who owns the world by garry davis

8/13/2019 Who Owns the World by Garry Davis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/who-owns-the-world-by-garry-davis 1/27

WHO OWNS THE

WORLD?http://www.worldgovinst.org/whoowns.html by Garry Davis "The fact is that now-- for the first time in the history of man for the last ten years, all the politicaltheories and all the concepts of political functions-- in any other than secondary roles ashousekeeping organizations-- are completely obsolete. ll of them were developed on the you-or-me basis. This whole realization that mankind can and may be comprehensively successful isstartling."

-Buckminster Fuller, Utopia or Oblivion !n recognizing the human race as a viable species, a drastic revision in economic thinking isimposed. eferring to humankind as a fact deserving immediate attention, as do myriadorganizations from the #nited $ations through #$%&'( to religious, social, labor, andeducational, implies global or total thinking to cure economic as well as other ills.

$atara)a *uru, in a remarkable essay on economics+, wrote, "There is no tetbook onworld economics, though economics as a science-- if it is really a science-- shouldnecessarily be most directly concerned with the happiness of humanity as a whole.!nstead, economists visualize a world consisting of differently-colored itlerish patches ofterritories from within which each man is thinking hard economically so as to defeat hisneighbor."

This conception of wholesale human welfare is even more eplicitly spelled out byuckminster uller when he writes:

"!t is scientifically clear that we have the ability to make all of humanity physicallysuccessful. !ndustrialization itself relates to the resources of the entire earth, the entireuniverse. The industrial system is a comprehensive system and if reversingly fractionatedwill fail." 0

!&T(!'1 $12&!&

The religious world view of former centuries endowed governments of the 3estern worldand the political state system as it eists today with a 4uasi-divine character. The principleof "supreme authority," monopolized by the church and the monarchical system, wasrefashioned by the +5th and +6th century revolutions to serve as the moral basis of nation-state sovereignty.

3orld 3ar ! effectively eliminated the last remnants of the monarchical state whichembodied the notion of divinity through the king and 4ueen. 3hat remained and remains isthe "sovereign" state, each one a surrogate "world-state" of "absolute" power over theparticular parcel of the planetary soil, wherein political democracy briefly flowered ineclusive nations only to flounder as the new "modern" institutions slowly bankruptedthemselves in inter-national wars.

uller writes that "The world7s people and their politicians think erroneously in terms ofsovereign states with colonial empires. . . Today7s world people think naively thatpoliticians have always run things. They never have and they never will. 8oliticians wereonly the pirates7 visible stooges."9

The colonial empires, he claims, were never the product of the ambitions of the people ofany nation. The ritish %mpire was built on the greed of the great pirate7s admirals andcaptains. !t was the stock market crash of +606 which eliminated the pirate7s power, due

http://www.worldgovinst.org/whoowns.html

http://www.worldgovinst.org/docindex.html

http://www.worldgovinst.org/whoowns.html



principally to the breaking away of science from economic monopoly and mechanismwhich developed far beyond the financial capabilities of the old pirates to cope with. "(nlynations and groups of nations could now cope with the magnitude of capital undertaking."

ccelerated means of communication coupled with crisis survival conditions triggered bythe 706 crash, precipitating ten years later 3orld 3ar !!, leads uller to conclude that ". .

.because of the dawning awareness that the weaponry phase and its 4uarter-century lag canbe eliminated, the second half of the tool-invention revolution is to be identified as theconsciously undertaken continuance of the accelerated doing-more-with-less by worldsociety as world society. ;%mphasis added.<=

$ation-&tate &ystem n nachronism

Thus it seems fairly obvious that a ma)or if not the ma)or problem in translating the theoryof the human species as an economic reality into realisable fact is the necessity to re)ect apriori the notion of the absolute eclusive sovereignty, i.e., supreme authority, of thenation-state and its now anachronistic and suicidal system.

%conomic analysts from hard-line socialists to monopolist capitalists and all grades in

between operating from within the nationalistic framework stop far short of the obviousand vital relationship between global politics and global economics. 3hile analyzingtoday7s deteriorating economic situation as "crisis-ridden," with its soaring inflation,eorbitant interest rates, stagnating industrial productivity, ballooning national deficits> ,wobbling and absurd "floating echange rates," rising unemployment, shortages of criticalmaterials and parts, eponential increase in bankruptcies in both business and nationsthemselves, , and monstrous, futile and suicidal armament budgets in the midst ofagonizing human misery and need, they myoptically re)ect a world political government as"impractical," "utopian," or simply "irrelevant."

The 3orld evolution

?uring the first half of the century, little awareness percolated through either the public or

official consciousness of the greatest revolution in history:"

"!t is not surprising that man, burdened with obsolete 7knowledge7-- his spontaneousrefleing conditioned only by past eperience, and as yet unable to realize himself asalready a world man-- fails to comprehend and cope logically with the birth of #niverse@an."5

2et the dynamic relationship between economic failure and political failure is becominghighly visible even to those who still hold political power. $ational candidates for politicaloffice must address themselves, albeit somewhat mystically, to global economic problemsspeaking grandly and inconsistently of an "interdependent world economic order." Theirvery political framework, however, precludes realistic legislation capable of regulating suchan "order" which could not eist in the first place without such legislative apparatus.

"$ational governments are inade4uate when it comes to dealing with the planet7snecessities, and we may legitimately wonder whether the importance of nation-states isn7tgreatly eaggerated and whether politicians deserve star status.6

"%stablished" economists, pretending to be eperts in the dismal science, with rareeceptions, are beyond redemption, holding fast to anti4uated and obtuse, even whimsicalideas, partial, grounded in scarcity, and basically unmindful of either political or moralrealities.+A

2et, while hopelessly divided as to solutions, most economists are by now agreed, if onlyby sheer necessity, that world recession has reached a crisis stage where draconian andwholesale measures are necessary if total collapse is to be averted.

$o less an epert than 1enin spelled out the conse4uences of unbridled inflation7s



conse4uences to citizens:++

"y a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly andunobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. nd as the inflation proceedsand the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanentrelations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism,

become so utterly disorganized as to be almost meaningless."

$ational "&ecurity" vs, *lobal ffluence

s national economics are increasingly linked with "national security" and yet the inevitableoutcome of a total arms race between them is war, let us start from the opposite polarity:general and total disarmament strictly from an economic viewpoint.

"3orld military ependitures since +6>A reached the B9 trillion mark;B9,AAA,AAA,AAA,AAA< in +6C=."+0 Then from +6C= to +65+, one-third the period, worldmilitary spending rose another B9 trillion. "$ational security" today costs the citizens of allstates between 5 and 6D of the world7s gross national product. ive nations, however,contribute C=D of the monstrous sum for sheer destruction: the #.&.., the #&&, *reat

ritain, rance and 3est *ermany, the first two making up >AD.

The relationship between total disarmament and raised standards of living was indisputablyestablished by a +6>0 report+9 entitled "The %conomic and &ocial 'onse4uence of?isarmament," prepared by 0= leading economists from both socialist and free enterprisecountries and commissioned by the %conomic and &ocial 'ouncil of the #nited $ations.

"The present level of military ependitures not only represents a grave political danger butalso imposes a heavy economic and social burden on most countries. !t absorbs a largevolume of human and material resources of all kinds which could be used to increaseeconomic and social welfare throughout the world-- both in the industrialized countrieswhich at the present time incur the bulk of the world7s military ependitures and in the lessdeveloped areas."

The unanimous agreement "that the diversion to peaceful purposes of resources notabsorbed by military ependitures can and should be of benefit to all countries and lead toimprovements in the social and economic conditions for all mankind" led former #.$.&ecretary-*eneral # Thant, in transmitting the study to @ember-&tates for comment, tostate that "The most fundamental way in which disarmament affects economic life isthrough the liberation of the resources devoted to military use and their re-employment forpeaceful purposes."

!n that year, roughly B+0A billion spent on armaments was at least two-thirds of the entirenational income of all the developing countries, close to the value of the world7s annualeports of all commodities, and corresponded to about one-half of the total resources setaside each year for gross capital formation throughout the world.

owever, no decrease in military spending is envisaged by the &uper-8owers themselvesin the foreseeable future despite the common recognition of former as well as presentleaders of both the #.&.. and the &oviet #nion of the absolute necessity for totaldisarmament if the human race is to survive.+

!n its response to the +6>0 eport, the #.&. delegation noted:

"The motivating force behind the efforts of the #nited &tates to achieve general andcomplete disarmament is to save present and future generations from the scourge of war,and to attain for them more certain and beneficent security. This basic and vital ob)ectivecompletely overshadows any economic calculations of gain or loss connected withdisarmament." +=

The &oviet delegation, in perfect geo-dialectical harmony, echoed:



"The &oviet #nion has resolutely and consistently championed the cause of disarmament.!n our time, military technology has made colossal progress. &tates have stockpiled, andstill are stockpiling, such vast 4uantities of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, togetherwith the means of delivering them to any point on the earth7s surface, that this abnormalsituation, if allowed to continue, will in itself constitute a mortal danger to peace and to the

survival of entire countries and peoples. . . The world, therefore, is faced with a choicebetween two alternatives -- either a monstrous thermo-nuclear war or disarmament." +>

3e have the right to conclude that both the #nited &tates and the &oviet #nion areunilaterally opposed to the arms race, both politically and economically. urther, neithersees any ma)or problem in converting from a war to a peacetime economy."+C

The @ultinationals

The economic clout generated by the "multis" is too well-documented to bear repeatinghere. &uffice it to say that the annual sales volume of *eneral @otors alone-- around B>=billion in +650-- was greater than the gross national product of +9A developing states. !nterms of the +AA world7s largest economic units of +65A, *@ rates 09rd. Thirty-nine of

the hundred were multinational corporationsE+5

(perating in many countries with diverse currencies, and sub)ect to floating echange rates,multinational corporate management can and does manipulate resources, accounting,revenue and even government-- as the recent !TT-'hilean episode revealed-- and for onepurpose alone: to maimize short-term profit.

