Third and last instalment
Caption: Not only is there no chance that humanity will unite to save itself for the first time as an entire species, but that humanity is more radically and belligerently divided than ever before at the very moment it most needs to be united… divided, very much exactly, between the two great opposing forces of democracy and autocracy. Which of the two would best guarantee the survival of the human species, or would capitalism be the surer alternative as the only force common to man, upon which man depends and which depends upon man?
Another crucial thing for the survival of the species about long lived autocracies such as China’s is that they lose their creative ability because their people are not allowed to think for themselves, indeed they are censored and even punished for thinking for themselves, and this is very much reflected by the way China is unfolding today when it copies, although copies very well, all the developments made in the free world where creativity and ingenuity are prime.
A humanity which would lose its creativity under autocratic regime is a humanity bereft of liveliness and a humanity unable to overcome the challenges it receives and so progress, but rather a humanity no longer evolving but in decline, a species bound for extinction.
But could a Chines style autocracy be imposed on the rest of the world, all be it for the survival of the species? Almost certainly not, for, as has been pointed out from the start, the human species is a species of subspecies by races all having different natures, all naturally having different natures according to their evolution, and among those different natures of humankind there are those which value their freedom above their lives and will never submit to not being free… “Whatever the cost may be”.
And looking at the cost of autocracies, looking at the blunders of autocrats, the record is astounding. Between Stalin and Mao more than 120.000.000 lives were lost through starvation and execution, then add to that the lives lost and the suffering caused by Hitler, the poverty and horrors caused by Castro and the hereditary autocratic regime of North Korea, and on and on, all those African despots, the South American bigots like Chavez, and Maduro today, countries from which all their people want to run, and also today, Putin the “great” blundering his country into the ground no matter the loss of lives and suffering of the Russian people.
Democratic blunders, on the other hand, are almost inconsequential alongside the autocratic ones… Maintaining colonialisms, was that more negative than positive for the countries involved, who knows? The US turning its back on its back yard, i.e., Latin America – Now there’s a blunder if ever there was one! US wars since WW2, sad affairs, but its great contribution to saving South Korea is feather in the US cap, Brexit, which has made of England a relatively small and insignificant country after all its greatness… and there you have a measure of democratic blundering for comparison’s sake.
But! As far as the survival of the species is concerned, the cost, the suffering and the loss of lives by autocracy wouldn’t matter, all that would matters would be the survival of the species.
China seems to have pulled off the autocracy that works, for now, and it can’t be denied that if the whole world were that Chinese autocracy the fact that China can govern its people in a way that obliges those people to do and act as they are told, then the global warming crisis could have been avoided as far as it has been caused by human activity, and, indeed, even if it were as bad as it is and the world now became a Chinese autocracy, global warming could still be greatly avoided and better managed than it is being done today, to the extent, perhaps, of saving the species.
So, is it democracy or autocracy for the survival of the species?
Ants and wasps and bees will certainly survive global warming because they will act as species for being subject to nature when man is not. Nature is now subject to man, but nature remains the ultimate arbiter.
Global autocracy might have worked to save the species from the consequences of global warming, but in the long run the human species, if given the choice, would be, of its own natural free will, a free species.
And, although China seems to have overcome the free will of its people, that free will is inherent to human beings the world over, and the Tiananmen Square incident speaks loudly for the free will of the Chines people and that the spark of liberty is alive among them, even though it was the Tiananmen square incident that took Deng to decide that never again would the Chinese Communist Party be questioned by the people it governs.
But how long can that be kept up? That is what the Chinese Communist Party has to gage very finely because it will eventually become disastrous for China if Chinese leadership does not guide China forward little by little to democracy.
Could it be said that, if the world had been an autocracy such as the Chinese one since the threat of global warming and its projected magnitude was known, and an autocratic world had taken the necessary measure to avoid or mitigate it sufficiently, and those measures had been successful because the people were obliged to carry out the autocratic orders made to that end, would the world not be facing, right now, the threat of extinction which it is?
Quite possibly, which is a very good argument for autocracy for the survival of the species.
But autocracy is like trying to block out the sunlight with your hand. You may be able to block out the sun but the sunlight is going to stream by anyway.
