Neither in the animal nor in the plant kingdom are there "big wage-earners". It might well happen that plants or animals get into particularly "favourable living conditions" and then come across enormously productive sources of acquisition without competition. This is not of much use for them, though. Their maximum growth in height is determined by gravity and by their type of structure. They can merely invest their surpluses in reproduction – which is not a favourable solution for them because by doing that they create competitors for themselves. These in turn also reproduce and soon all places of acquisition are full. As a result, sources of acquisition and the organisms exploiting them always automatically come to balance.

This means: with plants and animals that every monopoly removes itself automatically, as it were. For the successful individual this only results in a moderate advantage. The actual profit only goes to the species. Its overall volume is increased.

The life flow only profits from that process in the case of plants. If a plant can spread itself over areas that have not been acquired previously, then this means growth of the overall life structure, of the overall volume of life. With animals, on the other hand – no matter whether they live on plants or animals – a monopoly is of no consequence. In the process of feeding there is always only one organism changing into another one. The total life volume is not affected at all, or only to a limited extent.

With human acquisition structures the situation suddenly became different. Their structures are of a kind that enables them to collect any amount of surpluses – and then also use it as they like.

Nevertheless, also with those energons the principle of self-regulation is maintained – unless the "state" intervenes by force. If one source of acquisition turns out to be particularly lucrative – that is, "if the sources of acquisition concerned are plentiful" – then other people quickly build analogous acquisition structures. Here, too, a balance between the productivity of the source of acquisition and the volume of the exploiting energons is achieved automatically. Thus, here, too, the relation "levels off".

There is an exception, however, if there is a monopoly which can be maintained. Then one acquisitive individual suddenly becomes a big wage-earner¹.

Up to the evolutionary stage "human being" in the flow of the evolution the species reigned. Disregarding a few exceptions – for example the "pashas" among apes –, then one can say: individual energons have never been able vastly to increase their positions of power. Even if an individual was very capable: its success was actually of no benefit to itself but only to the species. It reproduced itself, thus it increased the specific life-substance of the species – for the individual itself, however, clear limits were laid down. One could claim that over that whole period the individuals were always only tools – "organs" – of the species. The species was the actual instrument – the actual "organ" – of the life flow. If the species grew, so did the life flow. It was the conflict of species with the environment constituted the actual fight.

In passing beyond the developmental stage "human being", the significance of the species suddenly diminished. The energons built by humans now no longer coalesced so closely: the limits for on size ceased to apply to a large extent. What is more, surpluses could be accumulated and used in any way required. This meant: energon individuals were now suddenly able to attain enormous size and immense power. One may for instance consider those states that unfolded as real energons (as professional entities or business organisations). They were energon individuals that sometimes had gigantic potentials of power which promoted the life flow considerably. Thus the individual was able to become an important instrument of the life flow – the significance of the species could decline.

Going further: not only the energon individual suddenly gained significance but – and above all – the germ cell it is built up by: the functional unit "human being".

As a matter of fact, the surpluses practically flowed into that constituting and steering unit: it was up to that unit whether the surpluses were used for the growth of the energon body or whether they were spent in another way. The individual "human being" became the key point of further development, it became the actual vehicle carrying on the life flow.

That unit often built completely different energons at the same time or one after the other, it invented new types of energons, it suddenly replaced the mechanism of improvement which up to then had slowed down the evolutionary flow through mutations, hermaphroditism and natural selection. The unit became the actual administrator of every surplus and used it in a twofold way for the promotion of energon development. First, the unit designed and built new energons, secondly, it created luxury items which themselves led to the formation of further types of energons by serving as new sources of acquisition.

We have now reached one of the most difficult points of our investigation: that is, the actual position of human beings in the evolution. Humanity became a germ cell that built energons – thus it became a functional unit. That functional unit, however, proceeds completely independently and on its own – it becomes the actual core of further development.

Following the theory of the energon we come to a very surprising conclusion: there exists only one structure in the evolution comparable to humans in this respect: the virus.

As has already been explained, viruses are structural blueprints that have become independent, as it were (Part Two, chapter V, paragraph 5). They penetrate other energons with the result that the affected cells do not "fulfil their own duties" anymore but change their work to the production of the viruses. The virus replaces the behavioural patterns which are anchored inside plants – and thus the cell’s machinery now continues to respond to someone else’s command.

