Human nature doesn’t change just because of the economic or political environment in which man resides.
Sounds like the most ridiculous statement one could make doesn’t it. Yet the greatest clash of ideologies occurs with this dogmatic belief that man changes when in, or advocating a certain belief in ideology, theology, or economic activity.
As an example, in this nation we have a polarizing diametric opposition between those who believe in the ideology of communism vs. those who believe in the liberty and freedom of nature’s laws, and nature’s God, the natural rights of man; that somehow by this differential, are some preordained genetic differential in the actual species of mankind. Now if we are going to be ridiculous, isn’t this about as ridiculous as one can be?
Let’s look at the reality of what is reality. Those same characteristics that are the driving force of the communist are identical to the driving force of the most adamant driving capitalist that has ever lived. The natural laws, the foundations of mankind, which exist without any indoctrination, the natural desire of all men…and women…is that we all have the same principles controlling our actions. We study them in psychology, and in sociology that there are basic needs…these are represented as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—the theory of human motivation. The most basic, even in his description is—man has basic, natural requirements. It is as simple as, we need air to breathe. We need food for sustenance. Which in reality leads to the next obvious conclusion, something’s are really free—such as the air we breathe. Something’s have a cost, such as the food, or the effort we do in order to gain food. This isn’t some academic hypothesis; this is the reality of mankind since our known history of existence.
So what is the motivation of mankind? Is it not to achieve, to earn, to get the most we can with the effort, or the time of our lives we commit to an activity? Is this not the ‘is’ of what life ‘is?’
Let’s look at a comparative of looking at reality. In the cartoon character we have Popeye, whose iconic statement; ‘I ‘is’ what I ‘is,’ identifies him. Now make that as a comparative to those who believe in the ideology of not the rules of natural law, and the nature’s constants; but believes in some fuliginous anecdotal statement such as; ‘it depends on what your definition of is, is!’ Could there be a more ridiculous statement?
It is the same with those who believe in the ideology of theft is as legitimate as the ‘reality’ of personal responsibility and effort.
Should we not make a comparative between the two diametric opposing concepts, and then ask ourselves, is the motivating factor different; or is it the same?
Those who say they are communist say this little ditty; ‘to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.’ Is that reality?
Let’s measure how this would be represented in mathematical presentation.
Say that ∑ summation of effort, of work from one = ($) the reward of what that effort achieves.
Now in the American economic we are a merit based, or were merit based until the travesty of ‘civil rights, and affirmative action’ where the ability, the value of the individual was the measurement of effort. It would be the ∑ of the effort, which is the function of many ƒ functions. Such as the ƒ education, the knowledge one has, the ƒ of experience, what one has done, the ƒ of that God given differential of intellect, the ƒ of the time and effort of using one’s intellect to gain and project intelligence, and perhaps even the ƒ of wisdom, that is the aggregate of intelligence and measurement over time resulting in perspectives and decision making.
So we would have in the merit world; ∑ ƒedu ƒexp ƒint ƒintel ƒwis = the rewards, the value, the payment one would receive—the $’s one is capable of producing.
Now let’s look at the design of the dementia of communism. Can we even make the consideration in the same mathematical evaluation? I’d say no; because are we not only to receive our needs, no matter what our effort? So would we not have to look at the mathematical evaluation from the reverse? We know the result, it is a constant, supplied by the state; it will equal the same, no matter what you do. So let’s make our equation as the result the $’s we are paid or given will be a constant. So we have (c) $’s—dictated by government = the effort to provide for those dollars.
Now if we make an equation we’d have $’s= (?). Now here is where we have the problem. Who decided the ability of all men? How can we tell, do we give all an intelligence test, and those who are higher, in some in-egalitarianism of God, required to provide more? Or should it be that because one has more education, forgetting that that is a change in the egalitarianism done by effort, which should be required to provide more?
We have examples of the problem with this system; who can forget the famous words of the Soviet Russian woman, who on the clock while standing in line to buy bread, made the moniker of communism; ‘we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us!’
If the results are constant for all, then why would any do the effort to be able to do more? Is this not an example of irrational reasoning?
I’ve always wondered if the ideology of communism is so wondrous, why is it never the choice of any society at the beginning? Yet when contemplating it, I realized that it was attempted three times that I can recall just from my limited memory. First in the settlement of Virginia, the Jamestown second experiment; in such they decide that all would work, so all could share. Compounding the problem, the brought along some royalty, that had no idea, as Maynard G Krebs of Dobie Gillis fame would say—work!—whenever the concept of work was mentioned. The results were predictable. Why should those who work, do so, when those who don’t receive the same results as those who don’t? We only know of this result because of supply ships showed up saving the colony.
This insanity was tried by the Pilgrims settling in Massachusetts, where they would base their society on ‘love’ and respect for their fellow man—making the theology of Christianity an ideology of social accord. The results, no one took care of the ‘communal’ fields, and the colony almost starved, before they decided that the natural motivation of man for his own preservation was the only sensible driver of man’s activity!
There is another example that is also interestingly some combination of both communal and natural motivation. IN the story of Robinson Crusoe is an interesting example of communism. For Crusoe had the technology of society, what he took from the wrecked ship. Then he dedicated all the effort of all—which was just him, in a communal effort for the benefit of all—which was also him. The result, he did survive, and he did by being both sides of the equation, the supplier and the consumer, actually provide an example of how communism can work.
So if we interpolate the data we have, is there some conclusion that we can come to with some conviction? Is it not obvious, that communism can work; but it can only work if there is not someone else from which to steal their effort for your needs!
This is the fallacy of thinking mankind is different. The motivation is constant. IN the merit based world the more one has value, the harder one works, the more valuable one makes themselves the more the rewards of effort.
Communism is the exact opposite. As the rewards are constant, and cannot be varied—the only way one can satisfy the nature of man—is to do less. The nature of mankind is to learn less, understand less, do less, and know less—for then when at the lowest common denominator of society—are your rewards the greatest. For you have the least value of all, while being rewarded equal to all; providing your needs.
There has never been a more demented dementia ever created from the mind of man in the empirical history of mankind. Yet today we have those who believe that this is a more desirable society in which to live than the reality of self-determination, self-responsibility, and individual effort. It is a scary world when the mind of so may have been convoluted in such a way to circumvent the very basic psychological motivations of man!