-leges, (to) which they had not consideredthemselves entitled before. (Sklar 1980,37)

In the report titled The Crisis of Democracyby the Trilateral Task Force on the Governabilityof Democracies, Samuel Huntington concludedthat “some of the problems of governance in theUnited States today stem from an excess ofdemocracy ... Needed, instead, is a greaterdegree of moderation in democracy.” (Sklar1980, 37) Thus the Trilateral Commission,founded by David Rockefeller, supports a privateconsensus that the capitalist economic systemrequires a limited democracy. If we accept the point that the U.S. has merelya formal democracy largely controlled by anelite, then the temptation is to accept the pro-vocative conclusion that,

America has a government run by eliteswho use the political system to protect

wealth and privilege; thus, it is accurateto say that America’s oligarchy is also aplutocracy — a government run by thewealthy. (Hellinger, Judd 1991, 255)

When reference is made to a “New WorldOrder,” it is helpful to keep in mind that when agovernment is challenged by its people, thatgovernment’s own response determines itsaccountability and therefore the validity of itsclam to legitimacy. If we are in doubt as toexactly what kind of government we have in theU.S., how can we expect to understand what ismeant by “New World Order?” As an aside, itshould be noted that George Bush and manyother members of his administration are formermembers of the Trilateral Commission. At this point we might pause to contemplatethe political paradox of how a capitalist elitemight foster greater degrees of participationwithin American corporations while minimizingparticipation in government. How long canthese two opposing interests remainunreconciled? The Financial Democracy Campaign (FDC)has a program intended to push our nationtoward something resembling what has beentermed here an egalitarian commonwealth. Asthe advisor to the FDC, Ralph Nader is one of itsideological leaders. Currently, Nader and othersare working to bring financial democracy issuesinto the 1992 electoral primaries. In a series of articles in Mother Jones, RalphNader has outlined what he called, “how to putthe punch back in politics.”

Few would deny the decline in thestrength of organized labor and mostfederal regulatory agencies to check (themajor corporations)... The clearest manifestation today isthe growing corporate control over otherpeople’s property. In the next decade, werisk the increasingly rapid separation ofreal asset ownership from real assetcontrol. Consider that: The public owns one third of theUnited States ... and companies, mostlymultinationals, control these rich re-


sources of timber, oil, gas, iron, ... etc.,through leaseholds. And taxpayers putup the money to make private profitpossible. The public owns the government’sresearch findings that taxpayers fund, butcorporations control the patents andprofits emerging from such research. The public, say Congress and theSupreme Court, owns the airwaves; butthe broadcasters control them. Workersown over $1.7 trillion worth of pensionmonies; banks and insurance companiescontrol their investment policies. De-positors and mutual-assurance policy-holders own hundreds of billions ofdollars in savings and insurance; manage-ment of these mutuals controls theirdisposition. It is obvious that the brokersof wealth scarcely care who owns thewealth, so long as they can get rich bycontrolling such assets. (Nader 1990)

Ralph Nader even points out that we are losingcontrol of our children to a corporate dominatedconsumerist value structure. Ralph Nader’s answer to these problems is toend what he calls the corporate state’s “transfereconomy” in which companies, with aid fromthe government, transfer their risks, failures,waste and corruption onto consumers. The toolsthat he suggests are often legislative. He callsfor federal courts to permit taxpayers to “stand tosue” in order to “plead their cases against corpo-rate subsidies, loan guarantees, or giveaways.”Another idea is creating “self-power consumergroups” such as the Citizens Utility Board inIllinois. This is a voluntary, public policylobbying organization created by citizensthrough their response to a postage-paid enve-lope included in mailings from the state govern-ment. (Nader 1990) All of these ideas andprograms serve to increase the level of individualparticipation in the institutions which affectpeople’s lives. One last but very important example of howan egalitarian commonwealth may be built is theconcept called “geonomics.” It means “earth