!n its present "dinosaurean" state of development, the corporate "state" represents the mostdeadly and widespread eploitive tool ever devised, not only to protect the wealth of thefew but to circumvent government control which has proven too narrow a base for moderntechnology.

$ational legislators, such as #.&. &enator *ary art ;?. 'olo.< have asked the obvious

4uestions: as concentrated economic power now etended its reach so far that nogovernment can control itF nd more to the point, does the scale of world trade necessitategiant conglomerates which their home government cannot afford to defyF The late%mmanuel 'eller, #.&. congressional representative, in consideration of !TT7s"etraordinary )umble" of companies, 4uestioned "whether the good 1ord has givenanybody the prowess and the epertise, the ingenuity, to be able to control all theseoperations. . ." nd &enator %stes Gefauver, as far back as the forties, in introducing the'eller-Gefauver ct to strengthen a controversial section of the 'layton ct, stated bluntly,"The people are losing the power to direct their own economic welfare."

alph $ader, along with consumer movements in other countries, attempts to instill in thepopular consciousness that we, as consumers, are also part of the fundamental economice4uation and the most important part. !n his introduction to "merica, !nc." by @orton

@intz he writes of the "sovereignty of the consumer" as the ultimate countervailing force toconcentration of corporate power.

"!rresponsibility toward public interest becomes institutionalized whenever the making ofdecisions is so estranged from any accountability for their discernible conse4uences. . .The modern corporation is the engine of the world7s largest production machine. !f it is tobe more than a mindless, parochial )uggernaut, the hands of diverse values and trusteeshipsfor future generations must be eerted on the steering wheel. There should no longer bevictims without representation. !n any )ust legal system a victim would have the right todecide with others the behavior of the perpetrator and his recompense." +6

$ader claims that the "corporate involvement pervades every interstice of our society.'ompanies are deep in the dossier-credit, city, building, drug, medical, computer

intelligence, military and education, health and military-theater contracting. . . and withthese engagements come the parochial value system and insulation of the corporate



structure."0A

#nited $ations report of ugust +0, +6C9, stated that "The 4uestion at issue is whether aset of institutions and devices can be worked out which will guide the multinationalcorporations7 eercise of power and introduce some form of accountability to theinternational community into their activities." The report, while acknowledging that

@$'7s "are depicted in some 4uarters as key instruments for maimizing world welfare. .." yet are seen in other 4uarters "as dangerous agents of imperialism." inadvertently admitsthe #$7s own impotence as a global authority able to control the @$'7s by concludingthat ". . .#nlike national companies, they were not sub)ect to control and regulation by asingle authority which can aim at ensnaring a maimum degree of harmony between theiroperations and the public interest."

3e may conclude with nthony &ampson that ". . .The sovereignty of the multinationalcorporation has emerged. . .in its independence of government, in its self-containedorganization and trade, in its private diplomacy and communications, in its avoidance oftaes, and in the security of the company record."0+

3ho (wns ThemF

The underlying and largely ignored 4uestion concerning corporate accountability is: 3hoowns the corporationsF !n other words, where do the profits goF

?espite all the nonsense about people7s capitalism and the millions of orphans, widows andwounded war veterans living off a share of merica7s capitalist pie, corporate profits goonly to the stockholders and merica7s stockholders are mostly upper middle-class to rich. bout =.0D of merica7s adult population owns >>D of the privately-held shares of thenation7s corporations.00 The owner percentages in other countries are far less.

The !ndividual vs. the @ultinational

ow then can the multinationals be brought to accountabilityF urther, how can the

"sovereign" consumer benefit from the phenomenon of the @$'7s as the dominanteconomic factor of our century, given the two worlds of "haves" and "have-nots," that is,owners of corporate e4uity and non-owners of corporate e4uityF

1ouis Gelso tells us in Two-actor Theory that "ny society wishing to be free muststructure its economic institutions so as to widely diffuse economic power while keeping itin the hands of individuals."09

The #nited $ations, in its #niversal ?eclaration of uman ights ;#?<, proclaimed bythe *eneral ssembly on ?ecember +A, +65, defines the goal of global economicslikewise in individual terms:

"%veryone has the right to a standard of living for the health and well being of himself and

his family including food, clothing, medical care, housing, social services and the right tosecurity against unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or lack oflivelihood in circumstances beyond his control." 0

3ith regard to the ownership of property, the same ?eclaration reaffirms *eorge @ason7sthird "inalienable right" enshrined in the Hirginia ?eclaration of !ndependence of +CC= andfor sectarian motives unfortunately omitted from that of +CC> of the 'ontinental 'ongress:the right to private property. rticle +C states:

"%veryone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.""$o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

The definition and ownership or non-ownership of "property" would seem to be at the

heart of the entire 4uestion of economics, whether worldly or local. #ntil we analyze thiscontroversial word more closely in the light of today7s technological society, any



discussion of economics remains sterile.

3hat is 8ropertyF

3hat eactly is "property" in terms of economic theoryF !s it a home, a car, a TH set, )ewelry, clothesF (r is it a set of rights one has with respect to things ownedF Garl @ar

wrote that "The theory of the 'ommunists may be summed up in a single sentence: bolition of private property in the means of production." !n ?as 'apital, he definesproperty as "an institution essential to controlling income distribution patterns."0=

!f a few individuals own and control industrial capital and the ma)ority of workers ownlittle or no capital, according to $orman Gurland0> ". . .income patterns will becomegrossly distorted and lead necessarily to the abandonment of the orderly processes ofsupply and demand, and eventually to a breakdown of the property system itself."

!n a paper delivered to the %astern %conomics ssociation of artford, 'onnecticut, pril+=, +6CC, Gurland minced no words as to property7s meaning:

"@any people erroneously e4uate property with material ob)ects, such as land, structures,

machines, tools, things. !n law, however, property is not the thing owned but rather a setof rights, powers and privileges that an individual en)oys in his relationship to things. !t isthe social 7link7 between a particular human being and the social levers of power to chooseand use particular things to meet one7s needs. nd property says who can share its profits.&ince power Ii.e., the means to influence changeJ eists in society whether or not particularindividuals own property, those who are concerned about the corruptibility of concentratedpower should be reminded of ?aniel 3ebster7s elo4uent statement: 78ower naturally andinevitably follows the ownership of property.7"

The omestead ct

!n early merica, the omestead ct, under the genius of braham 1incoln, made itpossible for men born without capital, by their courage and efforts, to ac4uire real

property, i.e., capital. ut when the land frontier ran out, the possibility of realizing thishistoric dream seemed to run out with it. The world was no longer primarily an agriculturalworld, but an industrial one, and the yearning of the average man for a "piece of the action"could only be satisfied within the contet of industrial "land," i.e., capital tools.

$o $ational (wnership &trategy

?espite the overwhelming importance of corporate-owned capital as a production input andmeans of income, however, no industrialized nation has ever adopted a democratic"ownership strategy," i.e., an institutional means of assuring popular private ownership ofproductive capital comparable to the now outdated omestead ct. ?uring the +9A yearssince its passage, the world eperienced an enormous epansion of production capitalformation, but contrary to pre-industrial efforts to diffuse capital ownership-- at least in the

#nited &tates-- national economic policies and institutions have permitted massive amountsof productive capital to become owned by a small minority.

The conse4uences are paradoical and appalling:

- small minority earns income far in ecess of their capacity and desire forconsumptionK

- ma)ority have unmet consumption desires and inade4uate purchasing powerK-2et we have unused and potential physical capacity and technical know-how to

fulfil unmet consumption if only we had sufficient widespread purchasing power.

(utmoded @ethods

The present inability of our national economies to achieve broad private ownership ofproductive capital and to significantly raise everyone7s income, is largely the result of



outmoded private capital investment financing methods-- the financing of new capitalformation eclusively out of the accumulated financial savings of individuals and/or theirnarrowly-owned corporations. The conse4uence of this method of financing is to bringmassive amounts of capital into eistence without creating new owners. This conventionalcapital financing method virtually guarantees that all new capital formation will be ownedby an eisting minority of wealth-owning citizens.

