Harmonious Economics or The New World Order. 2nd edition by supplemented

In reality, the need for the unity of traditions, spiritual and economic life of every peoples is undoubted, as it is the condition for the increased material efficiency coupled with a developed and enhanced spiritual component. Indeed, no country in the world can afford satisfying its economic demands without recurring to all of its natural, human and organisational assets. Moreover, no country can afford ignoring its own weaknesses. For this reason, a universal efficient economic model is not feasible, just as a medicine to cure all known diseases.

Foreign experience is useful, provided that it is applied cautiously. In fact, efficient economy can only be national, as it should reflect the state of the country, the mentality of its people, as well as their historic traditions and legacy. Besides, it goes without saying that such economy should be integrated in the world economic system, without, for that matter, losing its identity or harming its people. It is comparable to a person who lives in a society while preserving their individuality. “Political economy should take the national idea as the starting point and teach how this particular nation… can preserve and improve its economic situation’ (S. Yu. Vitte, President of the Russian Council of Ministers in 1905—1906).

This rule is observed in the modern world, too. For instance, American capitalism is based on the key priorities of the American nations: engagement, individualism, worship of personal initiative, and uncompromising struggle for money and power. It is well known that the US has gathered all the planet’s individualists in one place. These people have voluntarily broken with their origins, becoming outcasts without any link to the land that bore them. They have demonstrated what a person free of national and class prejudices, free of traditions, centuries-old culture and affections is capable of.

Such people have built a powerful state and a unique civilisation. Moreover, as true pragmatists, they enabled an unprecedented flourishing of material culture. They have reduced social relations to an absurdity; this “capitalist’ type of relations has become the very symbol of such economy. All the thoughts of such people have been subordinated to money, rationalism, and consumption. Thus, they managed to formalize and, successively, to impoverish the human aspirations and relationships, and to substitute the priorities.

The Japanese are distinguished among other peoples by their strict obedience to discipline, hard work, industriousness, responsibility, conscientiousness, honesty, patriotism, and attachment to their company. Japanese statehood is built upon the culture of the family, corporate and social relations and hierarchies inherent to the Japanese people. It is based on an innate understanding of the benefits of reasonable administration, of the Oriental philosophy, of the century-old traditions, of the unique writing system, phonetics and linguistic system of the Japanese language, and, by consequence, of the thinking associated with it.

German capitalism is supported by honesty, exactness, discipline, labour culture of the Germans; by thorough planning and regulation of all elements organisational elements. Chinese economy employs ancient culture, diligence and conscientiousness of its people, etc. This is why, while many economic models share similar names, in essence they are strikingly different one from the other. And this precisely lets them complete with each other successfully. It is evident that if German economy were guided by American interests, and Japan or the US followed German traditions, none of them would have any positive results.

Similarly, Russian people equally have typical, distinguishing organisational and national features. There exist Russian attitudes to life, labour, and corporate relationship that do reflect the national character and traditions. These attitudes rely on the specific traits of the Russian people that are at the source of the Russian culture, history and moral principles. The Russians can, like no other nation, work in small groups, forming harmonious collaborations, where each member can fully realize their capabilities, allowing a maximum efficiency of the collective effort.

In the light of the foregoing, in the following sections we will study the civilisational differences of various cultures to determine their common and divergent points. Only after such analysis will it be possible to work out the preferable economic principles for people living across the globe to fully reflect their expectations and cultures, while conforming to the laws of the Universe.

1.1.2. Differences between western and eastern cultures and their influence on the economic structure

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.12

R. Kipling

Let us proceed with the study of the profound differences that exist between civilisations. The theory of hierarchy of civilisations that presupposes the supremacy of some civilisations and the backwardness of the others is by far disputable. In reality, as Honoré de Balzac wrote, “Things that we admire in Europe are punishable in Asia, and a vice in Paris becomes a necessity when you have passed the Azores. There are no such things as hard-and-fast rules; there are only conventions adapted to the climate’13.

At the same time, significant differences in the lifestyle of peoples cannot fail to influence their economic organisation. Indeed, the overall purpose of economy is to provide people with the means of existence. This objective serves as an incentive as well as a source of well-being for nations. No nation or people could survive if they did not employ their entire life potential, including natural, intellectual, and cultural potential. Otherwise they would not be able to make the best of their advantages and curb their weaknesses, would not aspire for economic structure that conforms most with their mentality. And, consequently, people would fail to preserve their specific mentality. It is well known that a good gambler does not always win at chess. In this light, as Joseph E. Stiglitz believed “Each country should have its own economic policy based on the specific characteristics of this country; there can be no common, universal policy for all reforming countries’14 [16].