Here a clear, functional parallel to a human being’s activity exists. Let us for example consider a human individual who builds up the professional entities "herd", "association", "state". Its effectiveness consists in the ability to include other energons in its structure of power and to make them to serve its interests. In other words, it makes other energons serve as its functional units. With an entrepreneur who employs people and expands his business the same happens. Whether it is by force or by an act of exchange that this "reorientation" is brought about is irrelevant. What is important is the result: subjugation to one's own interest².

Yet, one difference to the virus – always seen from a functional point of view only – is the fact that humans do not induce those other energons to perform fixed and always the same activities. On the contrary, the unit "human being" independently builds new structural blueprints and behavioural patterns – and transfers that multiplicity to others.

With that we have come to an assessment of humans which differs extraordinarily from previous notions. It is of practical importance in that it signifies who it is in the second stage of evolution who holds the power and the plan. The importance of the species is still not to be underestimated. The shoemakers, the electrical engineers and the opera singers themselves build their respective lives just as grasshoppers, lime trees and earthworms do. True, with human professions we find special professional representatives and unions – as special instruments of the cohesion among the species. Nevertheless: the primacy of the species is broken. Single acquisitive individuals can achieve paramount significance. Yet, the actual significance lies with the human being as a constructive entity – with the human individual, which can now exercise special, almost limitless power.

This brings us back to the subject of the "big wage-earners".

Galbraith expounded the interesting view that the "backbone" of human power has shifted twice within the course of history³. First of all, ownership of land had been the key to power. Later – with the beginning of industrialisation – capital became the central factor of power. Finally, since about fifty years power has depended on specialisation and especially on technical organisations and planning organisations. Today capital is much easier to obtain than are suitable forces for planning and leadership. "Power always associates with the factor that is the most difficult to obtain and to replace."

What follows from that is that in the first period the best possibilities for income lay with the ownership of land, in the second period with the ownership of capital, while now, in the third period, they have shifted to the ability to coordinate and to specialised knowledge.

Following the theory of the energon I come to a similar point of view. One has to add further factors to the three factors of power mentioned, however.

The first factor of power was not land but security. Human development of power was based on artificial organs: these, however, required the prerequisite of appropriate protection. Therefore somebody who could provide such protection had – automatically – the first position of power, the first really lucrative monopoly. Automatically, other people subordinated themselves to that structure: to its domain of power⁴.

This is also the reason why with the types of states I put the model "state as a communal organ" on top. Its structure is the basic prerequisite, the basic function of every state and has to be contained wholly in all other models as well. Historically, only in rare cases (and maybe not even then) was this type of state to be found at the beginning. Yet, functionally it is the actual core.

This is even more the case if one considers that weapons of defence in most cases can also be used for attacks and raids. Thus, subordination to an organisation providing security usually also means participating in the forms of acquisition which were available to individuals only to a very limited degree. The Teutons, for example, despised the activity of forest clearance. A tribe living in Sweden called its king (Thoss) scornfully "Traetelyja", the "tree feller". Their philosophy was rather to conquer areas where others had accomplished that work already.

Somebody who could both provide security and act as a robber baron had a strong monopoly of acquisition during that first period. Forces who wanted to benefit from the security and the robbery subordinated themselves voluntarily to him. They were well prepared to accept a moderate flat rate or share of the profits – while the ruler, the first entrepreneur, got the actual profit.

This position became even stronger if the acquisition structure became permanent and if the ruler managed to bring the whole domain of acquisition into his personal possession. If this order stabilised and if the subordinates got used to it, then the ruler had a perfect monopoly. Directly or indirectly he could profit from the input of every individual. Directly or indirectly all returns came from the ground – and he had in hand that central means of power.

Thanks to that secure basis it was possible to undertake wars of conquest and to take home slaves and booty. In other cases the subordinated areas were forced to pay tributes. Even big states – Rome, for instance – still based their power on such acts of robbery and flourished on the basis of forced labour performed by other nations and foreign slaves working in their own country. At its peak, the Attic population of Athens consisted of 67,000 free citizens, 40,000 foreigners and 200,000 slaves. The cities of Venice and Constantinople specialised in piracy. This kind of acquisitive activity was carried out by England up to the 17^th century. The great Francis Drake was nothing more than a pirate in the service of the English Crown. As D. Campbell wrote, " almost every English gentleman on the West coast was employed in that business."⁵ Foreign ships were seized and only released for a high ransom. An attack on the Ottoman merchant fleet carried out by the Grand Duchy of Tuscany is said to have brought in 2 million ducats.