The method further weakens an already weak market mechanism--still the most democraticyardstick for measuring economic value-- since it limits purchasing power for thepropertyless many. 1astly, it frustrates the economic growth necessary to permit theeconomy to be able physically to produce general affluence, the only humane and rationalgoal for a democratic, post-industrial economy.

ig rother

s a counterforce to concentrated, economic power in corporations owned by only ahandful of the total population, we have turned ironically to "big government" to protect thepropertyless many. (nce again, this development has demonstrated that power is linked toproperty. !n a society where political and economic power is combined in the hands of a

monolithic, elitist government, whether acting "in the name of the proletariat" or for"democracy," the future of individual freedom is dim indeed.

To rely on government bailouts from corporate oppression is tantamount to seeking )udicialredress from the accomplice to the swindler who robs us in the first place. !n this regard,$ader reminds us that ". . .there has emerged a fundamental change in our politicaleconomy. The arms-length relationship which must characterize any democraticgovernment in its dealing with special interest groups has been replaced, and not )ust by adhoc wheeling and dealing, which has been observed by generations. . ." but by . . .theinstitutionalized fusion of corporate desires with public bureaucracy-- where the nationalsecurity is synonymous with the state of 1ockheed and 1itton, where career roles areinterchangeable along the industry-to-government-to-industry shuttle, where corporaterisks and losses become tapayer obligation." 0C

nd what is the ma)or labor unions7 reaction to this cosy, corporate/government incestuousrelationshipF "or the most part," $ader writes, "the large unions do not ob)ect to thissituation, having become modest copartners, seeking derivative benefits from thegovernment." 05

Thus linked to big business including private banking interests as well as labor, nationaleconomic policy legislation of income in direct relationship to productive output makes nocommitment to fostering widespread ownership of capital.

ull %mployment 8anaceaF

%conomists as well as politicians like to promote "full employment" as a panacea for

economic recovery. ut full employment, without simultaneous redistribution of all thewealth or income produced by capital to the non-capital owning employed, will neverprovide the fully-employed with sufficient purchasing power to buy all the goods andservices produced.

urthermore, as an economic goal, full employment is deficient if the function of theeconomy is to provide general affluence instead of universal busywork and e4ualizedpoverty.

!n plain fact, full employment in itself is a socially hazardous goal. !t aspires to restorethrough political epedients the pre-industrial state of toil that science, engineering,technology and modern management are pledged to overcome. Thus national politicalleadership finds its prestige contingent upon the success of an unnatural policy against

which the most rational forces of the economy are aligned, a policy which it cannot enforceecept at the cost of the demoralization and ultimately the destruction of the economy7s



productive sector.

%very @an 8roducer

!n the uncomplicated pre-industrial world, every man not an invalid knew he was aneconomic producer, that he possessed in his own mind and body the power to produce

wealth. 8roductive power was his as a gift of nature. e knew he was needed, and theknowledge gave him both dignity and self-assurance. !ndustrial man has lost that primalsecurity. or while capital instruments are needed "etensions of man," as @arshall@ac1uhan has pointed out, in the economic sense, they are etensions only of the manwho owns them, and who, as a conse4uence of ownership, is entitled to receive the wealthhis "etension" produces.

!n a world where capital instruments are owned by the few, technology enhances theproductive power of the few.

Thus, under today7s "wage systems," where most people own little or no productivewealth, the great ma)ority of men are robbed of their productive power by technologicaladvance. They are deprived of their economic virility. This loss has disastrous social

effects, especially on the family unit, first organism of social life.

1eaders of national society do not yet recognize their obligation, by deliberate social policy,to enable every man legitimately to ac4uire private ownership of viable holdings ofproductive capital, restoring thereby and indeed enhancing the productive power he haslost, or stands to lose, as technology shifts more and more the burden of production frommen to machines. 06

"3e are, therefore, re4uired by )ustice to do more than abolish chattel slavery. 3e arere4uired to organize the economy in such a way that every man or family can use his or itsproperty to participate in the production of wealth in a way that earns a living for that manor that family." 9A

The uman ight to 8roperty

(ne of the new principles of economic )ustice in one physical world is that when wealth isproduced primarily by non-human capital instruments, men musthave the right to ac4uire viable amounts of capital as a supplement to their labor power.Thus economic opportunity in an industrial economy is not merely the opportunity to work,but the opportunity to own capital, and to ac4uire capital without having to invade theproperty of others, or to cut down on one7s already inade4uate consumption.

"The harnessed energy, production, distribution, communication tools, and techno-scientific literacy thus inadvertently established-- all of which can produce peace-supporting-- is the wealth." 9+

esults of $ational 8olicies

Today7s short-sighted and absurd national economic policies are in no small waycontributing factors of:

-continued concentration of capital ownershipK-perpetuated class and group conflict and violenceK-rising crime against propertyK-rising cost of living and uncontrollable inflationary forcesK-mounting ta rates and imminent tapayer7s rebellion worldwideK-widespread alienation among the young, the working "class," minority groups,

and the disadvantaged from the leaders of government, business and otherbasic institutionsK

-resistance and fear among workers to new technologyK-self-defeating and harmful demands of organized labor for increased income



through wages rather than through ownership of industryK-loss of traditional autonomy of local government, business and the academic

community because of the growing dependency on ig *overnment foreconomic survivalK

-historically high interest ratesK-inability to plan rationally our economic growth and produce a more livable and

humane environmentK-the "privileged class" mentality that says only an elitist few can take full advantageof leisureK

-failure to eploit fully the technological potential for improving the material lives ofthe general public.

!n summation

+< !ndividual liberties and a democratic form of government cannot eist unless everyperson has the means to become a "have" rather than a "have-notK"0< The nation-state, as an institution of economic legitimacy, has been overtaken byindustry and technology in general and by rise of the multinational conglomerates inparticularK

9< The multinational corporation, while effectively producing goods and services in4uantities sufficient for the general needs of the public, has no countervailing e4uitabledistributive philosophy or system whereby the worker can benefit directly from ownershipof the corporate assets of the world7s productive instruments.< The elimination of armaments from the national economic scene will result in the raisingof living standards worldwide with social, cultural and spiritual benefits beyond measureK=< world government, representing the sine 4ua non not only of economic survival butof survival itself, is the goal of the 0Ath centuryK the alternative is possible etinctionK>< $either doctrinaire 'ommunism nor monopolistic 'apitalism can encompass both thematerial as well as the spiritual needs of humankind as a species and as free individualsKC< distributive economy based on democratic ownership of the means of productionemphasizing affluence while retaining contingent values of freedom, e4uality and )ustice,must be incorporated into the present-day situation without disruption.

The *lobal @andate

The ownership of the world of tools and their institutional instruments of income-distribution, in other words, must now be considered globally "by world society as worldsociety," translated by right into individual ownership of income-producing property by thesovereign individual, i.e., the world citizen.

Therefore, economically speaking, the 3orld 'itizen claims by right ownership of a shareof the new industrial, wealth-producing frontier which, according to uckminster uller,"can support all of the multiplying humanity at higher standards of living than anyone hasever eperienced or dreamed."

To claim world citizenship is to claim partnership with the planet earth "homeship", withthe world community as such and therefore possession of one7s rightful domicile and all itcontains. Lust as no human can claim to have chosen his parents or place of birth, so noone can rationally )ustify eclusive ownership of resources needed by one and all. Theatmosphere, the oceans, the soil, the water, the sun even, are common to the humanspecies as much as to each and every individual human.

3e must first assert that global citizenship, however, in order to acknowledge thatownership as our rightful heritage. $o one will hand it to us. The claim of eclusivenational citizenship perpetuates the philosophy of economic scarcity as defined by @althusand later fortified by ?arwin7s survival-only-of-the-fittest. 3orld citizenship, on thecontrary, is the corollary of earth ownership as it is of human survival since, unless theindividual human, who is the microcosm not only of the earth but of the cosmos itself,

assumes ownership of his world, false ownership, i.e., eploitative, un)ust, monopolistic,elitist, will soon destroy the earth itself and all humans thereon as it is already doing at an



accelerated rate.8. 056

3orld (wnership

The new formula then for economic democracy and freedom for one and all becomes:

3orld 'itizen M 3orld (wner

$o national leader would or indeed could oppose a global institution functioning with thesovereign support of declared world citizens, the raison d7etre of which was precisely toeliminate the necessity of armaments amongst states to the mutual economic, social andspiritual benefit of the entire human community.

The very nature of the common crisis facing humankind, as well as each individual isobviously beyond the mandated power of any national leader or group of national leaders toresolve. ormer #.$. &ecretary-*eneral ?r. Gurt 3aldheim, in addressing the openingsession of the 06th *eneral ssembly said that the world7s problems "were beyond thecontrol of any group or nation." e warned that "profound economic and social problems

are threatening the world with a crisis of etraordinary dimensions."

3illy randt7s introduction to the randt 'ommission7s +65A update on the globaleconomy reconfirmed this dire warning:

"The world7s prospects have deteriorated rapidlyK not only for improved relations betweenindustrialized and developing countries, but for the outlook of the world economy as awhole. . . urther decline is likely to cause the disintegration of societies and createconditions of anarchy."

