Anti-Fascist
20th November 2003, 17:24
Why Society Needs Unity, and How to Unite
Herein I shall make an argument in favour of unity, and how to create and maintain unity in a society. I thank the philosophy of Juche for some of the ideas.
1.1. Of Volitional Activity
By "volitional activity" I simply mean that which is done by and through one's own will. "Activity" comes from Latin "agere"; to do. "Do" does not refer only to observable actions, such as jumping or eating. For thinking is a type of doing. I say this because not infrequently we make such misleading statements as, "You think, then you do," implying that thinking is not a type of doing.
Thus volitional activity is a type of doing.
1.2 Man's volitional activity consists in this and this only: His independence, His creativity, and His consciousness. Independence, because volitional activity must, by definition, be done on one's own; creativity, because volitional activity must, by definition, have the ability to create, and is an exercise of creation; and consciousness, because volitional activity, by definition, is inseparable from consciousness. The conception of independence, creativity, and consciousness is implicit in the conception of volitional activity.
2.1. Of Volitional and Spontaneous Societies
Society develops according to man's volitional activity; that is, things in society are affected by, and occur through, man's volitional activity. A society without volitional activity therefore cannot develop. A society with a preponderance of volitional activity I shall call a volitional society. In nature ordinarily, on the other hand, things occur spontaneously, not as a result of volitional activity. This is a most singular difference between Nature and society (and why society is governned by its own law, which I need not get into in this article).
2.2. Therefore, in those societies in which things tend to occur spontaneously, there is a low level of volitional activity, i.e., a low level of independence, creativity, and consciousness (see 1.1). A society which has a preponderance of spontaneity I shall call a spontaneous society.
2.3. In order to decrease the level of spontaneity in a society, a system which cultivates independence, creativity, and consciousness is requisite, and a system which permits a full display of these attributes (i.e., a fully volitional society), is most desirable.
3.1. Of Unity and the Development of Society
But to ensure a maximum display of independence, creativity, and consciousness, the innumerable independent volitional activities in a society must function in unity; for when a thousand wills, in a thousand different men, are going their separate ways, are in antagonism with each other, and are doing this independently, creatively, and consciously, society once again resembles Nature's spontaneity. As Engels said:
"That which is willed happens but rarely; in the majority of instances the numerous desired ends cross and conflict with one another. . . . Thus the conflicts of innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the domain of history produce a state of affairs entirely analogous to that prevailing in the realm of unconscious nature. Historical events thus appear on the whole to be likewise governed by chance. But where on the surface accident holds sway, there actually it is always governed by inner, hidden laws and it is only a matter of discovering these laws."
When the volitional activivity of the people in a society is not in unity, that is, when "the conflict of innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the domain of history" produces a situation "analogous to that prevailing in the realm of unconscious nature," that society has in it a low level of independence, creativity, and consciousness, and a high level of sponteneity.
3.2. The development of society is that social transformation which improves a society's means by which that society socially cooperates. "People transform society to improve or perfect the relation of social cooperation," says Kim Jong-il.
3.3. The driving forces of the development of a society are what Kim Jong-il calls the popular masses. The popular masses therefore must be in unity in their independence, creativity, and consciousness in order to dimimish the level of spontaneity in their society (see 2.4). Indeed, as Kim Jong-il said, "social development is the process of the development of the masses' independence, creativity, and consciousness [my emphasis]"
3.4. A society cannot develop with a high level of spontaneity because the development of society is that social transformation which improves that society's means by which that society socially cooperates, and social cooperation is necessarily inconceivable with a great discordance of individual volitions, i.e., if it is a spontaneous society (see 2.4).
3.5. Therefore, the popular masses must be transformed in such a way that they themselves are one massive volitional activity that is in complete unity with itself. Only then can spontaneity be maximally abated. Only then can society develop as splendidly, as efficiently, as possible.
