Read more

“What kind of war have we got in Ukraine?”
Introduction
After reading the thesis below, one of my opponents has asked me two questions:
1. You suppose that Russia, Ukraine, etc. are not capitalist states. What arguments do you have to
support that?
2. If the war in Ukraine is not a war for its independence (as my opponent, a Ukrainian nationalist,
believes it to be), then what kind of war is it? Where did we have similar wars before?
An answer to each problem in life can be either short or long, depending on the context in which the
problem is posed. At present, our task is to provide an introduction to the article which follows, and
hence the long answer to the problem of what kind of states are Russia, Ukraine, etc. we will postpone
to the future. Just a discussion of previous answers to the question on the nature of the USSR has taken
a Dutch professor Marcel van der Linden a whole book (“Western Marxism and the Soviet Union”,
2007).
The author of the given article adheres to the principles, which were most completely exposed in the
book of Leon Trotsky “What is the Soviet Union, and Where Is It Going?”, 1936. The essence of the
argument is that the USSR is a “transitional” society, i.e. between capitalism and socialism. Just as
between childhood and adulthood there is a transitional age called “teenage years” – and these are
some of the most difficult and defining years in many people’s lives – so in development of social
formations between capitalist formation and socialism there is a transitional period, which we may label
as “Soviet model”, or, better, a “Stalinist model” type of state.
A Stalinist type of state has several stages of development, or decay, just like a radioactive element. At
the first stage, we see “Thermidor”, i.e. repression of democracy in society in general, and repression of
revolutionary elements in the party, specifically. Yet, at the same time, the foundations of economic life
remain in the hands of the state, and bureaucracy, which has formed itself as a separate caste of
society, plays a partially progressive role: it leads the industrialization on the national scale and leads the
fight against fascism.
Next stage in the trajectory of a Stalinist state may be called “Restoration”, following the analogy with
Restoration of Stuarts in the course of the English revolution of XVII century, and Restoration of
Bourbons in the course of the French revolution of XVIII-XIX centuries. At this stage the bureaucracy,
where heretofore controlled the state property as its own patrimony, attempts to transform the “de
facto” ownership into “de jure”, i.e. to make the state industry, and productive forces in general, its own
private property. The children of “nomenclature” cannot formally inherit their parents’ position in the
hierarchy, but they can inherit their parents’ private property.
An attempt to accomplish something, and actually accomplishing that thing are two different things.
This is well understood by people who actually try to make things, as opposed to those who operate
with empty abstractions. These “thinkers” are not acquainted with such categories of Aristotle’s logic as
“potentiality” and “actuality”. For example, a “desire to make a yacht” and “actually making a yacht” are
two different things. Similar logic applies to the attempts to restore capitalist state and society in the
transitional states. Nomenclature has merged with organized crime and this criminal “duet” (also known
as “mafia” in transitional states) struggles for control of the state power in order to privatize the state
productive forces, degrade the social institutes of the transitional society and transform all relations into
the cold logic of capitalist accumulation. On the path to this goal, the criminal “duet” meets itself, as the
nomenclature of a heretofore a united state splits the state and society according ethnic and
nationalistic criteria, because it believes it will be easier in this way to take a possession of that which
previously was a property of the whole state. Thus, Yugoslavia was split into separate national republics
in the early 1990’s, and the civil war has started in that country.
An antechamber to such wars is the growth of nationalism, as a state ideology. Internationalism, or
friendship of people of different nations, which was the state ideology on the ascending stage of
development, changes to nationalism and xenophobia. Thus, in former Yugoslavia we see the Serb
nationalism, in former USSR the great Russian chauvinism, and in China the growth of Chinese
nationalism. Similar type of nationalism grows within each of the national republics, or autonomous
regions. We’re dealing with one and the same phenomenon across all transitional states.
Growth of nationalism and ethnic hatred, and a civil war following that, with accompanying “ethnic
cleansing”, are the typical stages in decay of a transitional state. Variations on the theme are possible, as
for example, in Russia there was a Chechen war, as a result of inability of the Russian and Chechen
criminal rulers to split the profits from the Chechen oil. Here, on the part of Russia, we see the great
Russian chauvinism, which treated the people of Caucasus not as human beings, but as “black asses”
(«черножепые»), which should be squashed as insects. In response, on the part of Chechens we have
seen a growth of Chechen nationalism and religious consciousness, as, for example, exhibited by the
Chechen bard Timur Mucuraev (listen and watch here).
The current war in Ukraine is a civil war similar to that we’ve seen in Yugoslavia in 1990’s, in Georgia
(Abkhazia in 1992-3, South Ossetia in 2008), in Moldova (the Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic in 19923), in Russia (fighting around the White House in Moscow in 1993, then the First and Second Chechen
wars), etc. This is a type of war which is started by two clans of gangsters which cannot divide among
