History Lesson IV: The Modern Era

Salutations!

The Modern Era. We call it that because we know it very well. It is recent and all of us have lived during it. 200 years from now, it will be called something else. It will be the future of history. Historians will look back and ponder upon how we lived, what we did to occupy ourselves, and how we ever lived without the technology they will possess. History is a living concept. It has no fixed end or completion. It is constantly building and growing.

What will future historians say about the era 1918 to 2004? Will they see it as the evolution of a certain pattern that cumulates in an event yet unforseen? Will they call it a time of transition or even backwardness? Our lives are merely a drop in the ocean of the historic continuum. Be humbled, for our lives will most likely be forgotten when the history of our time is written in textbooks. We all have the opportunity, however, to help shape what will be written in those textbooks.

By the end of the Great War, our history had diverged from its path which was 3000 years in the making. No longer were we dependant on agriculture for subsistance. We were freed from the yoke of the soil. We had access to a world of resources and ideas due to the expansion of international intercourse. The old ideas of Empire were not seen as the objective and glory of a nation any longer, since the violence of the First World War ensured that empire created war, and war created misery and suffering. WWI was the first major TOTAL WAR, a type of conflict unique to human beings alone. Total war involved every element of a society, and put strenuous demands on labour and the civillian populous. It also disregarded the distinction between non-combatant and soldier. The death toll was catastrophic. It was not sweet and glorious to die for one's country. It was bitter, muddy, and painful. This reality was recognized during WWI more than any other war. It seems, too, that human life became cheaper, less regarded.

In the post-war years, things seemed to return to normal. The populations of the Western world wrestled social concessions from their governments, including the expansion of the franchise. With more people voting, politicians found new constituencies to manipulate in order to retain political power. This would have later implications. Meanwhile, in the East, Japan had conquered Korea, Manchuria (part of China), and a variety of islands in the Pacific.

The unjust provisions listed in the Treaty of Versailles (1919) ensured that Germany was ruined. The aim of Britain and France after WWI was to completly hinder Germany from ever becoming an economic or military power again. The destitution of Germany in the 1920's was paralleled only by the destruction wrought by the Great Depression. Like most problems, Germany's economic crisis was solved by effective leadership. Unfortunately, that came in the form of a FASCIST regime. Such regimes we call tyrranies because they deprive some or all of peoples' natural liberties. Spain and Italy also established fascist states. Russia, having resolved her revolution, was ruled by Stalin by 1929 with the death of Lenin. Although Russia's revolution had given birth to a communist state, it was in fact what we now call a STALINIST state, after Joseph Stalin. Stalinism and Fascism are the very same thing. Regargless of political spectrum, a dictatorial regime is a dictatorial regime. Both require concentrated control of every aspect of life from a single, non-elected official. Both tend to be militaristic, and both seek to limit or dismantle liberty to ensure the perpetuation of the totalitarian state. Any dissent was strictly untolerated, and non-conformists were often dissuaded by torture or death. Both were tyrranies.

America, at the same time, claimed to be 'isolationist'. The theme of isolationism in American history is nothing but an outright lie. I will expose the HYPOCRACY of the AMERICAN EMPIRE in another discussion. Woodrow Wilson, at the Paris Conference in 1919, had promulgated the LEAGUE OF NATIONS. Although the United States did not join, most other nations did. That, of course, meant states that were not colonies of others. The League of Nations was an utter failure. Like the UNTIED NATIONS, it did not have the strength, leadership, or resources to deter aggressors, topple tyrranies, or prevent war. Furthermore, it was just an aggrandizing club for the victors of WWI. When Germany and Japan decided to take unilateral military actions to further their own interests, the League did nothing. When Japan formally annexed most of China, the League actually sought justification for the attack by labelling it a 'stabilizing influence'. When Germany invaded Austria and Czechslovakia (itself a product of the 1919 treaty), the League's leaders sought 'peace in our time' by giving over these countries.

Naturally, Adolph Hitler and the Japanese parliament found these decisions encouraging. In 1939, Hitler tried to test the League again by invading Poland. By then, Britain and France had had enough. War was declared and France, as always, was instantly invaded. Japan struck Indonesia and Hong Kong. Only 21 years, and another major war had begun.

Three side notes.

Adolph Hitler wanted to be a painter. As an Austrian in Vienna, he pursued his goal. He never won acceptance for his art, so instead became an agitator against the government and condition of Germany. While in prison for his escapades, he wrote a book called Mein Kempf (My Journey) which amounted to a collection of insane ramblings.

Joseph Stalin originally wanted to be a preist. He was kicked out of his seminary (religious school) and began to publish subversive communist leadership. He took on the name Stalin (Man of Steel) as a pseudonym. Through clever tricks and outright murder, he made his way to the top of the Communist Party and succeeded Lenin.

That just goes to show you that you should always let people follow their dreams. Failing that, watch out for insane ramblings.

Finally, the Great Depression. In the 1920's capital was abundant in the form of easy credit. The amount of credit in the world's economies was rediculous. Governments then had no notion of FISCAL POLICY. The result was the inevitable slump of the business cycle. The Great Depression of 1929-1933 was particularly harsh because of this abundant credit. All of a sudden debts were increasing exponentially while jobs were disappearing. Standard economic practice at the time was to 'tighten the waistband' in hard times, and that meant shedding jobs and cutting wages. Inflation increased the value of money, and all of a sudden stocks were worthless. Depressions had occured in the 1870's and 1890's along the same lines and near to the same degree, except that an agricultural drought occured in Canada and the US at the same time as the stock market crash, and that the world economy had become more closely integrated and led by the US by 1929. The destitution caused by the Great Depression made many countries desperate for solutions. This explains why Germans, Russians, Italians, Spaniards, and Japanese were willing to appoint or support tyrants to their governments.

The approach to the depression in the US and Canada followed the teachings of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes suggested that government spending, financed by deficits, could encourage the movement of capital and consumer spending, and thus reinvigorate the economy. Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented this in his New Deal of 1933. It introduced programs to get the unemployed working on state infrastructure projects. Canada quickly followed suit, and deficit spending was discovered and implemented simultaneously in Sweden. Although the New Deal and its cousins would help, they did not solve the depression. One effective result, however, was to strengthen the US federal government.

The fascist approach was actually the exact same. Fascist governments sponsored massive military projects and infrastructure, and imposed tariffs to eliminate foreign competition and dependance on imports. This also got people working and spending, and in the case of all but Russia, kept Communists away from agitating the poor.

So arms build-ups, fascist governments, and a weak League of Nations all combined to create World War II. Although the Seven Year's War (1754-63) and the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars (1789-1815) were the first world wars, WWII was the first to involve non-Western nations directly, and the first such to be a total war. In this first truely global war, the ideaological battle between tyrrany and liberty was fought. It was not an imperial war, nor one exclusively for resources. Power and political-economic systems were at stake. In the end, the economic power of free capitalism, expressed in the industrial powerhouse of the United States, was the victor. State controlled capitalism was the victim. Oddly enough, victory was achieved with the assistance of Stalinist Russia.

