Not all the forces that contribute to the dangerousness of the times are driven by eschatological fantasies. The money elite of the world -- primarily of big bankers and the CEOs of multi-national corporations -- are driven by other aims.
In large part it the super-elite seem to be driven by pure and unadorned greed. However, it is probably true that some of the economic super-elite sincerely believe that it would be best for everybody if the world were ruled by the elite who who presumably proven themselves in the economic arena to be capable of ruling. Three important facts should be noted about the super elite. First, they manipulate for their own ends the belief systems of those who are susceptible to escotological thinking. Second, they see any real form of democracy as contrary to their ends. Whether their motivations are self-seeking or benevolent, they are aristocrats. Third, whatever their motivations, by promoting policies that increase financial gap between the rich and the poor they are creating a very dangerous situation.
Every week I read articles and see videos done by intelligent and sensitive women and men, who have taken the trouble to know what they are talking about, and who make sensible and creative suggestions about how we as species might move forward without destroying either each other or the ecology upon which we are dependent. My thinking and life are vastly enriched by the work of such people. There are lots of them, actually. I think, so long as there are such people around, the human race is not hopeless. In an article entitled The Fundamental Mistake of Civilized Life I argue that human beings are not intrinsically evil. I believe I am justified in this fundamentally positive take on human nature, despite the evidence that points toward a less optimistic assessment. But then I notice an unfortunate fact. These thoughtful people are not running the world. Many are marginalized. They are not called by the TV news shows, even when they obviously know far more than the experts who are called. These intelligent and informed people are seldom powerful elected officials or appointees, or CEOs in big corporations. They are not members of the political and economic super-elite. This raises an interesting question in my mind. What does it take to rise to the top of the business and political organizations in our society. Of course there are many charming and sensitive, and perhaps even moral people among the super-elite, but it appears to me that rising to the top generally entails a number of characteristic:
A fortunate birth which gives the person access to economic and educational resources that most people do not have, and which also pre-disposes them to be identified with the interests of the very rich.
A superior degree of intelligence. This is not always the case. With a fortunate birth sometimes a superficial cunning, and an instinct for who one should hang out with may be enough. But on the average, people who rise to the top probably are more intelligent than average.
A ruthlessness in playing the highly competitive games that permit success in our political and business institutions. The ability to empathize with others would tend to inhibit the needed ruthlessness and would serve as an impediment.
Narcissism, and a drive toward self-aggrandizement.
A willingness to embark on enterprises that will inevitably lead to great human suffering and even death. We see this, for example, in the willingness to exploit the cheapest labor that can be found, and to undercut the ability of workers to advocate for health benefits, acceptable working conditions, or even a living wage.
A philosophy of social Darwinism that tells the person that since s/he is at the top, s/he must belong there. If the unfit die from malnutrition and preventable diseases, that is just natural selection at work.
A willingness to set aside the most fundamental requirements of ethics whenever they might impose a limit on personal ambition.
These characteristics paint the picture of a privileged, cunning, ruthless, narcissistic, amoral individual who is incapable of real empathy or of loyalty in relationships that are not self-serving, and who conducts his or her affairs in a Machiavellian manner. In other words, in the language of the mental health field, a sociopath. If it is individuals with these characteristics that do, on the whole, rise to the top the power hierarchies in business and politics, then there is little wonder that our collective lives are on the whole ethically inferior to the lives we live as individuals.
Unless definite steps are taken to prevent it, a super elite of the very rich and powerful always seems to emerge. These groups may consider themselves to be the philosopher kings the Plato felt should run societies. Minimally one can say that these elites are not strong advocates of real democracy -- though they may like the trappings of a democracy if they can control it with their money. It is possible that some members of the super-elite actually do try to act for the benefit of the whole of society. The super-elite do not represent a totally monolithic entity. In general, however, they do band together to protect their privilege and to further the right of a small minority of people to amass and retain huge fortunes at the expense of the rest. The resulting inequities -- when they reach a degree of absurdity -- invariably produce violence.
Social Distance
The issue of "distance" between people is also a factor. Interactions between individuals are most often face to face, while collective actions tend to be in relationship to people who are more distant from one. David Grossman in his book "On Killing" makes the point that it is actually very difficult for one human being to kill another one. Soldiers have to be psychologically conditioned to do so. In this context, boot camp can be understood as society training people to be less than fully human, or at least to suppress the innate pro-social inclinations that are built into the species. A good deal of the conditioning in boot camp is focused on teaching the soldiers not to perceive the enemy as people like unto themselves, with family, friends, hopes, fears, worthy aspirations etc. Despite the training, many soldiers find it very difficult to deal with the aftermath of having killed -- even in battle, where it is the socially prescribed thing to do. Physical as well as psychological distance between the killer and the killed facilitates a willingness to kill. One presumes that the same person who could direct a drone plane to bomb a household of people -- with the inevitable "collateral damage" that he/she knows will be a part of the process -- would not kill the children and other non-military people with a knife while looking them in the face. A certain amount of collective violence is possible simply because the perpetrators are spared the horror of seeing what they are doing. Cultural and language differences are additional forms of distancing that facilitate socially prescribed killing. The less "like us" and therefore the less human the other person is perceived to be, the easier it is to kill and/or torture him/her. Perhaps the greatest distance is achieved through the process of demonizing the "enemy." Members of the group to be attacked or exterminated are not human. They are not even ordinary animals, for which one might still feel some sympathy. They are monsters -- devils. We have been taught that society forces individuals to repress violent and destructive impulses for the sake of harmonious social living. Actually what seems more common is for society to repress those impulses that are most tender, gentle, loving and pro-social.
Some Ramifications
We have attempted to suggest some of the reasons why, on the average, collectivities and societies -- especially nations -- are responsible for much more violent and criminal behavior that are individuals. We have touched on eschatological ideologies, the dynamics of authority, the nature of the economic/political super elite, and the role of social distance as some of the factors that might help explain this fact. Undoubtedly there are other factors. Whatever the causes, the recognition that people acting as a part of collectivities do, in fact, tend to be more violent than the same individuals acting of individuals has a number of important ramifications.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
5
2