4.1. On Achieving Societal Unity
This type of societal unity, in which the masses constitute a single, massive volitional activity that is in absolute unity with itself and that has not therefore the unconscious character of spontaneity, can only be accomplished by the following means; namely, first of all, by the use of massive and constant criticism and self-criticism with regards to the people of the society in question; second of all, by the uncompromising approbation and respect for the individual and collective freedoms with regards to the people of the society in question; third of all, by the correct exercise of want-control with regards to the people of the society in question; fourth of all, by the correct use of democracy with regards to the people of the society in question; fifth of all, with the existence of absolute equality amongst the people of the society in question; sixth of all, by developing an altruistic proclivity amongst the people of the society in question; and finally, by cultivating independence, creativity, and consciousness amongst the people of the society in question.
4.2. First: On the use of massive criticism and self-criticism with regards to the people of the society in question.
A break in unity in a society is a weakness which must be corrected, because the gravity of that break is directly proportional to the weakness of the society in question. To use a metaphor, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link; and with a weak link the unity of the entire chain can fall apart, irrespective of how strong the rest of the chain is.
When, therefore, a citizen has incorrect ideas that can destroy his volitional unity with society, he must be criticised; and he must self-criticise, too. Only criticism and self-criticism can change a man's volitional activity in such a way as to reunited him with that to which it is desired he unite.
On the other hand, there are some false criticisms the effect of which has a tendency to be discordant with unity. I have extracted from Stalin's "Against Vulgarising the Slogan of Self-Criticism" essay the three primary ones, namely:
a. "Criticisms of private life which have nothing to do with socialist construction";
b. "Criticising for criticism's sake, turning criticism into a sport, into sensation mongering";
c. "Turning self-criticism into a witchhunt," i.e., being hypercritical.
4.3. Second: On the approbation and respect for the individual and collective rights with regards to the people of the society in question.
The principal individual right is freedom. Freedom serves the individual. Each individual, taken by himself, desires freedom, that is, happiness. I shall take it as self-evident that everyone wants to be free (i.e., to be able to do as he wants). Of course, he may not care about the freedom of others. But individually, everyone wants freedom.
On the other hand, the development of society serves the collective. All individuals, taken as a whole, desire the development of society. The development of society is improving the methods by which a society socially cooperates, maximising the chances of survival of the citizenry and expanding and improving the means of production. This I call the "collective right", and I give it this appellation because it serves society as a whole.
My doctrine of the collective right is correct (firstly) because the part is always inferior to the whole; for instance, the eye is a useless entity without that to which it is related, without the body. And so also the individual is useless without society, whereof he is a part. Second, not only is the part useless without the whole, but the part has less reality than the whole; that is to say, everything in its reality is defined by its relations to things from without. For example, what defines a cup is how it relates to things external in that (e.g.) we use it with which to drink. This is an external relation, and the cup, therefore, considered in isolation, has no reality as a cup.
In other words, all we need to do is consider the question of individual and collective rights in light of the self-evident truth that the whole is greater than the part.
To ignore, therefore, the rights of the individual, and pay attention only to the rights of the collective, is an error. For the collective is the sum of the individuals. That is, the collective depends upon the individual for its very existence. Therefore, freedom cannot be ignored: the individual right of the individual.
On the other hand, to ignore the needs of the collective, and pay attention only to the needs of the individual, is an error. For the individual, as a social being, is a non-entity without the collective (i.e. society). That is, the individual depends upon the collective for his very reality. Therefore, collective rights cannot be ignored - the right to develop, etc.
Thus the individual ought to be free to do whatever he wants to do, so long as he does not interfere with progression, i.e, so long as he does not interfere with the whole, with society, whereof he is but a part.
Furthermore, lack of freedom brings about rebellion, which in turn brings about lack of unity. Rebellion is only desirable when it creates unity by smashing disunity, i.e., by overcoming the contradiction between labour and capital, by abolishing capitalist society, and by replacing it with the unity of Socialism.
4.4. Third: On the correct exercise of want-control with regards to the people of the society in question
Jean-Jacques Rousseau said:
"The poor baby, knowing nothing, is he not at your mercy? Can you not arrange everything in the world which surrounds him? Can you not influence him as you wish? His work, his play, his pleasures, his pains, are not all these in your hands and without his knowing? Doubtless he ought to do only what he wants; but he ought to do only what you want him to do; he ought not to take a step which you have not foreseen; he ought not to open his mouth without your knowing what he will say."
