World of Tomorrow, Today
The Dictatorship of Work, Private Property and Group in the Name of the Individualist System
an outline 1
Natalija Grgorinic & Ognjen Raden
The world exists. For the majority this fact is beyond any contest. And this world is the world of today, time giving it the dimension of existence. The world of tomorrow is a world of possibilities. Although, in a mind of an optimist, the very word “possibility” implies other words such as “progress” and “betterment”, things might get worse before they get better, or they might go bad again after they stay good for a while.
Hence the title, “World of Tomorrow, Today”. It serves to baffle both optimists and pessimists. What do we mean? Do we mean to say that the world of tomorrow will be, unless certain things change, as bleak as the world of today is, or even worse? Do we mean that what we have today is only a taste of how bad things could and will really get? Or do we mean to say that the world of tomorrow will be better than the world of today? That it will be so good that we don’t want to wait for it and then don’t live to see it, but that we want it now?
But we tried not to mess with the perspective. We messed with the facts, and some distortion of the perspective did occur, since we are presenting those facts the way we see them. And you will really have to try to see things our way in order to decide what is the world of today like, what the world of tomorrow might be like, and which do you prefer.
The world exists. The way we chose to describe it, it is consisted of people, people as individuals, as pairs, as groups, as societies, and of the system by which people govern themselves, or by which they are governed. The function of the system is to control the people. People, on the other hand, do not have a function. They have desires. This, the lack of function, from the perspective of the system makes them flawed. In order to control them the system assigns functions to people. From the perspective of the system the main function of people is to be controlled. People do that by maintaining the system - an individual becomes a unit of control, a group becomes an organization of control, society a space of control… “And what’s with the pair?” you might ask.
Patience, we’ll come to that.
The Paradox of Work
Work might have had created man, but institutionalized work is what made the individual. Within the controlled space of the society, any work worth doing will only place a person in a position of complete dependency, dependency upon the society, other individuals, the system.
The ideal individual as sought for, modeled by the system, programmed, shaped, fabricated, manufactured, produced, engineered, designed, conceived by the system, is an entity of perfect inability. A model individual is unable to do anything for him/herself. When it comes to satisfying the most essential, basic needs the individual is left to the mercy of the system, to the mercy of the society. Even those, whose job is to provide food for others, seek other food providers in order to get food themselves.
Function of work in the society, as an activity controlled (supervised and proscribed) by the system, is to disrupt the functionality of the individual. A professional individual becomes proficient only in his/her inability of survival on one’s own.
An individual capable of surviving on his/her own would be an enemy to the system.
The existence of the system depends on institutionalizing of the contradiction; the system is relying on series of paradoxes to obtain control. Work, private property and the organization of the group are employed to confine and control the life of an individual.
In the advanced capitalist society work is no longer a mere commodity. Institutionalized work is a method of group management: the most efficient way of controlling a group is to keep its every member busy. Work has replaced all the natural means of survival. In order to live one needs to work, and not vice versa. This makes all work meaningless by itself. The flawed logic of capitalism argues that the major incentive for any work is existential uncertainty. If the very basis of material existence were to be guaranteed to everyone by the society, such a society would collapse. This makes sense only in a highly consumerist society where, apart from work, the only other proscribed, life granting activity is consumption. So, one either works or consumes. Any other activity which does not directly benefit the market is considered to be either not worthwhile or openly aimed against the system.
All products of work are devoid of any function, they become symbols, life granting tokens, and the most significant of those are money and private property. A person doesn’t deserve the right to live by being born, a person earns the privilege of surviving by consenting to work. This prevents any work to become work for others, all work is for one, all work is for oneself, and it is this form of work that is standing in the way of any functional community.
Here we come to the paradox; an individual does all the work for oneself and for the others at the same time equally not doing anything for oneself and for the others either. The benefit of work gets lost, gets translated into the benefit of the system where work is used to control the individual, proscribe one’s actions and subordinate one’s function to the maintaining of the system.
In the most ideal situation for the system an individual is depending on the society, others, to fulfill his or her every need. In return it is the job of this individual to satisfy or fulfill a particular need of other members of the society. By insertion of money as a value in itself into what would otherwise be a perfectly natural way of cooperation, the system has effectively corrupted this relationship between an individual and the community 2. An individual is institutionally prevented from doing any work for the others. The work is done not for the community, not for the society either, but for the money. The insertion of money serves to transfer value from actual work to the money itself. The existence of money in the relation of the work done - product/service provided, devalues work, devalues the product or the service, and relieves them of their meaning.
The paradox of work as employed by the system in the modern capitalism is the creation/existence of a society of people doing nothing for themselves, but being paid to do anything for everyone else, and at the same time paying everyone else for anything they need to be done for themselves.
In order for the society to function as a community money would have to lose the value it has by itself. Secured existential minimum for all would greatly contribute to transition of the meaning and the value from money earned to the work done. A more just system of evaluating work should be introduced allowing all who work to concentrate on the work itself rather than material benefit which they expect from it. In such a system the highest paid job would be the one no one is interested in having - since the work itself would be the greatest benefit, and material reimbursement only an additional enticement. The way things are now the highest paying jobs are those sought by the majority of people. But, only the lowest paying ones are those available to that same majority. This new system would, of course, abolish managerial elite and balance the value of decision making with the value of any other skilled labor.