In order to prove this affirmation, we shall consider the fundamental differences of such distinct cultures as eastern and western cultures. Their most conspicuous representatives are the European and the Indian cultures, respectively. This does not mean that other civilisations, such as Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, Slavic, or else Arab civilisations are of less importance. However, it is the cultures of India and Europe that provide an example of a most striking contrast. What are their fundamental differences?

European culture is relatively young. It was shaped by the rationality of Rome reinforced by the Greek Romanticism. Indeed, “… take Rome out – and the entire European edifice will collapse’ (Valentin Ivanov). If we analyse the map of the Roman oikumene at the beginning of the first millennium AD, including the territories of the Germanic tribes that the Roman Empire fought against, it is evident that the oikumene reunites precisely the states that make part of the modern Western Europe. All the tribes inhabiting this territory were inevitably and profoundly influenced by the sophisticated culture, language, order, and the very image of the rigorous Roman mind. The successors of the Empire naturally inherited its organisation, its harmony, rationality, democracy and inherent homogeneity.

But at the same time, they inherited the egotism, cynicism, cruelty, arrogance and pragmatism of Rome of those days, which in the end brought the Empire to ruin. For it was in the depths of Rome that the pagan cults of violence, hedonism, thirst for luxury, and permissiveness flourished. It was there that double standards, the modern plague of the western society, appeared. Within that system, everything that benefited Rome was considered good, while evil was all that ran counter to its interests. Then, the notions of truth, conscience and justice were employed as needed, often, as an excuse.

The Indian civilisation is more ancient. It is based on occult learning, manuscripts and cultural monuments that the legend attributes to the ancient Aryan civilisation. That is why all notions of this culture have already been tested by the time, and they tend to be more profound and precise. For this reason, as Carl Gustav Jung [17], a recognized expert in the western and eastern cultures, said, not only the lifestyles, but also the types of mentality of the western and the eastern societies are remarkably different.

Indeed, in the West, thinking, intelligence and logic are deemed the best tools for discovering the truth. As the result, the western mentality has become rigid, it does not tolerate deviations and unjustified assumptions. Besides, the area of rational use of mind has been significantly restricted in the West. While people there trust exact observations and logic, they also shun the unconscious and its dubious fantasies. The East has different demands. While the European mind can only process what is visible and tangible, the eastern mind strives to discover the nature and the essence of things. Consequently, a European sees the World around as a system of hierarchies, and an Indian – as a whole. Knowing the way to control the supreme power inside a person is the highest good for an Indian; a European only values what his eye sees.

To illustrate this idea, it can be mentioned that the a maiore ad minus15 (Latin for “from the bigger to the smaller’) principle is seen in the East as the key tool for learning about the reality. All inferences are drawn from the general principles. In the West, the road towards the truth takes the opposite direction: from the simple to the more complex. Western thinkers believe that the process of learning about the world can only be consecutive, it advances as new data is collected and processed; eastern thinkers discover the world through studying and elaborating the way the general Laws of the Universe are manifested. That is why it is these laws that the western philosophers usually study.

The above explains why a western person takes a detached view of the World, striving to distance themselves from it, to acquire an absolute personal freedom, and an Indian, on the contrary, tries to merge with the World. Therefore, a western person draws conclusions regarding their inner world based on external sensations, while an Indian person is guided by their internal meditations.

Consequently, western mind has a wide knowledge of the Nature, and knows very little about it essence. Europeans always try to make use of things instead of understanding them. They see the reality as something that works, that is connected with the world of phenomena, while for an Indian only the soul, the spirit is real.

Science, with its tendency for systematisation, for logic and consistency, is undoubtedly an invention of the western world. Science conforms with its capacity for logical thinking and reality management. However, about 80% of the scientific knowledge considered evident is proved wrong every 100 years. Although the physical world view as presented by modern science is logically rigorous and justified, it allows no space for life. So, this theory will suffer no changes if the humans disappear from the Universe. Now what is the real value of science if the only being it was created for is excluded from its structure?

In contrast, the Indian concept of non-violence (ahimsa) plays a key role throughout its history. It lies in universal harmony and love, characteristic of all deep phenomena and Nature. Its distinctive features are the supreme self-control of a person, the greatest gift, the highest sacrifice, the most beautiful power, happiness, the highest truth and the principle of creating the World out of harmony. Tolerance and conflict-free, the unity of mankind and all its constituent peoples. “Non-violence is the highest moral virtue” (Mahabharata). She urged “… to lead others not by violence, but by righteousness and justice” (Buddha).

The East, on the contrary, glorifies the rational dominant of feeling, elevates the spiritual component of the World, and perceives the truth through intuition, feelings and emotions. That is why eastern knowledge is indifferent to time running, and what was valued a thousand years ago is still valued today. To give just one example, “The supreme good of the human-beast is health; the supreme good of a spiritual human being is truth’16 (from The Gems of the East [15]). Is there anything to oppose this statement? Indeed, what is eternal is immune to change, and what is constant is eternal.

