Yesterday an idea occurred to me that may provide an explanatory key to the surreal -- or subreal, rather -- times we're living in. I was about to say "living through," but this presupposes we'll actually get through them, and who knows? We may have reached the final naked, insurmountable contradiction of...
Marxists like to highlight the contradictions inherent to capitalism, but if I am correct, the trouble with Marxism is that it's not nearly radical enough. For what if I told you that...
Before getting to my thoughts on the subject, this is from the CPUSA's *very own* website:
When we really dig down to the bottom of things, the contradictions of capitalism are holding us back. We live in the richest, most productive, most interconnected society that has ever existed on Earth, *and yet* some of us are overworked, others are underemployed, and millions live in poverty.
This glaring social contradiction, the class divide, comes about because capitalism is *designed* to allow a few individuals profit from the work of the vast majority. The *purpose* of capitalism is to make profits for the few individuals *lucky* enough to own a big piece of the pie. It’s very efficient at making rich people richer.
Let's analyze this passage, but first a word from our sponsor: yes,
THE COMMUNIST PARTY'S GOT SWAG! (https://www.cpusa.org/article/the-communist-partys-got-swag/)
For quite some time now, we have been receiving requests from comrades all over the country who are interested in purchasing CPUSA merchandise. You have been heard – we are excited to announce the launch of our first ever official web store! Three unique t-shirts are available for purchase. Bulk orders are eligible for special pricing.
No piece the pie for you!
Marxists and their progressive children continue to be convinced that they've "dug down to the bottom of things." Problem is, if you're a materialist you don't have to dig very far before you reach the bottom. And yet, leftists keeps digging long after they've hit bottom.
Why? You'd think the left would put away their shovels once they've established that Bruce is Caitlyn, George Floyd is a hero, paleface Liz is an Indian, Michelle Obama is oppressed by something other than her low IQ, race riots are peaceful, a man's spouse is his husband, and Joe Biden is competent.
Come to think of it, for a materialist the bottom is the top, and vice versa: one makes extremes meet by simply eliminating one of them. I get it: a simpleminded explanation appeals to the simpleminded. But why eradicate the fun side, AKA the soul?
Regarding the Inchoate Idea that Occurred to Me Yesterday, let's reframe what our comrade says above about getting to the bottom of the trouble:
When we really dig down to the bottom of things, the contradictions of HUMAN NATURE are holding us back. We live in the FREEST society that has ever existed on Earth, *and yet* it results in INEQUALITY.
Now, anyone but the village progressive will quickly realize that what the left calls a "contradiction" is actually a logical entailment: that the more people are free to reveal their preferences, their abilities, their intelligence, etc., the more inequality will result. This is an insight worthy of Captain Obvious.
But let's "really dig down to the bottom." First of all, as it pertains to human beings, what is the bottom? Once we've ruled out all the red herrings such as "class," "privilege," "patriarchy," "profit motive," et al, we're left with human nature. D'oh!
Now, first of all, materialists deny that such a thing exists, which is in turn the principle upon which the left is founded; in short, leftist polices can only succeed if there is no such thing as human nature (or, they can succeed, but only on a species with a different nature).
We're seeing this principle play out in real time with the Great Mystery of how unemployment can be up *despite* the fact that people are being paid not to work. How can this be? Some might suggest that perhaps it has to do with human nature -- that people understand incentives and know what's in their best interests. But the left knows better.
Here again, preference can only be revealed in the context of freedom. If people are free to get paid for not working, guess what will happen?
The same thing occurs when men and women are free to choose their vocational paths: men are far more likely to choose careers involving abstractions or objects, while women are more apt to pursue careers involving interpersonal relations. Freedom reveals human nature. Equality would require forcing women into fields for which they have no intrinsic interest, i.e, are against their nature.
We're still in Captain Obvious territory and still haven't gotten to the main point, which is this: yes, these are crazy times we're living in. But what if the regime of Wokeness isn't some sort of mysterious aberration? What if it's just raw human nature, what man is if he is allowed to be, i.e., if there are no constraints on its expression?
Come to think of it, many Aphorisms go precisely to this subject. I might add that, when we really dig down to the bottom of things, we see that there is 1) human nature, and 2) a cure for human nature, about which we'll have more to say later. Suffice it to say, human nature is a genuine diagnosis, so don't get confused by this or that symptom, for example, envy, or hatred of reality, or sexual conflict.
And certainly don't be surprised at mob behavior, scapegoating, projection, and appeasement of imaginary gods via human sacrifice. It's what humans do and have always done. Nor do humans have the power to cure human nature. That would require an intervention from on high, from something transcending humanness.
We'll conclude with a dozen aphorisms, each of which touches on a different aspect of the deep down problem of human nature:
--To be a conservative is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution.
--Human nature always takes the progressive by surprise.
--Liberals can be divided into those who believe that wickedness is curable and those who deny that it exists.
--Man is not educated through knowledge of things but through knowledge of man.
--Man matures when he stops believing that politics solves his problems.
--Those who remove man’s chains free only an animal.
--Authentic humanism is built upon the discernment of human insufficiency.
--Today the individual rebels against inalterable human nature in order to refrain from amending his own correctable nature.
