There is a process going on in the USA turning the local giant enterprises more and more into parts of the state structure.

The classical enterprises could no longer cope with their work. The same applies to the shareholders, who lost their influence on this powerful acquisitive structure. The tasks of control are nowadays so complicated that the management has become the highest authority of the company. But this, too, is not the actual head. The true decisions within this hierarchical system lie "a bit further down": in those who make the plans, the technicians, and other specialists. In these gigantic enterprises (of which there are about 300, whose turnover accounts for more than half of all business within the USA) a backbone that has the actual control. Galbraith called this "techno-structure"¹.

This structure – I am following his description here – freed itself from the control existing previously, became an oligarchy controlling itself. Its interests are no longer identical with those of the shareholders. The dividends are kept within reasonable limits, the actual goal, however, is the increase in the acquisitive structure. The growth rate is what matters. It means for every member of the techno-structure more responsibility, more scope for advancement. Technological progress is being promoted, the market is controlled, risks are avoided.

The most important and largest client is the state itself. 55 to 60 % of the national product in the USA is spent for the defence budget alone – accounting for more than US$ 60 billion today. The state regulates the total demand. It is the interests of the state with which the techno-structure identifies itself.

For the national authorities, these energons inspire confidence. They are not controlled by the interests of entrepreneurs or shareholders. They work with foresight, carefully, profitably and wisely. The management does not directly benefit from the earnings. The revenues are allocated primarily to growth and progress.

Thus a natural partnership is created. The state units have a good understanding with the techno-structure. A collegial combination between this and the individual categories of arms comes about. With the same kind of dedication the representatives of the state and of private economy work together. The result is a perfectly natural symbiosis – whereby each part supports and strengthens the other. This thus leads to these private-enterprise giants more and more turning into components of the state giant. Several types of energons here combine to form interest/pressure groups/lobbies. The process is highly complicated as these enterprises themselves are part of the US. Components of a larger energon that had so far been widely independent thus merge more and more with the latter. They become parts of the state’s bureaucracy.

I am rather sceptical about whether this book will succeed in inciting the interest of the modern economist in snails and juniper bushes. Animals and plants seem extremely unimportant from the point of view of economic difficulties – as far as they are not supposed to be served on our plates. But still they throw some light on what takes place at the highest level of power nowadays.
 
 

There are two things in plants that make them particularly dear to us. Firstly, it is the blossoms, secondly the fruits. Regarding these, many people have assumed that they were created by divine providence just for the delight of human beings. For the purpose of enjoying them. I will now try to demonstrate that precisely these may provide information on those processes to which we owe the power network of our existence today. General Motors and Dow Chemical seem to be light-years away from the pelargonium on the windowsill and from the pumpkin in the kitchen garden. And this is true – but only in our imagination.

The first possibility for the plants growing on land to have their seed proliferation financed by external power, was by taking the wind into their service. There was, however, another possibility by means of which the seeds could even be carried many times further away from the mother plant. In this case, too, it was the utilisation of external energy; here, too, some expenses were necessary. Special structures had to be developed. They looked slightly different from the one which forces wind energy into the plant’s service. They mainly consisted of sugar, which was arranged around the seeds. Furthermore, they had a skin tightened around it. It had a favourable effect if this skin was as colourful as possible.

This formation is what we call "fruits". They are nothing but a means of payment to the birds, which eat them up and thus spread the seeds. The seed enters the bird’s stomach and is later on evacuated at some other place. In most cases even with excrement sticking to it, welcome as a fertiliser in the process of germinating.

The drastic difference to the spreading of seeds by the wind is the fact that in this case one energon makes another energon render services useful for it. While the expense of energy in connection with the flying facility is of no use to the wind at all, the fruit pulp surrounding the seed is of direct advantage to the bird. It represents valuable food for it. Its services are thus paid for accordingly. The fact that neither of the partners is aware of this business deal does not change anything in the process of trading that takes place: it is based on the development of behavioural blueprints which – in this case – are formed not merely in the energon acquiring external support. The behavioural structure of the birds adapted to this welcome provision of sugar.