Redesigning the function of money in the equation above would create an opportunity for a society of more satisfied and more altruistic individuals connected in a more effective community. Instead, we have a society of unhappy, egotistical individuals who find satisfaction not in their achievements, but in the class altitude their achievements provide them, or rather the difference in class elevation between them and the other members of the society.
This is why a successful individual doesn’t perceive the well-being of one’s community as one’s own success. A successful individual needs unsuccessful individuals around him/her, and in large numbers. Larger the number of unsuccessful individuals, greater the achievement of the successful ones. Deeper the poverty of the poor, larger the property of the rich.
In that respect an individual is also prevented from doing any work for him/herself as well; doing one’s job for the money doesn’t mean working for oneself. The modes of survival are different and some are more pleasant than others but within the range of relatively “good living” there is no significant difference in quality. Once the ceiling of the well-being is reached, the only other method of enhancing one’s success becomes the enhancing the misery of the unsuccessful members of the society. Once producing more is no longer practicable, producing the needs becomes a more efficient mode of income generation, or success generation, or difference generation.
In it’s most brutal incarnation the capitalist system propelled by hyper-production and hyper-consumption has to depend on the production of desire itself. The side effect of hyper-production is the rise of the society above the basic human needs - food and shelter are available to all. But in order to maintain the productive level of dissatisfaction, in order to force the workforce to work, the system has to introduce perpetually new desires, which are promoted to be as existential as food or shelter. A person desiring a new automobile, or any status symbol will be tempted to spend money set aside for the basic needs, which will disrupt any stability and reintroduce existential uncertainty. In order to afford both the basic necessities and the desired status symbol the person will go into debt and fall captive of the work, since the loss of job will mean the loss of both status and of existential basis.
In the system in which money is directly connected to survival every position within the society is a position of existential uncertainty. Existence is not guaranteed by the property in a person’s possession, but is promised in the pursuit of new possession. Poor workers are promised their existence under condition they come to work tomorrow. Rich executives are promised they will be allowed to keep their property if they secure profit. It is not what one has that will keep one alive, it is what one will have that might do it.
But it is a false promise, and for those who don’t have, as well as for those who have, there are always new things they don’t have but have to work to achieve them, and the system without discrimination manipulates all individuals in a combination of the methods employed to punish Sisyphus and Tantalus. The rich as well as the poor bend but never wet their lips in the water that rises to their chins, they stretch but never reach the fruits hanging right above their heads, and for all the rock always ends up at the bottom of the hill, and the effort it takes to roll it up again gets mistaken for a life.
So by doing the work for others, and not for themselves; by doing the work not for others but for themselves; by doing the work not for themselves but for money people are actually doing the work for the system and the work of the system is control.
The system is in the business of manufacturing desire, the system is in the business of providing work, in the business of providing the need, in the business of creating business, of putting the individual to work. Making the individual frantically work for his/her survival facilitates control over the individual, and control is the business that the system is in.
There are two distinct varieties of work and only one of them is preferred by the system. There is the production of material goods or material benefit which may include some work, but most of all it includes complete surrender to the system. On the other hand, there is work for work’s sake, work as an action which is one of the most important forms of communication. The only group completely free of monetary corruption is the pair. So far, more or less unsuccessfully, the system has attempted to implant money as the currency between two members of a pair. A pair may function as an economical unit, but the laws that govern a relationship are not subordinate to the laws of economy 3.
In a pair work as an action is applied. Work has a meaning and it is work for oneself and for the precisely known other. Only when needs and rights of both members of a pair are equally satisfied, a pair can function. In a pair, an individual is with the equal intensity aware of his/her separateness and, at the same time, of his/her association with another human being. Coordination, collaboration, cooperation - necessary prerequisites for any successful work process, are already a part of any pair’s daily communicative routine. When working together, members of a pair work for the pleasure of working, their work becomes an expression of their togetherness, becomes a self-conscious work, work with purpose and meaning. I am working for myself and for him/her as well, and he/she is working for him/herself and for me as well, we are working for each other, for us and because of us, and it makes perfect sense.
The Paradox of Private Property
As much as an individual is bound by work, he or she is restrained, even repressed by the institution of private property. This is an unfortunate position, but what makes it even more unfortunate is the fact that private property as we conceive it simply does not exist. What exists is the property of the system, and people who think it is actually them who own are nothing but the caretakers serving the system. Indeed, it can be argued that the proper private property which was completely controlled by the owner has never even exited, and the illusion of it is maintained by the state, the most tangible incarnation of the system.