Or it is like trying to keep a people in the dark of night all the time, but you can’t stop the world from going round, and a spark will appear on the horizon, and dawn will come.
And, for autocratic heads of state, maintaining autocracy is like stopping the vent of a geyser with a foot. Sooner than later a foot will come along that isn’t strong enough.
Now, capitalism, that name now given to the creation of wealth by mankind, could step in for government, democratic and autocratic, as the actual best bet for the survival of the species.
The underlying and unequivocal principal of capitalism is survival, and for capitalism to survive it must be profitable, and being governed by that absolute unavoidable rule, for capitalism to survive it must insure the survival of the human species which is its only source of existence, its only source of profit, its only source of investment, employees, customers and clients, and its only source of income.
All of humanity depends on the creation of wealth by capitalism, every field of human endeavour, its standard of living, its comfort, its health, its education, its infrastructure, its science, its investigation, its exploration, its sports, its art, its entertainment, its recreation, its welfare and charity and humanitarian efforts, its states and governments, its militaries, arms and wars, all its progress and prosperity, all depend on capitalism.
Not a penny is spent on earth that capitalism doesn’t create, and nothing is free, my friend, unless capitalism pays for it first.
I can sit here and write about saving the species because capitalism has afforded me the means to do so.
Humanity depends on the creation of wealth by capitalism to survive and capitalism depends of on humanity to survive.
The survival of humanity and the survival of capitalism are inseparable, are one and the same.
The greatest force in the world is capitalism, and capitalism is the only force in the word which has the same single objective only achievable by following the clearly defined rules which govern it, and all those who govern capitalism do so by the same means with exactly the same ultimate objective – to survive! And to survive means to grow. If capitalism is not growing it is dying.
Capitalism as a whole is not in conflict or competing with or trying to dominate any other human force, as are all the other human forces which humanity is subject to, to wit, democracy and autocracy.
Under the leadership of its great captains of creation of wealth, capitalism is the only human force which could unite to save the planet, to take the species humankind to its ultimate state of stable peace and wellbeing in harmony with nature which humanity must achieve in order to save itself and to become that species which was created by creation to fulfil creation.
The fact that Ford and Kaiser and Morgan and Carnegie and Rockefeller, titans of creation of wealth, were who, in the final instance, made it possible to win the 2nd WW and saved the world form Hitler is the irrefutable proof of how capitalism could insure the survival of the humanity, the survival of our species.
And many of those great industrialists ended up giving away nearly all their money… billions and billion and billions. No man should die rich, Carnegie said, which I interpret to mean that no man should die without having done what he could for those who come after him, to which effect this gentleman thinker modestly casts about and about. NB. This gentleman thinker has written a piece entitled Capital Evolution or Wellbeism which more fully covers the role of capitalism in the furtherance of humanity and is contained here in the Last Great Gentleman Thinker – I dearly hope you peruse it.
Now, one has to assume that democracy would not only welcome capitalism as its greatest partner in the survival of the species but would encourage it.
But would autocracy allow capitalism to forge ahead in the survival of the species? Not if the survival of the heads of state of those autocracies were second to it!
And, the ultimate truth, as far as democracy or autocracy for the survival of the species is concerned, is contained in this unavoidable intention of creation, that…
“The supreme, supernatural being of divine nature intended by creation for its ultimate fulfilment must be a free being, for how can a subjugated being be the fulfilment of creation which itself acts freely of its own accord? and if man is that being he can only pursue a free destiny as one species or not be destined to fulfil creation”.
Dear Reader,
For my next piece I’m contemplating one entitled something like “Monopolies – The Autocracies of Creation of Wealth”.
I have to tell you that for this piece, Democracy or Autocracy for the Survival of the Species, I stated it thinking that it would be autocracy, but it worked out inversely, which I’m glad of. You might think that was because I’m a child of the free world, but my reasoning, as it worked out, convinces me very pleasingly.
The scary difference between government and creation of wealth is that creation of wealth cannot be controlled by the will of the people, but is solely controlled by profit, so the evolution of creation of wealth is a law unto itself and will follow profit to its ultimate conclusion.
Thank you,
Bruce Mitchell
Camelot, July 2024
Comments