All this eventually shaped the different views of the people who live at the opposite points of the planet, both their views of themselves, and of the World around them. One of the cultures under consideration underestimates the world of consciousness, the other rejects that of the Uniform Spirit. The West celebrates “objectiveness’ sacrificing to it the beauty and the integrity of life. The East substitutes objectiveness with wisdom, peace of estrangement and psychic immobility that help human beings return to the source and leave all troubles and joys outside. “Subjectivity is really an advanced or preparatory stage for objectivity’ (Satprem [18]).

Having completed their historic development, the Europeans have gone so far from their origins that their minds have finally split into faith and knowledge. This is not surprising, as any psychological exaggeration leads to a split into the inherent opposites. Thus, a European person, equipped with the bad habit of believing and, at the same time, with a developed scientific and philosophic criticism, is inevitably trapped either in blind adoration or in an equally uncompromising rejection of foreign opinions and lifestyles.

The East believes that “Everything requires for its existence its own opposite, or else it fades into nothingness’ (Carl Gustav Jung, [17]). The World is stable as long as its composing factors are balanced. It understands that “Where there is faith, there is doubt; where there is doubt, there is thirst for faith; where there is morality, there is temptation’ (Laozi). That is why “The West can galvanize and separate, but it can neither stabilize nor unite’ (A. J. Toynbee).

An Indian take care both of the body and the mind, and a European keeps forgetting to attend to either the one or to the other. Where there is a will, there is a way, claims the West, and a European person takes this as a life motto. Thanks to persistent energy and forgetfulness, the Europeans have conquered the entire planet. And, at the same time, they have lost their planet. “That is the sickness of western man, and he will not rest until he has infected the whole world with his own greedy restlessness’ (C. G. Jung [17]). This is why the western man has become a symbol of the material component of the World, this is why he has made impressive material achievements. However, he has failed in the spiritual ones, as an increase in one place will always be balanced by a decrease in another, according to the law of conservation of energy.

In fact, neither of these two highly contrasted viewpoints is universal. As the great medieval scientist, theologian and poet Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī [19] said, there are two tools for discovering the world: logic and sense. And these two are inseparable and irreplaceable, just as the two sides of the coin. Rumi believed that the more one tries to push apart two opposites, the more power they have.

Obviously, a person’s mood and their understanding of the good and the evil, the moral and the immoral is profoundly influenced by the religious dogmas that the person lives by. It is evident that people with different psychic and incomparable values cannot pray to the same god. And for a Christian, notwithstanding his confession, the structure of the religion, i.e. the difference of its rituals from other religions, is more important than their sense. A Christian transposes these rituals onto himself and, as the result, feels the competition between the religions, but cannot imagine their union.

For an Indian, on the contrary, the apparent differences of the religions are of little consequence, as he instinctively tries to discard the superficial to glorify the common features of all religions. An Indian would rather give up dogmas than circumscribe the essence of God, making God universal through limitation. “One, He presides over all wombs and natures; Himself the womb of all’17 establishes Shvetashvatara Upanishad (V.5). According to the eastern philosophy, God and man are linked by indissoluble ties: “In whatever way people surrender unto me, I reciprocate with them accordingly. Everyone follows my path’18, reads Bhagavad Gita (IV,11 [15]).

Western religious practice is based on prayer, on the worship and the adoration of God. A person from the East mostly communicates with the Deity by being immersed in unconsciousness that they believe to be the supreme conscience. A European echoes Saint Paul, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me’ (Gal.2:20). And the Indian surah promises “And you shall know that you are Buddha’ (Taittirīya Upanishad X). This is the reason why the spiritual approach of the East stupefies western man, and vice versa. A good Christian cannot save himself, just as a Buddha cannot worship a God other than himself. And even though the western civilisation is not as blessed as it seems, it is also incapable of accepting the spiritual approach of the East. And similarly, the East cannot cast away its culture to adopt another one, raised from foreign ground.

The Hindu people believe that the Deity inhabits all things and, above all, any human being. In western religions, on the contrary, only humans are endowed with a soul, as well as some other living beings. In eastern cultures, human soul is identical to the souls of other natures of the Universe, to those of all things existing. This soul is described as follows: “He is the child of the waters, the child of the forests, the child of things stable and the child of things that move. Even in the stone he is there’19 (Rigveda, I.70.20). In the West, however, nature is inanimate, and the man is a consumer, capable of governing Nature and all of its components.