3orld citizenship as a dynamic concept and ownership of the earth have not so far beenlinked ecept in theory by such writers as uckminster uller.99 The reason is simple.Till now, no single global and sovereign organization eisted which could translate

theoretical ownership of the earth into practical ownership for the individual world citizenand humankind. $ations, caught in their dualistic, archaic, duel-to-the-death, oppose bydefinition world citizen ownership of the earth. %ither nations are sovereign or humanityis. %ither world law is valid or eclusive national law. . .but not both together.

The multinationals in their turn, with their pitifully few owners, are making a near-approach to total ownership, but with the built-in, self-defeating defects of specialization,maimizing short-term profit philosophy plus nationalistic political orientation. %venshould they combine into one monolithic world corporation-- as rt uchwald, tongue-in-cheek, prophesied for the #nited &tates-- the inevitable result would be violent worldrevolution between the billions of have-nots and the =D or less haves, owners of the Total'orporation.

"%arth, !nc." is only valid if economic )ustice reigns as the guiding philosophy.

&o if we refer back to $atara)a *uru7s definition of economics as being concernedprimarily with the happiness of humankind as a whole as well as each individual as itsmicrocosm, and if we consider the two factors involved in the production of wealth, that is,capital and labor, it becomes clear that only through8.06A

direct participation in the profits of the entire industrial machinery of the world, i.e., thecapital assets, can everyone achieve affluence, or put negatively, eliminate disaffluence orpoverty.

@utual ffluence &ystem

global "mutual affluence system" therefore may be said to be the economic philosophy of



the embryonic 3orld government.

!ts fundamental tenet is epressed in the geo-dialectical formula: "(ne for all and all forone."

s such, it is the logical etension of the fundamental human rights epressed by such

documents as the #niversal ?eclaration of uman ights.

!t correctly revises both @arist and capitalist theories to provide the "synthesis" --necessarily divorced from the vitiating nation-state system -- whereby @an7s true nature isfully realized: spiritual, social, biological.

'apital ormation 8rocess ?efective

!f everyone is to have a chance to own his share of capital, then the current processwhereby most newly formed capital automatically flows into the hands of the upper = to +Aper cent of families who already own all the eisting capital is defective. 3ays must bedevised to allow the ac4uisition of newly-formed capital to be ac4uired by the remaining6AD of families.

The single laborer, lacking capital, credit or effective political power as a consumer, isvirtually helpless to pull himself up by his own economic bootstraps. True, he mayorganize into unions but only as a worker, neither as a consumer nor, more reasonably, asa potential owner. There is as yet no labor union advocating more purchasing powerthrough capital ownership for less work. (n the contrary, workers organize irrationally forhigher wages and full employment thereby fueling the inflationary fire.

e already has the necessary potential power, however, if he combines his singleidentity/forces: consumer, worker, citizen, ta-payer with investor, i.e., owner. !n otherwords, to counter-balance the now-monopolistic corporation, he must be allowed to shareits profits as an "insider" or investor. The eistence and growth of mutual funds andmoney market funds are highly instructive arguments for the creation of a worker/consumer

global mutual fund to share a "piece of the world action." The details of the organization ofsuch a mutual fund must be worked out and then made part of an overall economic strategyof the aggregate of world citizens of the 3orld *overnment.

The @issing 1ink

Hital to any consideration of global economics is the one element which can make a "mutualinfluence system" actually work: world money, the "lubricant"8. 06+

without which no plan however )ust can be effected practically. 3hile economists avoidthe sub)ect like the plague, ! must try to demystify the word "money" since ostensibly thisis the "name of the game."

3hat eactly is moneyF There is a subtle mystery here. !s it only, as 3ebster defines it,"metal as gold, silver or copper, coined or stamped, and issued as a medium of echange"F(r "wealth reckoned in terms of money"F (r "any form or denomination of coin or paperlawfully current as money"F (r "nything customarily used as a medium of echange ormeasure of value, as sheep, wampum, gold dust, etc."F

(bviously, without echange value, the coin or paper is not "money." ut echange valueis not limited to single transactionsK it is public and general. %nter the conceptual side ofmoney: trust. 3ithout trust or confidence in its echange value in the market-place, the"medium" itself, be it shark7s teeth, clay disks, or gold bullion, would be of ornamentalvalue only or ob)ects to hold paper in place.

The sub)ect of money is disposed of by the #nited &tates 'onstitution with etremebrevity.



"rticle !, &ection 5, 'lause =: The 'ongress shall have the power to coin money, regulatethe value thereof and of foreign coins."

The fundamental definition of money is here taken for grantedE nd for good reason sincetrust as a psychological and emotional value cannot be legislated. nd that leads to a

startling fact: There is no legal definition for moneyE

!mplicit in "medium of echange" is the confidence that he who accepts a dollar bill, akroner, franc, mark, ruble, rupee, yen or cedi can pass it on to another and receivecommensurate value. dollar bill, however, may circulate all week buying bread, lightbulbs, toothpaste, and paying the rent but on riday, at the bank, when the teller informsthe last unfortunate holder that the bill is "no good," it suddenly loses its echange value,its trust side. !n other words, people7s trust made it "work" despite its forgery. @ickey@ouse certificate would also have worked if it had trust as a "medium of echange."

The essence of money is therefore trust.

$ational money, historically, is as provisional as sea-shells, sperm-whale teeth, round

stones with holes, mud tablets and even gold dust. 3hile the actual or material side ofnational money still eists, its conceptual or trust side is fast disintegrating.9

!f nations, as eclusive political and economic units, by definition don7t trust one another,how can confidence eist for their respective moniesF !n %mery eves7 words:

"3hat we usually call world economics, international trade, has little if anything to do witheconomics or trade. They are, in fact economic warfare, trade warfare. The dominatingmotive of all economic activity outside eisting national barriers is not trade, is notproduction, is not consumption, is not even profit, but a determination to strengthen by allmeans the economic power of the nation-state."9=

The "game" of money echange is itself big business, a whole breed of men in echange

offices throughout the world parasitically engaged daily in reaping the benefits of thisinstitutionalized distrust at the epense of the world public.

'entral bankers, speculators, special departments of multinationals, in fact, anyone whounderstands there is a profit to be made from monetary distrust is in reality ripping off thepublic which naively considers money only as 3ebster did, a "medium of echange."

The game aspect of money was brilliantly eposed by dam &mith ;a pseudonym< in "The@oney *ame," a biting satire of the daily play of the $ew 2ork &tock %change: "Theirony is that this is a money game and money is the way we keep score." s to the vitalelement of trust, &mith writes, "@arkets only work when they believe, and this confidenceis based on the idea that men can manage their affairs rationally."9>

$ational citizens, today, more than ever, are being made aware by inflation that theirparticular national currency is literally unstable, no longer able to serve their economicinterests as a constant thus valid means of echange. The #.&. citizen in particularsuffered as much a psychological as economic shock in the 7CAs by two dollar devaluationsin less than three years due principally to massive national deficits and dollar drains to payfor foreign wars.9C

The reestablishment of confidence in money in terms of public service as a medium ofechange for goods and services and not as a means of eploitation of the poor by the rich,can come about only on a global scale. or only globally can problems of echange ofgoods, e4uitable distribution of wealth-producing capital and the elimination of the have-nots be accomplished.

"merican corporations are outwardly bound. Their evolution is, however, theevolutionary prototype for all of society. ll of humanity are soon to become



worldians."95

'ontrary to what timid and inwardly-looking economists and finance ministers, not tomention the whole cli4ue of central bankers and money changers admit, this implies-- as itdid in +C5C for the separate states of the newly-formed #nited &tates of merica-- the totalrelin4uishment of money issuance and control by sovereign states. 'onversely it means

global and sovereign institutions designed to serve the citizens of the world in their entiretyand to protect their individual rights.

The multinational corporations, no doubt inadvertently, are moving ineorably in thisimperative direction:

"$ational profiles are hard to distinguish in many cases because multinationals shy awayfrom being identified with any one countryK most are proud of the fact their subsidiaries areindigenous everywhere. . . The trend is toward increasingly global structures anddecision-making, and toward allocating corporate resources on a world scale." 96

s ! have pointed out, world man and world ownership are indissolubly lined. 3orldmoney, both conceptually and actually, is thus the indispensable-- and heretofore missing--

ingredient for the two to be )oined and begin working.8. 069

3ho !ssues @oneyF

The key 4uestion remains, who or what can issue world moneyF The history of thecontending forces at work in money issuance in the #nited &tates is highly illustrative.'ontrary to the provisions of the #.&. 'onstitution which gives power to 'ongress aloneto "coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin," according to those whoconsidered money as a profit-making commodity and method for gaining control of laborby capital, mostly 1ondon bankers at the time, the issuing institute must be in privatehands.