Spain and Portugal stretched out particularly long acquisitive arms: they raided the subordinated countries in South America. In 1528 the organ of acquisition of Cortez brought in 200,000 pesos (approx. 5200 kg of gold). In 1535 Pizarro destroyed the Inca kingdom and extorted gold to the value of 1,326,539 pesos as ransom money for Atahualpa. With the conquest of Cuzco the booty – in as far as it was handed over – amounted to an equivalent of approx. 185 tons of silver.

If the robber state was reigned over by an absolute monarch, then the total returns were his. If a clique shared the power, then it was the core of that professional entity which profited proportionately.

Inside the states those in the positions of power had a total monopoly. If they considered – according to model four – the state as their organ of acquisition, then there were innumerable possibilities to squeeze dry the subordinated people and acquisition structures.

The common contribution – "tax" – became an internal tribute. The ground was rented out as favourably as possible and brought in not only a corresponding "basic annuity" but moreover also work for free labour (service at the front, bondage). A splendid business was "haggling over posts". At the beginning of the 17^th century the post of a senior official of the supreme court cost 45.000 livres⁶, that of the president of the Grand-Conseil cost 100,000 silver ecus. In 1664 there were – according to a count by Colbert – no less than 45,780 "charges" which were allocated by the aristocracy and for which produced 419,630,000 livres annually⁷.The post of the vice king of New Spain cost 4000 pesos in the year 1607⁸. Each of those posts was again a monopoly of power which could be allocated by the total monopolist of the state or by the one ruling it.

What was also very lucrative was the granting of monopolies on the sale of salt, alum, mercury, coal, iron, glass, leather, paper – and even on cinders, cloth, used shoes, needles, oil, vinegar, cards and so on. The shelves of ore brought enormous incomes for the German Counts. What became the most important source of income of the Teutonic Order was the monopoly on amber. Considerable incomes for the king of Portugal came from the monopoly on spices in East Asia.

Thus those in power were in a position to manipulate money. They could force their subordinates to exchange gold money for coins of less value and could mint the latter in a higher number. For instance, the bishop of Magdeburg issued wafer-thin hollow pfennigs. They had to be exchanged after about three months with a loss of twelve per cent as otherwise they became invalid. In doing this he prevented any hoarding of money, forced the rapid circulation of money and achieved an unavoidable capital tax. Under the reign of the Stuarts new kinds of infringements of the law were invented together with corresponding fines in order to gain new income. For the pope the selling of indulgences was a profitable monopoly – in which also the princes had their shares again. They charged fees for allowing the proclamation of such indulgences. In 1517 Christian II of Denmark charged 1120 florins for the proclamation of the Peter-indulgence in Scandinavia, the Emperor Maximilian demanded 3000 florins for only two church provinces. For his war against Naples Charles VII of France used a fleet that was financed by the indulgence money for his war against the Turks.

All that are examples of the enormous possibilities that were open to the rulers – or ruling groups – as the holders of the authority of the state. In 1696 William III of England had an annual income of £700,000 of which his court requirements were less than ten per cent: he was able to use 90 per cent for his luxuries. In 1542 Francis I of France had an annual income of 5,788.000 livres, half of which were net profits. In 1685 the expenses of Louis XIV. amounted to 28,813.955 livres. 15,340.901 livres were spend on buildings alone.

Paul Getty, one of the richest man of the world, has an annual income of about $200 million. This may be more in terms of value, nevertheless, his power is far less than that of those great kings. Getty has to pay for every service. The kings, on the contrary, were able to simply to demand and get an immense number of additional services. The direct income was supplemented by rights of disposals of other people’s energy, the value of which can hardly be estimated.

The only risk to that incomparable form of acquisition was that of being ousted from that position of power by others or to be eliminated by one’s own nation. The more a ruler tightened the thumbscrews and the more use he made of his monopoly, the more dangerous it became for him. The more his rule amounted to model four, the stronger the internal control and structure of relations had to become – the structure of effects designed to suppress individual interests.

a) First level: unicellular organisms. Organisms feeding on animals and plants both belong to these. Also viruses, which are extreme parasites on the energy of others, belong here.

b) Second level: multicellular organisms. They all consist of cells. All bigger animals and plants are in this group, also primeval humans – more precisely: the genetically built human body.

c) Third level: professional entities. They are artificial extensions of single human beings and always have a human being as their control centre. All kinds of professions and trades belong to this category. (Equipment, workshop, shop window, tools, assistant, bank account)

d) Fourth level: businesses. They consist of numerous professional entities that are each replaceable inside the whole ,with its division of labour, just as a tool or a machine are. All bigger production or service businesses that are aligned to acquisition (profit) belong here. A precise delimitation of professional entities, however, is impossible. (cf. p. 18) (patents, credit, advertising, purchase, connections, organisation of the sale)

e) Fifth level: states. They are build up by a more or less loose ("organised") association of professional entities and businesses. (agents, trade missions, investments, alliances, aeroplanes, submarines, consulates, bases)

These levels go by the proportions of size and interlocking. Because of practical considerations it is more effective to classify the energons into other groups (Part One, chapter I, paragraph 1). Also the states may be classified differently (Part Four, chapter VI, paragraph 7).