A Christian attains the supreme knowledge through losing his own self, while an Indian preserves the immutable foundation of his nature through rigorous respect of its unity with the deity or the universal nature: “The heavens beyond are great and wonderful, but greater yet and more wonderful are the heavens within you’ (Sri Aurobindo [18]). On the contrary, a European is more convinced by the visible reality with its materiality and weight. That is why a western man seeks rising above the World, while an Indian turns to the original sources of Nature.

As the result, the western Christian culture sees man free but at the same time fully subordinated to the will of God. Or, at least, to the church – the only institute of salvation on earth authorized by God. Thus, a European wants to mollify this “authority’ with his fear, his vows, his prayers, with obedience, self-humiliation, good deeds, and glorification. And, from time to time, with indulgences. A western person is tortured by the belief in absolute gods that share human passions and weaknesses, but in fact are nothing else than a veil of illusions woven by the imperfect human mind.

Deep down the western man feels his insignificance before God and therefore does not dare protect his “I” against Him. On the contrary, in the East the man is the creator of his fate and the author of his self-perfection, as well as an integral part of God.

Suffice it to tweak this formula and substitute God with a different entity, for instance, with power, money or passion, to render a portrait of a European complete: a diligent, timorous, humble, and enterprising person who avidly clutches to the certain goods of the world he lives in, such as property, health, knowledge, money and material values. These are the founding elements of the liberal economic model forged by the Europeans. The western man is convinced that wealth comes from the outer world, that is why he avidly tries to fill his empty soul with it. He wants to seize the earthly comforts from other people to assure his own well-being at any price. “The western civilisation prefers having to being’ (A. Macchirgiani). And this should not come as a surprise, as “who holdeth not God as such an inner possession, but with every means must fetch Him from without’ (Meister Eckhart’s Schriften und Predigten)20.

While eastern philosophy and its perception of the world are directed inside the human being, western philosophy looks on the outside. It understands the dialectics of the opposites but cannot conceive their harmonious coexistence. That is why such philosophy is bound to run to extremes: it accepts fight and competition but is alien to cooperation of people, things or notions. As the two civilisations we have been dealing with so far understand the main questions of the world in strikingly different ways, the life within each of them is easily disconnected from the whole reality to become artificial and inhuman.

It is all logical then that the economic lifestyle and the production and distribution methods could not remain untouched by the profound differences between western and eastern civilisations. Thus, the eastern path consists in the subordination of the man by the state or by his own inner self. As opposed to the East, the West seeks to break the dead unity and give freedom to the individual forms of life. At the same time, it gets beyond harmony to encourage global egotism. This is why capitalism, based on the individualism cult, is alien to eastern mentality and ends up distorting it. The West does not admit other economic system than one driven by self-interest, the most shameful among the human qualities, and not by the desire to provide people with the means of existence, that is why unmercenary economics would not work as well in the West as in the East.

Selfish economics conforms more to western mentality, and, consequently, it is more beneficial for it, assuring prosperity of the West. However, people of other cultures feel uncomfortable within such economic system, and that is why they often lose to the West. Western economy is detrimental for the life of other cultures, and it does not correspond to their understanding of Truth and Justice.

The East admits that the common prosperity stands above personal well-being: “The manifestation of unity vanquishes even armies… The entire world is divided along a boundary line between individual and general welfare. If we act within the sphere of the general welfare with sincere intentions, then in support of us stands the entire reservoir of cosmic accumulations’ (Agni Yoga – The Living Ethics).21 The East is capable to “learn above all to separate Head-learning from Soul-Wisdom, the ‘Eye’ from the ‘Heart’ doctrine’ (Helena Blavatsky [15])22. The West, meanwhile, keeps worshipping logic, intelligence and rationality, and often ignores the heart with its uncertain, illogical and erratic ways.

In the East, people understand that even though the accumulation of all the necessary things is indeed a source of well-being, no material goods would satisfy the inner world. That is why it is no surprise for the East that in the quest for pleasures humans are pestered by a growing hunger. And the greater the pleasures, the stronger the hunger. The man himself becomes the object of someone else’s craving, as well as a source of trouble and other unknown calamities. The multidimensionality and the duality of the world are to blame here.

The lack of spiritual orientation in the West borders on mental anarchy. By consequence, any religious or philosophic dogma contributes to setting up some kind of order, and becomes a source of new knowledge and of psychic duality. As dogmas can be assimilated with spiritual hygiene they contribute to the variety of knowledge. On the contrary, the East proves sufficient, peaceful, and composed. The West generates hundreds of world visions, none of which is complete or fully feasible. And there is no surprise in this, as all of such theories aim at resolving some local issues, instead of uncovering their nature and relation with other phenomena. The main tool such theories use is the analysis of circumstances and not their synthesis.