Things, however, did not work just like that. The birds must – as they fly – economise particularly as regards their energy and thus have an extremely fast, even dynamic digestion. To them it is an advantage if the food does not weigh on the body for too long. This, however, means danger for the seed. For if they are digested themselves in this very efficient process, this does not promote the cause of spreading the seed.

The stone of the cherry – well known to all of us – illustrates the additional expense that was necessary here. The seed itself has to be surrounded in a way that the acid gastric fluid cannot harm it. A solid outer skin around the fruit was important, too. It was not to be so solid that it might have irritated the birds but if smaller animals (which could not fly and thus transport the seeds) were kept away from this sugar depot, this was an advantage.

The "problems" of the plant, however, were still by far not solved by all these factors. The germs did cover wide distances but precisely this fact led to another problem. In evolution the organisms could not make progress if the mechanism of sexual merging of the germ cells did not work. We will refer to that later. Now, however – with the help of the birds – the daughter plant is moved far away. How were its germ cells supposed to unite with others?²

The quiet plants are much more dynamic than they appear to be. They succeeded – for the purpose of transporting the germ cells – in taking insects (and also some birds) into their service. This auxiliary service, too, requires a corresponding gift, an expense, a lure, a reward. It is again sugar, which is easy for the animals to digest. Apart from that, in order to lure insects which do not have very good vision to this present designed for them, the development of scent and leaves as colourful as possible were useful.

We call this functional unit for the utilisation of the insects’ energy – this "energy transformer", after Ostwald – "blossom". The "pollination" constitutes a clear business transaction here – which the partners themselves are not aware of at all. It developed – and as it worked it survived and was continually improved and refined.

Those parts which we consider particularly pleasant and which are dear to us (fruits and blossoms) have not very much to do with the "nature" of the plant itself. They are additional organs which are imposed on it to make up for its immovability. If the cherry tree were able to walk, neither would the Japanese take pleasure in its blossoms, nor would we take pleasure in its fruit.

Development, however, went still a little bit further. It is not the intention of this book to explain why human beings like blossoms. The reason why we like the taste of the fruits is self-explanatory. Both reasons, however, lead to the fact that here again manipulation of genetic blueprints by human beings set in, which we call "cultivation".

By means of this process humans made it possible that today we have plant energons which develop large and colourful blossoms for no purpose at all, or grow fruits of a size and containing such an amount of sugar that nature itself would never have allowed within the framework of natural balance. We promote them. We fertilise them, defend, protect and pamper them. For what purpose? In one case, we get food that tastes so delicious. In the other case, we gain the effect, so hard to grasp and to express in figures, which we call our "pleasure". The fact that we have these splendid ornamental flowers today again represents a devious way making external energy work for us. It creates something for us that we consider "beautiful" – i.e. advantages in the "sphere of luxury". We made the powers of nature do even this.
 
 

Let us come back to our hermit crab. Some species can do just with the protective shell, which was created by the snail before they used it – for their own needs – some cannot. It protects them from many rapacious enemies, but not from the octopus. One possibility to ward these off, too, would be to plant water lilies on their shell. This, too, was achieved – as we all know – by some of the hermit crabs.

If their acquisitive business runs well, and they become bigger, the snail shell becomes too small. Controlled by innate behavioural patterns, they subsequently seek a bigger one. They move into it as soon as they found it and also take along the water lilies to the new home. They stroke the foot of the lilies with their pincers whereupon the lilies can be peeled off. Using its pincers the crab then transfers the water lilies to the new shell. This does not constitute an act of intelligence, this, too, had to be preceded by the development of special behavioural formulas in the course of evolution – on the one hand in the crab, on the other, however, also in the water lilies, which also benefit from this symbiosis.

To the crab, the water lily is an functional unit of protection. To the water lily, the crab is an functional unit of movement. Thus, the water lily is carried around and is more likely to be able to get hold of food. The principle of any such relationship of two energons becomes very obvious here. The partners use each other as artificial organs, which have the special advantage of running themselves. Thus, each of them acquires a share of foreign efforts. Each of the two parts integrates organs run on foreign energy into its effective structure.