Like Napoleon Bonaparte in 1812, Hitler made the mistake in 1941 of starting a war with Russia while at war with Britain. Russia employed the muskovite pattern as it had in 1812, which exchanged territory for time, time for the Russian winter to set in. A war on two fronts distracted resources and efforts and led to the defeat of Germany. Also like Napoleon, Hitler maintained a grand fleet of warships whose sole contribution to the war effort amounted to being sunk by the British.

The Japanese and German inititives were genious, and well executed in the beginning, but in the end it was a war of time. The increadible power of Britiain, Canada, and America to hold out and rapidly put out military machinery from their industrial complexes would in the end outpace Germany and Japan. The morale of Allied forces, who were raised voluntarily instead of conscripted, was matched only by the Japanese and their extraordinary devotion to the Imperial state. The naval might of the Anglo-American allaince ensured a steady flow of capital, men, munitions, and machines to the front lines of battle. Canadian warships were heavily employed in the escourt of massive convoys of supply ships to Europe. With the resources of the Americas, Australasia, and Russia, the tiny states of Germany and Japan could simply not produce enough instruments of war to compete.

A contributing factor to Germany's defeat is it's expenditure of resources on exterminating Jews. Had Hitler not spent so much time and military force to murder 6 million people, he might have been more successful. The Nazi Holocaust occured because Hitler was eager for a scapegoat during the Great Depression. In his book, mentioned earlier, he blamed Jews for Germany's economic and political woes. He sought to isolate them from the rest of the population and enclose them in walled ghettos. After the war, those that survived moved to Palestine to form Israel. Today the Jews in Israel are building a 'security perimeter' around Muslim Palestinian towns. How quaintly this wall resembles those built by Hitler.

In 1945 there was a new world order. The nuclear bomb was the final word in weapons that could destroy the world. And Europeans thought the crossbow would mean the death of all. For the first time in history, humanity had the technology to obliterate itself. Survivors wouldn't last long, because nuclear warfare would ensure that the planet was uninhabitable. Nuclear technology proliferated to Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. Despite the expense of these weapons, there are currently enough world-wide to destroy earth several time over. Oh, and there are millions starving to death. Nuclear weapons, it was supposed, would act as a deterrant to major conflict.

The United Nations, successor to the League of Nations, is pretty much the same thing. It is still a club for the victors of WWII, expressed in the 'Security Council.' The Security Council is made up of Britain, France, the US, Russia, and China as permanant members. This is not an effective reflection of world power. The UN is still a weak organization dependant on resources from the major powers. Its leadership is ineffective. Its drive for human rights is powered by the HR Commission, which itself is riddled with member states who are the world's worst human rights offenders. UN Peacekeepers are simply the soldiers of poor states that are interested in loaning them for the money and weapons provided. The United States, the world's only superpower at the moment, hasn't paid its UN dues for years. President George W. Bush has exposed the weakness of the UN and exploited it. Is there really peace in our time?

Despite the deterrants of nuclear arms and multi-lateralism, war has continued to be part of our lives. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo, and Iraq II have been wars in our time. We just experience them in ABSTRACTION. Those of us far from the battlefield, often ignorant of the spelling of these very locations, only see these wars as filtered through our televisions. Westerners do not know the true suffering of war-ravaged nations. People die. In abstraction, they become statistics. In reality, that person was someone's lover, someone's parent, someone's child. Could you easily cope with the loss of such a person? Modern warfare has been sanitized for our viewing. Flashy words and fancy technology have removed the human element from war, or at least for rich countries.

The Cold War after 1945 was not at all as cold as it seemed. Korea, Vietnam, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Afghanistan, and countless other minor conflicts were fought. The only difference between this war and others was that it was fought by PROXY. Various groups within most nations had either Soviet or American support and these groups fought each other for the causes of Communism and Capitalism. Almost always, the outcome was fascism or Stalinism. American or Soviet support became so integrated, and the factions so hardlined, that the defeat of the other faction superseded all other objectives, including human liberties. The Americans and Russians were more than happy to support their allied dictators and disregard offences and crimes in order to render the competing ideology in that region or country. These proxy wars were the most suitable outlet for agression between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States. Both of these powers recognized that a war between them directly would result in a nuclear holocaust.

These proxy wars caused the installation of numerous tyrants, often over legitimately elected governments. They also caused millions of deaths, imprisonments, or missing persons. South and Central America are perfect examples of entire regions that suffered as a result of these proxy wars. Funnily enough, many dictators and tyrants that were installed by America would later have to be removed by them.

Between 1945 and 1975 a massive demographic event occurred. The return of soldiers and the prosperity generated by the industrial boom of the war period seemed to congeal to form an environment conducive to massive human reproduction. More families were having more children in rapid succession. My parents came from families of 4 and 5 children. This was the BABY BOOM. Interestingly, of these 9 relatives, only 4 sets of two children have been realized.

The generation born between 1945 and 1970 is the greatest single demographic spike in history, both absolutely and in real terms. It has been described as a pig travelling through the snake of time. This massive generation of people have shared common experiences and thus interests, and vote accordingly. They are largely responsible for the development of the comprehensive welfare state that covers the span of life 'from erection to resurrection.' I will cover more on the Baby Boom in a discussion called INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUALITY.

After 1945 an era of unprecidented economic boom occured. Normally after wars, depression sets in as manufacturing demands slow down. In the post WWII era, economic strength was perpetuated by government infrastructure programs, expansion of the public sector, and the continuance of military spending to 'fight' the Cold War. Prosperity made mass reproduction possible and sustainable. This 'golden age' lasted until the 1970's when the dream came crashing down. In response to US assistance to Israel during one of its wars with its Muslim neighbours, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC, largely made up of Muslim nations) cut down their exports of oil. Immediately oil prices skyrocketed, and the price of everything else followed suit. Humanity had become dependant on oil for everything. We were, and are, SLAVES TO OIL. I will write on that subject later.

With increased prices comes an increased cost of living. With an increased cost of living came a demand for increased wages to counter it. Increasing prices and costs (inflation) immediately ate up higher wages, while economic stagnation had set in. This was earth's first experience with STAGFLATION, or stagnant growth with inflation. Of course, the governments of the world were big spenders in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, and 70's and had accumulated massive debts. Governments had few options in dealing with the crisis. After 1979 recession and it's corresponding economic effects set in.

Unions and the working class believed that salvation would be found in higher wages and increased government spending. Unfortunately both of these increased the amount of money flowing in the market, which made currencies cheaper. So dollars, yens, pounds, francs, and marks bought less and less. With an increase in money supply, money became cheaper. Governments around the world took three options:

1: The US way: Reagan (US), Thatcher (UK), and Mulrooney (Canada) broke stagflation on the backs of the poor. They recklessly slashed government spending, eliminated programs, forced pay cuts, and resisted strikes relentlessly. The result was that working class people's real wages had decreased for the first time in a century, and government programs for them had disappeared. Meanwhile, corporations somehow emerged wealthier and more powerful.

2: The Continental way: France, Spain, Germany, and Italy all thought they could spend their way through these troubled times. They increased programs and spending, and allowed the working class to extract massive concessions from employers. As a result, these countries now have among the highest labour costs in terms of wages and benefits, and massive debts that still exist today. These countries are not investor friendly and jobs have been disappearing. The government response to this: squeeze companies that still remain so that their employees can get higher wages and securities. Work in these countries is great, if you can get it.

3: The Scandinavian way: Sweden, Denmark, and Finalnd sought to solve the problem through solidarity. All aspects of society had to work together to end the recession. This meant wage cuts for all. Denmark imposed a 9% paycut across the board. Some programs were cut, but alternative programs such as reeducation and job placement were enhanced to help those displaced reintegrate into more adaptable industries. The collective experience strengthened these nations and today they are amongst the most efficient producers in terms of productivity and labour value.

By 1990 the recession was long gone, but how each country dealt with it would have far reaching effects. One thing remained in common: all nations were still dependant on Middle-East oil.

Sometime between 1989 and 1993 the world underwent a technical revolution. Computers and microchips were not new at the time, but somewhere between these dates personal computers became accessable, affordable, and simplefied. The average human could afford to buy a computer and did not have to learn much to use it. Workplaces began to implement the PC, increasing exposure. The internet appeared and connected people around the world. Through the 90's businesses and people became dependant on computers. New ways to create, store, and transfer information on computers developed. The DIGITAL or INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION had begun. This revolution may have the same long term effecrts as did the Industrial Revolution.

Meanwhile, in the 1980's and 1990's, the Pacific Rim was well on its way to development. Japan was rebuilt as was Europe after the war with US money. The Korean War helped Japan by acting as an industrial and military base for the US, as did South Korea in the Vietnam War. Now countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, the Phillipines, Indonesia, and India are all major manufacturing nations. They are also competitors on the world stage for manufacturing jobs. Asian competition has caused worry for Western workers, who fear that jobs will go to these lower-wage Pacific nations. This is part of the process of GLOBALIZATION, which I will discuss later.

Asian nations seem to be developing and industrializing along the same lines as Europe, Japan, and North America did in the 19th century. Cheap labour attracts capital investment to mass produce goods at a low price to sell to domestic and foreign markets. Human rights are at first dismal, but gradually grow better with wealth and the collectivization of society. South Korea is a perfect example. A colony in 1944 of Japan, and in 2004 an industrial giant and among the top 15 richest countries in the world. It has had its share of brutal dictators, along with a constant antagonism with its northern counterpart. South Koreans now benefit from a stable democracy. Taiwan is another example. In 1949 when Mao Zedong's Communist Party drove out the Republican Party, Chiang Kai-shek settled on the small Chinese island of Taiwan. Since then the island has developed into a strong democracy with an industrial-capitalist tradition. China still disputes that it owns the island, but its inhabitants are uninterested in unifying with the mainland under the current circumstances.

China is one of the world's largest manufacturers. Everything seems to be made in China these days. High-tech industries have moved there, producing a wide variety of electronics. Shoes, clothes, furniture, toys, and even food are exported from China en mass. China also has a very poor human rights record as of 2004, but that looks to be changing slowly. The country is shaping up to be a strong contender on the global stage. China in the future may be the world's foremost economic and military power, replacing the United States.

With competition from the Pacific Rim taking its toll, European and North American manufacturing began experiencing hardships in the 80's and 90's. The process of outsourcing became very contentious and very real to the industrial sector. Western economies have changed as a result. Their primary focus has moved from manufacturing to services, finance, and information techonolgy (IT). This diversification of the economy has further displaced manufacturing jobs which in the 1960's and 70's looked very secure. The current plight of the working class can be summed up thus:

1: Asian compeition. Lower wages in these countries and increaing free trade have allowed Asian nations to make and export products to the developed world for prices lower than if they were manufactured within the developed world. This also has the benefit of assisting in the development of Asian economics, but results in jobs moving 'offshore'. As long as Asian products are cheaper and of relatively equal quality, consumers in the West will continue to assist in this process.

2: Labour Unions. Unions since the 50's have sought to raise wages and comitting companies to long term pension and health benefits. The long term costs of these commitments, and wages that are not globally competitive, have resulted in a loss of interest in manufacturing in North America and Europe. Investors and capitalists would rather produce in competitive or low wage countries in order to deliver a product at a lower price to the end consumer, which results in attracting a larger market share and simultaneously maximizes profits (which happens to be the goal of capitalists). As the baby boomers start to retire between 2005 and 2035, they will collect these pension and health benefits, which will become a drain on corporate finances. Some companies in the airline industry have already begun to reneg on these promises in order to remain competitive. By demanding high wages and long term benefits, unions hurt their companies financially which makes them less nimble and adaptable. Many corporate pension programs are underfunded (which is the fault of management) and may result in less payouts than promised. Even though unions have their good and useful aspects, they lack moderation.

3: Technological Change. With computers, robots, and machines advancing at their current pace, very few jobs will require hands-on work in the future, particularly in manufacturing. Unions and the working class resist technological change, which in the long run increases input costs and decreases efficiency. Their rationale is that a job should not be replaced by a machine. If a company finds it cannot remain competitive using its current labour input, it will downsize or go overseas, resulting in the loss of all jobs.

4: Aging Society. The baby boom is a numerous generation and it's getting older. As this massive demographic blip gets older, it becomes interested in two things: pensions and health care. These are the two things that will perpetuate the generation and give them a longer than usual lifespan. As they get older, they need more healthcare, which helps them survive to collect more pensions, which helps them live in comfort until the next medical operation. Pensions and healthcare are expensive, and companies that want to be competitive cannot afford to pay thousands of pensions for 20 years or more while simultaneously paying for the healthcare of the same group that is collecting pensions.

5: Taxes. When companies cannot pay pensions or healthcare, they look to offload the responsibility onto the state. Workers are more than happy to extract their benefits from the nation. To pay for these programs, the state has to raise taxes. A high tax environment may influence investors or current companies to leave one state for another of lower taxes.

6: Economic Change. Western economies have shed many of their manufacturing jobs in favour of exploring new sectors, mainly IT, finance, and services. It seems to be part of the natural evolution of economic systems. As the world economy moved from agriculture to manufacturing in the 19th century, so will it move from manufacturing to IT, finance, and services in the 21st.

Your average capitalst (although we are all capitalists in some way or another) is a biological, predictable being. They will seek for themselves the greatest gain possible from their current stock of capital (be it monetary, intellectual, or physical). Capitalists are not to blame for the erosion of working class jobs. They are just doing what they do. If you think an alternative economic system is in order, I will defray your beliefs in a later discussion called CAPITALISM AND ITS ALTERNATIVES. So who is to blame for the 'destruction' of the working class? Changing economic nature, international development, and unions. Like the rural farmer, the manufacturer will have to give way to a new economic order.

The effects of the 1990's and early 2000's are difficult to interpret. We are still living them out. We won't know their full outcome for some years. I will offer a few observations that may have future significance.

1: The Digital Revolution: We have discussed this already, but it bears note that the current rate of technological change has begun to accellerate exponentially, as opposed to geometrically, in the last 50 years. How far this revolution can go is literally bound only by our imaginations.

2: Democracy?: With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, a whole bundle of states will experience nationhood as they never have before. Two political models have emerged amongst these states: democracy and Stalinism. As Ukraine's election is currently being debated, we shall see in the next few years how these models work themselves out in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. In Asia itself, strong democratic states like India, Korea, and Taiwan are becoming the norm, which funnily enough have been strengthening with the increase of wealth that development has brought to them. Democratic processes have returned to South and Central America after decades of brutal dictatorships. South East Asia is coming online with democratic struggles. So that leaves the Middle East and Africa as two very large areas of relatively weak democratic traditions. There are exceptions in each, however. Finally, the American (thinly veild imperialist) drive for exporting 'democracy' began to take violent steps in 2001. There are precidents prior to this, but the result has largely been to establish single party 'democracies' or mere puppet states. If this trend continues in Afghanistan and Iraq, then the true spirit of democracy will be defeated. Democracy has to be discovered locally, not imposed from afar. It must be born from struggle and will, not by conquering. Which countries will develop democracies? Which will endure tyrrany? Can America truely be called a democracy anymore in the face of a stolen 2000 election and extremely polarized constituents? Watch these areas closely.

3: The Baby Boomers: This generation will most likely impoverish rich countries. It has succeeded in polluting the earth, raping the world of natural resources, and creating the farce we now know as SUBURBIA (which I will discuss in another chapter). It will also most likely succeed in extracting such high pension and healthcare benefits so as to make paupers out of the young and fit, just to squeeze another wretched year of life out of a frail and aging body. We may very well become indentured servents to pay for their retirements.

4: Oil: We are entirely dependant on oil. Not only is it a fuel, it also makes plastic, fertilizers, pesticides, industrial lubricants, preservatives, ink, wax, rubber, film, cosmetics, vitamins, and detergents. Petrochemicals are used in almost every daily activity you experience. What happens when oil becomes scarce, and eventually runs out? Oil production will peak between 2000 and 2010. After that, production will slow down and decrease as less oil is available. The laws of diminishing returns stipulates that as a resource becomes harder to find, it also becomes more expensive and as a result costs more and more to extract, until it becomes physically or financially impossible to gather more. At the current rate of consumption of oil, and given that consumption rises by a certain percentage each year, demand will soon outstrip supply. This will result in higher and higher oil prices, which in turn makes everything more expensive (as we saw in the 1979 recession). Between 2003 and 2004 we saw the first stage of this process. As more countries, particularly China, continue to develop, they too will require more oil, increasing world demand exponentially. Reserves are dwindling.

5: War: Remember how I said "wars are fought for two reasons: ideas and resources"? Yah, items 2 and 4 above. The instigators of future wars will likely be the United States, China, and Russia. They are the largest economies by far and demand the most resources. Meanwhile, wars of ideas will rage in the Middle East and Africa.

6: Space: Space has scientific, economic, and military value. The use of space for scientific and economic ventures is productive and I strongly advocate it. However, the use of space as the 4th battleground (after land, sea, and air) is controversial and technically illegal under various agreements between the USSR and the US signed in the 1970's. Reagan's "Star Wars" project, revived under Bush Jr., seems likely to go ahead as long as Republican administrations control Congress. Star Wars seeks to put satellites in space for intelligence and missle defence, but those applications can easily be turned to spying (both domestic and international) and missle offence. American docrine seems to be geared towards a US monopoly of space. The uses and ownership of space in the future will have profound concequences.

7: The World Economy: Free trade and globalization, enemies to socialists of the Naomi Klein sort, are progressing whether we like it or not. Globlal free trade was first tried in the 19th century. Britain's maritime and economic supremacy allowed it to influence many nations into free trade agreements which actually benefitted both sides. Britain got resources and markets, while other nations received British capital and expertise to help them develop. It forced industry on both sides to be very competitive and efficient. The globalization and free trade we think of today are tinged by the writings of left wing agitators and those displaced by one or several of the conditions I mentioned in my discussion of the plight of the working class. Globalization and free trade are not inherently evil. Unfortunately they come in part of a package which also includes American cultural, moral, and social imperialism while further aggrivating a few working class plight conditons. More on globalization and free trade in CAPITALISM AND ITS ALTERNATIVES. The response to and effectiveness of globalization and free trade will have a profound effect on the constitution of a world economy.

8: The Junior Complex: George Bush Junior, or 'dubyah' as he is sometimes called, represents a new challenge to the future. Depending on the years 2004-2008, Bush just might be the ruin of us all. Worst case scenario: expect a return of church-state alliances (read: moral tyrrany and the stuff of the middle ages), aggressive oil - sorry, democracy and freedom - wars, a weakened US economy (and its resulting world-wide effects) and increased unilateralism on the part of the US. The divide between the world and America will worsen as a result. Watch for wars in Iran (oil) and North Korea (strategic base against China), as well as a proliferation of America's already extensive military base system which stands at between 300-400 worldwide as of 2004. The US example of tyrrany might influence other countries, and harden extremists and even moderates in the Middle East. The US might move to one of those confounded one party democracies through electoral fraud and reform, resulting in the disappearance of civil liberties. This program has begun with the Patriot Act, passed after the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre by Islamic extremists. The response to terrorism has been somewhat childish, and has resulted in a constant state of FEAR of a perceived terrorist threat, real or imagined. Like Rome, the US may transform from republic to empire.

For more on the future, watch for my upcoming chapter on MODELS OF THE FUTURE.

So we have gone from 10,000 BCE to November 2004. Although there is much more to tell, this should give you an adequate framework to understand what I will reveal to you. I have mentioned future topics that will arise sooner or later in their own chapters. I will include a HISTORICAL APPENDIX to add anything that I might have missed in these history lessons. I hope I have raised some questions about history, politics, economics, and society that will make you think and criticize traditional interpretations.

For now, I wish you all fair winds and following seas.

History Lesson III: The Pre-Modern Era

Greetings!

I have hopefully adequately explained how our society had developed from before history to about 1450 CE. Please feel free to ask me to clarify anything. Otherwise, we may move along. I will now introduce you to the pre-modern world, from which we can directly derive our current state. I have been spending a great deal of my letters on the Western world. This is because there is no doubt that Western thinking is the most pervasive set of constructs in our world in 2004. Not a single nation on earth today can deny that they have been effected by what is known as the West. Once the United States and Canada had shown themselves 'worthy' of being included in the same social category as Europe, Europeans could no longer call themselves the centre of all things. They had to create a term that included themselves and North America, while excluding all others, which collectively asserted their common social and economic values. That these values are considered the path to development today is largely due to 19th century conceptions of 'development' and cultural superiority.

Oddly enough, in 1400 Europe did not have much going for it. China was centuries ahead in technology and commerce. India was the candidate for an industrial revolution along the lines of textile manufactures. Korea and Japan were both great cultural centres that were quick to contend with Chinese dominance. Muslims in their vast and expansive empires were ludicrously wealthy and very competant merchants and seafarers. MesoAmerica had built massive empires in Mexico and Peru which rivalled the tiny, enclosed towns of Europe. In 1400, the Chinese would have considered Europe a third world region. Even the west coast of Africa had centuries of experience trading with India and China, and were very wealthy. What changed?

In the 1410's and 20's, Ming China launched seven extraordinary fleets of wooden sailing ships under Admiral Zheng He, a Muslim eunuch and favorite of the Emperor Zhu Di. These fleets numbered in the hundreds of ships, some 400 ft long and 50 ft wide. The pinnacle of European naval architecture at the same time reached a whopping 150 ft or so. Even in the early 19th century, ships did not exceed 300 ft. On these Chinese fleets, tens of thousands of sailors, soldiers, diplomats, scribes, artists, and tradespeople lived and worked. The aim of these fleets was to display the opulence and power of the Chinese to foreign lands, and to bring ambassadors to the court in Beijing to recieve gifts and become integrated into an already expansive Chinese trading network. The effect was surely dramatic.

Gavin Menzies, a retired Royal Navy submarine captain, suggested in his book "1421, the Year China Discovered the World" that the last of these fleets managed to explore a good portion of the world before returning to China. We do know that earlier fleets had reached West Africa. Perhaps they reached the Americas, Australia, Greenland, and New Zealand too. They certainly had the capability.

Unfortunately, before the last fleet reached home, lightning struck the Imperial Palace in Beijing, and Zhu Di went mad. His successor agreed with his Confucian advisors that China did not need the outside world, and banished further operations. He also forbid the building of ships greater than 3 masts and commanded that none travel outside his boarders. China became inward-looking and very traditionalist. The great imperial expansion that wasn't, was Chinese.

India was renouned for its textiles and jewels, and surely would achieve industrialization by 1550, if it were not for a unique set of problems. An industrial revolution would have required capital, which India did have, but also a large consolidated state, which it did not. No ruler had a very large territory, and like feudal Europe India was highly partitioned. Indians were not mechanically inclined and suffered from shortages of fuel to run machines. Like China, India was reliant on massive irrigation agriculture, which resulted in massive labour needs and state bureacracy. These institutional and cultural barriers help explain why India did not win the race for development in the Pre-Modern Era.

The great Muslim empires were made of very adept merchant capitalists, they were expert traders and travellers, and very scientific. However, they lacked important resource bases and were not effective manufacturers. Their wealth was largely derived from selling goods obtained in India and China to Europeans, as well as the trade of such goods itself. In 1498, Islam lost the bid for development to Europe through its overreliance on mercantilism. But they didn't know it yet.

Portugal in the 15th century was one of the most remote nations in Europe. It had no land links to the great courts of Paris, Rome, or Vienna. It was not a rich country either. Its produce still consists of cork and olives, then the staple trades. It was not a manufacturing nation, nor a great trader nation like Venice. It had one thing: an adventurous spirit. King Henry ("The Navigator") founded a maritime college at Sagres and encouraged sailors and mathematicians to attend. Here, he trained a series of men who would become explorers. These men were not so much interested in finding new lands as they were finding an alternate route to the riches and goods of the East. Tired of sending all thier gold and silver through Venice to Arabia to get Indian and Chinese goods, and alarmed in 1453 when the Turks cut off the western terminus of the eastern trade in Constantinople, Europeans desperately sought another solution to satisfy their addiction to eastern goods.

Christopher Columbus and Vasco da Gama had similar intentions when they set out in the 1490's. They were seeking another route to the east. Perhaps both had maps showing them where to go, if Gavin Menzies is right. The outcomes of these adventurers' voyages would be completely different and have massive historical effects:

1: Columbus found two new continents to exploit, which happened to be full of bullion (gold and silver). He did not know he had discovered new lands, but his findings changed the economic relation between Europe and the east.

2: da Gama had survived rounding the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa. He had breached the barrier between east and west, and opened the Orient to the desires and scruples of Europe. He had cut out the Muslim middle-man and mapped a direct route to the riches of the East. Venice, Constantinople, and the Islamic empires slowly declined as Europeans used his route to buy the goods they wanted and ship them directly home with significantly less cost than buying them from the network of merchants on the overland Silk Road, which each took their cut.

We see directly the shift in economic power from those states who derived their money from the overland route, and those who shipped the goods themselves. The Atlantic states (Portugal, Spain, Holland, England and France, in that order) were the greatest shippers of Oriental goods. The first four of these states assumed the empires established by their listed predecessors over the centuries. France was not a large player in the East, especially after 1763. Today, no one thinks of Venice or Genoa as economic and military powers.

In 1503 da Gama went back to India, this time with more ships and more guns. On the Malabar coast, his 6 carracks, 5 caravels, and 4 naos, defeated 80 Muslim ships packed with soldiers. How? The Portugese had employed their cannons effectively and sunk the Muslim ships before they could get close enough to board. da Gama won the day and had set a precedent. Europeans would from then on monopolize the seas, since they monopolized VIOLENCE AT SEA. No other state could build a force large enough and well-equipped enough to resist European maritime intrusion. The application of heavy guns on manoevreable and capable sailing ships was unique to Europe and China, and as we have seen China surrendered their bid for maritime dominance in the early 15th century, well before the Europeans arrived. As Europeans charged eastward in the succeeding centuries, their naval technology and might increased so that when they did come to confront the Chinese navy in 1839, the contest had been decided a century before. Europeans could mount and utilize maritime violence as no other civilization ever could. Their techniques, discipline, and technology by 1839 were far superior to anything the seas had ever seen, save the massive treasure junks of Zheng He.

With almost unrestrained power at sea, European imperialism advanced unchecked. Wherever they could move a ship, their presence was felt. Soon they began to dominate the shipping of most Oriental states. Europe for the first time in its history was a net importer of bullion. Previously it had to export its bullion east, as it was the only commodity available to them that Muslim merchants would accept. Now with mining in the New World, and the extraction by forced trade of precious metals and stones in India, Persia, China, and Indonesia, Europe flooded with gold. The increase became problematic to Spain, who's massive importation led to a reduction in the price of bullion and caused bankruptcy and inflation.

Portugal had led the way. Their experience with maritime commerce with the Mediterranean had given them the human capital needed to expand their horizons. Not to be outdone by its neighbour, newly reconquered Spain followed quickly. Portugal, with few natural resources and weak domestic industry, was ousted by Spain by 1550. Spain, wracked by debt, European war, inflation, and overburdening colonial commitments, was largely removed from the east by the superior arms of Holland in the 17th century. England, which became Britain in 1707, was left with scraps by the time it had reached a state of imperialist expansion after its Civil War (1641-49). Rather than direct resource extraction, Britain used its colonies in the Caribbean, America, and India, to develop a strong network of trade. Britain was the paragon of the Merchant Capital Social Formation. Its primary mode of income production was the act of acquiring goods at a low price and shipping them to a place of high price. The surplus in this transaction became the wealth of Britain. British merchant ships assumed a massive proportion of the world's shipping. In 1400 England was one of the smallest countries in the world. By 1875 it controlled one quarter of the earth, and all its seas. It had consumed the empire of the Dutch and consistantly defeated the arms of France and Spain combined. It controlled India, directed China's customs and trade, and it was responsible for settling and developing large land masses such as North America and Australia.

So why did former British colonies succeed in development, and former Spanish and French colonies as yet have not? Part of the story has to do with British capital and capitalist systems. Another part is climate. The moderate climate of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand eliminate natural disasters such as hurricanes and tidal waves, while their location render them relatively immune to earthquakes. The temperature of these areas is not irritatingly hot, and they do not possess great deals of bullion or lands suitable for spices or other rare flora. Like Britain, these lands were suitable for cereal crops and sheep, and they resembled home for colonists. They are all easily accessable by sea. Thus the very important questions of infrastructure and local society were answered in favour of stable, orderly production with an eye to future development. Areas which offered more exotic crops or mines were developed to extract those resources and give little in return. Once those resources diminished, or Europeans found a substitute/way to generate them on their own, the area lost its value and the infrastructre could serve no other purpose than the extraction of a non-extant resource.

The other answer is capital. By dominating maritime trade links, Europeans gained all the capital that the Merchant Capital Social Formation could offer. Atlantic capitals swelled with wealth. Local investments disappeared due to the law of diminishing returns, and so European, mainly British, capital sought new outlets for returns. By investing, the wealthy class could expect that their wealth would generate more wealth if the project was successful. Well, by the time projects in Britain dried up (about 1860), that capital began to flow to other parts of the Empire. Canada, Australia, India, and the United States got shiney new factories (except India, which was kept in dependant status) and railroads from British wealth generated by merchant capitalism.

What caused the Industrial Revolution in Britain? No other country was quite as technically adept as Britain, from years of tinkering with naval architecture since the navy was the lifeblood and saviour of the island nation. Dockyards were the first industrial complexes, and they were very advanced in Britain. From 1744 to 1815 Britain was at almost constant war with France, Spain, the Baltic states, and the United States. Britain was encouraged to generate as many ships as possible to keep trade flowing and to protect it with naval might. Mass production was required to build the hundreds of small ships needed to patrol the waters of the Empire, while more creative means were required to churn out dozens of much larger ships, some of which exceeded 110 heavy cannons. A certain amount of technical expertise was acquired to construct these complex vessels, and so I argue that industrial processes were born in the shipyards of southern England, simultaneously with similar situations in textiles and ironworks, which also had military applications. It was Britain that developed the steam engine, and had the capital and fuel (coal) to develop, build, and power it. Economic conditions had created a mobile labour force and the already massive mercantilist system provided markets and raw resources.

European nations consolidated into larger states. Take for example England, which congealed with Wales (1530's), Scotland (1603), and Ireland (a colony since 1174 but ruled from Westminster from 1801) to create Great Britain. France and Spain also experienced similar acquisitions. Their wealth became greater and internal barriers to movement and trade decreased. Capital accumulation became easier, commerce was nurtured, and financial institutions developed and strengthened. The easy flow of money helped mercantile capitalism and eventually industrial capitalism. Credit was relatively secure and easily available. This unique situation helps explain why the Industrial Revolution occured first in the Western world.

In the last 200 years we have had the benefit of studying the process of industrialization in retrospect. It seems that all industrializing nations experience some similar traits.

1: That their population swells, and that excess population emigrates to less populated areas. There, expatriates acquire wealth and return it through family links and investment to their home nation. Later in life they may return and lend their industry and experience to the development of their nation.

2: That all developing states experience a surge in yearly economic growth rates, then peak and level off.

3: That each nation achieves a certain position in the scale of manufactures before labour becomes too expensive and lower-wage industries must move to lower-wage countries.

4: That each nation experiences a labour movement which results in greater civil rights but causes #3.

5: That France is the exception to all of the above.

Karl Marx suggested that imperialism was an inseperable partner to industrialization. This is infact not the case. East Asian development has been highly successful and completely devoid of an imperialist tinge (save Japan). Imperialism was the partner of merchant capital and its drive for monopoly. Therefore it was a leftover from that system rather than the product of industrial capitalism. Marx's stages of capitalism were accurate in a historical sense, since he had the benefit of hindsight. However, his prediction that a world-wide proletarian revoluton would establish communism was incorrect. He did not count on industrial societies eventually legislating in favour of the workers, which created our modern social states. Further, communism is impossible because pure equality is impossible. No two humans are EXACTLY THE SAME. Each is endowed with his or her own GIFTS and these cannot be equated with the gifts of other human beings. While a society may be economically and politically equal in theory, the people will always have an advantage or another over their peers. Some are intelligent, some are technically inclined, some are athletic. None are the pinnacle of human design and so they cannot be equal. My thoughts on this will be posed in a later chapter.

1914-1918 was the last old-world imperial war. It was cumulation of a century of rivalries between alliances, and Britain's percieved dominance. The Great War achieved several things:

1: It ensured that Europeans no longer had the resources to be strong imperial powers.

2: That the United States was a superpower.

3: That Japan had free reign in the Pacific.

4: That the losers were utterly ruined.

5: That Communism became a viable option for workers.

Wars are fought for only two things: RESOURCES and IDEAS. The First World War was fought over resources in respect to colonies and markets. Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy wanted more, and Britain and France had many. Russia was a massive expanse as well. Since the members of the Triple Alliance were relatively newcomers to the imperial game, they sought to pick up the scraps of Africa and Asia but were hindered, threatened, and foiled by those powers who already had strong interests in the area. They tried to muscle their European competators out with arms races, which meant that any simple thing could ignite conflict.

With Germany economically crushed, Austria-Hungary dismantled, and Italy on their side by 1915, the Atlantic powers effected victory. They tried to make Germany literally pay for its own defeat. Russia had embarked in 1917 on the path to Communism. By 1921 Russia had ushered in a Communist government under Vladimir Lenin. European nations found money scarce and could no longer afford the imperial adventure. Their colonies began to slip away. War became the object of scorn rather than the call of nationalism. Domestic industrialization took over from reliance on colonial markets. Our modern political and economic relationships were born of the sarcrifice of Empire on the alter of the Great War.

And thus concludes the Pre-Modern Era. In the 90 years from the beginning of WWI, we have seen the rise of only two more empires, and the fall of one (Japan). Imperialism took another form after WWI, and that was American economic imperialism. In the next chapter we will see how our modern era gave birth to the American Empire and we will try to draw some lessons from the Athenian, Roman, and British Empires.

Excel and prosper.

History Lesson II: The Medieval Era

Good day all.

Today I will show you how the medieval era was one of cultural destitution for the Western world. I say Western world because Asia was doing comparatively better at the same time. Compared to Europe, China, India, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Arabia, and east Africa were much better off. At the time, none of these nations could imagine Europe achieving anything. It was the backwater of the civilized world. Even the Incas and Aztecs were more advanced in some respects. So how did the West, after the fall of the Roman Empire, manage to return itself to something closer to what we think of it now?

One of the problems of Europe was the sheer number of states. Each one was small and ruled in a tributary manner, so that capital accumulation, the key to development, was almost impossible. Without money to develop lands and commerce, these states were dependant on every last morsel of grain they could extract from their crops. States were run in a feudal manner, so that intense hierarchical divisions enforced the non-economic means by which any surplus in foodstuffs was extracted from the producing class. This is known as the Tributary Social Formation.

In exchange for handing over a crop's surplus, the peasant was given protection from barbarians, justice, and other rudimentary social services. They were bound to their land and the extractions associated with it. What the lord did not take, the Church did. A tithe was levied which could amount to 10% of a farmer's yeild. All these taxes and levies ensured that the producing class was very poor, and this system was enforced by rigid customs and military force.
The ABJECT DEPENDANCE on the Roman Church was largely maintained through fear. Pay up or Satan (or his forces, be it Huns, Barbarians, Mongols, Turks, Saracens....) will get you. Meanwhile the Church was the wealthiest institution in Europe, pulling in far more than any state until the 1400's. Thus the Church and its corresponding beliefs became a crutch to assist an ignorant and fearful people through a difficult time. It gained in wealth and temporal power at the expense of the liberty of others. It served no real economic function and coerced the population into obeying the strict feudal law. Worst of all, the Medieval Church was intolerant. Jews, Muslims, and eventually in 1054 Byzantines (Orthodox Christians) were excluded and even harassed. The Church and its monastic institutions enforced illiteracy by carefully editing or completely banishing non-sacred texts, and even religious texts were only written in Latin which was unknown to the vast majority of people. Thus the Church reinforced ignorance and fear in order to continue its economic parasitic nature while becoming a fortress of conservative notions that non-representative leaders used to bolster their tyranny. The Church was one of the greatest contributors to the slow development of the West.

With small states and with capital accumulation being very difficult, consumerism became the domain of the lay and religious elite. They extracted any surplus there might be and spent it on luxuries and their own gluttony. Their intolerance and greed led to what we call the CRUSADES. The Crusades were adventures in looting and hate thinly veiled as faith-based inititives. By the 11th century contact between states was sufficiently reestablished so that the wealth of the Byzantine Empire was renouned. It became clear that this wealth was the result of COMMERCE with the Middle East and Islam. That Jerusalem was there was only a minor convenience. In fact, Muslims at the time were very advanced and increadibly tolerant. They allowed Christian pilgrims to visit Jerusalem and other holy sites at leisure. The Muslims were great mathematicians, navigators, merchants, and philosophers. They worked with Christian and Jewish scholars on common projects, especially in Cordova (Cordoba, Spain). Further, they were the middlemen in the trade with China and India, whose products were in great demand since the resources and manufactures of Europe were of very poor quality. So in 1098 the First Crusade was assembled and launched.

The results of the Crusades were bloody and ultimately futile. The Holy Land was only held briefly, and at that by despotic warrior-kings who despised their more liberal Muslim subjects. They did manage to extract a great deal of wealth, knowledge, and technology however. This generated a voracious taste for eastern goods within Europe's markets. The exchange between these Crusader kingdoms and Europe was facilitated by Italian city-states such as Venice and Genoa. Their rise was directly the result of this trade. In the 13th century Venice, with other allies, invaded Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey), capital of Byzantium in order to fully control this trade. The Italian city-states would provide the model for the Merchant Capital Social Formation, which we shall see in part III.

Byzantium was the remnants of the former Eastern Roman Empire. It was the only great state in Medieval Europe. Byzantium was plagued by two great drains on its wealth: the Church, and warfare. The Church, which became an independant institution from Rome in 1054, was closely tied to the state and its massive bureaucracy and its opulence was the cause of a great extraction of capital. Warfare was also costly, and constant. Like the Western Roman Empire, Byzantium was constantly under seige from tribes and peoples displaced by Mongolian movements. It also had to contend with rising Russian and Bulgarian states nearby. The greatest threat of all was Islam, a very large neighbour that had consumed half of Byzantium's territory by the 9th century. Christianity owes its preservation to the defensive wars fought by and around Constantinople. Despite constant warfare, a very advanced diplomatic system was established between the Islamic empires and Byzantium so that in times of peace they became most fruitful merchants with each other.

In 632 a man named Mohammed, prophet of Allah died. In the wake of his death, his prophecy spread through Arabia, the Middle East, Africa, India, and Indonesia. Muslims were also common in China and had conquered all of Spain. France was next, if it were not for the Battle of Poitiers in 732. Islam continued to be a strong force into the 18th century, and besieged Vienna in Austria in the 17th century. That Europe was not wholly consumed by Islam is due to luck alone. Near 40% of the civilized world was in their hands by 1450. Islam gave Europe many great inventions, such as the quadrant, the compass, advanced mathematics, and other inventions and ideas all the way from China. Possibly the greatest favour they performed for Europe was to capture Constantinope and dismantle the Byzantine state in 1453. With the fall of that great centre of trade, the Turks closed the western terminus of the Silk Road and goods from China and India, coveted by Europe's elite, became very difficult and costly to obtain.

By 1450, Europe was very little different than it had been after the fall of the Roman Empire had set in. Only a few minor changes came into play to make something of Eurasia's backwater. In the mid 15th century two things occured which would revolutionize the European world: one of them was Gotenburg's Printing Press; the other was occuring on the remote tip of the Iberian Penninsula in a nation called Portugal.

In the next installment we will explore the Merchant Capital Social Formation, its effects on European society, and Europe's monopoly of VIOLENCE AT SEA.

Fare well for now.

History Lesson I: The Ancient Era

Good day my compatriots.

HISTORY is the most fundamental basis for understanding our world today. How did it come about? I will explain to you why we live in the world we do today. This is for your own good. History tends to repeat itself, and inadequate knowledge of this fact and the basic chronology of our world is the cause of that repitition. By understanding history, we can begin to understand ALL THINGS.

The beginnings of human civilization have been traced to about 10000 before common era (BCE). This is when humans first realized they could plant and harvest crops to create an increased and steady yeild of foodstuffs. This occured world-wide silultaneously. The mastery of agriculture made humans sedentary, and always being in the same spot, forced them to get along with their neighbours. Thus they began to formulate complex social arrangements which we call today politics. When groups of individuals became too large to effectively govern themselves in a communal environment, they began to choose or were imposed upon by 'representatives'. A representative, who would make decisions for a group of individuals on their behalf, derived his or her authority from those that they were representing. By consent from the group, a representative could exercise their given authority to act upon events and circumstances for the betterment of the society. The first grand civilizations, assembled on the Nile (Egypt), Yangtze (China) and Euphrates (Iraq) Rivers, were represented by officials who held their power through coercive action. They were not elected and only represented the interests of the social group that controlled the means of production. This continued to be the case through the ancient era.

This may seem like a Marxist-democratic interpretation, but it helps explain where we are going. I am not a Marxist, Communist, or a champion of the proletarian. I am simply trying to explain the development of human society in the most abstract and general terms possible.

The ancient era in the west continued along similar patterns. Around 500 BCE we can start drawing parallels between our modern society and that of the ancients. The Greeks, who were called Hellens, formed a series of city-states along the coast of Greece. Two major, although not the only, centres of thought developed at Sparta and Athens. Sparta was an austere state of militants who abhorred money and commerce. Athens was the first known democratic state, and embraced commerce. In 490 King Darius of the Persian Empire (most of the middle east) launched an assault on the Hellens for their assistance in the Ionian Revolt. At Marathon, the Persians were defeated by Athens. A tiny city state had resisted the might of a massive empire. Xerxes, son of Darius, attempted a second invasion in 480. This invasion was crushed at Salamis, an island near Athens, by an Athenian naval force. The war continued until 448 but the Greeks had recovered Thrace (northern Greece), Ionia (Asia Minor) and the Aegean Sea from the Persians. The collaboration of the Greek city states triumphed over the massive will of a great invader. This war was the beginning of the east-west divide that we see today.

