Organisation in the Culture of Peace

July 27, 2006

  • Peace was originally created by a community living together headed by a leader. The leadership was voluntarily given to one by many or exacted by one over the many.
  • That leader backed by those members overcame other tribes.
  • Tribes so united ultimately became a nation where the leader became king.
  • The king extended his reign by conquest to build an empire.
  • All empires led to civilising uncivilized tribes or nations.
  • In the 19th and 20th centuries, empires were the sources of abiding Peace.
  • The organisation of this Peace is the nation, ready to become an army at short notice.
  • It is voluntary enlistment which when it fails becomes conscription.
  • The nation acquires a culture of fighting to ensure Peace within. It is an organisation made possible by a leader to whom the population offers obedience. The king is the leader by the consent of the people.
    This organisation ensures law and order and a prosperous life.
    That is a productive organisation which, to acquire law and order – peace – agrees to fight at a call given by the leader to extend that peace and prosperity to other less prosperous nations.
    What spreads is prosperity through peace imposed by a strong nation over weak nations.
    We can say the basis is spreading prosperity through military conquest.
    The organisation of production is subordinated to the organisation of Peace. It is not self-existent peace for prosperity.
    After WWII, empires came to an end, wars came to an end and the European Union sets an example of Prosperity having self-existing dynamism.
    Robert Cooper is its advocate.
    The lure of Prosperity attracted 25 nations to the EU.
    What the army did in the 19th century, economic prosperity does now.
    This is true, after a fashion, in the phenomenon of globalisation.
    Suppose wars are fully abolished and Peace established, the externally imposed army discipline will have shifted inside as self-discipline to ensure smooth trade between nations.
  • Taking a look at the organisation for over a period of a hundred years from 1900 to 2000, we see the following:
    Peace was ensured by the army.
    Trade was smoothly carried out by peaceful conditions.
    Army-imposed civilian discipline was the organisation of any nation.
    It may have been one’s own organisation and army or the army of the conqueror.
    The army was itself supported by a productive civilian organisation.
    The organisation of production supported life in the nation, the standing army, and the export trade by the metropolitan nation.
    The army, its power, was at the peak, though under civilian control.
    In the earlier centuries the army was the ruler; it was not under any control.
    Now wars are over; but interests of trade are greater and stronger.
    The productive organisation that supported the local life, the standing army and the export trade finds the army superfluous but suffers it.
    The economic productive organisation has developed self-existent power of place.
    The army is at least replaced by the police.
    The centre of authority was ONE – the army – which is now distributed to every productive unit in the nation.
    The army represented war; production represents Peace.
    The culture of fighting and wars is giving place to the culture of Peace.
    Its key is production.
    We can extend that organisation of production to organisation of education whose trained members help produce.
    So, from education to communication, sports, transport, art and to every walk of life, that ORGANISATION of peace can be extended as the political power is being distributed in democracy.
    We can call it economic democracy or culture of democracy.
    The monarchy of army is being replaced by the democracy of Prosperity.
    Instead of ONE leader, every member is his own leader.
    The external organisation of force is replaced by the internal organisation of values.
    Hence it is the culture of peace.