This also applies to the relation between plants, and birds and insects. The plant acquires functional units of locomotion. The birds and insects acquire sugar. This gives the impression of the plants turning into their source of energy in this business transaction. This, however, is not the whole truth. Here, too, it is not actually the sugar that is traded – but rather external energy. The plants turn into producers and suppliers of this dose of sugar to the birds and insects. They thus become functional units of the acquisition of food. Here again, one achievement is acquired by another achievement.

This difference is significant in order to see similar acts of barter between human beings in the right light. Let us assume the simple case of one person building a fence for another person, and as a counter-performance getting five hens from him. The object that the person who built the fence traded is not food as such but the job performance which was necessary for the acquisition of this food. The other person had fed and bred these hens: this is the performance which is offered for barter in this case.

As an intermediate factor in this act of barter, money may also play a part. This makes the process more complicated, though it does not make any difference at all as regards the basic context.

Even if food is purchased by means of money, the effort necessary for the acquisition of this food is paid for by the appropriate amount of money. This is highly significant insofar as it explains the extremely inconsistent value relation between money and raw energy.

Whenever I buy meat, vegetables, coal or electricity – i.e. energy in any form usable by humans – then the same amount may cost twice as much somewhere else, or it may cost twice as much at a certain point time as at some time previously. If money were an allocation for raw energy, it would be incomprehensible why there is no constant relation. Money, however, is not like that. Money is always and exclusively an a cheque for human output – the value of which fluctuates depending on supply and demand as well as on other circumstances³.

Speaking in terms of the energon theory, money is thus a cheque accepted/ by society for the result of human work. Or, to put it even more generally: a functional auxiliary unit enabling the integration of a huge number of artificial organs which operate independently within one’s own effect structure from time to time. At no time is anything but human work acquired – e.g. if I buy a pencil, or if I have a roast at a restaurant.

This basic principle that in acts of barter among energons it is never objects that are traded but always the work of other energons is generally valid – from the first symbiotic relationship organisms ever developed to the interlacements of General Motors with the US State Department. It is always an exchange of work – even in cases when objects changed hands. In the giant US companies which – according to Galbraith’s studies – gradually become organs of the state the situation is even more complicated as here, energons are incorporated into another energon. Each company within a state is – even if only loosely affiliated – part of the same. Thus, one energon unites with another which, in some respect, was already part of itself.

This process, too, - and this is where we get very close to the basic principle of the formation/development of all energons – becomes clearer, when we look at its very beginnings.
 
 

Let us come back to the often-quoted hermit crabs. In the Eupagurus prideauxi – a species living in the Mediterranean – the only partner is always one single water lily, an Adamsia palliata. For the crab it is not only a protective organ but it also renders another service. With its foot it grows around the snail shell and excretes a keratin substance at the rim – in such a way that the shell is thus enlarged (Fig. 26 b, c). The snail that created it in the first place could not have enlarged it any better. Thus, the hermit crab does not have to move on to a larger snail shell when it grows bigger. This constitutes an advantage to both partners. The artificial organ, the water lily, improves the artificial organ, the snail shell. I mention this complication for the mere purpose of transition to the following one.

In the hermit crab Eupagurus constans – which lives in the North Sea – the same auxiliary service is rendered by a whole colony of hydroid polyps (Hydractinia sodalis) (Fig. 26 d, e). Here, it is an entire lawn of polyps that overgrows the snail shell and also augments it by excreting substances. This community also does something else: it forms specially developed protective polyps at the rim of the opening – i.e. an increased protective function against enemies the crab can benefit from. In this case, the barter partner is no longer a single energon but already an organised multitude of several hundreds of energons.

A similar relationship can be seen in the homes constructed by ants and termites in the already mentioned symphiles. It is larvae of insects of very different orders and families that are protected, fed and carried around by the ants as the larvae excrete a fluid through glands that is much appreciated by the ants. Just as the plants turn birds and insects into functional units by offering their fruits and blossoms, these larvae – by excreting these substances – turn an entire animal state into their ally. Here, too, - just as in the Eupagurus constans – one energon faces an organised multitude of energons as a partner. In this case, it is much larger: the symphile is just a tiny object in their community. This, however, would not change much in the basic relationship as such. A change, however, can be seen insofar as the termite state has to be regarded as a loosely integrated energon already.