themselves the instruments of power: the state property, the state territory, the state apparatus and its
armed forces. They involve ordinary citizens in their wars, inculcate a religious hatred and xenophobia.
The current rulers of Ukraine, Russia, etc. have completely exhausted their progressive possibilities. My
attitude to them is expressed in the words of a song by Bob Dylan, “The Masters of War”:
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.
As is usual during wars, one of the warring sides makes an alliance with one of the major world powers,
and the other – with its archrival. This is what happened during the Peloponnesian war during the V
century B.C. – a conflict between two provincial city-states has involved in its vortex Athens, on the one
hand, and Sparta, on the other. That war, as is well known, was long and bloody, and has ended with a
complete defeat of Athens. However, Sparta has not become a world hegemon either…
War between two clans of gangsters in Ukraine involves, on the one hand, the Russian military might,
and on the other hand, the United States and their NATO allies, on the other. One of the basic aims of
NATO, from the time of its foundation after WWII, was the suppression of communism. A civil war in
Ukraine is a comfortable pretext for realizing this goal, first, through imposing capitalist reforms on
Ukraine, and second, through a war against Russia fought by the Ukrainian soldiers and citizens.
To make other people fight their dirty wars is the apex of military strategy.
However, as Milovan Djilas has noticed, all modern wars have a tendency to enlarge and become global.
In the 1999 war against Yugoslavia, NATO has managed to insert its military base (camp “Bondsteel”) in
Kosovo, but: 1) This has led to a near collision with Russia, 2) NATO itself has started splitting, as
Germany and France decided to set up its own military force, separate from that of the United States
and Britain.
NATO attempts “to stabilize” the former USSR, creating on its territory military bases, subsidizing
dictators (e.g. Tajikistan) and setting up marionette governments (e.g. Ukraine). This puts it on a
collision course with Russia, as well as military confrontation within the organization itself. Let’s not
forget that antagonisms between imperialisms has been one of the major causes which started the First
and the Second World Wars. “Fuck the EU”, said in private telephone conversation by an American
diplomat in the course of confrontation in Ukraine in 2013-14, has been heard around the world.
Wars in transitional states serve as a prologue to a new world war. As Zb. Brzezinski has noticed in his
1997 book “The Grand Chessboard”, the former USSR represents “new Eurasian Balkans”, i.e. a territory
which is contested by a number of world powers.
All previous world wars have not ended as they were planned by their perpetrators. All previous world
wars have led to a growth of revolutionary consciousness and revolutionary waves. The new world war
will not be an exception.
Listen:
"What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!
N' I don't like it any more than you men."
Foreword
What is offered below are thesis on the war in Ukraine. We start with the immediate causes of the war –
obvious to all who were present on the ground – and proceed to the more distant cause. This is the
break-up of the Soviet model of social-economic system. The cause for the break-up of the system lies in
the system of government, typical for social formations in the process of transition from feudal to
industrial mode of production. This is the formation of a special class, or a closed caste of people,
specializing in management and organization of production. Then we ask how to avoid the division of a
society into “governors” and “governed”. For this, we need a “whole person”, not a narrow specialist. In
the last part of this work, we try to answer the question of how to form such a “whole” person.
I. Immediate causes
1. Yanukovych and his clan take businesses of various oligarchs. One example is Kolomoisky and
the bankruptcy of his company “Airsweet” in 2012 (for details, read here). Also, many medium
and small businessmen were expropriated (for example, read here). Hence, the oligarchs and
businessmen in opposition to Yanukovych clan (“Y.” from now on) subsidize and organize
movements against it. Re-division of property is the basic cause of the war.
2. The second factor responsible for the war in Ukraine are global politics. Y. aligns himself with
Russia of Putin. U.S. is interested in destroying Russia because it is a non-capitalist state and is a
long-time nemesis of the U.S. on the global arena. Hence, in Ukraine, the U.S. help to organize a
movement in opposition to Y.
An American senator, John McCain, speaking at Euromaidan in Kiev, 15 December, 2013.
3. The third factor which was responsible for “Euromaidan” is the social anger caused by the
break-up of the social-economic system which Ukraine has inherited since the Soviet times.
Some examples of this are the medicine and education turning from free-for-all into pay-foreverything, closing down of factories and plants, total corruption, etc.
Stickers on the monument to Lenin in Kiev, December 2013. Some say that there are no longer drugs in
the hospitals, others speak against corruption but against joining the EU.
These 3 factors together have led to a coup d’etat in Ukraine in February 2014, and hence the
start of the civil war.
Trade Unions building on fire, Kiev, 19 February, 2014
Resume of the immediate causes of the war:
1. Re-division of property, in-fighting among the oligarchs.
2. A struggle of the U.S. vs. Russia.
3. Breakdown of the social-economic system of the USSR fuels popular discontent against the Y.
government.
II. Breakdown of the social-economic system of the Soviet type
This breakdown includes:



