The American founding fathers knew that their concept of freedom was vulnerable and therefore gave it as much stability as possible with a constitution based on clear principles. But every written word remains ineffective if it is not firmly anchored in people's clear consciousness and lived consistently. The second President of the USA, John Adams, rightly warned: “Avarice [greed], ambition, revenge, or gallantry [debauchery], would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. "It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"..." / John Adams, 2nd President, Reference: http://famguardian1.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm
John Adams' warning was forgotten. The increasing neglect and falsification of freedom, democracy and the market economy by the unofficial alliance between the state and capitalists has led more and more away from the largely harmonious, fair-opportunity-providing social concept of the early era of the USA. As an irony of history, a continuation of this development projected into the future must at some point lead to the same slavery whose clear unconstitutionality was not acknowledged in the founding decades. The cause today is also the same as that of the past - hypocrisy - that is, the different perception of the same phenomenon depending on which person or group of people is exposed to it. For the USA, the merciless historical consequences of hypocrisy consist of the increasing erosion of legal principles and civil liberties, as well as declining opportunities for ordinary citizens to rise through hard work and constructive initiative. This phenomenon fits historically into the well-known chaotic alternation of liberation and subjugation. - In order to break out of this bloody cycle, its causes must first be identified.
Behind submission lies the principle of power, which gains access suddenly or gradually, often lured by the citizens' desire for strong leadership in times of external pressure. Power, for its part, is subject to the law of self-reinforcement, in that it opens the way to further power.
However, such an uncontrolled development of power, which breaks into previously liberal developments in episodic fashion, cannot lead to stable forms of human coexistence despite its self-reinforcement. Rather, episodes and epochs of violent oppression prove to be disruptions in the evolution of social organizational forms. Like all evolution, this is subject to the law that at some point the most effective solution is inevitably realized for a concrete task posed by life and the conditions of the environment. Karl Marx also saw that there is no alternative to freedom and democracy: "It goes without saying that all forms of government have democracy as their truth and are therefore untrue if they are not democracy." Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, 1843-1844. Critique of Hegel's Constitutional Law (§ 279)
No historical detour, no matter how long and bloody, can avoid the inevitable result of a liberal - and that also means a fair market economy - form of society with democratic mechanisms. Freedom alone enables the full development of the intellect and technical innovative power of all individuals, whereby other, repressively and discriminatorily organized societies are overtaken and declassed - until, in the course of a historical accident, a concentration of power in the hands of a few privileged people takes place again and slows down progress.
The abolition of uncontrolled power and thus the permanent preservation of freedom is therefore a task that is also historically unavoidable. There is only one law that stands in the way of its implementation, but it is indelibly valid: the self-reinforcing law of power. Even the most democratic constitution and the most perfect separation of powers cannot override this law.
The only way out is therefore a solution that respects and integrates this law of constant expansion of power. - This means that there is absolutely no way around making this law usable for the benefit of the free nation. This requires the nation's constant expansion of power at the expense of its political representatives. In practical terms, this means in particular that the control of office holders must be constantly optimized so that scope for the development of power beyond fair qualifications is always kept at the lowest possible level.
In order to stabilize freedom, liberal constitutions therefore require an amendment = an extension in which the principle of constant optimization of democracy is anchored. To question the moral justification of this democratic survival strategy would mean to deny the fundamental right to self-defense, because non-democratic claims to power represent an attack on the peaceful nation and, as a consequence, on the chances of survival of humanity as a whole.
The fact that the principle of interminably improving democracy represents the exact solution is also confirmed by the media's anticipatory counter-propaganda - with terms such as "radical constitutionalists" or "radical democrats" for those people who advocate the long-overdue further development of the democratic state.
As must be emphasized again and again, an essential requirement in the system transition towards a stabilized democracy and a market economy free from manipulation is to proceed calmly, fairly and without hypocrisy in all steps. Democrats must not allow themselves to be tempted into tribalistic acts of violence by unenlightened followers of the capitalist system. - Harmony has priority. This also includes the preservation of all existing structures and regulations - until they are gradually replaced by fairer ones. The top priorities are on:
• ensuring free journalism and freedom of expression in general
• introducing an additional branch of jurisdiction especially for incumbents, high managers and politicians, a “responsibility jurisdiction”, guaranteeing the principle of deserved trust in politics, secret services and the health system
• likewise, establishing elected tribunes of the people with right of veto (Especially in Israel, this way, it is not any more an area of the Supreme Court.)
• limiting unofficial political power of money
• the restructuring of state budgets, including through a one-off tax on huge assets and a reform of the banking system
• A commitment to democratization, internal and external transparency of all clubs, associations, lodges, societies and organizations; accountability for the truth of their publications
• The right of access for journalists (with realistic limits on numbers) to all meetings and discussions on topics of public interest
Paradoxically, an immediate entry into the era of permanently secured liberal democracy is in the very special interest of the money aristocrats themselves. Their system of manipulation, which causes the nations under their influence to fall far behind others that are resistant to it, can never hold its own in the long term, either historically or in the evolution of social organizational forms, even in the future - see also Chapter B 8. The path that is the only correct one for them is explained in Chapter B 7. It leads through a subsequent integration of the members of the money dynasties into their western societies.