management,” and it relates primarily to abalance of the ownership of wealth through theexisting property tax system. This method resultsin an incentive for economic growth due to itsreduction of the property tax on buildings andimprovements, and an increase in the tax on landto its full rental value. Currently the purchase price of land is prima-rily based upon its speculative value, which ispushed as high as possible. With a site-valuetax, most of the cost of holding land would bethe tax placed upon it. As the tax would increaseor decrease along with the real-estate market,there would be no basis for speculation in land.(Daly and Cobb 1989, 257) Capital would thanbe freed for productive business investment atthe same time that investment is being encour-aged by the removal of property taxs on build-ings and improvements. This economic stimulus results from societyclaiming for itself what is called the “unearnedincome,” that is the profit that land ownersgenerally receive at no effort on their part. Thisunearned increment of wealth is created by sitespecifics such as view, water and mineral re-sources, access to markets due to populationconcentrations, and the availability of govern-ment services. All of these are sources of wealthwhich morally ought to be shared by all, ratherthan hoarded by a few. Today there are approxi-mately two-thousand cities around the worldwhich utilize this ground-rent concept. Only inPennsylvania do we find them in the U.S., withthe largest two-rate property tax city beingPittsburgh. (Cord 1991; Robert SchalkenbachFoundation 1990) Thus the appropriate application of the idea ofcommon ownership through the property taxsystem would result in both a more equitabledistribution of wealth, due to a resulting encour-agement for business investment, and a moreprosperous economy. Coupled with the develop-ment of increasing degrees of political participa-tion, all of these ideas can provide for us a newworld order which we may call an egalitariancommonwealth.


The concept of a global climax human culturecan be helpful in projecting the direction of thedevelopment of human civilization. As weconsider the nature of any future which we mighthope to build, we may recognize that our civili-zation already evidences two primary trends.One is toward greater degrees of participation inthe political processes which control wealth, andthe second is toward a balance of the two formsof the ownership of wealth, private and common.Projecting the effects of these two trends into thefuture results in a cultural design termed in thispaper the “egalitarian commonwealth.” Clearly we have many good ideas on how tobuild an egalitarian commonwealth, yet there areproblems involved in carrying on the building

Adams, Frank T., and Gary B. Hansen. 1987.Putting Democracy to Work. Eugene, OR:Hulogos’i.

Barber, Benjamin, and Patrick Watson. 1988.The Struggle for Democracy, Boston: Little,Brown and Company.

Bernstein, Richard. 1991. “New Issues BornFrom Communism’s Death Knell.” The NewYork Times. August 31.

Bookchin, Murray. 1986. The Limits of the City.Montreal, Canade: Black Rose Books.

Boulding, Kenneth E. 1970. Economics As AScience. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brokaw, Leslie. 1991. “Books that TransformCompanies.” Inc. July.

Butcher, A. Allen. 1991. “Classifications ofCommunitarianism.” Presented at the Interna-tional Communal Societies Association,Elizabethtown, PA.

CONCLUSIONprocess. One of these is our use of terms inreference to political and economic issues.Although the terms “democracy” and “capital-ism” do convey generally useful ideas, the factthat different people mean different things whenthey use these terms suggests that we need to getbeyond their general use and begin to apply morespecific terms which convey less ambiguousideas. As the idea of an appropriate balance betweenthe private and common forms of ownership ofwealth becomes more current, and as we gainmore experience in participatory decision-making in the control of wealth at all levels ofsociety, we may find that we have at last madelandfall at the best of all possible new worlds.

REFERENCES

Capra, Fritjof. 1975. The Tao of Physics: AnExploration of the Parallels Between ModernPhysics and Eastern Mysticism. New York, NY:Bantam.

Cord, Steven B., ed. 1992. Incentive Taxation.Center for the Study of Economics, 2000 Cen-tury Plaza, Suite 238, Columbia, MD 21044.

Daly, Herman E., and John B. Cobb, Jr. 1989.For the Common Good: Redirecting theEconomy Toward Community, the Environment,and a Sustainable Future. Boston: BeaconPress.