This is essential to unity. "He ought to do only what you want him to do" - if a considerable number of citizens of a society do that which is wanted not to be done, society will once again take the form of unconscious spontaneity. If a citizen can take a step which is not foreseen, then he is unpredictable, and can therefore pose a threat to unity. He must be controlled, for the sake of unity and volition, and in opposition to unconscious spontaneity.
"Lock him up in a cage; that will prevent him from threatening unity," the naive reader, who has also ignored what I have said upon the subject of freedom, will suggest.
But as I have shown above, freedom is essential to unity. If we begin imprisoning and punishing people, we will have to deal with a great deal of disunity.
Thus we cannot control him in such a way. Then the question is, how do we control him, and yet have him enjoy freedom?
This is to be done by controlling his wants. As John Stuart Mill said, "Freedom consists in the ability to do what one desires." If he can do whatever it is that he desires, he is a free man. As soon as he is unable to do something which he desires, he is not a free man. Therefore, society must be such that each individual is free to do whatsoever he desires. But his desires must be determined beforehand by us, the whole! - i.e., he must be want-controlled. Only in such a way can he enjoy freedom, and have no need to rebel against anything and cause thereby disunity.
How do you prevent people who have the freedom to do anything they want to do from commiting crimes? The answer is to prevent people from desiring to commit crimes. This can be done by implanting in them correct ethics and dialectical morality - in short, by brainwashing them. "Doubtless he ought to do only what he wants; but he ought to do only what you want him to do." The citizen in such a society is absolutely free, the state and its repressive force is done away with, and yet he is absolutely controlled - his wants are controlled: not his behaviour. This is stateless totalitarianism and absolute freedom existing simultaneously.
4.5. Fourth: On the correct use of democracy with regards to the people of the society in question.
If a decision is made, and is determined by the people by a majority rule of ninety per cent, we have ten per cent of the population who are disunited with the rest of the population. This population is the weak link in the chain of unity, of which I above spoke. I therefore have a suggestion. The ten per cent minority who opposed the decision must be exterminated. When another decision is made, that minority who opposed it must be exterminated. And so on and so on. Eventually, we will have a society only of people who agree with one another on everything, i.e., an absolutely united society.
"However," the reader will inquire, "was it not said that freedom is necessary for unity?"
That was indeed said. Freedom for everyone is the goal.
"But in the case mentioned," he the reader will respond, "it would only, at best, be freedom of the majority."
Quite so. But eventually, after such cleansing is completed, the majority will be everyone. Hence, everyone will eventually be free by progressively exterminating all who oppose the decisions of the majority.
"But!" you will continue, "you said above that this would be a stateless society. Is not the state a repressive force? And would not this society be repressing the minority? This is no 'stateless' society."
Quite so. But eventually, after exterminating every successive minority, everyone will agree on everything. Therefore, at that point, a repressive force will be superfluous, and will cease to exist of itself. What use would there be for a state, if everyone agrees upon everything, without the necessity of repression?
4.6. Fifth: On the existence of total equality amongst the people of the society in question.
A society without equality (equal rights, etc) is a disunited society.
4.7. Sixth: On developing an altruistic character amongst the people of the society in question.
Most altruism can be explained by behaviour known as "kin selection": that is to say, approximately fifty per cent of one's genes will be shared with one's brother or child, twenty-five per cent with his nephew or grandchild, twelve and one half per cent with a first cousin, etc. From the perspective of his genes it would be advisable to take a maximum of a fifty per cent chance to protect the life of someone who shares fifty per cent of his genes, viz., his child, brother, sister; twenty-five per cent chance maximum to save the life of someone sharing twenty-five per cent of his genes, viz., a nephew, niece, or grandchild; and so forth.
This is not because the individual knows that the person is related; it is because the individual feels that the person is related: for example, if one were raised with an adopted brother, one would experience identical altruistic feelings with regard to him as though he were biologically related.