In order to be able to enter into this process, an unvarnished, realistic self-perception is required in advance, in accordance with the observation in Chapter A 30. "Contradictions": "Furthermore, the actions of the capitalists as well as the aim of their propaganda ... reveal a lack of willingness to bear authentic responsibility. In general, substantial social solidarity with their western nations is lacking, which ... fits with the lack of appreciation and respect ..."
Only from this corrected perspective, freed from hypocrisy, can those concerned, aware of their responsibility, carry out the solidarity-based reprogramming and find a new social role appropriate to their talent potential. This talent potential is doubly important in that it can be diverted from disintegrating activities and channeled into constructive ones - where it can finally develop freely in the newly discovered authentic autonomous state.
Only the integration into democratic society based on solidarity will ensure that this new role - in contrast to the role of unofficial ruler - is sustainable. Large private fortunes are not fundamentally inconsistent with liberal democracy, but they do require special control mechanisms that are continually adapted in the course of further development in order to, as pointed out in the chapter "Capital II - Deceased Labor", "permanently prevent an excessive accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few family clans."
As a growth process, accumulation in the hands of family clans has, firstly, a mathematical side and, secondly, a cross-generational side. On a mathematical level, freedom and democracy are threatened when the growth of wealth in the families or clans concerned is on average greater than in the rest of society. The cross-generational passing on of accumulated wealth cannot be questioned as a principle, because it stems from the basic human need to devote a good part of one's own life energy to the well-being of one's descendants. It only endangers democratic principles if power is passed on along with wealth.
Comparatively straightforward mechanisms are sufficient to solve the problems of wealth and power accumulation on a mathematical and intergenerational level in the long term. – Firstly, monitoring of the money spent by those concerned must ensure that this does not lead to a power-sharing exercise. Secondly, the amount of inheritable assets must be limited, for example to USD 30 billion per beneficiary/testator, with higher figures in the case of actual entrepreneurial activity.
In order to democratically control the political power of hereditary dynasties and to preserve liberal democracy, three mechanisms must be established:
1. Monitoring of all large flows of money for their social compatibility (at the same time, gradual dismantling of money laundering regulations that restrict the freedoms of ordinary citizens)
2. Limiting inheritable and donated assets - with generous upper limits
3. Optimizing liberal democracy as a permanent task - not to be misunderstood as an encouragement to activism and a flood of regulations, but as an endless program for the constant advancement of society into a free association.
As we have seen, democracy and its preservation require a nation that is solidary and therefore capable of action. This in turn requires the equally never-ending preservation of moderate patriotism - but never slipping into petty nationalism. This also applies in a modified form to highly integrated alliances, which will develop as soon as the forces of disintegration have been overcome.
Just like great wealth in general, traditional hereditary dynasties can be integrated into the democratic system by presenting various members of their ruling families to the citizens for election. The main function of democracy is to ensure that elected politicians justify the trust of their voters through their actions, i.e. that they actually represent their interests.
As the world has seen enough of the polarizing consequences of a foreign policy of - staged and accordingly counterproductive - interference and military operations, the question arises as to harmonious alternatives that bring us closer to the goal of lasting stability while preserving freedom.
Politics, like any other form of human interaction, always has a psychological basis. More harmonious ways of dealing with things naturally begin with limiting aggressive actions such as military operations, sanctions and issuing humiliating ultimatums. The next step can and should be to take up Martin Luther King's urgent recommendation to listen to the statements of actual and supposed enemies and to engage with their thoughts and feelings. Only in such a relaxed atmosphere is it possible to view the evolution of social organizational forms not as a struggle between cultures, as from a primitive tribalistic perspective, but as mutual consultation in a further development that each society controls itself sovereignly and without outside interference - but for whose consequences it is also responsible itself.
By this method the best concepts can spread far more efficiently than by military violence. In the 77 years since WW II, the capitalist-dominated USA has not managed to raise humanity to this level. On the contrary, military intervention has become the standard instrument. This results from the failure of Great Britain and the USA after WW II, to set absolutely clear peaceful regulations, especially concerning the right to self-determination and secession. The UN Charter provides only insufficient guidance on this matter, leaving in particular the contradiction between self-determination and the claim to territorial integrity unresolved.
As the counterproductive American anti-trust laws have shown for around 130 years (Chapter A 5), lacking or unclear regulations allow the power of big money to gain access or, in general, a revival of the primitive right of the strongest. In the area of security policy, this is expressed in particular in the fact that the majority of military conflicts between 1945 and 2001 were started or "accompanied" by the superpower USA.
