Brief history of western civilization (with focus on the US)
It is clear that (now, 2012) the west (the US) is a corporate controlled state, an oligarchy, where violence is organized by the state to support corporate interests, and the corporations control the propaganda which includes politics, law, education etc.. what is created in the US state is controlled by the corporate interests.
The US is still participating in its original Revolutionary War, where the issue is about equality, and the relation that equality has to both knowledge and creativity. Equality allows clarity.
It is clear that (now, 2012) the west (the US) is a corporate controlled state, an oligarchy, where violence is organized by the state to support corporate interests, and the corporations control the propaganda which includes politics, law, education etc..
The communists, etc, are also oligarchies with different ways in which to organize (or frame) propaganda (social institutions emanating from western thought centered on the idea of organizing materialism [considered an absolute truth]).
The west is now (2012) supporting Islamist (or fundamentalist) states in the Muslim world, apparently, so they can deal with a well defined boss.
This all seems to be a further expression of the Roman-Empire model of Constantine, wherein the few ran the state by violence and propaganda, the Holy-Roman-Empire, where the state expands out to the entire world, where (as a society) it degenerates into open tyranny, if the society does not continue to expand. It seems that Mohammed also followed Constantine, with the "bosses of the Muslim society" being "religious" people (sort of like Plato's Philosopher kings).
The Hindus and the Confucians also seem to be content with oligarchy.
Since Buddhism is a formal religion, it too can be manipulated.
The violence of the Roman-Emperor evolved (or changed) from pure violence and propaganda into rulers who were the owners of society who had control over investments in regard to the traditional ways of living, called markets, also associated to controlled ways of technical development (their Christian propaganda bent the society in this manner). Trading and "traditional building" and "traditional artistry" became organized around money, but because investors only wanted to bet (invest) on sure-things (ie they wanted to stay-close to traditions) this means that the bankers emerged as the (other) social life-style institutions became stable.
The emphasis changed from slavery to wage-slavery.
Within Europe the original trade and craft institutions fit into a social class structure.
As stable social institutions developed, eg the use of money in compartmentalized trade, then wage-slavery also developed.
Social institutions developed which were based on the stable trades and crafts associated to the life styles of the civilization's public, but as an unequal society only a small percentage (say 10%) of the society's population are needed to support the social traditions upon which the oligarchy has been based, eg using oil for energy is a tradition. Thus there is more money to be made by developing that 10% of the populations of developing countries, rather than the developed countries.
In the so called "New World," supposedly discovered by Europeans, the superior, much more egalitarian, cultures of the native peoples of the Americas were destroyed (exterminated) by the violent, and supposedly highly diseased, Europeans.
Thus the resources were there (in the Americas) for the European corporate culture to thrive.
Subsequently Europe dominated the world since the 17th century.
Nonetheless, the original types of people who populated (or settled) the "New World," were there for freedom from European oppression, wherein the most robust and successful Euro-American community was the egalitarian Quaker community. Furthermore, science was seen as an open-ended equal endeavor based on freedom, while the expressions of freedom in regard to the Christian reformation and "the desire to freely interpret the Bible" were all social forces which led the American revolution to (truly) be a revolution which wanted to break from the narrow overly authoritarian and overly violent oppression of the extremely violent European culture.
But soon after winning the revolutionary war, the forces of European culture, eg the upper wealthier social class, designed a governing institution whose law was based on property rights, contract enforcement for the rich, and minority rule" which quickly led back to a European type society; based on violent, narrow, authoritarian European culture. Since all the European based "settlers" were so very familiar with this European type-of culture, this meant that these settlers (Empire builders) did not notice the creep of oppressive European style culture emanating from the US's political-legal structure, while the "successful" ones supported it.
If the European culture [including the "new world"] did not place its social fortunes on the energy source, oil, and rather sought renewable energy resources, the world would be more balanced today.
The population in 1900 was about 1.5 billion (this was also about when oil was beginning to be widely used), by 2000 the world population was 6 billion.
Was this mostly due to oil?
Could re-new-able energy sources support similar growth, but is it the best interest of the earth to base development on the growth of traditional types of life-styles.
One sees that the cultures of the "New World" were superior in regard to using the earth, (they had more leisure time than we have today, in our oppressed culture) and many of these native "New World" cultures were very egalitarian.
The "I want a job (or wage-slave)" mentality, of modern society, is caused by a narrow authoritative education system whose first duty is to the authoritative hierarchy of the knowledge of society (which serves business interests) and its uses defined by the society's business community.
It might be noted that Mohammed was interested in math patterns, while Godel's incompleteness theorem re-emphasized that "the truth" of measurable descriptions means that precise math descriptions need to be related to practical creativity, and if not (so related to practical creativity, in a robust manner) then the language of math and science should exist in a state of revolutionary turmoil, ie the development of these precise languages needs to be based on equal free-inquiry, the essential idea of Socrates.
The owners and investors do not want such turmoil in the development of knowledge and technology, rather they want the safe-bets, where knowledge serves their narrow interests. Thus, there was the beginning of the professional scientists.
In regard to this way in which to organize society (which allows for large populations of people who must believe only in a small range of narrowly defined ideas) the social "problems" come, when one considers, "what the nature of mankind, actually, is."
Namely, People seek knowledge in order to be creative, but in oligarchies only a few are allowed to be creative.
Furthermore, there are problems related to the destruction of the earth due to "the relation of resource use to social power," and the subsequent relation of "resource use to the destruction of the earth's ecosystem."
But, Those on top will not give-up their power.
The emperor rules, and Emperors do not obey the commands of others, rather they swindle others by controlling and using propaganda.
The point is, is that the US is still participating in its original Revolutionary War, where the issue is about equality, and the relation that equality has to both knowledge and creativity. Equality allows clarity.
In the Civil War, the south saw the constitution as a joke, but the south was fighting so as to institute even more European style repression.
People need a clear and simple idea about what the US revolutionary war is all about.
The brave are those who abandon their "wage-slave chains," and create "things" for everyone
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion