Rural DemRural Dem

“The presidential primary March 4th in Texas may decide which Democrat faces the likely Republican Party nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the final two Democrats left, face off in a tough, high-profile showdown in the Lone Star State.

The Democratic candidates are almost in a dead heat in the state, according to a Houston Chronicle poll. Texas voters in the Democratic Party primary are diverse, with just more than half either Hispanic or African-American. The 228 delegates will be split according to vote totals in the 31 state senate districts, with precinct conventions and a state caucus deciding the rest. Also, voter participation in the 2004 and 2006 elections for each district decides how delegates each senate district receives. For example, a heavily Hispanic district in south Texas with low voter turnout in the last two statewide elections could receive 7 delegates, while a high-turnout district in Houston gets 10 delegates, according to Chronicle. This complicated system of choosing delegates has some Democrats unhappy and calling for a change.

The estimated cost to campaign in Texas? diverse markets is an expensive million dollars a week, and Senator Obama has been raising that much per day, collecting $32 million in January, while Senator Clinton just loaned her campaign $5 million, and some of her senior aides are working without salaries this month. After raising $13.5 million in January, Clinton announced Feb. 7th that her campaign raised $7.5 million in just one week; Obama?s campaign then went out and raised that much in 36 hours. That?s why Mrs. Clinton wants to debate Senator Obama once a week on television, since such publicity is free. So far, Mr. Obama has agreed to only one debate, and that?s in Cleveland, Ohio, February 26th on NBC. There?s also talk about one Texas debate.

Former White House Senior Advisor Karl Rove proclaimed on Fox News Feb. 7th that the Democratic nominee will come out of the Texas Primary, and that may be the case.

If Senator Obama momentum continues and he wins the most of the contests Feb. 19th, as polling suggests, he will come into Texas ahead of Mrs. Clinton. Already in big trouble, if Hillary then loses Texas, she would come into the Democratic Convention an underdog, if not outright loser. If Obama loses in Texas, Hillary may still win the nomination. With Ohio also voting March 4th, Texas may decide which Democrat faces Mr. McCain November 4th.”

Many people in modern society are very politically motivated. They belong to a political group and as a result have strong opinions about most current events and topical issues, not surprisingly most of which are usually shared by all the other people who belong to the same group. Sometimes it’s as though they have to check with the group to find out what they actually think about something.

Does that seem sad to you? Me too. However there are times when being politically slanted can come in handy. It isn’t all just sounding like a clone produced by an idealistic cult. Sometimes those of us who actually think about things before responding have a disadvantage.

This seems counter-intuitive to us normal people who don’t run every single thing everybody says through a political filter. I mean, we actually listen to people and don’t suspect a hidden agenda when the person behind the counter at Denny’s asks us for our order. We think that getting into an argument with the waitress at the point because she didn’t address global warming is a bit nuts. But we are a bit short-sighted, and don’t understand how being a political nut can actually be a benefit in many situations.

For example, let’s say you find yourself in a group of starving people that are waiting for food to be distributed by some government authority. Now let’s say that you are really against the killing of certain sea mammals. OK, so they announce on the loudspeaker that the expected food shipment didn’t come today but a small group of natives managed to club one of these mammals to death and it has been grilled up medium-rare. However there is only enough for about 60% of the people. Because you are so appalled at the whole notion, you know not to bother stampeding with most of the other starving people towards the front.

OK, lets go with a more realistic example. Let’s say a scientist stops by your work and wants to demonstrate a new power source which uses human anger as it’s fuel. None of your co-workers care much about politics and thus are pretty easy going people. When the scientist tries to demonstrate the product, there is no fuel at hand for it. So your boss makes a slanted statement in support of the opposite political party as you, and now you are the one who gets to fuel the new energy source.

All right, all right, here is an even more realistic example. A co-worker accidentally states that she thinks Americans should support whoever happens to be President regardless of which party you belong to. Now you can finally put that person in their place and let them have it. Justice will at least temporarily be done, and no doubt you will gain the respect of everyone in your office.

Basically whenever unwarranted anger is needed, or lashing out at people who don’t deserve it will save the day, your political affiliations will be a needed and much appreciated resource. Don’t bother waiting around for thanks. Just be happy that you are helping to save the world a little bit at a time.

Do These Political Gifts Go To Far?

Does the popularity of the George Bush and Hillary Clinton toilet bowl brushes show a true dissatisfaction with politics on both sides of the isle? Or are these products just good clean fun?

Some people are loosing their sense of humor about politics, this has been a long campaign and one way people are dealing with it is with funny political gifts.

The political system of the Federal Republic of Germany represents the second democratic system in German history. At the Parliamentary Council when designing the new constitution, the Basic Law, the founders of the Federal Republic took into account the lessons that had been learned from the failure of the first democracy, namely the Weimar Republic, and the Nazi dictatorship. The Federal Republic of Germany was born from the ashes of World War II. And in 1949 democracy was initially established only in the Western section of a Germany that had been divided into two states. Yet the Basic Law, although originally intended as a temporary solution, stated that its goal was reunification ?in free self-determination?.

The political parties: According to the Basic Law it is the task of the political parties to participate in political will form by the people. Parties whose commitment to democracy is in doubt can, at the request of the Federal Government, be banned from participation in the country?s political life. However, such a ban is not automatically forthcoming in any sense. Should the Federal Government consider a ban to be appropriate because such parties pose a threat to the democratic system, it can only petition for such a ban. The idea is to prevent the ruling parties simply banning those parties who might prove awkward in the fight for votes.

The electoral system: The German Electoral system makes it very difficult for any one party to form a government on its own. This has only happened once in 56 years. An alliance of parties is the general rule. So that voters know which partner the party they voted for is considering governing with, the parties issue coalition statements before embarking on the election campaign. By voting for a particular party citizens thus express on the one hand a preference for a specific party alliance, and on the other determine the balance of power between the desired future partners in government.

The Federal President: The Federal President is the head of state of the Federal Republic of Germany. He represents the country in its dealings with other countries and appoints government members, judges and high-ranking civil servants. With his signature, acts become legally binding. He can dismiss the government and, in exceptional cases, dissolve parliament before its term of office is completed. The Federal President remains in office for a period of five years; he can be re-elected only once. He is elected by the Federal Convention, which is made up of members of the Bundestag.

The federal structure: The German federal state is a complex entity. It consists of a central Federal Government and 16 federal states. The Basic Law lays out in great details which issues fall within the ambit of the Federal Government and which devolve to the federal states. Public life in Germany is predominantly based on central laws. In accordance with the principle of subsidiary citizens, on the other hand, deal almost exclusively with state and local authorities acting on behalf of the federal states. The reason for this is the aim of the Basic Law to combine the advantages of a unified state with those of a federal state.

The Federal Constitutional Court: The Federal Constitutional Court is a characteristic institution of post-war German democracy. The Basic Law accorded it the right to repeal legislation passed as part of the legitimate democratic process should it come to the conclusion that such legislation contravenes the Basic Law. The Constitutional Court only acts in response to petitions. Ultimately every German court is obliged to submit a petition for actual assessment of the normative basis to the Constitutional Court should it consider a law to be un-constitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court holds a monopoly on interpretation of the constitution with regard to all jurisdictions.

Germany and Europe: Given the high standards with regard to the constitutional state and democracy as a result of the Basic Law, the Federal Constitutional Court is also a player in the European political arena. The court has illustrated on several occasions that European law must satisfy the criteria of the Basic Law if Germany politics is to relinquish to the EU the rights to draw up its own laws. In this respect to a certain extent the ?eternal guarantee? of applicable principles with regard to the Basic Law vies with the Basic Law?s commitment to European integration.

If you want to know more about Germany politics please contact us at German Information Centre to get the latest information.

Larabee describes social efficiency as an educational framework in which the school sees its role as that of preparing the students to become workers. Curriculum responds to society’s needs in a pragmatic manner; hence, it is seen as a public good designed to meet collective needs. Society depends on the school to meet its human capital needs in all phases of economic life. In this model, schools must necessarily adapt to existing socioeconomic and social structures. While maintaining the status quo, they realize their full educational, political, and cultural impact.

Society has the responsibility of enhancing productivity in all phases of life. This means that schools must seriously prepare students of all levels, for all levels. However, some very interesting assumptions are taken for granted. It is implicit that all societal positions are not equitable. The objective of social efficiency is not to elevate or demote people socioeconomically, or socially. It is the overall, collective benefit of the public that is being served. Hence, schools are induced to replicate, with unerring accuracy, society’s hierarchical form and complete structure. Tasks in the society need to be done by everyone. So it is everybody’s place to contribute and do what needs to be done for the public good.

To get this model to work, certain institutions had to be artificially contrived. Tracking, on the basis of perceived abilities and preferences, vocationalism, ability testing, educational standards, and other forms of stratification were all instituted with one aim. They separated students into different groups to fill different societal roles. Many of the roles were based on society’s historical perceptions of which groups of people should be performing what tasks, or on actual abilities and talents the students possess. Hence, the question came down to whose children should be educated for what roles in society. People upholding the social efficiency ideology can be perceived as blocking chances for social mobility and political equality.

As said earlier, social efficiency is not designed to alter the status quo of society members. In other words, children of the elite will not be trained to fill societal roles not already consistent with their status. Nor will children of people working in menial positions be expected to be trained for those held by the elite. These would be taught vocational skills for different array of jobs, and would be channeled directly into these jobs. In this sense, education can be seen as a duplication of what already exists. The education is designed to predict working class job roles for working students and to prepare them so precisely as to render all other options impossible. Some would see this as not being unfair since it does not rob those who already have nothing. What specific groups had previously is what they continue to have. Society’s needs are met, and things continue to run as they always have.

But not so, some say. Democratic equality must prevail. It must be interpreted to mean equal access to all students for all possible positions. Here as everywhere else, the philosophical framework of educators, parents, the community at large, and the students come into play. Certain questions emerge as important: What responsibility do teachers have toward their students in terms of pushing them towards a type of education that does not coincide with the the student’s social background? How motivated should a teacher be to push certain students toward more advanced classes? How inclined should a teacher feel or feel impelled to make available certain types of information that may permanently and favorably alter the student’s future? Which students get pushed toward a more vocational education? Which ones get steered toward a more academic program?

The position that principals, guidance staff, the community, etc. take depends on their philosophical stance. If these educators are operating from a social efficiency perspective, they may not very well consider themselves immoral, or unethical for choosing not to inform students of certain channels leading to positions that would enhance their lifestyle. They may feel that as long as they equip the students with the tools to help them fill positions like those held by their parents, they are fulfilling their obligation to their charges.

Joel Spring describes the type of community in which the labor market does not depend on a high level of education. He refers to these communities as inert. The primary consideration of educators with regard to inert communities is to provide the best possible basic education to students to fill just these needs.

Apparently, many schools adopt the social efficiency model for their students of color. This model is also being used in several African American and Hispanic communities which have come to expect that their members will hold only certain types of menial positions, simply because that is what they have always held. Hence, only certain professional expectations are developed and enmeshed within the community. Moreover, the dominant community overtly and covertly expect that members of the subjected community will continue to hold those positions.

Notions about what roles members in these societies will hold are reinforced and maintained by teachers responding to stereotypes about the quality of thinking, work ethic, disposition, etc. of minority students. Teachers can also make deliberate efforts to maintain the status quo of students’ potential social positions through their attitudes and behaviors, overt and covert. These behaviors and attitudes reinforce within students self-defeating ideas and help them enliven self fulfilling prophecies.

Defining or understanding concepts such as social efficiency and democratic equality is relatively easy. Being in a position of educator and knowing how to act fairly towards students depends on the educator’s embraced philosophy and sense of fairness and responsibility towards all students.

Larabee, D. Public goods, private goods: the American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal. Spring 1997, vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 39-81

Economic Justice and Democratization of Economy to create Ideal Society

By
Prof Viswanathan,
Director,
International Socio-Economic Research Bureau
(E Mail Id : economist@dataone.in)

DECLARATION OF JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

We, the people of all the countries, in harmony with the sovereignty of the Universal Justice hold these truths to be self-evident that every creator has inalienable ?Right to Ownership? on his creations and the Natural laws empowers the creators that only he should use his creations exclusively for the welfare and uplift of the human society as a whole, in which he is an inseparable member.

We declare with all judicial power derived from Natural laws that among all creations of man, his creation of capital alone has enormous ?economic power? capable of transforming all the socio-economic-political structures and reconstitute them to suit the aspirations of the owners of capital.

We further declare in unequivocal terms since the capital is created by the collective labor of the people as a whole it should be directly owned by the people and then only the people would secure equal ?Economic power? and requisite ?Fundamental Economic Rights? with which they could establish an ?Ideal Society? in the way in which they desire.
In accordance with ?Economic Justice? when the capital is directly owned by the people, we declare that the people would naturally secure what we consider the best among the ?Fundamental Economic Rights? like ?Right to live?, ?Right to work?, ?Right to Economic Equality?, ?Right to economic liberty?, ?Right to Economic Security?, ?Right to participate in the management?, ?Right to capital creation?, ?Right to live with fraternity?, and requisite ?socio-economic-political rights to pursuit of decent happiness?

We further proclaim when the people secure the above mentioned ?fundamental rights? they would succeed ultimately to establish an Ideal Society or Just Society for which they were tirelessly striving in transforming one form of society into another since the dawn of civilization, and to execute their noble concept of ?One World, One Government, and One Humanity? and in the end the people would be victorious in choosing what form of ?Economic System? that would be the best of all other systems for the establishment of an Ideal Society for which they would secure all requisite authorities of Natural laws that bestow on them.

1. Emergence of Economic Systems:

Different economic systems had emerged on the horizon of the history of mankind whenever different kinds of ?Capital Ownership? sprang up. Especially capitalism and socialism emerged after industrial revolution on the determinant factor of ?capital ownership?. Generally in all economic systems ?the ownership of capital? forms the ?basic structure? of a society on which the fabrics of super structure of society are determined. The super structure usually exhibits the qualitative fabrics of society such as religion, culture, education, laws, customs and conventions etc. which are determined according to the aspirations of the owners of capital. In short the social elements are dependent factors of capital ownership.

During the turbulent period of 1750s when Industrial Revolution burst upon the England and other European countries it introduced gigantic machines ? a kind of capital ? in the factory system of production of goods and services. It engulfed the mankind like huge deluge and tossed the world societies and changed each and every super structural elements of society in such a manner not to even to trace out their originality. We, the people, at that period were deeply perplexed and confused what to do as we were in the vicinity of utter economic ignorance.

2. Two Economic Affidavits:

During Industrial Revolution the economic environments in the factory system was not only in muddle but also demoralizing the societies. No one had any knowledge how the economy was operating and how should it be operated. Everyone was expecting for the worst to come. Whole Europe was plunged into utter ignorance. At that crucial period of time it was Adam Smith, the Father of Economics, published his famous book ?An enquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations? in 1776.

3. Economic Affidavit of Adam Smith: In his book Adam Smith spelt out an ?Economic Affidavit? solemnly and sincerely that if we, the people, entrusted our capital to a few capitalists in the name of ?Capitalism? (Individualism), they would not only change even the sand into gold but also drive the mankind to march towards an ?Ideal Society? by modernizing production potentialities with the help of scientific technologies and division of labor. Completely ignoring the working class who constitutes the society, Adam Smith concentered and focused his interest on a few capitalists and advocated that they without the interference of State would accumulate wealth of nations with the help of division of labor using modern machines and assured that the few independent capitalists would moreover create a favorable climate for the establishment of Ideal Society by increasing production many folds. Adam Smith completely neglected the equitable distribution of wealth to the mass working class. He linked the establishment of an ideal society with the mass production but not equitable distribution of wealth. Thus he misguided the whole world convincingly and decisively for a long period during which the working class was thrown into appalling poverty and horrible living hood.

Ricardo and Malthus, drawing he thread of arguments from the wisdom of Adam Smith, eloquently presented their views in favor of a few capitalists and equally convinced the people to surrender their capital in the possession of capitalists who would solve all the socioeconomic problems of mankind. Thus when the people entrusted their capital in the hands of a few capitalists a ?Capitalistic Mode of Production? emerged with strong magnitudes in England and some other European countries. This capitalistic mode of production, shattering hitherto existing highly valuable cultures and customs of people, created a complex and conflicting, and highly demoralizing ?Capitalistic Society?.

The newly emerged ?capitalistic Society? forced the social elements such as law, art, culture, customs, religion, education and other economic and political rights and liberties to work for the benefit and security of a few capitalists because on their welfare the welfare of mass working class was depending on. The capitalistic mode of production converted the ?Right to live? of mass working class into a dependent factor of the security of the capitalist class who owned the capital and modern factories. This was because if a capitalist collapsed with his factory, the livelihood of the workers working in that factory would also collapse. So all the social elements ranging from culture to human liberty had to work for the security of a few capitalists. Thus the Ideal Society which the people dreamt for long span of time became a myth and mirage. In the capitalistic mode of production the Ideal Society was meant by ?Capitalistic Society? representing a few capitalists.

4. Counter Economic Affidavit of Karl Marx:
Having abundant flow of sympathy on the exploited mass working class and endless stream of hatred on the capitalists who caused for the appalling poverty of workers the mentally and morally agitated Karl Marx and Engels declared a ?Counter Affidavit? in 1848 in their ?Communist Manifesto? and Karl Marx alone in 1867 in his magnum opus the Das Capital. In their counter affidavit they advocated that if We, the people, forfeited our capital from the few capitalists with the help of Bolsheviks (communists) and entrusted the capital in the hands of the ?State? under the control of ?Proletariat Dictatorship?, that the ?State? would lead us ?Towards an Ideal Society? and establish ?One World?.* Believing their ?Counter Affidavit? word by word, in the October Revolution of 1917 we forfeited our capital from the few capitalists and handed over it to the trustworthy of the ?State?. The State introduced a ?Socialistic mode of production? and on the basis of this, a fearful and subjugating ?Socialistic Society? emerged. The working class was engulfed with awe and fearsome and terribly perplexed on the outcome of the ?Revolution? and utterly disappointed for not even tracing any hope of achieving ?Ideal Society? which their Bolshevik masters promised during the ?Revolution?.
__________________________________________________________________
*In the words of Karl Marx : ? In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life?s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe in its banners : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!?
– Marx(1875), pp 21-23

Karl Marx and Engels were not alive at that time of October Revolution. They were great champions for working class and ?buts? about it. They worried wept for working class, they suffered for working class, they sacrificed everything for the working class, and above all they were exiled, especially Karl Marx, from country to country for the cause of working class, and they really wanted to see the working class of all the countries in an ?Ideal Society?. But the ?October Revolution? in Russia proved that their ?Theory and Practice? did not coordinate with each other and did not function in harmony. There was something wrong in the ?Theory and practice? which resulted in utter collapse of Socialism at the end process. What was the fault that penetrated for its collapse?
I have same streak of opinion in respect of Adam Smith and Malthus as well. I believe when they advocated that we, the people, should entrust our capital in the possession of few capitalists, they believed that the capitalists would not exploit the working class. But when their theories put into practice it was the selfish capitalists who manipulated their theories as convenient and convincing tools to exploit the mass working class. It was the capitalists who portrayed the theories in a darkest dark when they put them in practice because of their selfish motives. In other words there was unbridgeable disparity ( a deep wide chasm) between the theory and practice which the capitalists utilized it to fulfill their selfish motive of maximization of profit in exploiting the mass working class. What was the terrible fault that was penetrating here also?

Though the original proponents of capitalistic and socialistic theories were not enemies of working class, the executors of these theories, the capitalists on one hand and the ?State? on the other hand misled the working class for their selfish motives. The primary fault was that we, the people, instead of retaining the capital with us, separating ourselves into two diametrically opposite poles, surrendered our capital to a few capitalists in West European and North American countries and to ?State? in Russia, China and other East European countries.

The inherent contradictions that deeply and widely penetrated in the theories and practices of the two economic systems originated a fierce vicious spiral and exploded like a ?Big Bang? and scattered away violently but suddenly all the socio-economic problems throughout the world like inextinguishable fire balls. Instead of establishing an ?Ideal Society? these two systems, even after a prolonged period of experiments, have pushed the mankind at the verge of nuclear holocaust and wide spread day – to-day terrorism.

5. Democrism ? People?s Direct Ownership of Capital:

As long as more than 200 years, Capitalism had left no avenues unexplored to establish an Ideal Society but disastrously collapsed during 1930s throughout the world due to the pressure of its own weight of self contradictions and brutal ambition of maximization of profit. On the same footing, Communism too after exerting all methods of cruel tortures (Stalin?s roughshod treatment of the kulaks) in the name of ?Proletariat Dictatorship? for nearly 75 destroyed itself in 1992 in its own breeding place. As both the systems are now struggling for their own survival, they have now decided to end the ?cold war? between them. Since the both the systems pushed us into great disappointments and they did not effective economic techniques to solve our economic problems in accordance with ?Economic Justice?, we, the people, hereby declare to forfeit our own capital both from the capitalists and the ?State? and retain it under our direct ownership in peaceful manner or by force if necessity demands and create a ?new economic system? known as ?Democrism? on the basis of people?s Direct Ownership of Capital and we, further declare the Natural Laws have entrusted upon us all executive powers to do so as our birth right.

On the People?s Direct Ownership of Capital a just economic system known as ?Democrism? will in the world and it will provide us ?Democratic Mode of Production? which is an inevitable must for the establishment of an ?Ideal or Just Society?. I venture to say in short,

?Capitalism is popular and popularly defective;
Socialism is destructive and destructively popular;
Democrism is justifiable and justifiably inevitable.?

Whatever race we relate to, whatever language we speak to, whatever color we cover to, whatever religion we follow to, whatever nation we belong to, we are always being influenced by justice and by its emphatic authority of supremacy. The laws may be in transient from time to time, and vary from country to country, but the concept of justice remains illuminant everywhere. We want justice, only the justice and nothing but the justice. Throughout the long passage of history we have honored justice; we have kept in high esteem the men of justice right from king Solomon to Gandhiji . We have unshakable faith that justice is perpetual and ever pervading. We have always fought for justice and it has united us without any discrimination. In his book ?Anatomy of Liberty?, William O. Douglas, the Justice to the United States Supreme Court, says this truth in every respect as follows:

?The appetite for justice is indeed a cementing influence amon all races, whatever language they speak, whatever of their skin?
-Douglas,William O. ?Anatomy of Liberty? (p: xxiv) : (1965)

The universal fact is that if there is justice there will be harmony and immortality. The scientific facts are immortal because they are based on experimental truths. On the other hand if the socio-economic-political principles want to be immortal they should based on justice, only the justice and nothing but justice and perhaps on natural justice. The capitalistic and socialistic principles lack application of justice and therefore they struggle vainly to solve our life problems and they are marching towards their last destiny – the inevitable grave yard. Keeping the above facts in mind I have with utmost care and concern formulated the economic principles on the natural justice in the name of ?DEMOCRISM? which will secure universal acceptability. The genesis of all natural justices is to uphold ?People?s Direct Ownership of Capital? for which we have to forfeit our capital from the few capitalists and the ?State?. Why?

?People?s Direct Ownership of Capital : Why do we want??

1. Denying the natural justice of ?Right to live? by Capitalism and Socialism: (Capital promotes and intensifies war)

We, the people of all the countries, unanimously hate intensely the wars which germinate in any form or for any cause. Naturally we are peace loving people. Despite our strong protests the wars have been fought all over the world and billions and billions of innocent people having no association with the war, have been brutally killed and massacred and the skeletons of these people have been heaped like mountains in graveyards. What cause underlies for these wars? The answer is simply one word ? ?the capital?. It is the ?Ownership of Capital? by a few capitalists or the ?State? that attributes for all kinds of war that negates one?s ?Right to live? in the name of patriotism in particular.

Let us for time being set aside the wars fought before Industrial Revolution. The factory system facilitated for the production of ?weapons of mass destruction? that can be employed from the land, from the ocean and from the air. The whole world turned into open battle field for the nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles, supersonic jets, various kinds of military rockets and the military satellites orbiting the earth. Whatever might be the causes of First and Second World Wars, but their consequences were horrible that pushed the mankind to the very verge of its extinction from the earth planet. Why?

Wars before and after Industrial Revolution: Before the industrialization the wars were fought on a particular battle fields and between two hostile warriors only. The range of destruction was very narrow and limited in coverage because the warriors used only spears and swords. The weapons were manufactured in cottage industries or by the warriors themselves. Natural boundaries like mountains, rivers, oceans and great deserts prevented the enemies to enter into a independent country.

After industrial revolution, weapons of mass destruction were produced with the help of highly sophisticated technologies with help of huge capital in factories owned by a few capitalists and the ?State?. The natural bounties disappeared and the whole world became open battle field. These weapons were maneuvered only by the highly skilled technocrats. The technocrats used these weapons on the common innocent people to terrorize the enemy-governments to surrender immediately. For example, in World War II USA used nuclear atom bombs to bombard on millions of Japanese civilians and terrorized the government to surrender without fighting in the battle field. Nowadays the battle fields are disappeared and the whole world has become open battle field in the face of mighty ballistic missiles and nuclear atom bombs. They can be produced only with the help of scientists and huge capital owned by the ?State? and a ?few capitalists?. As long as the capital is owned by the ?State? and ?few capitalists? we cannot escape from nuclear holocaust. Originally Capital was created by the working class to assist them to increase their productivity of consumption goods. As soon as the capital went into the illegal ownership of ?State? and ?Capitalists? it was used for the production of mass destructive weapons. If we scrutinize the expenditure of the world governments we can detect that a large portion of government expenditure has been allocated for ?military up gradation? than for the ?promotion of education? and ?elimination of poverty?.

2. ECONOMIC THEORY OF WAR :

Firstly ?if the accumulation of destructive capital increases the temptation for war will increase and vice versa?. The destructive capital means the capital that is used for the production of destructive weapons used by military forces. Secondly the difference in economic ideology of a country prompts it to increase its military power to show its ideological success over the other country and spread its ideology over other countries through war. For example USA and Russia used war as a weapon to spread their capitalistic and socialistic ideologies over other countries. The pages of recent past history will illustrate the fact and also the reason for accumulation of nuclear weapons and other variety of scientific weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly on the globalization of world economy the capitalist rich countries invest huge volume of their excessive capital in poor and developing countries. In order to protect their huge capital from nationalization by the beneficiary countries a mighty military force is required by the investing countries. For instance the American war and threatening of war over Arabian countries to protect her huge capital invested in exploration of petrol and fuel industries. Now American capitalists are investing billion and billions of dollar in I T industries of India and other developing countries. The American capitalists believe that they can protect their capital by their country?s military power. If any country try to nationalize these industries it will result in war. Fourthly the over production of industrial goods by rich countries force them to dump their over production in poor countries through their military power.
Economic reason for two world wars : Virtually after Industrial Revolution in most of the European countries the capital was owned by a few individuals. Since the very aim of capitalism was ?maximization of profit? the workers were paid less and it resulted in deficiency of effective demand which caused for ?over production?. These European countries occupied the poor countries by their military power and converted them as their ?political colonies? and with the concept of ?Free Trade?, they dumped their over-production in the colonies and also exploited the wealth of the colonies. India was the notorious example for that.
With the help of exploited wealth these ?mother countries? strengthened mainly their military power. The safety and security of the other ?Dictatorial European countries? which had ?State or less individual Ownership of Capital? were in jeopardy and unprotected in front of the mighty capitalist countries. On detection of the geographical track these countries found that there were no countries in the world to occupy them as their colonies for exploitation in order to increase their wealth and thereby their military power. These lately wakened dictatorial countries sniffed the fact that their ?political and military supremacy? would be pulled down rapidly on the downward track. In order to surpass the supremacy of the Capitalistic European Countries the ?Dictatorial European Countries, found no other alternative except ?war? on the Capitalistic European Countries and on their colonies all over the world. The ?lust for supremacy? over the other countries forced them to wage two world wars. Napoleon and Hitler waged war against all of Europe because for the sake of supremacy.
Ayn Rand emphatically points out the genesis for the two world wars in his book ?Capitalism? as follows:

???World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia,
who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by alliance of
?Nazi? Germany with the Soviet Russia and their attack on Polland? *
- Rand Ayn Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal? (New American Library-1967) p:37

In this nuclear age we witness a political and economic turbulence all over the world for a mad race for military equilibrium and economic supremacy. Both the Capitalism and Socialism have no blue-print to terminate the opportunity for Third World War. The rich capitalist and socialist countries want to become richer and richer by pushing the vast majority of poor countries to become poorer and poorer as per World Economic Reports. At present the silent turbulence boiling in the poor countries will burst into a Third World War which will be fought between the rich northern countries and the poor southern countries of the world and result in nuclear holocaust. That is why the USA is very keen on preventing the proliferation of nuclear technology among the southern countries using its military might. The only way left for the mankind to stop the flow of ever threatening danger of nuclear war is the execution of economic equality by rich countries in extending their helping hand to poor countries to pull them up from poverty and to reduce the economic imbalance between rich and poor. The capitalist countries will not permit the economic equality within and without but fight for upholding their economic supremacy which will be the ultimate cause for the Third World War.

We, the people, therefore, have no other alternative except to forfeit our capital from the capitalists and the ?State? and retain it under our ?Direct Ownership? to coordinate with the command of Natural Laws to save the mankind.

2.1. Consequences of World wars and destructive capital:

The First World War was fought between 1914 and 1918. During the span of 4 years the war was fought violently 120 million seconds. Nearly 48 million people (including soldiers) were dead and wounded.* In other words in every 10 seconds 4 people were killed either dead or wounded.