Athens benefited most from the war. Their naval power helped them consolidate an alliance with other states called the Delian League. As the century passed, Athens turned this alliance into an empire, using the allied states as tributary nations to help aggrandize itself. Sparta was displeased with this arrangement and went to war with Athens. The Peloponnesian War ruined Greek power and heavily damaged their social structure. There was no real winner, even though Sparta effectively rendered Athens itself.

During this age, we see the development of our modern ways of thinking. Philosophy, medicine, state institutions, and military thought appeared. Greek thought ceased to be the common preserve of humanity, and became the property of western civilization. The divide was partly the result of the Persian Wars, but also due to the westward expansion of Greek colonization. One of these colonies was Sicily.

In 264 BCE, Carthage sought to control the straits between Sicily and the toe of Italy. Carthage was a strong maritime and commercial empire, and Rome was expanding slowly south on the penninsula. These two interests met at Messana in Sicily and the result was three bloody wars which made Rome the great power it would become. By 146 Rome was master of Italy, Spain, North Africa, and all islands inbetween.

What relevance does Rome have today? The Renaissance and Enlightenment were both influenced by the rediscovery of classical (i.e. Roman and Greek ways). Both of these movements helped transfer the ancient era to the modern era. I will explain how this worked in lessons II and III.

With Rome at its height between 14 and 200 Common Era (CE), their institutions, law, customs, language, and architecture flourished across Europe. All of these things are still visible today. The Roman Empire streched from England to Egypt, Bulgaria to Portugal. Rome was the last classical and ancient state and arguably the most prolific and studied. It assembled and assumed the characteristics of all the nations it conquered. By 200 CE the empire had become dependant on the military. The army was the greatest non-agricultural employer, and the only thing keeping the boarders steady. Despite early persecution, many government offices were filled with Christians who had a tendancy to be good administrators. They were a minority, and had something to prove.

Forces in the far east were the result of the fall of the Roman Empire. In the steppes of Mongolia, something effected a massive boom in the population of the Huns and advancements in social structure and military technology helped this population expand in all directions. The movement of the Huns displaced various groups in Russia and eastern Europe. With nowhere to go, these groups pushed upon other groups, which in turn pushed on others. The result was a domino effect on the cultures of eastern and northern Europe and finally it reached the boarders of Rome. Centuries of decadence, social disruption, and overexpansion made the tribes of eastern Europe see Roman territory as the answer to their troubles. A string of diplomatic arrangements and eventually full invasions led to the reduction of the Roman Empire. A split occured in the early 4th century and created the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. The Western Empire, based in Rome, fell to germanic tribes in 476, while the Eastern Empire (later Byzantine Empire) lasted until 1453 when it fell to the Turks (themselves invaders of Persia from the east). Around the reign of Justinian (527-565), The Eastern Empire became Byzantium and assumed what would become its medieval nature.

Thus ended the Ancient or Classical Era. Civilization became more local, closed, religious, and fearful. Some historians call it the collapse of civilization at the hands of barbarians. It was more a transition between two different socio-political formations. The main loss here was the connection to Chinese goods via the Silk Road through Asia (due to the intense expansion of Islam and destruction of old Roman commercial links), and an idea of a wider world. Travel and trade became very dangerous and so ideas, culture, and items ceased to flow as generously as they did under the united Roman Empire.

In the Medieval Era, we will see the abject state of Western civilization and how pitiful their lot was 1000 years ago. In installment III, the Early Modern Era, we shall explore the development of Europe and the Americas and why Eurasia's weakest nations rose to prominance throughout the world. In the final installment, I will expose the intricate machinations of our development from 1918 to today and suggest how it all came to be.

For now, best wishes.

The Day of the Sandwich

Hello my fellows.

One must not begin a grand collection of his ideas without first examining who he his and where he comes from. I will now explain exactly where these future GRAND NOTIONS will derive from.

My name is irrelevant. I am a student at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario Canada. For those of you who can't seem to locate my country, just point to the United States and real subtle-like move your finger up. That's it. Canada. The second largest country on earth. Canada has a wonderful advantage over every other: it is a mixture of North American and European social and economic models. Our 10 provinces and 3 territories have relative autonomy from the federal government and so are able to experiment and adapt the best practices. Sometimes, however, they do not.

So I have introduced myself in relation to my title and nationality. I am a Canadian, but before all I am a human being, like the rest of us. If all of us put our HUMANITY before our other relations, then perhaps we might be able to achieve greater things. But that is the subject of a later post.

What do I want? You will see, in future posts. What do I fear? Tyrrany. Tyrrany comes in many forms. It is the opposite of liberty. George W. Bush is a tyrant. Yes, I said it. Have you read the Patriot Act? Oh, and look up in your history books LEAGUE OF NATIONS and consider the links between that and the UN today. "We will have peace in our time!" Religion is also a form of tyrrany. A Church/Synagogue/Mosque can tell you what to do and enforce its will through sin/morality/heaven/hell. This is not freedom. Relgion constrains liberty through a series of ancient, non-applicable moral laws that do not align with modern realities. Freedom and liberty allow an individual or group to pursue thier happiness as long as their actions do not impinge on the liberty and happiness of others. Those who seek to bring/impopse religion unto others are tyrants for obstructing libery. George Bush seeks to do this, amongst his other vile plans.

Visit http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/67084 for more on liberty.

What is my aim? Publicly, to expose tyrrany and those who oppose liberty through provoking others to THINK. I am not always correct in my assumptions (nobody is perfect) and I am very often biased. I seek to show my fellow humans their potential and their future based on the choices they make. I encourage all to THINK, very critically, about the world shaping around them. Things always change, but individual and group actions can alter the way that the world changes. I challenge all to change the future for the better. Privately, my will is to improve our world and integrate all nations to a common goal: Unity. Not like the United Nations, which as we have seen is a failure along the lines of the League of Nations. I mean a single administrative body for all, with each jurasdiction represented in a GRAND PARLIAMENT. United, our race's potential is unlimited. We could focus our resources to solve world problems and begin to reach beyond our petty planet.

Change is the result of action. Each individual action alters the choices available to their fellow humans. Never feel insignificant, but always be humbled by the complexity of our pluralist race. Vote, if you can. If you cannot, seek to change things so that you can. All human beings aged 17 and older, all around the earth, deserve a say in how their fellows are governed. I say 17 because memories of the immaturity of my collegues before that age are still fresh in my mind, even though highschool was now five years ago. A certain gestation period is required so that our citizens can make informed decisions. Change the world if you don't like it. Complaining does very little. One individual CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

There. You have a framework for understanding my Grand Notions. Liberty, action, and the future are my concerns. These ideas will be further elucidated through lessons in history, economics, and practical philosophy. Ultimately the future is up to you, my fellow human beings. We are all actors and destiny is our director. I wish you luck in your endeavours.

Initiation

Greetings fellow Humans.

Today I begin to write for you. I write for the entire Human race. I bequeathe these GRAND NOTIONS unto you for your aggrandizement. The subjects of my notions will include practical philosophy, modern politics, history, reactions, and postulations and projections for the future. The future is yours, and you must make the decisions that will shape it. All I can do is offer advice to assist. This is not a forum to debate morals or politics, so please refrain from bringing emotion to the table. Just try to THINK.....