Privatization and re-division of state property
Breakdown of industry and agricultural complex
Breakdown of the social system, such as free medicine and education, tax-collection system,
army recruitment system, etc.
The causes for the breakdown:




In the first period of revolution, power is wrestled from revolutionary masses of workers and
peasants by the bureaucracy. This finds its political expression in the replacement of the
“Council” and collective system of government by the undivided authority of one man
(«единоначалие»), both at the plant and at the state level.
Initially, both Lenin and Trotsky supported curtailing the power of organized workers, i.e. the
trade unions, and replacing it with one-man management (read “The Workers’ Opposition in
Russia”, written in 1921, by one of its leaders, Alexandra Kollontai).
Reason for this is that the masses at the beginning of revolution didn’t possess enough culture
and knowledge to manage social production (although not everywhere and not always). They
had enough explosive power to blow off the lid of the old tsarist, feudal and capitalist systems,
but not enough to replace it by self-government. Rebellion, being a negative directed against an
authority, is always easier to achieve than self-control, self-discipline necessary for the positive
program after the revolution.
Self-control and self-government imply “whole”, not “partial” persons. A whole person is not
limited to one profession, or one-dimension of development, but participates in several aspects
of productive and social life and hence is qualified to form an opinion of the whole. Examples of
such people we see in the heyday of the Athenian democracy (Pericles, Socrates, etc.)
Harmony is typical for sculptures, architecture and literary creations of the epoch of Pericles. Reason for
this was harmonious development of Athenian citizens.

Socialist revolutions in XX century started in societies in transition from feudal-agricultural type
to capitalist-industrial type. Such societies imply a division of labor, as described by Adam Smith
in “The Wealth of Nations”, 1776. Division of labor means specialization of workers and other
participants in the production process. Hence, an appearance of a special strata of managers.
“Modern times”, a movie by Charlie Chaplin, depicting a worker as a “nut” in the machine.

Once “the professionals” wrestled the power from workers and peasants, they started creating
their own privileges. For example, they served themselves the best food, the best living
quarters, they distributed among themselves state cars and other material wealth. One
opposition journalist in the USSR in 1920’s called this “an automobile-harem factor”. Later, the
material resources of the state, and people working for the state (workers, soldiers, even
professionals) were used for the private purposes of the officials, such as building private
houses, yachts, writing dissertations for their children, etc. Then, there was a wholesale
privatization campaign organized and for the benefit of those, whom the people in the USSR call
“mafia”, i.e. the corrupt high government officials acting together with gangsters.
III. Unification of knowledge and the appearance of “creators”

Modern era is characterized by specialization of knowledge, on the one hand, and unification of
knowledge, on the other. The unification of knowledge we observe in physics in the attempt to
create “a theory of everything”. In the study of “history” we observe the emergence of “Big
History”, in the province of which is united knowledge about the formation of the Universe, our
solar system, life on earth, history of the human society, and finally history of knowledge.
Provisionally, we observe a tendency towards convergence of all subjects into one, as traditional
subjects widen their horizon and include in their province subjects, which used to be separate.
Standard physics treats natural phenomena as unrelated to one another, while theory of everything
sees the phenomena as manifestations of a single force.

Division of labor has led to invention of machines, robots and computers, which take over
simple physical and mental labor. For example, washing and cooking is done with the help of
special machines, which are programmable and essentially are robots. This leaves creativity as
the proper activity for humanity. New type of human being is not a “specialist”, but a “creator”,
or a “creative collective”.