This feeling must be duplicated in such a way that the altruism of the magnitude inherent in relations involving individuals sharing genes is made use of in all sorts of relations -- teacher and student, student and student, leader and follower, monk and abbot.
You might be curious by my use of the words "monk" and "abbot".
I had used these terms because I had abbeys in mind as an instrument by which to duplicate the feelings of altruism inherent in relations involving individuals sharing genes in a manner conformable with that manner above described.
Firstly, an abbey is a self-governed religious community especially from the mediaeval era of no fewer than twelve monks lead by a superior called an abbot. These communities had churches, dormitories, dining halls, kitchens, infirmaries, workships, schools, guest houses, etc.
By making use of similar communities we can maximise the beneficiaries of our proclivity to altruism for the satisfaction of society; in other words, our higher levels of altruism will not be limited to our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children, etc.
We would have close relationships with our fellow citizens, we would be more inclined to die for our fellow citizens, to work for them, etc.
Of course, we would moreover have to employ other methods by which to closen the relations within the abbeys; e.g., we would have to imitate and make use of the instincts intrinsic in efficient familial institutions, viz. the father-son bond, etc. within the abbey itself amongst persons genetically dissimilar. However, I am certain that these would come naturally.
How will a person join the abbey? This is irrelevant but someone I suspect will be inclined to ask this question. You can use your imagination. Obviously, however, it will be easier to cultivate altruistic tendencies among genetically dissimilar persons in one if one is raised with those same persons from a young age. Therefore I would say that the most desirable time to join is infancy. But how would they join? Again, your imagination can fill up that void.
By this means we can have larger families, more altruism. And to further maximise altruism, augment the quantity of beneficiaries, we can do "rotations", too.
Furthermore, sharing possessions, I think, will be quite conducive to enhancing altruism; plus it would limit the profit motive thereby limiting also greed within the community. Not eliminating it, but it would be quite helpful in my perspective.
4.8. Seventh: On cultivating independence, creativity, and consciousness amongst the people of the society in question.
This will be the subject of an upcoming essay.
Herein I shall make an argument in favour of unity, and how to create and maintain unity in a society. I thank the philosophy of Juche for some of the ideas.
1.1. Of Volitional Activity
By "volitional activity" I simply mean that which is done by and through one's own will. "Activity" comes from Latin "agere"; to do. "Do" does not refer only to observable actions, such as jumping or eating. For thinking is a type of doing. I say this because not infrequently we make such misleading statements as, "You think, then you do," implying that thinking is not a type of doing.
Thus volitional activity is a type of doing.
1.2 Man's volitional activity consists in this and this only: His independence, His creativity, and His consciousness. Independence, because volitional activity must, by definition, be done on one's own; creativity, because volitional activity must, by definition, have the ability to create, and is an exercise of creation; and consciousness, because volitional activity, by definition, is inseparable from consciousness. The conception of independence, creativity, and consciousness is implicit in the conception of volitional activity.
2.1. Of Volitional and Spontaneous Societies
Society develops according to man's volitional activity; that is, things in society are affected by, and occur through, man's volitional activity. A society without volitional activity therefore cannot develop. A society with a preponderance of volitional activity I shall call a volitional society. In nature ordinarily, on the other hand, things occur spontaneously, not as a result of volitional activity. This is a most singular difference between Nature and society (and why society is governned by its own law, which I need not get into in this article).
2.2. Therefore, in those societies in which things tend to occur spontaneously, there is a low level of volitional activity, i.e., a low level of independence, creativity, and consciousness (see 1.1). A society which has a preponderance of spontaneity I shall call a spontaneous society.
2.3. In order to decrease the level of spontaneity in a society, a system which cultivates independence, creativity, and consciousness is requisite, and a system which permits a full display of these attributes (i.e., a fully volitional society), is most desirable.