A completely different basis for the individual development of power came when humans started to acquire energy and substances by way of exchange. The source of acquisition for that kind of acquisition is always and exclusively human need. The latter creates some sort of field of conflict that grows in intensity with the increasing requirements and energy potential of the individual having the requirement. This is the basic principle of human economics and we call it "supply and demand". According to the theory of the energon, however, it is more correct to reverse the order and instead speak of "demand and supply" because the demand is primary, since it steers the supply. Only secondarily did it happen that this relationship was sometimes reversed, i.e. that the supply changed to influencing the demand and even to steering it⁹. This, however, is a further development that took place later. In the beginning there was always "scarcity". Human requirements created the force field that led to the formation of structures of supply. It was the "lock" that had to be opened and that created a basis for correspondingly adapted "keys".

The first and original requirements of humans derived from inherited drives and was largely the same as with animal relatives: food, water, air to breathe, security, a sexual partner and the rearing of descendants. What was added to that – just as with other animals living in groups – was the urge for acknowledgement within the community and for a higher rank.

Traditional habits of the community were added as further compulsive forces. The urge for "novelties", for a change in the way of life at first only occurred feebly and sporadically.

The possibilities for acquisition by way of exchange¹⁰ can be divided into three large groups according to their functions: First, the acquiring energon can supply an activity: then it becomes a functional unit (servant, doctor, general, conductor, insurance company, theatre) of the demander for the time of its "service". Secondly, it can supply a product that was produced by itself: here it produces a functional unit (shoemaker, goldsmith, business for the manufacture of soap or locomotives, inventors, writers, film producers) and makes it over to the demander. Thirdly, the energon can become an agent between demand and supply (hawker, department store, marriage broker, commercial company).¹¹ It is impossible to mark out clear borders. The dentist supplies an achievement (the treatment) but at the same time also a product (the filling). The film producer becomes a talking point – becomes a "writing point" – and thus not only produces a service (his depiction) but also contributes to the mediation between demand (cinema audience) and supply (film).

What is of interest for us in this context is whether there are any indications for the possibility of high earnings to be found here. This is not the case. In each of the three respective groups there is the possibility to build monopolies – the possibility for "big wage-earners".

However, another distinction is important. The formation of monopolies fluctuates between two extremes: either the supplier faces a single demander who is particularly potent energy-wise (for instance a king who has a special wish) or he is confronted with a multitude of demanders where the fulfilling of their wishes only brings a small gain of energy (for instance a delivery of tobacco) but which also opens up the possibility of a great profit on the basis of a high demand.

We begin with the first extreme – I hope that I will not now make enemies of my female readers.

For the best example of this extreme the way women acquire things. It is to a large extent grounded in an inherent quality which is called the "trigger-effect" in behaviour psychology. In normal linguistic usage a woman possessing this quality is called "beautiful", "charming".

As long as the struggle for life is very severe, this effect does not count for much. The basic relationship between men and women is determined by function. It is a symbiosis: each part needs the other one. A man needs a woman for sexual satisfaction, for the propagation of descendants – and from that there arise further functions for the woman: taking care of the offspring, attending to the home, if needs be assisting with work in the fields. The woman also needs the man to satisfy the driving force of propagation and the raising of children and furthermore she needs him as a protector and breadwinner for herself and for the young.

Originally, the relationship was mostly formed by the man: through the use of violence (robbery) or exchange (purchase). The woman was to a large extend an "object", her individuality did not count. Even today some primitive tribes still have purchase prices for women that are rather at a flat rate¹². "Pretty" or "ugly" were not determining factors. However, as soon as the man obtained surpluses and started to build luxury items the situation changed significantly. Now the woman could make use of her "natural weapons". For her there now opened up the possibility of achieving extraordinary monopolies in acquisition.

An example would be the pretty maid Katharina who served a parish priest in Marienburg around 1700. A Swedish dragoon saw her and married her. Afterwards she became the lover of a Russian count who handed her over to his monarch, Tsar Peter the Great. In 1712 the wedding took place and in 1724 Peter the Great crowned her Empress. After his death she followed him on the throne as Catharine I.