--The conservative is a simple pathologist. He defines sickness and health. But God is the only therapist.
--What is called the modern mentality is the process of exonerating the deadly sins.
--Freedom is the right to be different; equality is a ban on being different.
--An irreligious society cannot endure the truth of the human condition. It prefers a lie, no matter how imbecilic it may be. --Dávila x 12
9 comments:
Freedom reveals human nature.
Yes, exactly.
--Those who remove man’s chains free only an animal.
I'm reminded again of the process of creation, which requires constraints in order to achieve goodness, much less greatness. Without something to shape the final form, all we are left with is mud and protoplasm.
The whole "Human nature contains wickedness, yet this wickedness needs to be set free" seems a bit confused to me. And "Mind your own business" seems to be the very last belief of current conservative hero Margorie Taylor Greene. And then there's that bit where conservatives believe in self-defense ranging from handguns to drone missiles, yet when 'outsiders' try to defend themselves they get soundly attacked. Very confusing.
Confused doesn't imply confusing.
So Andrew Clyde isn't confused?
Questions Nobody is Asking
This is an interesting, thought-provoking post on communism and reality.
From the post and attributed to CPUSA "When we really dig down to the bottom of things, the contradictions of HUMAN NATURE are holding us back. We live in the FREEST society that has ever existed on Earth, *and yet* it results in INEQUALITY."
As you rightly pointed out, freedom and inequality would coexist quite naturally.
Probably the CPUSA writer made an unspoken assumption that free people in a free society would be naturally free of greed and would see to it that all persons on the globe were furnished with an equal share of goods and services, because that would be the right thing to do.
No, no Mr. Communist. People are greedy and they always have been. How could you not know this?
Greed itself has considerable survival value in a world of scarcity. Scarcity has been with humanity since before we came out of Africa. Many of us don't have scarcity now, but that doesn't matter. We are hardwired for scarcity and in fact would remain greedy even if buried in surplus goods and services. The credo "More is better" remains current.
In Neolithic times, if the group pulled down a large animal, it was assumed each member of the group would get a share. We don't know that for sure, but today's hunter gatherers usually operate that way. Woop dey it is, a functioning communist cadre.
But this can't be scaled up much. The cadre is not going to spontaneously share with another group. It fact they would be more likely to trade with the other group. Viola, capitalismo happens whenever a hide is handed over for a stone ax in return.
In times of increased scarcity, the modus operandi was to drive off or kill the other group and take their stuff. Or eat them.
So you see, nothing much has changed, and there is a long, weary contention among people regarding communism and capitalism as to which is the better system. The truth is, when they are artfully blended (see the USA's codes governing commerce, trade, defense, and social services), that is the best. The middle road. The middle of road. Get to the middle of the road damn ox.
And, when traveling on the road, if you see the Buddha, see if the Buddha has any trade goods.
-Tasurinchi on the Mountain
We are hardwired for scarcity and in fact would remain greedy even if buried in surplus goods and service.
Quite so indeed sir. Or sirette. Well-disciplined trade often works well because people will maximize their talents to make things to trade for other things which they’re greedy for. Unfortunately, in an undisciplined society the greedy with nothing to trade except for manipulative skills and pathological levels of greed can cause great damage to most everybody else and society as a whole. And when they buy Rule of Law, and media outfits like Fox News, Breitbart and even MSNBC, their alcoholism-like control/rationalization pathologies become even more insidiously ruinous. Interventions become almost impossible.
I remember when Genghis Khan conquered the world. He said that anybody could walk from one end of his empire to the other with a gold plate on their head, in complete safety. (hint: meaning free and safe trade) Of course he ignored all the millions of deaths and horror and disease (including the black death) and voinked women which he had to cause to make it so. And then after he died his descendants divided up the empire amongst their own greedy selves and started squabbling which made the whole golden plate head thing impossible.
Yet still, I prefer to think of Steven Pinker. His top reason for our “wealthy” society is secularism. I think we need to get Steven and Bob into a room together. Two well-read thoughtful academics who've come to completely opposite conclusions. I’m hopeful that Bob wouldn’t just say “you’re a demonic Dunning Kruger”, or Steven “you’re a religious nutbag” and they’d just glare at each other from their respective corners. A third person might have to act as mediator. Personally, I’d recommend none other than the great Donald Trump.
No need to debate. Let's just hear Pinker publicize the virtues of secularism in a non-Christian country, say, Iran. He'll then agree with Bob, at least until the moment his neck snaps.
Indeed, "a room" would be inferior to a deserted island, where cooperation for survival would likely ensue.
Or maybe not. Maybe one would manage to kill the other.
Iran is a classic example of American greed gone wonky. Iran was on the verge of an FMI society, but the mullahs won and America lost its corporate influence there. After supporting the dictatorial Shah, America had very little in the way of moral authority with most of the masses there. But according to Rick Steves, their youth are today mostly curious about us, and in a good way. But then Steves is a dope smoking christian liberal, mostly irrelevant to either Bob or Pinker.
Pinker would do better publicizing his virtues with Iranian Americans. But with the conservative evangelicals, maybe not so much. They'd just want to storm his capitol.
Post a Comment