3.1. Of Unity and the Development of Society
But to ensure a maximum display of independence, creativity, and consciousness, the innumerable independent volitional activities in a society must function in unity; for when a thousand wills, in a thousand different men, are going their separate ways, are in antagonism with each other, and are doing this independently, creatively, and consciously, society once again resembles Nature's spontaneity. As Engels said:
"That which is willed happens but rarely; in the majority of instances the numerous desired ends cross and conflict with one another. . . . Thus the conflicts of innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the domain of history produce a state of affairs entirely analogous to that prevailing in the realm of unconscious nature. Historical events thus appear on the whole to be likewise governed by chance. But where on the surface accident holds sway, there actually it is always governed by inner, hidden laws and it is only a matter of discovering these laws."
When the volitional activivity of the people in a society is not in unity, that is, when "the conflict of innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the domain of history" produces a situation "analogous to that prevailing in the realm of unconscious nature," that society has in it a low level of independence, creativity, and consciousness, and a high level of sponteneity.
3.2. The development of society is that social transformation which improves a society's means by which that society socially cooperates. "People transform society to improve or perfect the relation of social cooperation," says Kim Jong-il.
3.3. The driving forces of the development of a society are what Kim Jong-il calls the popular masses. The popular masses therefore must be in unity in their independence, creativity, and consciousness in order to dimimish the level of spontaneity in their society (see 2.4). Indeed, as Kim Jong-il said, "social development is the process of the development of the masses' independence, creativity, and consciousness [my emphasis]"
3.4. A society cannot develop with a high level of spontaneity because the development of society is that social transformation which improves that society's means by which that society socially cooperates, and social cooperation is necessarily inconceivable with a great discordance of individual volitions, i.e., if it is a spontaneous society (see 2.4).
3.5. Therefore, the popular masses must be transformed in such a way that they themselves are one massive volitional activity that is in complete unity with itself. Only then can spontaneity be maximally abated. Only then can society develop as splendidly, as efficiently, as possible.
4.1. On Achieving Societal Unity
This type of societal unity, in which the masses constitute a single, massive volitional activity that is in absolute unity with itself and that has not therefore the unconscious character of spontaneity, can only be accomplished by the following means; namely, first of all, by the use of massive and constant criticism and self-criticism with regards to the people of the society in question; second of all, by the uncompromising approbation and respect for the individual and collective freedoms with regards to the people of the society in question; third of all, by the correct exercise of want-control with regards to the people of the society in question; fourth of all, by the correct use of democracy with regards to the people of the society in question; fifth of all, with the existence of absolute equality amongst the people of the society in question; sixth of all, by developing an altruistic proclivity amongst the people of the society in question; and finally, by cultivating independence, creativity, and consciousness amongst the people of the society in question.
4.2. First: On the use of massive criticism and self-criticism with regards to the people of the society in question.
A break in unity in a society is a weakness which must be corrected, because the gravity of that break is directly proportional to the weakness of the society in question. To use a metaphor, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link; and with a weak link the unity of the entire chain can fall apart, irrespective of how strong the rest of the chain is.
When, therefore, a citizen has incorrect ideas that can destroy his volitional unity with society, he must be criticised; and he must self-criticise, too. Only criticism and self-criticism can change a man's volitional activity in such a way as to reunited him with that to which it is desired he unite.
On the other hand, there are some false criticisms the effect of which has a tendency to be discordant with unity. I have extracted from Stalin's "Against Vulgarising the Slogan of Self-Criticism" essay the three primary ones, namely:
a. "Criticisms of private life which have nothing to do with socialist construction";
b. "Criticising for criticism's sake, turning criticism into a sport, into sensation mongering";
c. "Turning self-criticism into a witchhunt," i.e., being hypercritical.
4.3. Second: On the approbation and respect for the individual and collective rights with regards to the people of the society in question.
The principal individual right is freedom. Freedom serves the individual. Each individual, taken by himself, desires freedom, that is, happiness. I shall take it as self-evident that everyone wants to be free (i.e., to be able to do as he wants). Of course, he may not care about the freedom of others. But individually, everyone wants freedom.
On the other hand, the development of society serves the collective. All individuals, taken as a whole, desire the development of society. The development of society is improving the methods by which a society socially cooperates, maximising the chances of survival of the citizenry and expanding and improving the means of production. This I call the "collective right", and I give it this appellation because it serves society as a whole.