What is particular to this kind of acquisition of power, which has not changed in the slightest up to today, is the immensely different countervalue acquired for rather similar exchanges. One of two sisters may meet a labourer while the other sister may become a beauty queen and wife of a millionaire. Ultimately, each of them offers to supply the same: herself for a relationship. Many an ugly woman might have considered that as unfair just as is the case with men who are born without means – in contrast to those who are the sons of rich parents. In both cases the fundamental basis for acquisition is unfavourable.

The effect on individuals of the opposite sex is in so far a particular one in that it is closely tied to the individual performing it. Financial power can be transferred but not individual appeal. For somebody who longs to have Brigitte Bardot there is only one possibility to fulfil this wish. That is, to win Brigitte Bardot. The particular "market" for that kind of monopolies are men who have obtained big surpluses.

With growing surpluses the urge for a higher rank – in general – becomes increasingly predominant. The other drives can be satisfied easily. Air to breathe is available for everyone. One can only eat and drink up to a certain point. Sexual partners are supplied for the prosperous in abundance. Yet, what is much more difficult to satisfy is the striving for social acknowledgement and for a high rank. Through the formation of an enormous luxury item – a house, servants, a motorboat, an aeroplane and so on – many people can be impressed immensely, but not everyone. Even honours and glories can be purchased. However, in the competition for a particular woman there is – at least for a particular period – only one winner. If the woman concerned knows how to make use of that possibility of power – or if her family helps her with it – then her possibilities of acquisition are almost limitless.

Among all functional units which help energons to get power and prosperity there is not a single one whose potential effect can be compared to "beauty" and "sexual appeal". Use has been made of this not only by attractive women of all times but also by others who made such girls and women their organs of acquisition. The family made the start. Pretty daughters were decked out and through an expensive upbringing their stimulating appeal was even increased – investments in order to catch a golden fish. If the girl was also clever and cunning, then positions of power that could hardly to achieved with weapons could be taken in a surprise coup.

In China around 650 b. c. a girl called Wu became the Emperor’s concubine. She strangled her own baby and blamed the Empress for the deed. Her power was already great enough: the Empress was deposed and later executed. The Emperor increasingly became her puppet. Directly or indirectly she succeeded in murdering five sons of the Emperor (among them two of her own). Furthermore she achieved the elimination of two of her brothers, one sister, a niece and of more than hundred other relatives. After the emperor’s death she ascended the throne, deprived the ruling Chang dynasty of their rights and founded the "Chu dynasty" which was named after her¹³.

The monopoly that autocratic rulers had conquered for themselves could thus be usurped by a monopoly of a completely different kind. Here the main weapon was a very passive effect: a trigger effect which only one particular person can exert upon another one and by which the latter becomes helpless and defenceless and finally submits to the will of the other.

On the other hand, men can of course open up eminent sources of acquisition through exactly such trigger effects. Catharine II. gave each of her lovers 100,000 roubles in gold and also a monthly appanage of 15,000 roubles. Count Orloff and Potemkin got much more, especially in the form of rank and power. Today handsome playboys lie in wait for rich heiresses. An additional possibility for handsome men was supplied at all times with others who had homosexual predispositions.

We find similar positions of power on the basis of individual trigger effects in art.

Here the situation is similar. The "weapon of acquisition" here also only gains more importance with humans with appropriate luxury items. Here, too, the sexual drive is in the game and here, too, the display drive plays a decisive role.

With all artistic development two very different roots have to be distinguished. Either "art" – the artificial creation of something that is "beautiful" and "impressive" – is performed for its own sake: as a luxury that gives pleasure. In that case it is an emission of energy, a way of using surpluses. Or: "art" serves acquisition, then it aims for an active energy balance just as every other kind of profession. In practice the two motives – as is known – are often disguised beyond recognition or intertwined with each other.

The energon theory is only concerned with art as a form of acquisition. Again it is a process of exchange. Particular performances (dancing, singing, music) or particular products (paintings, necessary items that are aesthetically fashioned, palaces) have a corresponding "market" and satisfy an existing requirement – they are keys which can open given locks.

In the following I would like to put down on paper a rather heretical view. The area of conflict into which this kind of activity emerged , might have in the first place been the human urge to display. As soon as rulers or others in power had the right surpluses at their disposal they usually strove to differentiate themselves from others, to surpass them, to express their power and superiority in the most apparent way, to induce the others to admiration and astonishment and to intimidate them. But how did this happen?