The name of the series of modern toys – Lego Creator - points to a tendency in modern
production.
Such understanding of production makes the concept of “a revolutionary class” outdated,
because “class” means someone who is a specialist, or a worker, etc. But modern
revolutionaries are those who strive to trespass the boundaries of a class and be universal
human beings.
Such people have a history, i.e. they have started to appear since the dawn of humanity, in
various societies. Let’s quickly look at some of them.
IV. A very brief history of “whole” human beings and movements




The term “king” (“konig” in German) is derived from the verb “can”, implying a “can-do man”,
i.e. a person who can do everything.
Odysseus (XII-XI century B.C.) - a king, a captain of a boat, both strong physically (e.g. could draw
a bow that others couldn’t), and able to think under danger (e.g. when Cyclopes started to eat
his men).
Thales (VII-VI century B.C.) - a Greek philosopher who came to his knowledge through extensive
travels as a merchant. Philosophy has come to mean, through him, an interest in all things (“love
of wisdom”). He was the first to predict a sun eclipse. Also, he speculated on the basic elements
of matter.
Socrates (469-399 B.C.) - a stonemason who was however lax about earning a living and was
more likely to be found discussing philosophy. We can think of him as a founder of moral
philosophy, i.e. knowledge of how to live one’s life. Also, he was a brave soldier and a reliable
friend.
A bust of Socrates done by Lysippos, a Greek sculptor of IV century B.C.






Thucydides (460-395 B.C.) - a Greek general who wrote an account of Peloponnesian war, full of
philosophical insight.
Plato (428-328 B.C.) – a philosopher who wrote “The Republic”. There, he states that either
kings must become philosophers, or philosophers kings. That means power should belong with
the people who strive after knowledge.
Aristotle (382-322 B.C.) - a philosopher with interest in many fields of knowledge, “a universal
mind”.
Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.) - a Roman politician and a military general, able to reflect upon his
military experience in a number of writings. He is famous for his laconic saying “venu vidi vici”,
i.e. I came, I saw, I conquered.
During the Middle Ages the palm of knowledge and progress has passed on to the Arabs. The
tale of Sinbad and his seven voyages, dating from VIII century A.D., shows us a man similar to
Odysseus: a merchant, a courageous and enterprising captain, a charitable and wise old man.
Omar Khayyam (1048-1131) – a poet and philosopher who did not recognize the “wisdom” of
his time.


After the Arab “Golden Age”, knowledge awakens in Europe at the end of the Middle Ages.
Hildegard von Bingen (1098-1179) was a universal woman who is most remembered today for
her beautiful music.
Marco Polo (1254-1324) – a merchant, a traveler, a writer.
Marco Polo in China, an illustration from the original edition of his book “Il Milione”



Dante (1265-1321) – he was a man involved in political struggles in Florence, and after his
banishment turned to poetry.
Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472) defined a Renaissance man as "a man can do all things if he
will."
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) - a supreme example of a Renaissance man, used art to delve
into many different fields of knowledge.
An auto portrait of Leonardo



The legend of Dr. Faustus was created in Germany in XV-XVI centuries, and has found its best
expression in a play by Goethe. Faustus was a scholar who mastered all knowledge of his day,
but dissatisfied with the scholarly life, takes to the exploration of the real world.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) – a philosopher, a mathematician, a physicist, studies medicine and
biology. In the beginning of his career, he was a soldier, at the end – a tutor to royalty. He was a
Frenchman who lived in Holland, the most advanced society of his time. Switching countries
helps one a great deal to become “universal man”.
Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) – made a living by grinding lenses for the most advanced
instruments of his time: microscopes and telescopes. However, he was a philosopher who was
banished both by the Jewish community and the Christian one.
A progressive spirit of the times is captured in a painting of a Dutch master Vermeer (1632-1675) “A
Geographer”.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) - organized the American library system, experimented with
electricity, a revolutionary and a politician. The best source of information about him is his own
“Autobiography”.
Franklin experimenting with electricity.



Mikhail Lomonosov (1711-1765) – a young man, from a fishing village deep in Siberia, comes
walking to Moscow and goes on to become a man of encyclopedic knowledge and a founder of
the Moscow university.
P. Kropotkin sees the French revolution (the most active phase was in 1789-1794) as a double
movement: on the one hand, new ideas about social and political arrangements coming from
the “educated” classes (i.e. the ideas of Enlightenment); on the other hand, rebellions
originating from the peasants. Only when the two movements interpenetrated, the Great
revolution became possible.
Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) – a German traveler and a man who attempted to unify all
knowledge of his time (read his “Cosmos”).
Self-portrait of Alexander von Humboldt, 1814



Victor Hugo (1802-1885) – a writer and an artist, created the monumental character of Jean
Valjean (in “Les Miserables”), a worker-philosopher.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) - a revolutionary (kicked out of France after the reaction set in to the
revolution of 1848) and a communist theoretician. Always in poverty, until helped by his friend,
F. Engels (1820-1895), a capitalist and a socialist propagandist.
Jules Verne (1828-1905) – a science-fiction writer and a captain of a yacht.