Those who considered money-- as did most of the founding fathers, notably *eorge3ashington. Thomas Lefferson and en)amin ranklin-- as only a medium of echangefor goods and services, that is, real wealth, at the service of the people, know that it had tobe authorized and issued by representative public institutions, under public control since itwas and is the general as much as the individual welfare which must be considered by anydemocratic government.

?uring merica7s development in the +5th and +6th centuries, the running battle betweenprivate banking interests and public spokesmen was bitter and often deadly. !n (liver'ushing ?winnel7s words:

"There is little doubt but that the financial monopolists have brought about the wars whentheir control of the issuance of money was threatened. !t was not a coincidence that the

evolutionary 3ar took place after the ritish %mpire was unable, after many years ofeffort to control the 'olonies by controlling their moneyK and it was not a coincidence thatthe 3ar of +5+0 was prosecuted against us after 'ongress refused to renew the bankcharter. @uch of the stock had been bought by %ngland. !t is pretty obvious from ourhistory that the financial hierarchy of the world will go to war if necessary to gain controlof money issuance, and they will do so to renew control, and to maintain control,regardless of how many wars it may take."

braham 1incoln, %conomist

The importance of government control of money issuance was endorsed by the greatemancipator, braham 1incoln, who believed that the spending power of the governmentand the buying power of the consumer could and should be created and issued by the state

free from interests, discounts and other charges imposed as a profit of the private moneysystem. 1incoln7s monetary program offered the means of paying debts and current



epenses of government without profit to the bankers and without disaster to the tapayer. s *erald @c*reer records:

"Nuite naturally the bankers opposed 1incoln7s 7$ational currency 8rogram,7 for under ithe proposed to take away from the bankers the privilege of issuing an effective substitutefor money. The bankers7 plan for controlling money was for the government . . . to farm

out its power to issue money to the bankers. aving thus lost its power to issue money,the government would be reduced to the position of a perpetual borrower at interest from aprivate monopoly which secured its power to issue a &#&T!T#T% ( @($%2 (T% *(H%$@%$T." +

The issue, then as now, was vital to economic well-being, the fundamental 4uestion being:&hall government be subordinate to moneypower with money changers ruling democracy,or shall democracy rule the money changesF 1incoln knew that it was upon thedetermination of the primal issue in favor of democracy that the progress, prosperity andpeace of humanity depended.

!n a 'ongressional eport to the C>th 'ongress of +5>0 written by obert 1. (wens, thenchairman of the 'ommittee on anking and 'urrency, was a summary of 1incoln7s

monetary views, as relevant today in the global contet as they were then in the national:

"+. @oney is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of moneyshould be maintained as an eclusive monopoly of. . .*overnment.

"0. @oney possesses no value to the &tate other than given it by circulation."9. 'apital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of

men should be recognized in the structure of and in the social order as more important thanthe wages of money. ;!n this vital recognition of the primacy of men7s 7wages7 overmoney7s 7wages,7 i.e., interest, 1incoln was laying the groundwork for ownership ofcapital by labor in which 7wages7 were derived both from labor and wealth-producingcapital instruments. uthor7s note.<

". $o duty is more imperative on the *overnment than the duty it owes to thepeople to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency. . .so that labor will be protected

from a vicious currency ;controllable by private interests<."=. The available supply of gold and silver being wholly inade4uate to permit

the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volumere4uired to serve the needs of the people, some other base for the issuance of currencymust be developed. nd some other means than that of convertibility of paper currency orany other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.

">. The monetary needs of increasing numbers of people advancing towardhigher standards of living can be served by the issuing of $ational currency and 'reditthrough the operation of a $ational anking &ystem. The circulation of a medium ofechange issued and backed by the *overnment can be properly regulated. . . *overnmenthas the power to regulate the currency and credit of the $ation.

"C. *overnment should stand behind its currency and credit and the bankdeposits of the $ations. $o individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciated

inflated currency or bank bankruptcy."5. *overnment, possessing the power to create and issue currency and credit

as money, and en)oying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation bytaation and otherwise, need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means offinancing governmental work and public enterprise.

"6. The *overnment should create, issue and circulate all the currency andcredit need to satisfy the spending power of the *overnment and the buying power of theconsumer.

"+A. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supremeprerogative of *overnment, but it is the *overnment7s greatest creative opportunity.

"++. y the adoption of these principles, the long-felt need for an uniformmedium of echange will be satisfied. The ta-payers will be saved immense sums of

interest, discounts and echanges. The financing of all public enterprises. . .themaintenance of stable government and ordered process, and the conduct of the Treasury



will become matters of practical administration."+0. @oney will cease to become the master and become the servant of

humanity. ?emocracy will rise superior to the money power."

!n his introduction0, (wens summed up the underlying concept of trust in 1incoln7smonetary views:

"The plan is founded on benevolence, )ustice and righteousness. !t is based on reason, onthoroughly well-established facts, and on sound precedents that cannot be disputed byintelligent men of good will and honest purpose. . . The plan is 'onstitutional. . . The&upreme 'ourt of the #nited &tates has )ustified ;if< on its opinion in the 1egal Tender'ases. !t is based on the eclusive right of the *overnment to create money and on theeplicit duty 7to regulate the value thereof.7 ;The 8lan< points the way by which the*overnment, representing all the people, shall prevent either inflation ;which isindefensible epansion of credit or money or the corresponding undue and indefensiblecontraction of credit: deflation, through which people have suffered. . . The 8lanproposes to end the suffering of one-third of the merican people because of undeservedpoverty."

This remarkable and superbly relevant testament could be considered the forerunner tomodern economic democracy and finance. (liver ?winnel rightly concludes that "s3ashington is the symbol of the political democracy of the coming world of his day, so1incoln foreshadowed the economic and financial democracy of the world to be."

*old

This brings us to the 4uestion of gold as a worldly "medium of echange." ?oes it fulfilthe eacting re4uirementsF

ccording to &tuart 'hase, "The international monetary problem will not be solved whenthe #.&. achieves a strong domestic economy with full employment. !nternational trade isbound to epand in a shrinking world, but, as the $ew 2ork Times has pointed out, 7any

further epansion in the business that nations, and their citizens, do with each other wouldbe limited by the newly-minted gold that enters the world7s money system each year.7 !tisn7t enough." The search is on, he adds, "for a new invention to make it enough, and totake the place of gold in international echanges."9

There are many who think that a dynamic relationship eists between gold and one worldeconomics. 3as *eneral de *aulle correct in his famous press conference at the 8alais%lysee in +6>= in announcing the monetary echange standard between nations was nolonger effectiveand that a "true gold standard" was essentialF "3e consider it necessary,"he stated regally, "that international trade should rest, as before the two world wars, on anindisputable monetary basis having the mark of no particular country. 3hat basisF !ndeedthere can be no other criterion, no other standard than gold. 2es, gold, which neverchanges, which can be shaped into ingots, bars, coins, which has no nationality and which

is eternally accepted as an alternative fiduciary value par ecellence."

The economic "warfare" between nations was never better illustrated than by this unilateraldeclaration of de *aulle who then led a "run" on the gold in ort Gno by 3estern%uropean nations. This led ineorably to 8resident $ion7s "unilateral" decision in ugust, +6C+, when #.&. gold reserves had fallen from a record B0 billion in +6C toB+A billion ;due to concurrent deficits throughout the Hietnam 3ar years<, to declare thatdollars would no longer be echanged for gold. This in turn left billions of unwanted andunredeemable "%urodollars" in central banks throughout %urope. $ion7s act, "to save thedollar" was as much directed against "friendly" as against "enemy" nations.

The hold gold retains on the public is more emotional than logical. "part from its aestheticappeal," writes Timothy *reen, "gold has no intrinsic value. !t is hard to imagine being

cast up on a desert island with anything more useless than a bar of gold."



1ord Geynes referred to gold as "that barbaric relic," while others have sung paeans ofpraise for its beauty, its indestructibility, its scarcity and its almost mystical appeal as asymbol of power. ncient alchemists sought the "eliir of immortal life" by etracting theoligo-elements of gold for concocting the godlike ambrosia. strologers link gold with thesun and the nervous and circulatory system in a mystical triumvirate. gain, these arefascinating sidelights to gold7s history and may serve to eplain in part the tenacity with

which it is considered of high value. ut from a strictly economic viewpoint, it lacks vitalfactors to serve as a basis of a one world system.

To answer the "gold bugs" definitely as to why gold cannot ade4uately serve as a basis fora one world currency, we must again appreciate, in rthur Gitson7s words, that "The entirefinancial factor presents itself from two distinct and entirely opposite and conflictingstandpoints. The one is the bankers as 7moneylendersK7 the other, the producers. To thebanker, money represents itself as a valuable commodity from which he must drawdividends in the shape of interest. . . or this reason the banking interests have wagedunceasing warfare against &tate anking and what they term 7cheap money epedients.7@oreover, the histories of cheap currency epedients have mostly been written by bankers,their employees, or hired professors, who have invariably presented the sub)ect from thisinterested class7 point of view. !t is for this reason that so much importance has been

attached to gold for currency purposes. !ts scarcity, its dearness, gives weight to thedemand for high interest charges. (n the other hand, the producer regards money morefrom the standpoint of its utility-- his interest re4uires the cheapest form available--consistent with its ability to perform its work."