A rich man was able to build a house that was twice or ten times the size of others, to surround himself with twice or ten times as many guards, servants, women, necessary items and so on than others could. This way of impressing others through sheer size, however, soon reached its limit. How should rulers with the same power impress each other? How could one of them distance himself from the other and distinguish oneself from the other one?

In my opinion the possibilities for that were already "marked out" for human beings. If we trace the phylogenic development of higher animals, and then all areas where the struggle for life did not force extreme rationalisation and specialisation we find the influence of evaluations that derive from the sexual area. We find the development of striking colours, patterns and shapes, "magnificent" clothes made of scales and feathers, impressive extensions to the body and series of movements. Here, sexual selective breeding¹⁴ became the competitor of natural selection. If the shapes deriving from that – and which are delights to the eyes when we see them in a zoo – are not only preferred by the sexual partner but even by us humans, then this points to the common development. The central nervous system of higher animals – and of humans – is designed in such a way that it is impressed by particular combinations of shape and colour. That was – so it seems to me – the actual starting point for both roots of human art: art for its own sake with the aim of personal pleasure, and art for the purpose of acquisition.

No matter whether it was about intimidating ghosts, or compelling religious groups to abject subjugation – or surpassing rival rulers: the means were marked out. They arose from the difference in value which originally was only meant for the sexual partner, thus from an evaluation as "better" or "worse", which is innate with us – and which can be influenced by manifold ways in cultural tradition and fashion and probably also by moulding and by the innate disposition for learning. Somebody who had achievements which appealed to somebody else on the basis of such an evaluation was the original "artist". That ability, a special trigger effect, gave him a monopoly of power – just like beauty and charm – which if it is naturally present and artistically improved allows one to achieve special position of power with other people independent of the sexual drive.

If you visit museums where the oldest tokens of human activity are exhibited, you can see clearly how early decoration and embellishment occurs and how early the rulers tended to distinguish themselves via aesthetically effective weapons, necessary items and symbols. Why? Partly because they liked to do so and because it was appealing to their personal feelings. But mainly because it called for evaluation by rivals and subordinates. Expressed rationally, this means that art is not primarily nourished by the pleasure it gives. Its main root – the actual area of conflict – is the possibility to impress others, to increase one’s own ability to impress and, in so doing, one’s own power potential.

Now the tendency for the new which lay dormant inside humans came to light more distinctly. What is new also baffles and impresses. The senses get used to the old and known – the new not only creates a possibility for improvement and progress, it is also a means to impress. Thus in art this element also constitutes a form of acquisition.

The courts of kings and counts, as the holders of large surpluses, and furthermore the centres of religious organisations were the first markets for art. Here a constant requirement for tools to impress existed – and the artists supplied them.

Within the framework of this development – and considering the significance that was attained by the arts – increased and refined appreciation of art came about, and hence individual positions of power: monopolies. Somebody who wanted to see Theodoros act or Caruso sing could not get that from anybody else. Somebody who has set his or her mind on decorating a salon with a real Picasso can only do this in one way: he or she has to acquire a real Picasso.

Thanks to technical progress, especially through the mass media the sources of acquisition for those monopolies increased significantly. Here the artist is superior to somebody who is merely sexual attractive. The beauty queen is only able – at least per unit of time – to obtain one or a limited number of the source of acquisition "man". The scores of Verdi, Lehar and Gershwin were duplicated a thousand times and often resulted in incomes from dozens of places. A film with Clark Gable could be shown in thousands of cinemas at the same time. Through film, radio and TV it has become possible today for millions of people to enjoy trigger effects simultaneously.

With the technical improvement of the mass media the possibility of artistic acquisition is constantly increasing.

With other achievements, products or agencies, the possibilities are much more limited.

With spaghetti, refrigerators, cars, soaps and electronic brains it is considerably more difficult to attain monopolies, that is to tie the supplied achievement to a particular form of achievement.

Doctors, lawyers, toreros, managers, glassblowers and tightrope walkers can obtain pre-eminences in certain areas and at certain times – but these are not real monopolies. Production companies, insurance companies and commercial enterprises can drum the names of their companies into the environment at high cost – but they do not thereby attain real monopolies either. At the end of the day in the wide field of non-artistic forms of acquisition it is achievements that sooner or later can also be produced by competitors which count. Here there is a different way to achieve a monopoly.