For each symphile the entire ant or termite state that it lives in represents a protective organ.

For these states every symphile, in turn, is the donor of desired excretions.

Let us move one integration step downwards. I would like to draw attention to the digestive assistants of the termites. They are protozoa living in their digestive system and make the wooden food digestible for them. Here again we are confronted with a reciprocal relationship involving very dissimilar partners. To each digestive assistant the huge body of the termite is an functional unit of protection and of food acquisition. For the fact that they see to the breaking up of the wood is not just a favour for the host; they also gain energy and substances for themselves. To the large body of the termite, in turn, each digestive assistant is an organ for the maceration of food. In this case, a protozoon has a multi-cell body as a partner.

a) The hermit crab Pagurus arrosor, which plants sea anemones on its snail shell. The protective effect of the artificial organ, the snail shell, is thus even increased: particularly against its main , the octopus. When the hermit crab grows bigger and is forced to move on to another, larger house, it also takes along the sea anemones. By strokes of its pincers the anemones can be peeled off. The advantage arising to the water lily from this partnership (which is based on innate behavioural patterns in both species) is the following: they are carried around for free and thus can get access to food more easily.

b) In the hermit crab Eupagurus prideauxi the sea anemone Adamsia renders another "service": by excreting chalk it enlarges the snail shell (c) rendering it unnecessary for the hermit crab to move on. This constitutes an advantages for both partners.

d) In the hermit crab Eupagurus constans a colony of polyps belonging to the species Hydractinia grows all over the snail shell. This multitude of polyps adhering to each other continues to form the opening of the shell: it is active as an artificial organ which improves another (snail shell). At the rim of the opening (e) the colony of polyps forms specially developed protective polyps (x) – an additional function serving the hermit crab (and thus in turn also the partnership).
 

In ruminants, in whose stomach bacteria further the digestive process, the difference in size becomes even more extreme. In the goat’s stomach, there live millions of bacteria. This, however, does not make any difference as far as the principle is concerned. Every bacterium is a barter partner with the goat’s body.

And going beyond that: as the entirety of the multi-cellular body becomes an auxiliary organ of protection and food acquisition, the goat is not only of use as a whole but so is each of its organs.

Only through the combination of all these units can the bacterium acquire this foreign energy. If the heart of the goat fails, the output of this multi-cellular body comes to an end.

Let us finally consider the symbiotic algae which replace the kidneys in the body of the worm Convoluta. As they are tightly embedded in the tissue of the other cells the collegial relationship to the other organs becomes even more obvious here. This, however, eventually brings us to the point that there is a barter relationship between any organ – any functional unit – of a multi-cellular body and this body itself. In this book I will not develop this line of thought any further; I will only shortly refer to it in the epilogue. What I am trying to prove here is merely that even between an energon embedded in another one, and itself a barter relationship is possible. Seen from the larger body’s perspective, the smaller body becomes more and more part of it, of its organ. Conversely, however, the large body thus also becomes more and more part of the smaller one – i.e. an organ of this element of its very own. We are all familiar with the practical effects: the whole becomes just as dependent on its individual parts as the single part becomes on the whole.

Here our imagination is confronted with an obstacle that can hardly be overcome. We can only hardly think of a larger body as an organ of a smaller one that is part of itself.

Anyway, what commonly applies is that: no matter what the size and locational relationships of energons look like: they can establish contacts with each other – in such a way that each becomes the functional unit of the other.
 
 

In the main section at the beginning dealing with the environmental influences hampering the energons, we distinguished between two sections: the predatory animals and the disturbances. The conceptual distinction is based on the fact that the predators are always energons to which the energon threatened represents the energy source. Thus, there is a key-keyhole relationship between them and the threatened energon. The disturbances, on the other hand, may be energons as well as inorganic powers. They impede and harm the energon in question, and thus worsen its energy balance, without gaining free energy from it themselves, though⁴.