3orld @oney

true world currency, relating itself directly to world consumer needs vis-a-vis worldproduction of goods and services, is not a commodity in itself like shoes, chewing-gum orcomputers, but a "medium of echange," a convenience at the service strictly of theproducer and consumer, made one by the aforementioned new right of world ownershipfor world man and woman.

3orld %conomy - 3orld ccounting &ystem

'arried to its logical conclusion, "world money" becomes a simplified bookkeeping systemwhich, according to uckminster uller, "must be converted from agricultural metabolicsto an eternal world-around accounting which includes all generations to come, and which isconsistent with the cosmic accounting of an eternally regenerative physical universalsystem. The accounting system would include a redefinition of wealth with the scarcitymodel of economics to be made obsolete by the magnitude of man7s participation in theirreversible amplification of the inventory of information, i.e., know-how."=

3orld or cosmic accounting then "assumes omnivalidity" which, translated into individualterms means the right to ownership of the means to wealth. 3hile humans today,conditioned by the archaic "earning the right to live," scarcity-oriented ethic, still compete,

ergo fight each other, as do states, for bare sustenance, 3orld 'itizen uller reminds usthat:

"The #niverse is not operating on a basis in which the &tar sun opines ignorantly that it canno longer afford to let %arth have the energy to keep life going because it hasn7t paid its lastbill."

The sun does not have to make a profit. nd )ust as the world moral view is synergistic,that is, wealth-producing,> so an economic overview radically reverses the failure-prone@althusian and ?arwinian theories to support a totally successful and totally humaneconomy. !n uckminster uller7s words:

"%phemerization, a product of the metaphysical conservation being more effective and

coherent than physical entropy, is the number one economic surprise of world man. #p toten years ago, all world economists counseled the world political leaders that there never



had been and never would be enough vital sustenance to support more than a very few. . .The invisible, ineorable evolution will soon convert all nationally and subnationallyidentified humanity into worldians, universally coordinate, individual 7people.7 Theineorable trending to one-world citizenship is ignorantly and epeditiously opposed by thesovereign nations7 self-perpetuating proclivities." C

!nternational "@oney" of &tates

!n order to bring inter-national economic programs more in line with global needs, in@arch, +6>C, the !nternational @onetary und, an outgrowth of the retton 3oods greements of +6, following a meeting of the "*roup of Ten," finance ministers andcentral bank governors of the ten most developed nations, announced a new "reserveasset," i.e., inter-national "currency" to supplement gold-- which accounted for a mere 9Aper cent of the monetary reserves of the membership of the !@ dollars, sterling andeisting !@ credits. There were the "&pecial ?rawing ights" ;&?s< which started outas a unit of credit based on the then official value of gold, B0.00 per Troy ounce. (nceissued, however, they could not be reconverted into gold.

!n other words, the &tates, through the !@, created a new "legal tender" in order to

increase li4uidity between &tates. There was, and is, of course no single sovereigngovernmental authority sanctioning that creation. The concept is not new. 1ord Geyneshad proposed his "bancor," along with gold, would be the international reserves availableto all &tates on a long-term, low interest basis, and, as with the &?s, gold could buy"bancors," but "bancors" could not be reconverted into gold. Thus would be created aphony "paper" gold.

&ome economists consider it ecellent that nations "are acting together" because togetherthey are bigger than the speculator or the businessmen hedging against currency problems. dam &mith saw the &?s however as "only a device which gives more time to resolve theproblem." 5 "These problems," he claims, "are universal. They arise becausegovernments are now held responsible for the welfare of the people. . . 3hat this means isthat if governments have a choice between attempting full employment and defending their

economies, they will nearly always pick )obs over the worth of the currency. 'urrenciesdoe not vote. . . the ull %mployment ct ;of the #.&.< spells this out. The government iscommitted to full employment and if it must pump money into the economy to achieve this,and if there isn7t enough money, it creates the money. 1ong-range inflation is the policy,articulated or not, of every country in the world." 6

Timothy *reen tells us that "so far, the &?s represent a very small part of reserves, buttheir very eistence is a significant step along the road that is gradually by-passing gold as amonetary metal." =A

(f particular interest to world citizens in this monetary creation by &tates is the precedentwhich is pregnant with implications. ! note in passing that the eistence of &?s has in noway relieved the individual of the inflationary crisis facing him presently since they are only

a supplement to the entire &tate-oriented economy and not a true step toward a one worldeconomy.

$either gold nor "paper gold" can serve as a viable, permanent monetary base for a worldmarket as such. !t can at best be considered a stop-gap measure in lieu of a true worldlegal.

"fter all, if the mines are running out of gold, the problem of finding an alternative is allthe more acute." =+

&uper-analysts like ?r. arry &chultz, arry rowne, Lames ?ines and 1ouis ukeyserpropose an economy based on gold and a "new political system" though they fail to go thefull way to world government. (n the other hand, world government advocates sidestep

the delicate 4uestion of world economics which re4uires a spelling-out in down-to-earthmonetary terms how we get from here to there without blowing everything apart. Hague



theory won7t do. "8rayers will not make a mango fall."

!n all fairness to the "gold bugs," they realistically assess the international muddle as it iswith no holds barred. ?r. &chultz bluntly states that "@y )ob is not to idealize on what theworld should be like. Those who think we7ve already evolved enough to do without golddiscipline. . . will sink while singing their individual national anthems. . . @y )ob is rather

to offer a lead toward real patriotism, i.e., to humanity and to yourself O your family ;notto a gov7t. or nation<. @y )ob is to tell it like it is and show how to survive." =0

3e can only applaud and affirm patriotism to humanity and oneself at one and the sametime which is the essence of world citizenship along with revealing the know-how ofsurvival. 3hat concerns us more directly, however, is not survival of the privileged fewbecause, apart from considerations of simple )ustice and humanity, living on an island ofplenty surrounded by a sea of misery is hardly conductive to happiness, economic orotherwise.

(nly through survival of the Total &pecies can any single member of the human speciessurvive in any manner resembling a human condition. The late Lustice 3m. (. ?ouglaswrote prophetically, "The liberty of one man will hereafter be closely linked with the

hunger of another. The world economy is more and more the testing ground for everyman7s freedom." =9

3ho or 3hat 'an !ssue 3orld @oneyF

*uru $atara)a7s @emorandum on 3orld *overnment gives the clue as to how worldmoney can come about. "!t would not be impossible for the 3orld *overnment to have itsown credit and currency the world over, and planned on some rational human basis." =

Travelers going abroad are urgently advised to convert their ready cash into traveler7schecks which if lost are easily replaced. The largest bank in the world, ankmerica,advertises its traveler7s checks as "world money." eing backed by a negotiable currency,they are literally "mediums of echange" for goods and services worldwide.

The etrapolation of this already recognized public service to a true global medium ofechange as envisaged by 1incoln is far simpler than generally realized re4uiring only theproper institutional framework for its immediate functioning.

Lust as the &?s are "legal tender" between nations, sanctioned by international "law,"i.e., the 3ashington greement of @arch, +6>5, and thus could be considered an"international money," so the @ondo, sanctioned by 3orld *overnment, may beconsidered "legal tender" between world citizens "outside" the )urisdiction of nationalfrontiers-- as is gold-- who seek a sound, global, real currency with which to do businessand echange needed goods and services. The @ondo will be initially an inter-worldcitizen money, legal, logical and functional. 3hereas the &?s only complement theeconomic warfare practised between nations and do not meet our needs, the @ondo,

possessing immediate intrinsic value as a global medium of echange, backed by today7s"negotiable" currency and emitted by a legally-founded bank will supply the missingli4uidity to lubricate the @utual ffluence &ystem.

esides being a peace currency, further considerations will convince the public of the@ondo7s value. s national currency preserves pockets of wealth for those who alreadypossess far in ecess for personal luury, maintaining a system of economic serfdom forthe rest of the populace, as eacting and degrading a condition as any of our ancestorsfaced under a despotic monarchy, the @ondo will be a general affluence currency, freeingus of our economic servitude, unattached to monopoly, ". . .founded on benevolence, )ustice and righteousness." !n short, it will be the first truly human rights currency.==

The ?uties of %conomic ?emocracy

The right to economic democracy implies duties as well. (wnership of a piece of industry



means owning e4uity or corporate shares in that industry. 3hile it is no doubt true that weeercise "economic democracy" with our money as a consumer at the marketplace, that isnot the whole story. !t is an indirect "vote," not a controlling one. true economic votewould be one linked directly to the entire productive apparatus )ust as a political vote relatesto the entire governmental apparatus guaranteed by constitutional right.