It is called "market control" and the way to it is usually thorny and long. Here a natural trigger effect – as with the girl Wu – does not exist. The competitors have to be worn down slowly and persistently and trust in one’s own achievement has to be built up slowly and persistently. The bigger the business and the turnover gets, the more likely it is to be able to supply the same product cheaper and faster. Furthermore, the greater the possibility becomes of harming the small competitor and driving him to the wall – and in the end of swallowing him. As Benjamin Franklin used to put it, the main way to wealth is work and thrift. This is also the way to the building of monopolies in business (unless it is prohibited by the state). Good achievements, enthusiasm and thrift mean that the surpluses must not flow into luxury items – they have to remain in the energon. By that they grow – and the capital grows.

This exerts a magnetic appeal similar to the power potential of autocratic rulers. Capital also provides security and the possibility of acquisition. Small structures of acquisition are incorporated – on a completely voluntary basis and to their advantage – into growing organisational constructions of power.

Here the top achievements are vehicles of monopolies in a small way – but eventually they are all replaceable. In the framework of those economic systems only the devisers of new structural blueprints and behavioural patterns can attain real monopolies: the inventors. As long as there was no protection for their "mental product" they only had the possibility to get their product used if they produced it themselves. However, wherever it is protected by the state with a "patent law" their possibilities of acquisition are no smaller than those of artists. They can block their competitors with the authority of the state for up to twenty years and can rent out their ideas to many others. Their risk is that their patent is overtaken by another one – just as artists take the risk of being swept away from their pre-eminence by the stronger trigger effect of something else.

There are further factors that can support the building of monopolies: market weather, luck, prevailing disorder and risk.

Through their knowledge about connections, production companies and commercial enterprises have earned enormous sums. Here, energons attained pre-eminence often only for a short time but nevertheless producing remarkable surpluses. Particularly favourable are times of war and disorganisation. For people who have flair, who have zeal and are inconsiderate, better possibilities are opened up and they are not forced into a predetermined network of power relations. Many a person has become a millionaire through luck: if, for instance his or her property had oil wells. Risk also creates a possibility to eliminate the competitors. This is true for more or less all forbidden forms of acquisition. Through robbery, extortion, forgery and so on one can earn millions – however, the risk of the acquisition is increased correspondingly.

However, the only real power potential– apart from the invention that is protected by the state – is capital. It can – given the ability to transfer it – go where the best chances for acquisition exist. It can participate in almost every form of acquisition – if it is needed for the construction. It is of such an immense importance that it can demand appropriate protection. It is the actual pulse, the actual stream of force that is circulating in the economy.

Capital is the only functional unit that became a self-employed and largely independent quantity. It gathers together and grows by itself. From underdeveloped countries the surpluses flow to where there is the greatest security – to the biggest centres of capital. Today in the positions of power in the economic area are to a growing extent tied to innovation and improvement. Research and the increase of power cost less and less. Just as once property was the actual key to power, through industrialisation capital became that key. As Galbraith rightly said, the production factor "capital" dethroned the production factor "land".

Now Galbraith has shown how this power has subsided again. In large enterprises in America it is not the shareholder, the capital anymore that leads the business but the inner steering structure (the "techno-structure"). The latter ensures that the surpluses largely remain in the business itself and that they are used for expanding and strengthening it. Thus it provides the necessary capital to a large extent – what is more, today capital has not been scarce for a long time. Surpluses that look for a safe and lucrative investment are becoming increasingly more frequent.

However, I do not agree with Galbraith’s conclusion that this development has led to a new factor of power which is comparable to "land" and "capital". The techno-structure is not individually involved in success. It is true that those who are part of it obtain high wages but they cannot attain real monopolies.

According to the theory of the energon it is not difficult to recognise what is happening here. The surpluses are not shifted to individual luxury items anymore – but they remain with the energons. That means that there is only one real beneficiary: the life flow. If this development gains ground, the individual interest of single persons moves into the background again. He is swallowed by large organs of acquisition and then only the latter’s effectiveness dictates the further proceedings. While for the classical entrepreneur it was always up to him to transform the acquisition structure into an organ of acquisition – by starting to put the surpluses into the personal luxury item even if the business thereby suffered – with "matured businesses", where the capital loses its freedom of steering, this permissiveness is again lost. Then the development returns to the situation of animals and plants in whose big structures each unit, including the germ cell, only has functionally determined "rights".

I rather think that the power factor "art" which Galbraith does not touch upon will gain in significance and influence compared to the power factor "capital".