In the front section – which is no less extensive – dealing with enhancing environmental factors, it seems justifiable to make distinctions along the same lines. Again we have here inorganic powers and energons that can be turned into subservient horses without any interdependence. The "disturbances" can directly be opposed to the "enhancements". In the second group the horse is not only taken into service – but is also "fed". This group always comprises energons only. They are paid for their performance by counter-performances. One could put them opposite the "predators" by calling them "assistants", but this term has strong connotations referring to the human world. This is why the term "symbionts" which is widely used in biology is more appropriate.

As regards the competitive value, however, all expenses serving the utilisation of external energy can be summed up in the same column – just as we summarised the expense of all defensive measures in the front section "disturbances and predators". Here, too, we see a close functional relationship. Whether one expenditure of energy serves the purpose of making a horse an functional unit by force, or whether it is taken into service with the provision of any sort of counter-performance, is totally irrelevant as regards the balance. There, the difference does not even show.

In all efforts to acquire energy, too, be it by producing additional units (such as fruits in the plants, or sales products in professional entities) or by services (enlarging the snail shell, or the activity of a servant or a doctor) it is again, in my view, the criteria of cost, precision, and speed that are most relevant. And here, too, in order to determine the competitive value, each of these criteria has to be looked at separately during the development phase as well as during the acquisitive stages, during the non-acquisitive phases as well as during resting phases. The arguments that support this approach are basically the same as those I used in connection with the environmental frontiers. Thus we arrive at 12 further values measurable in principle which have to be taken into account.

The control mechanisms that are exercised by the promoting environmental conditions and by the symbionts are also characterised by control causality. If an energon acquires a certain formation which involves using foreign energy, it gains a competitive advantage – and if this advantage is significant enough, this particularity will survive. It is again the promoting factor that determines what the time-space structure leading to its development has to look like – it thus controls its formation. Here we have again a key-keyhole relationship in principle. The only difference lies in the fact that in this case the energon does not acquire universally useable free energy but assistance which is the directly driven by one of its functional units.

Let me add: the same environmental factor can very well be at one time enhancing, and at another time harmful. The simplest example is provided by the force of gravity. If an animal climbs a mountain, this power has inhibiting effects – causing greater expenses than moving on even ground. If the animal moves downhill, the same power suddenly becomes a willing horse. Now, external energy makes motion easier – it becomes cheaper than on even ground. In this case, profit and loss are balanced, but with other environmental forces (such as wind or water power) many energons have both protective adaptations towards the same factor as well as other adaptations which can force them into their service. The same factor may, thus, very well be found in the front section among the impeding environmental factors as well as among the promoting factors.

I thus have illustrated four conceptually clearly distinguishable groups of environmental factors which influence the formation of the energons each in their own way and control their evolutionary development. The relative adaptation to each of these groups – energy sources, substance sources, predators and disturbances, enhancing forces and symbionts – has an impact on the competitive value.

This, however, still does not explain all the "parts" the energons are composed of, the causes which eventually determine their structure. A lot of energons do not show any immediate adjustment to the environment. The energons not only have outer frontiers – they also have inner frontiers.
 
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "Ties"
 
 

Comments:

¹ J. K. Galbraith, „Die moderne Industriegesellschaft“.
² Here, the development is described in a slightly „historizing“ way. In practical terms/reality, it proceeded along quite parallel lines in small steps on both developmental tracks.
³ Joseph Schumpeter compared the function of money with the function of an “admission ticket”. Friedrich Bendixen called it an “order/check/letter of credit/claim” to a share corresponding to one’s own contribution to the national product/GDP?. Here again money is seen as an equivalent of human output/performance where it allows to/we can “enter into”, a “share” of which it offers. Karl Marx shared this view, too. The value of money was determined by “the labour time required for its production” and was expressed by “the amount of any other good into the production of which the same amount of time has been invested,”
⁴ If an elephant tramples on an ant, it kills it, though it gains nothing of its energy accumulated in the ants’ molecules. Thus, the elephant – even though it kills the ant – constitutes merely a disturbing/interfering environmental influence.