Nikolai Kibalchich (1853-1881) – a Russian revolutionary involved in the plot which culminated in
the assassination of tsar Alexander II, in 1881. While in jail, he is busy inventing a rocket ship.

Alexandra Kollontai (1872-1952) – a revolutionary, her investigations into women’s social
conditions became the basis for the Soviet legislation on women and children, a pioneer of “free
love”, a first woman minister in government, a diplomat.
Alexander Bogdanov (1873-1928) - a member of the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks, an
organizer of a party school, but also a science-fiction writer, a doctor, a founder of a new science
of organization (“Tectology”).
Winston Churchill (1874-1965) – a leader of Britain during WWI, WWII, but also a writer,
describing both of these experiences, a recipient of a Nobel Prize in literature, a painter.
Jack London (1876-1916) - wrote a novel, “The Sea Wolf”, in which a writer, an intellectual is
forced to become a simple workman on board of a sailing vessel, and eventually rises to a
captain of the ship.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944) – a pilot, a writer, an artist.





The Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 were movement of workers, peasants and soldiers,
led by socialist intellectuals.

Alexander Grin has created the vision of “The Scarlet Sails” (1923); this is about an oppressed
girl and a pampered boy who become real human beings.

Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) – a science-fiction writer and an encyclopedic scientist.




Ernest Che Guevara (1928-1967) – a doctor, a traveler, a revolutionary, a writer.
Richard Bach (b. 1936) – a pilot, a builder of airplanes, and a visionary writer (“Jonathan
Livingstone Seagull”, 1970).
Burt Rutan (b. 1943) – a designer of advanced aircraft who practices work rotation at his
company.
Tanya Nijmeijer (b.1978) – a Dutch student, an English teacher in Columbia, a revolutionary
fighting together with FARC.
Tanya Nijmeijer
V. How is the “whole” human being formed?



Modern theoretical approach to the whole is called “systems theory” (watch here an
entertaining 5 min. explanation). Hence, we should try to learn about it as much as we can.
How does one attain knowledge? One exponent of systems theory – Alexander Fetisov, in
1960’s in the USSR – has proposed the following algorithm:
1. Formulation of the “whole”, “the system” in which we’re interested.
2. Understanding previous knowledge accumulated on the whole, or the system. Criticism
of this knowledge. (History of knowledge on any subject can be obtained from
“Wikipedia”. What is important in understanding this history is reading the original
sources, or going to the original thinkers and practitioners, rather than reading
numerous secondary sources or hearing stories of this or that project.)
3. Understanding the content of any given system. What are its separate parts?
4. Investigation of every single part separately. Creation an overall concept of it, or (if
we’re in practical sphere) creation of the separate component of the system.
5. Understanding of the logic of interaction of the parts. How does one part of the system
lead to the next? How do all parts of the system interact with one another?
6. A practical realization of the project, on the basis of the investigation performed. What
are other possible practical applications of the system?
7. Results of practical experiment. A modification of the whole system, or its separate
components, or the way in which it was created (e.g. improving how separate
components are fashioned).
Systems theory is not the only possible approach to unification of knowledge. Another approach
I call “a map of knowledge”. Here the analogy is the map of the Earth, which the captains and
geographers had to draw in the “Age of Discovery”, in XV-XVII centuries. What we need to draw
today are the shapes of the “continents” and the “oceans” which compose our knowledge. We
need to understand the relationships in which these masses stand to one another.
A Portuguese navigation chart of 1503, showing the results of discoveries of Columbus of Central
America, Vasco De Gama of India, and others. Notice that the shapes of Europe, Africa and India are
drawn well, while of other continents there are only vague sketches.
A sketch for the front page of “Map of knowledge”.