My doctrine of the collective right is correct (firstly) because the part is always inferior to the whole; for instance, the eye is a useless entity without that to which it is related, without the body. And so also the individual is useless without society, whereof he is a part. Second, not only is the part useless without the whole, but the part has less reality than the whole; that is to say, everything in its reality is defined by its relations to things from without. For example, what defines a cup is how it relates to things external in that (e.g.) we use it with which to drink. This is an external relation, and the cup, therefore, considered in isolation, has no reality as a cup.
In other words, all we need to do is consider the question of individual and collective rights in light of the self-evident truth that the whole is greater than the part.
To ignore, therefore, the rights of the individual, and pay attention only to the rights of the collective, is an error. For the collective is the sum of the individuals. That is, the collective depends upon the individual for its very existence. Therefore, freedom cannot be ignored: the individual right of the individual.
On the other hand, to ignore the needs of the collective, and pay attention only to the needs of the individual, is an error. For the individual, as a social being, is a non-entity without the collective (i.e. society). That is, the individual depends upon the collective for his very reality. Therefore, collective rights cannot be ignored - the right to develop, etc.
Thus the individual ought to be free to do whatever he wants to do, so long as he does not interfere with progression, i.e, so long as he does not interfere with the whole, with society, whereof he is but a part.
Furthermore, lack of freedom brings about rebellion, which in turn brings about lack of unity. Rebellion is only desirable when it creates unity by smashing disunity, i.e., by overcoming the contradiction between labour and capital, by abolishing capitalist society, and by replacing it with the unity of Socialism.
4.4. Third: On the correct exercise of want-control with regards to the people of the society in question
Jean-Jacques Rousseau said:
"The poor baby, knowing nothing, is he not at your mercy? Can you not arrange everything in the world which surrounds him? Can you not influence him as you wish? His work, his play, his pleasures, his pains, are not all these in your hands and without his knowing? Doubtless he ought to do only what he wants; but he ought to do only what you want him to do; he ought not to take a step which you have not foreseen; he ought not to open his mouth without your knowing what he will say."
This is essential to unity. "He ought to do only what you want him to do" - if a considerable number of citizens of a society do that which is wanted not to be done, society will once again take the form of unconscious spontaneity. If a citizen can take a step which is not foreseen, then he is unpredictable, and can therefore pose a threat to unity. He must be controlled, for the sake of unity and volition, and in opposition to unconscious spontaneity.
"Lock him up in a cage; that will prevent him from threatening unity," the naive reader, who has also ignored what I have said upon the subject of freedom, will suggest.
But as I have shown above, freedom is essential to unity. If we begin imprisoning and punishing people, we will have to deal with a great deal of disunity.
Thus we cannot control him in such a way. Then the question is, how do we control him, and yet have him enjoy freedom?
This is to be done by controlling his wants. As John Stuart Mill said, "Freedom consists in the ability to do what one desires." If he can do whatever it is that he desires, he is a free man. As soon as he is unable to do something which he desires, he is not a free man. Therefore, society must be such that each individual is free to do whatsoever he desires. But his desires must be determined beforehand by us, the whole! - i.e., he must be want-controlled. Only in such a way can he enjoy freedom, and have no need to rebel against anything and cause thereby disunity.
How do you prevent people who have the freedom to do anything they want to do from commiting crimes? The answer is to prevent people from desiring to commit crimes. This can be done by implanting in them correct ethics and dialectical morality - in short, by brainwashing them. "Doubtless he ought to do only what he wants; but he ought to do only what you want him to do." The citizen in such a society is absolutely free, the state and its repressive force is done away with, and yet he is absolutely controlled - his wants are controlled: not his behaviour. This is stateless totalitarianism and absolute freedom existing simultaneously.