!f therefore we are all economic "citizens," what is the total economic framework in whichwe can eercise our "vote" for determining our personal and general economic well-beingF

!t must obviously be allied with the entire productive apparatus, not governmental. !nbrief, it must be as an economic world citizen with an across-the-multinational-corporation-board voteE

To illustrate, a share in one multinational corporation owned by a worker of thatcorporation is already an international economic vote by definition. !f that same workerbuys one share of other multinational corporations, he increases his international votingpower horizontally in direct proportion to the number of corporations he buys into. This isthe principle of the mutual fund, an across-the-corporate-board portfolio.

$ow if he manages to buy a share in all the multinational corporations, his voting power ineach is compounded by his ownership strategy which now includes all. ut he is not onlyan international economic citizen. e is also an international economic legislatorE is onevote permits him to introduce actual resolutions at the yearly general assembly ofstockholders.=>

&ince his one vote permits him to propose policy changes in each corporation, should heintroduce in each and every general assembly the same resolution, i.e., his economic"ticket," the very accumulative effect would reinforce the voting power of each separateintroduction.

The %conomic 3orld "Ticket"

!f the "ticket" were designed to upgrade his ownership stake as a worker-- along with hisfellow workers-- by means of the widely-accepted %mployee &tock (wnership 8lan;%&(8<, boards of directors, not to mention fellow shareholders, would 4uickly appreciatewhat real economic democratic power meant. The strike for higher wages would 4uicklybe seen for what it was: an obsolete strategy for perpetuating the status 4uo ine4ualitybetween owners of capital e4uity and the work-serf in the name of ")ustice." "ig labor"management must collude in this work-serf versus capital owners conflict otherwise itwould lose its power hold over the individual worker.

worker owning a share of shares in the corporation for which he works is already apotential world owner. $o doubt he presently disregards totally his voting rights-- as domost shareholders-- turning his proy back to management for their disposal as they see it.Hiewed ob)ectively, he thus deserves the economic rip-off of which he is the perpetual

victim.

&hares %4ual Hotes lso

lthough the #nited &tates vaunts itself as the most enlightened nation in the world asregards its economic philosophy, economic voting is not taught in schools or evenuniversities. 8erhaps the best kept secret among the financial elite is that "&hares representownership votes, i.e., control." ut since no political party or labor union unites shareowners in a common ownership front against elitist, monopolistic ownership-- the'ommunists and &ocialists have captured in the public mind the notion of capitalownership by the "people" ;read "&tate capitalism"<-- single individual or even groups,such as religious bodies, cultural, educational, social or other organizations, are concernedmainly with their corporate investments as saleable capital, in other words, a commodity or

as a producer of dividends, but not as a democratic economic voting right.



work." I9J "%veryone who works has the right to )ust and favourable remuneration

ensuring for himself and his family an eistence worthy of human dignity,and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection."

rticle 0: "%veryone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitations ofworking hours and periodic holidays with pay."

re 1abor #nions Thinking "*lobal"F

#nder the rubri4ue, "@ultinational usiness %nterprises," the +6CA-C+ 2earbook of the#nion of !nternational ssociations referred briefly to "the union point of view onindustrial and commercial concentration."

" special ugust +6CA issue of the economic and social ulletin of the !nternational'onfederation of ree Trade #nions was entitled: 7The !nternational ree Trade #nion@ovement and @ultinational 'orporations.7 !t contains a report by @r. erbert @aierwho, whilst acknowledging that the unions are not unaware of the positive aspects of themultinational corporations ;improvement of employment and income levels, potentialbenefits arising from the application of new technologies, the help provided in developing

and increasing both home and eport markets, and speeding up the industrialization ofdeveloping countries<, epressed a whole set of reservations, fears and demands whichwould be too long to mention here. e considered it fundamentally necessary to draw up acode of behavior to govern multinational company operations applicable both to theindustrialized nations and to the developing countries. . ."

%leven years later, in the Luly-ugust, +650 edition of %conomic $otes, editor ?r. Losepharris, %ecutive ?irector of the 1abor esearch ssociation, in an article entitled"@ultinationals and #.&. 3orkers" writes ". . . in the era of multinational corporations, theclosest cooperation between the various industrial unions in each country-- and with unionsin other countries where the multinationals have spread their tentacles--has become thenecessary net step for the trade union movement." ;%mphasis added.< !n otherwords, to date, trade unions are still struggling to achieve a truly global viewpoint and thus

unity. 3here a "confederation" of trade unions remains the ultimate in cooperationbetween workers-- which, in plain language, means "e4ually sovereign" national tradeunions, a sort of trade union #nited $ations, no "code of behavior" necessary to governmultinational company operations can be devised or implemented. >+

uman economic rights can only be spoken for by representatives acting in the name of allconcerned, individually and wholly.

" 4ualitative change that will enhance trade union effectiveness is coordinated unionbargaining on a global scale with the @$'s on all matters relating to employment, wagesand conditions." >0

3ho 'an epresent the "3orker of the 3orld"F

The worker/owner of the world, as an economic 3orld 'itizen, can only be represented bya global organization transcending national boundaries. This fundamental right of globalassociation is sanctioned by rticle 0A, #niversal ?eclaration of uman ights:

"%veryone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."

world-wide trade union is likewise sanctioned by rticle 09;< of the same declaration:

"%veryone has the right to form and to )oin trade unions for the protection of his interests."

!s the @utual ffluence &ystem ealizableF

Therefore the ma)or elements re4uired to evolve a "mutual affluence system" ;@&<worldwide are:



+. legitimate world bank under the aegis of the 3orld *overnmentK0. global currency based on the conception of money as a "medium of

echange" between producers and consumers having no intrinsic value in itself, i.e.,monetary world citizenship divorced essentially from monopolistic nation-state systemK

9. democratically-organized and controlled investment corporation of, for

and by world citizens whereby they may cooperate and individually profit on the basis ofeconomic )ustice ;e4uity< in the purchase of approved securities of industries throughoutthe worldK popular ownership of voting e4uity will lead inevitably to its legitimateprotection on a global scaleK

. world citizen labor union based on increased purchasing power throughemployee stock ownership plans with progressive decrease in the work/week due to fullutilization of design-science, automation, ephemerization, robotics, and ecologically-soundenergy sourcesK

=. world institute of economic )ustice staffed by wholistic-thinkingeconomists +< to educate the world citizenry to the new global ownership philosophy andstrategies, 0< to educate national and world leaders to the "new look" in affluent economicthinking as opposed to obsolete scarcity economic thinking, and 9< to educate multinationalmanagement and personnel as to the economic, social, technical, ecological and moral

advantages of adopting the new economic philosophy and strategies.

?iscerning readers will note there is no single element here incapable of practicalrealization. !ndeed, the seeds of all have been sown many years ago and are alreadybreaking ground.

'ertain national, enlightened trade unions, for instance, are becoming sympathetic to%&(8s for their own members in the realization that the collision course between "biglabor" and "big management", which encompasses government as well as industry, canand must be avoided at all costs. ;The eperience of &olidarity in 8oland and industry-wide labor strikes in so-called capitalist countries leads to similar results in sheer economicterms, though not in political.<

urthermore, both management and labor, given the totality of nuclear war, are beginningto assess their responsibility to a world public order to guarantee peace. ormer presidentof !@ Thomas 3atson7s call for "3orld 8eace Through 3orld Trade" was a forerunnerof multinational corporate recognition that war is a no-growth business, a truth whichunfortunately has yet to penetrate the board rooms of many of ortune7s =AA.

1abor representatives likewise, such as %rnest ?e@aio, 3orld ederation of Trade #nionsrepresentative to the #nited $ations, see the dead-end of the nationalistic arms race, nomatter how lucrative to certain industries in the short term:

"The military cost of bolstering deteriorating spheres of vital interests are counter-productive and can be maintained only by further reducing the living standards at home.$or can this trend be reversed by military adventures abroad." >9

The 8resident of the #nited %lectrical 3orkers of 'anada, ?ick arry, in citing theconservatism of the national leaders of the ma)or merican labor unions, notably the 1-'!(, as regards global responsibilities, writes that "!n a climate where the peace 4uestion iscoming increasingly to the forefront, we should be taking the lead to see to it that it getsdiscussed in our local unions." >

The @utual ffluence &ystem eliminates the need for nationalization, the chimera ofold-line socialism, by implementing ownership directly to those concerned, the individualand his or her family.

s to the 3orld *overnment, it already eists in the legitimate pledges of individualsthroughout the world to the status of world citizen, !ndeed, if human rights themselves are

legitimate, then the human right to choose one7s global political status is likewiselegitimate.



"%veryone is entitled to a social and international order so that the rights and freedoms setforth in this ?eclaration can be fully realized."

rticle 05, #?

!n sum, etending globally, there is no reason why, given our electronic, computerized,technically-advanced world that this individual ownership principle coupled with thedynamic fact of a political recognition of our species cannot transform the world in whichwe live so that promised land of general abundance and world peace with freedom in orderto maintain the age-old thrust toward higher intellectual, cultural and spiritual worlds whichhave been revealed to us throughout the ages by the sages and poets.

3ho owns the worldF

The citizens thereof.

ut we must claim it or there will be no one and nothing to claim.