Capital will and has to remain in power – no matter whether we find it in the shape of state capital (as in Russia) or as private capital (as in the USA). The bigger the enterprises are, the more complicated the products are, the longer the testing takes, the more capital is inevitably required. Someone who has a share in that capital is sure to remain a part of the power factor.

If humans – as is to be hoped – succeed in regulating their problems: birth control, avoidance of wars, matching of interests, then there is hardly a limit to the human formation of surpluses. Then more and more and increasingly powerful artificial organs can be created and more and more of the energy of others can then be put at the service of human interests.

But what happens to the surpluses then? Both for the increasing the commodities one owns as well as for the eternal striving to make an impression art – in the most general sense of the word – always remains the most important and the ultimate way. Through the constantly improving means of communication, the possible monopoly effects are even continually increased. Furthermore, they are intensified through advertising and manipulation. I do not think that artistic monopolies can be replaced by financial monopolies. Yet, as capital becomes more easily available and financial structures lose more and more of their monopolist power, the individual monopolies of art will gain in power: individual skills that have a particular trigger effect which increasingly influences luxury items, will make them defenceless and exploit them.

Just as at the beginning of history the providers of security and the owners of property and at later times the owners of capital became the really big wage-earners, so eventually the creators of the "beautiful" will become the big wage-earners.
 
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "The colourful garden"
 
 

Comments:

¹ Already Aristoteles pointed out that the “general secret of large fortunes” consists in the attainment of a monopoly. he considered the acquisition of money to be beneath the dignity of a free man, yet, proudly referred to the philosopher Thales from Milet who, foreseeing a rich harvest, bought all the oil presses of his town. At harvest time he sold them for fancy prices. (“Politics” I.)
² More precisely: the virus activates someone else’s energy. This, however, is also increasingly characteristic of human activities. The acquisition of energy through the digesting stomach remains in the background and growing amounts of someone else’s energy which serves us directly is made useable. Our money – the aim of the acquisition of the energons built by us – is a symbol for that. It is a dependence on someone else’s achievement. “Our” progress relies on making them utilisable – the progress in the second part of the evolution. “Die moderne Industriegesellschaft”, p. 62-75.
³ “Die moderne Industriegesellschaft”, p. 62-75.
⁴ C. L. von Haller might have seen this connection when he wrote, “that every rule, no matter of what kind it may be, is based on a natural superiority, that every dependence or servitude has a need as its foundation.” He continues: “ Both does not even depend on the human will; on the contrary, it is a general and necessary law of nature that the more powerful one rules as soon as his/her power is required; and wherever in the world power and needs coincide, a relationship necessarily emerges and by virtue of this the former comes to rule and the latter to dependence or servitude which, however, is nonetheless concluded to the advantage of both.” (“ Handbuch der Allgemeinen Staatenkunde”, Winterthur 1808, p. 33.)
⁵ W. Sombart, “Der moderne Kapitalismus”, München 1921.
⁶ Approx. 31,5 kg of gold.
⁷ Approx. 295. tons of gold.
⁸ Appoxr. 104 kg of gold.
⁹ This reversal also exists in states with a  planned economy. Today, in Russia or China it is only possible to demand what is supplied – there also the supply steers the demand.
¹⁰ Generally, it is only referred to as ”exchange” if no money is involved in the trading (”barter economy”). Yet, every sale of a product or a service for money is an exchange – only for the universal allocation of someone else’s energy, namely ”money”. In order to stress this functional principle constantly I even use the term ”exchange” where it is common to speak of ”sale”, ”rent” and so on.
¹¹ In economics a distinction is made between businesses of service and businesses of production. The work of agents also belongs to services. Practically, this is what they are, even though there is a difference in the principle of acquisition.
¹² For example with the Ndorobos, an East African tribe, in 1948 the purchase price for a girl was 5 pots of honey, 5 beehives, half of a female elephant including the tusks and also two cattle. If the bridegroom was too poor, then he could also pay off a part of the price by serving the father-in-law as a hunter. (N. Mylius, ”Ehe und Kind in abflußlosen Gebieten Ostafrikas”, Vienna 1948, p. 80). With the Afghans, according to Elphinstone every girl was rated at 60 rupees. With this currency it was also possible to pay off penalties: one owed 12 girls for a murder, 6 for a nose, 3 for a toe. ( R. Heymann-Dvorak, ”Der international Menschenmarkt”, Berlin 1904, p. 69.)
¹³ The latter, however, only existed for 15 years and after that the Tschang dynasty came to power again.
¹⁴ This term was coined by Darwin, who was the first to show the particular significance of that process (”The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex”, 1871).