4.5. Fourth: On the correct use of democracy with regards to the people of the society in question.
If a decision is made, and is determined by the people by a majority rule of ninety per cent, we have ten per cent of the population who are disunited with the rest of the population. This population is the weak link in the chain of unity, of which I above spoke. I therefore have a suggestion. The ten per cent minority who opposed the decision must be exterminated. When another decision is made, that minority who opposed it must be exterminated. And so on and so on. Eventually, we will have a society only of people who agree with one another on everything, i.e., an absolutely united society.
"However," the reader will inquire, "was it not said that freedom is necessary for unity?"
That was indeed said. Freedom for everyone is the goal.
"But in the case mentioned," he the reader will respond, "it would only, at best, be freedom of the majority."
Quite so. But eventually, after such cleansing is completed, the majority will be everyone. Hence, everyone will eventually be free by progressively exterminating all who oppose the decisions of the majority.
"But!" you will continue, "you said above that this would be a stateless society. Is not the state a repressive force? And would not this society be repressing the minority? This is no 'stateless' society."
Quite so. But eventually, after exterminating every successive minority, everyone will agree on everything. Therefore, at that point, a repressive force will be superfluous, and will cease to exist of itself. What use would there be for a state, if everyone agrees upon everything, without the necessity of repression?
4.6. Fifth: On the existence of total equality amongst the people of the society in question.
A society without equality (equal rights, etc) is a disunited society.
4.7. Sixth: On developing an altruistic character amongst the people of the society in question.
Most altruism can be explained by behaviour known as "kin selection": that is to say, approximately fifty per cent of one's genes will be shared with one's brother or child, twenty-five per cent with his nephew or grandchild, twelve and one half per cent with a first cousin, etc. From the perspective of his genes it would be advisable to take a maximum of a fifty per cent chance to protect the life of someone who shares fifty per cent of his genes, viz., his child, brother, sister; twenty-five per cent chance maximum to save the life of someone sharing twenty-five per cent of his genes, viz., a nephew, niece, or grandchild; and so forth.
This is not because the individual knows that the person is related; it is because the individual feels that the person is related: for example, if one were raised with an adopted brother, one would experience identical altruistic feelings with regard to him as though he were biologically related.
This feeling must be duplicated in such a way that the altruism of the magnitude inherent in relations involving individuals sharing genes is made use of in all sorts of relations -- teacher and student, student and student, leader and follower, monk and abbot.
You might be curious by my use of the words "monk" and "abbot".
I had used these terms because I had abbeys in mind as an instrument by which to duplicate the feelings of altruism inherent in relations involving individuals sharing genes in a manner conformable with that manner above described.
Firstly, an abbey is a self-governed religious community especially from the mediaeval era of no fewer than twelve monks lead by a superior called an abbot. These communities had churches, dormitories, dining halls, kitchens, infirmaries, workships, schools, guest houses, etc.
By making use of similar communities we can maximise the beneficiaries of our proclivity to altruism for the satisfaction of society; in other words, our higher levels of altruism will not be limited to our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children, etc.
We would have close relationships with our fellow citizens, we would be more inclined to die for our fellow citizens, to work for them, etc.
Of course, we would moreover have to employ other methods by which to closen the relations within the abbeys; e.g., we would have to imitate and make use of the instincts intrinsic in efficient familial institutions, viz. the father-son bond, etc. within the abbey itself amongst persons genetically dissimilar. However, I am certain that these would come naturally.
How will a person join the abbey? This is irrelevant but someone I suspect will be inclined to ask this question. You can use your imagination. Obviously, however, it will be easier to cultivate altruistic tendencies among genetically dissimilar persons in one if one is raised with those same persons from a young age. Therefore I would say that the most desirable time to join is infancy. But how would they join? Again, your imagination can fill up that void.
By this means we can have larger families, more altruism. And to further maximise altruism, augment the quantity of beneficiaries, we can do "rotations", too.
Furthermore, sharing possessions, I think, will be quite conducive to enhancing altruism; plus it would limit the profit motive thereby limiting also greed within the community. Not eliminating it, but it would be quite helpful in my perspective.
4.8. Seventh: On cultivating independence, creativity, and consciousness amongst the people of the society in question.
This will be the subject of an upcoming essay.