A map of knowledge, by making us group together pieces of information that are of the same
type, but before were separate, makes possible broad generalizations across the same type of
information. Moreover, the need for creating types makes us see common characteristics of
heretofore disconnected pieces information. We are forced into making distinctions between
more and less important common characteristics. Altogether, this brings us to formulation of a





system, which a given array of information forms – a system with its laws of development,
general patterns of behavior and exceptions.
Any road in life, if we only take it seriously, lead us from partial to general problems. For
example, a man can start as a clown, but develop to be an actor, a movie director, a composer, a
founder of a studio, a social activist (Charlie Chaplin). If one is to take a serious attitude to
mathematics, one can develop a program which attempts to answer all possible questions (see
Stephen Wolfram).
Increasing the scale of any discipline, of any one kind of knowledge, leads us towards universal
knowledge. For example, if we desire to make a revolution “a science”, then we will have to
study not one revolution, but several, in order to make comparisons and generalizations. But
this will lead to see that the concept of “revolution” is closely connected to that of “evolution”,
as one leads to the other, and then back to the first, but of a new, higher type. Then we see that
the concept of “revolution-evolution” (for it is really one concept, like that of “space-time”,
since one never comes without the other) is not limited to social sphere, but is intimately
connected to production in general. Thus, we speak about the structure of scientific revolutions.
Hence, the concept of revolution-evolution spreads from social sphere into production, leads us
to general knowledge.
A “whole” human being is not a “polymath”, as such person is understood by modern capitalist
society. A polymath is a specialist in more than one field. A whole human being is someone who
is interested in “the whole”, “everything at once” (as in the Lenka song).
A whole human being is an advanced person, s/he is most likely far ahead of his time (for
example, Faustus). More likely than not, s/he is a revolutionary, either in a field of knowledge
(for example, Columbus was a whole human being, as his hypothesis of a continent on the other
side of the ocean he founded on the basis of his sailing, as well as his theoretical studies), or in
social relations, or in both (for example, Benjamin Franklin, Nikolai Kibalchich).
Any person develops to a “whole” human being, given 2 requirements: 1) freedom, 2) creativity.
If these conditions are not met, it is not possible to trespass the boundaries of a usual, narrow
program, and extend into another subject, another field of activity, often the opposite of what
one is doing. All leaders in different spheres of activity have won for themselves creative
freedom, and thus became “whole” persons. E.g. Garrett Lisi, working on a theory of everything,
is also a surfer, a lover, and leads a nomadic existence. If something wrong happens in one field,
they are ready to switch to other areas of interest.
Geometric theory of everything, proposed by G. Lissi



If a person works as a manual worker, in his/her free time s/he should be a reader, possibly a
writer, and a traveler. On the other hand, a theoretical kind of a person can develop to become
a whole person by adopting a hobby that involves a manual labor. Travelling is also good for
him.
Regular meetings of the staff should be called, where the most important questions related to
running an organization, and interpersonal relations, problems, are raised and discussed. E.g.
this was practiced by United Community Centers in “Camp Hurley”, Catskill Mountains, USA.
Alternating between one’s duties is also important in developing a whole person. An
organization should allow a person to try his hand at different tasks, work with different people,



e.g. part-time a designer, and part-time a worker. This kind of set up we see in Burt Rutan’s
company “Scaled Composites”.
Volunteer work for the good of the whole – community, country, the planet – should be
practiced. However, leaders of the society should be the first to participate in such labor. E.g.
Che Guevara working in the sugar cane fields, or as a loader. Otherwise, the kind of volunteer
work will be perverted, made fun of, degraded.
Young people should be sent as volunteers to the poorest parts of the globe, as, for example, in
the U.S. program “Peace Corps”. When a young person observes how the poorest people live,
s/he becomes a revolutionary, a passionate defender of social justice. Examples of this we see in
the life of Che Guevara and Tanya Nijmeijer.
The practice of building and sailing a sailboat can be an excellent school for becoming a whole
person. Here, learning should not be on separate subjects, but rather building the whole as a
team. Thus, one can learn to do many different things, from simple ones to complex. Moreover,
sailing a boat teaches one courage and ability to live with others under extreme conditions. Also,
sailing teaches a person geography and widens his/her narrow national boundaries.

All kinds of creativity should be encouraged and supported. Creative centers and toys should not
exist only for kids, but for adults as well. To be more exact, there should not be a division into
age groups. One and the same club can be attended both by the kids and adults.

Sexual relations which negate private property should be studied and supported. One example
of such a movement in modernity is “polyamory”, i.e. a plurality of love relations with different
people, with the consent of all concerned.
Polyamory movement is gaining a momentum worldwide.