-------------------------

$(T%& $? %%%$'%&

+ Halues @agazine, Hol , $o. 0, *urukula 8ress, Harkala, !ndia.0 uckminster uller, #topia or (blivion, ;The (verlook 8ress, +6>6<, p. 00.

9 !bid., p. 0C> !bid., p. 0CC



= !bid., p. +C>> +650 study by the $ational Tapayer7s #nion reveals that the #.&.*overnment is saddled with a "Tapayer7s 1iability !nde" ;T1!< of over B++.>trillion, a hidden burden of approimately B+=,AAA on each tapayer. ccording to the report, there are now only an estimated 5A million realtapayers left in the #.&. This T1! includes the public debt of B+,A=A trillion,

accounts payable, B+>C billion, undelivered orders, B5C billion, long termcontracts, B0+ billion, loan and credit guarantees, B9>A billion, insurancecommitments, B0,00C billion, and annuity or pension programs, BC,05+ billion.!nterest payments alone on the "official" ederal debt of +65A cost tapayers anestimated B=C million, si times the ederal interest costs in +6>A and B+billion more than the total ederal budget in +6=A.C Third-world nation debt is now over B=AA billion, up from roughly B+AAbillion a decade ago. (ver >AD of that debt is owed to 3estern banks. @eico is>A billion in debt, razil, B5C billion, and 8oland, B0> billion. 3ith regard to frican nations according to the 'hristian &cience @onitor ;ebruary 9, +659,p. +9<, "3hat is significant about frica7s foreign indebtedness is not its size,but the rapidity of its growth--from under B0A billion in +6C= to almost B=billion in +6C6 ;reflecting the impact of the rise in oil prices<, to B=> billion in

+65+, and B>> billion in +650." The debt problem threatens to overwhelm theworld economic system. . . ." ;'hristian &cience @onitor, Lanuary 0=, editorial.<6 el @adsen, 8rivate 8ower, ;3m. @orrow O 'o., $2, +65A<, p. ++.+A !n a Lanuary 9+, +659 #.&. $ews O 3orld eport article, "ow To *et The'ountry @oving gain," si $obel 8rize economists, @ilton riedman, 8aul&amuelson, *eorge &tigler, 1awrence Glein, Genneth rrow and Lames Tobinepose their grasp of fundamental economic realities by ignoring: +< thegross ine4uality of ownership of wealth-producing machines not only in the#nited &tates but in all other countriesK 0< the dynamic relationship betweenwar economy, i.e., the nation-state, and today7s global recessionK 9< theinterdependence of all national economies implying that economic solutionsmust be wholistic or global to be realisticK < the imperative need for a worldpolitical order as concomitant to a world economic order.

++ L.@. Geynes, The %conomic 'onse4uences of the 8eace, +609.+0 &tockholm !nternational 8eace esearch !nstitute 2earbook, +6C6, @!T8ress.+9 #.$. 8ublications, &ales $o. >0.!P.+ ;%/9=69/ev. +<.+ 1eonid rezhnev on (ctober 0A, +659 stated that "(nly he who has decided tocommit suicide can start a nuclear war." 8resident onald eagan on (ctober0+, +659 stated that "!n a nuclear war, all mankind would lose."+> eply of the *overnment of the #.&.&.., p. +6.+C &tuart 'hase interviewed @ichael ohr, a high official of *osplan, thecentral planning agency of the &oviet #nion, in @oscow in +6>+. !n his book@oney to *row (n, p. +>, he recalls the following conversations: "3hat areyou going to do about the transfer from bombs to butterK won7t that bringeconomic disruption and unemploymentF" The reply was, "$ot too much. 3e

have the transition pretty well planned. esides, we7ve been through itbefore.... !n +6=6 we reduced the armed forces by two million, principallypersonnel for land armies and ships, now obsolete. ecause of previousplanning...we had no great trouble relocating the enlisted men... 8lacing theofficers, however, gave us a good deal of troubleK they only knew how to doone thing...."+5 "&ity firms control the capitalist system," ?er &piegel headlined a three-part in4uiry into global enterprise in +6C. y +65=, the (rganization for%conomic 'ooperation and ?evelopment ;(%'?< estimates, some 9AA companieswill produce more than half the world7s goods and services, but already in+6>C, ortune magazine could say that the inner core of capitalism consisted of>A enterprises, controlled by less than +,AAA individuals." el @adsen, 8rivate8ower ;3m. @orrow O 'o., $2 +65A<, p. A.

+6 @orton @intz, merica, !nc., ;?ial 8ress, +6C+<, p. +0 O +5.+6a !bid., p. +=



0A @ulti-national 'orporations O 3orld ?evelopment0+ nthony &ampson, The &overeign-state of !TT ;Hiking 8ress, $2 +6C=<, p.9A0.00 @. lume, &. ranklin, ?. 3ion, The ?istribution of inancial ssets, +6C9'onference on 3ealth ?istribution, 8eople7s 8olicy 'enter, 3ash., ?.'. lso,roadening the (wnership of $ew 'apital: %&(8 O (ther lternatives, &taff

study, 'ongress of the #nited &tates, Lune +C, +6C>, p. +9.09 1ouis (. Gelso O 8atricia etter, Two-actor Theory ;Hintage ooks, $2',+6>C<, p. ++. "The heart of an economic system is its principle of distribution.eal wealth is goods and servicesK its production takes place in the physicalworld under natural laws that are everywhere the same. egardless of aneconomy7s political structure, production problems must be solvedpragmatically through science, engineering, technology, management andskills of labor. (ut of the production process, however, arises wealth orincome, and distribution of this wealth or income involves problems of adifferent order. There is a political dimension to distribution as well as aphysical oneK its character is derived from the economy7s principle ofdistribution." 8. +0.0 rticle 0;+<.

0= Garl @ar O riedrich %ngels, The 'ommunist @anifesto, +59.0> ?irector, 'enter for %conomic O &ocial Lustice, rlington, H.0C alph $ader, The @onopoly @akers, ;*rossman, $2, +6C9<, p. .05 !bid., p. .06 The duplicity of national leaders was eposed by 8resident onald eaganin his Lanuary 0= &tate of the #nion message wherein, with over +A millionunemployed in the #.&., he made no mention of the gross ine4uality of #nited&tates7 ownership patterns whereas in a letter of Lune +0, +65+ to ?elaware*overnor 8ierre du 8ont !H, on the occasion of that state7s *eneral ssemblyadoption of ouse ill 9+ making it the policy of the state to encouragebroadening the base of capital ownership among the citizens, eagan wrotethat "! have long believed that the widespread distribution of private propertyownership is essential to the preservation of individual liberty, to the strength

of our competitive free enterprise economy and to our republican form ofgovernment."9A 1ouis (. Gelso O @ortimer dler, 'apitalist @anifesto, ;andom ouse,+6=5<, p. C6.9+ !bid., $ote 0.99 "%ssence of the world7s working will be to make every man able to becomea world citizen and be able to en)oy the whole earth, going wherever he wantsat any time, able to take care of all needs of all his forward days without anyinterference with any other man and never at the cost of another man7sfreedom and advantage." #topia or (blivion, p. +=5.9 "The war on ;#.&.< inflation is not being won. !nflation at the fiscal level issimply being transferred from dollar inflation to interest rate inflation. Thisnew inflation is clearly measured by ominous increases in budget deficits and

national debt." ;"3ashington 3onderland", &id Taylor, ?ollars O &ense, Hol. +9,$o. >, $ational Tapayers #nion.<9= %mery eves, natomy of 8eace, ;andom ouse, !nc. +6=<, p. +.9> dam &mith, The @oney *ame ;?ell, +6>C<, p. 0A.9C The #.&. military ependitures )umped from B billion in +6>A to B5+billion in +6CA.95 !bid., $ote 0, p. 0>0.96 el @adsen, 8rivate 8ower ;3m. @orrow O 'o., +65A<, p. 0>.A (liver 'ushing ?winnel, The &tory of (ur @oney, ;@eador 8ublishing 'o.,oston, +6><, p. 55 ;$ote<.+ *erald *. @c*reer, 'on4uest of 8overty, ;The *arden 'ity 8ress, *ardenvale,Nuebec, 'anada<, p. +C.0 'ongressional eport ;&enate<, ?ocument $o. 09, C>th 'ongress, +st &ession

"The $ational %conomy and anking &ystem of the #nited &tates." p. 5A.9 &tuart 'hase, @oney to *row (n, ;arper O ow, +6><, p. C6.



Copyrigt !c" #$$% World &ervice 'utority( 'll rigts reserved(

!f you would like to send mail to 3orld &ervice uthority,please use this address: 3orld'itizenQcompuserve.com

The 3orld &ervice uthority, and the human-in-globe logo areservice marks or registered service marks of the 3orld

&ervice uthority throughout the world.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.worldgovinst.org/syn.html

http://www.worldgovinst.org/wref.html

http://www.worldgovinst.org/docindex.html

http://www.worldgovinst.org/forms.html

http://www.worldgovinst.org/def.html

http://www.worldgovinst.org/index2.html

mailto:[email protected]

who owns the world by garry davis

Documents