Etzioni, Amitai, et. al. 1991. “Editorial State-ment.” The Responsive Community: Rights andResponsibilities. 1 (1).Fleet, Van. 1991. Contemporary Management.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1973. Legitimation Crisis.Boston: Beacon Press.


Halal, William. 1988. “The New Capitalism.”The Futurist. Jan.-Feb.

Harman, Willis. 1988. Global Mind Change:The New Age Revolution in the Way We Think.New York: Warner.

Harman, Willis, and John Hormann. 1990.Creative Work: The Constructive Role of Busi-ness in a Transforming Society. Indianapolis, IN:Knowledge Systems, Inc.

Harrigan, John J. 1991. Politics and Policy inStates and Communities. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Hellinger, Daniel, and Dennis R. Judd. 1991.The Democratic Facade. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole.

Hightower, Jim. 1991. Financial DemocracyCampaign, 739 8th St., Washington, DC20003. From: “Clearing the Water.” Commu-nity Economics. No. 23, Summer 1991. Insti-tute for Community Economics, 57 School St.,Springfield, MA 01105.

Institute for Social Ecology. Institute for SocialEcology Newsletter. 1991. P.O. Box 89,Plainfield, VT 05667.

Kirkpatrick, David. 1992. “Here Comes thePayoff From PCs.” Fortune. March 23.

Kymlicka, Will. 1990. Contemporary PoliticalPhilosophy: An Introduction. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Morse, Chuck. 1991. “The Big, Mean GreenMachine.” Institute for Social Ecology Newslet-ter. Vol. 10, Issue 1, Autumn.Murphy, Arthur, ed. 1908. Tacitus: HistoricalWorks: Vol. II The History, Germania &Agricola. London: Dent, New York: Dutton.

Nader, Ralph. 1990. “Nader’s Nineties.”Mother Jones. July/August.

McEachern, William A. 1988. Economics: AContemporary Introduction. South-WesternPublishing.

Oleck, Howard L. 1980. Non Profit Corpora-tions, Organizations, and Associations.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Papworth, John. 1992. Fourth World Review.24 Abercorn Place, London NW8 9XP England.

Plant, Judith, ed. 1989. Healing the Wounds:The Promise of Ecofeminism. Philadelphia, PA:New Society Publishers.

The Robert Schalkenbach Foundation. 1990....land ...people ...wealth in the 90s. RobertSchalkenbach Foundation, 41 East 72nd St.,New York, NY, 10021.

Sale, Kirkpatrick. 1985. Dwellers In The Land.Sierra Club Books.

Shapiro, Walter. 1991. “A Whole Greater ThanIts Parts?” Time, February 28. Page 71.

Sklar, Holly. 1980. Trilateralism: The TrilateralCommission and Elite Planning for WorldManagement. Boston: South End Press.

Smith, Jeff. 1991. The Geonomist. Institute forGeonomic Transformation, P.O. box 157, SantaBarbara, CA 93102.

Social Anarchism. 1989. 2743 Maryland Ave.,Baltimore, MD 21218.

Ventura, Michael. 1986. “Over the Edge ofHistory with William Irwin Thompson.” UtneReader. June/July. Excerpted from the LosAngeles Weekly. December 13, 1985.

Weatherford, Jack. 1989. Indian Givers: Howthe Indians of the Americas Transformed theWorld. Fawcett.


Fourth World Services A. Allen ButcherProviding information for a lifestyle PO Box 1666balancing our personal needs Denver, CO 80201with those of society and nature. [email protected]

Fourth World — This term is used:• In political/economic theory as any decentralized, self-governed society maintaining a locally based economy.• By the United Nations for the least developed countries.• In Hopi prophecy as our current era of environmental decline.

Fourth World Services provides information necessary for the buildingof a lifestyle which respects the integrity of the natural world, whichsupports the development of a socially responsible culture, and whichaffirms the inherent worth and dignity of every person.

1234567IC

Fourth World Services, P.O. Box 1666, Denver, CO 80201-1666 (303) 355-4501

democracy capitalism

Documents