However, the ideal sociological solution combines, as explained in Chapter A 28, the principles of individual freedom in economic affairs, freedom of information and balanced mutual social control. The corresponding democratic means must in particular guarantee the trustworthiness of political representatives. In accordance with the above considerations, this requires the application of the principle of the ever-increasing democratic power of the state.
Various states pursue different, mostly less democratic approaches to political inclusion. These should not only be respected, but also viewed as sources of ideas for improving one's own form of social organization - even as a negative example.
Objectively speaking, the Chinese partial democracy, with its elections to the staggered parliaments up to the National People's Congress in Beijing, gives citizens as much democratic influence as EU citizens have on the composition of the EU Commission in Brussels. In both cases, there is a fifth-hand democracy (see Chapter A 27 "Liberal democracy as a living idea"). In the Chinese system, the members of a local parliament are elected directly by the citizens (grassroots democracy), those at the regional level are chosen by those at the local level. Accordingly, the members of parliament at the provincial level are elected by the members of parliament at the regional level, and they elect the 2,987 members of the National People's Congress. Therefore, both the Chinese and European electoral procedures still need to be improved democratically, but in very different respects.
Decisions and measures taken by Chinese politicians generally serve the interests of Chinese citizens. The same applies to Western countries only to a limited extent, as conflicting interests of big business (among others through lobbying) have gained access to political decisions.
The major deficit in the West is not at the level of democratic elections, but at the level of the nomination of candidates. As Noam Chomsky has repeatedly stated, numerous organizations and well-established mechanisms ensure that almost only people with an uncritical character profile and certain political attitudes in line with the ideas of those in power are allowed into the arena.
The Chinese system fares better in this respect, as access to the political establishment takes place at the local level. In this model known as grassroots democracy, citizens organize the nomination of candidates themselves, largely on the basis of personal fame. This way some positive pre-selection can take place for the political arena in general, as all members of parliament elected at local, regional provincial and state levels, originally entered their parliamentarian career via the grassroots democratic access. Although reality does not always correspond to theory, the filter can limit opportunism, corruption and blindness to the public interest.
A look free of hypocrisy at China should make it clear to people in the West …
1. that freedom, democracy, a fair market economy, the removal of discriminatory class barriers and ensuring accountability are ultimately interrelated components of an advanced form of society, but can obviously be achieved in different ways,
2. that China is not lagging behind Western countries on the path to these five goals, but that each side can learn from the other,
3. that China is not an ideological opponent, but an interesting partner for dialogue and cooperation that is pursuing alternative paths to the free emancipation of people and
4. that a common concern is to permanently limit big money’s influence in the economy and politics.
The areas in which Western democracies can learn from China include a fair free market economy (with less bureaucracy, restrictions and requirements), cosmopolitan patriotism and a successful system of candidate nomination that ensures the trustworthiness of leaders, as well as far more effective ways of controlling banks. "The Chinese government can manipulate the economy in ways that Western governments can't. In 2008, for example, when the housing market was starting to overheat, it simply ordered banks to reduce the number of housing loans.” / Jeffrey Hays, China's State Controlled Economy and State-Owned Cmpanies, © 2008 Last updated April 2012, reference http://factsanddetails.com/china/cat9/sub58/item1884.html
If you consider the deep crisis that the USA and Europe in particular fell into in the same year of 2008 - against the same backdrop of an overheated real estate market - it becomes clear that such problems can easily be avoided and that it is the financial sector that needs to be addressed constructively.
The close cooperation with China that is being sought in testing and developing social organizational forms offers interesting prospects, particularly in the areas of management, intra-company and inter-company division of labor, employee emancipation and motivation. A central principle of Huawei CEO Ren Zhengfei's corporate philosophy is: “To promote self-assessment and self-criticism Huawei promotes a culture of tolerance within the firm by encouraging dissenting voices.” / Professor Xiaobo Wu, Grey Management in Chinese Leadership, Dean, School of Management, Zhejiang University 2016, reference https://www.hcli.org/articles/grey-management-chinese-leadership
Such a corporate philosophy undoubtedly encourages employees to move away from a narrow, hypocritical perspective and a submissive “agentic state” - and thus creates favorable conditions for emancipation. The greatest emancipation in human history is currently taking place in China. However, the capitalist-dominated media landscape allows very little information about the groundbreaking developments to reach western citizens - and instead focuses on the endangered democracy in Hong Kong in the typical style of a diversionary tactic. Regardless of the fact that this democracy is just as damaged by capitalism and in need of reform as that in western countries, the Chinese boom has passed Hong Kong by. - Its share of China's economic output has fallen dramatically since the reunification in 1987. - With this topic from the day before yesterday, the financial aristocrats are also diverting attention from the fact that they themselves have been reorienting themselves for around four decades - towards China and now increasingly towards Vietnam and other emerging economies in Asia.