The state functions as a money-extracting machine. It serves to collect taxes for all the segments of public life, and then to transfer these funds into the private sector. Politicians who get elected into public office protect the interests of the corporations that had funded their campaigns. They stay in office long enough to bend the laws, funnel public funds into private enterprises, turn public property to private management. For this they are rewarded by their corporate sponsors, and eventually punished by the voters. In their place come other politicians, supported by other or same corporations. This is done in order to retain the balance between corporate interests, and to divide public property and funds into equal shares of private property. A successful politician remains in the cycle of being in office and being electible, as long as he or she doesn’t make the mistake of representing public interest. It is the objective of every successful politician/government official to convince the public that its interests are identical to the corporate interests. In a way a perfect public servant is a perfect sales agent selling the public to the corporations while securing the commission from both parties.
In that relation the public could be best described by the comparison to the slaves paying the slave trader for transportation, and buying themselves for the slave owner. It suffices to follow the money as it changes hands - the public is the one intended to be left with none, corporations are intended to get it all, and the government has the function of the middleman.
The function of the public is to supply the work force and the consumer force. Work and consumption are the ultimate means of control. In both activities an individual is possessed by the product. A product is an object perfected for complete controllability - it is designed, shaped, packaged, transported, bought and sold according to desires of its maker - the corporation. While an individual is employed in manufacturing a certain product, he or she is a captive of that product, the will of the worker is not the will of the creator, the will of the worker is divided, controlled by the will of the corporation (the manufacturer) and the will of the product which is predetermined and planned by the will of the corporation (the market). Once a worker gets off work, he or she is surrendered to the process of consumption. As a consumer, his/her will is divided between the will of the product (the same one he/she has just finished making) and the will of the commercial propaganda, marketing (the corporation).
The survival of the individual within the society is twice conditioned - an individual must not stop producing or else he/she will die, and, an individual must not stop consuming or else he/she will die.
Two of the most applied incarnations of the system are the rule of the state and the rule of the capital. Some time ago the rule of the capital had proven itself more efficient than the rule of the state. The rule of the state had its built-in flaw trying to provide security for the people in exchange for their submission to the system. The energy the state wasted on providing security for the obedient was not energy directed on obtaining control over the members of the society. In this the state had not been true to the only principle of the system - obtain complete control by any means available. This lack of control resulted in disobedience. The state collapsed, but the system remained 4.
The rule of the capital proved to be more efficient. The capitalist state doesn’t have to take care about people’s well-being, the people are obliged to do that themselves. The only function of the state is to facilitate control. The only function of the capital is to practice control. In that, capitalist doctrine came to be infinitely more practical than the socialist doctrine. Socialism believed that people who are well taken care of and share a common ideology are easy to control. But completely opposite is true - people who are neglected, people who are left to their own devices, but who share a common system of measuring well-being are more controllable, people who are forced to work in fear for their survival are less prone to developing alternative ideologies, alternative sets of values and alternative ways of obtaining happiness (security).
In this incarnation of the system money becomes the most important bodily fluid of the system, the blood of control - under the rule of the system everything is translatable into currency, private property is in direct correlation to the monetary unit, so, in a way, there is no private property since its value is tied with the currency of public commerce - by putting every form of property in correlation to money complete control is achieved. People are controlled by their property, the value of private property is controlled by the value of money, the value of money is controlled by the state, the state is controlled by corporations and corporations are controlled by the system. In a society of complete control the concept of private property is an illusion - all property is controlled by the system, all property is public, and the owners of private property are tricked into taking care of the system’s property, the territory of the system, as they are tricked into paying for this “privilege”.
The concept of private property is an illusion. True private property would not be of value to no one except the person it belongs to. One should not be in danger of losing one’s property if choosing not to pay tax on it. One should not be required to pay taxes on true private property at all. One should be able to practice complete control over one’s private property. But anyone practicing complete control over something by one’s own terms and rules is in direct conflict with the system. Under the rule of the capital, the system is in complete control, any control practiced under such system is proscribed by the system, any control practiced under such system is practiced exclusively in the name of the system.
The Paradox of the Group
In order to maximize control the system makes good use of yet another paradox, that of the group. A group, as employed by the system, is an organization based on exclusion, an organization to which some, or often most people do not belong. And while the existence of each individual is factual, the existence of groups is consensual. The purpose of group is to function as an extension of the individual. Group provides alternative, substitute identity, an identity that serves as an agent or a whipping boy for the individual.
An individual uses a group, not the other way around. If it seems that a group uses an individual, behind what seems to be an interest of that group hides an interest of another individual. If a group uses an individual it is always with the consent of that individual, or by agreement of the remaining group members, thus it is always individual using individual.
Within a group an individual expects individual, not group gain; group enables an individual to seize power which would otherwise be beyond his/her reach. Power gained is always gained on someone else’s expense. The misuse of group lies in the transfer of power to one individual; the function of group is to make one individual more powerful and the rest of the group members less powerful.
The effects of this are arguably most obvious in the example of the United States. While taking pride in its variety of democracy and advanced Constitution, United States is nevertheless diffused in a plethora of groups and subgroups, with interests so similar that they are inevitably confronting. The entire American society seems segregated according to criterions of class, race, sex, and this segregation is celebrated as a democratic and civilizational diversity, while at the same time enabling those who unite in their interests, those between whom there is least difference to assume power 5. This results in the reduction from the society of the equal individuals to the society of plutocratic elite and the oppressed majority, the break-up of the society into groups which crumble within themselves.
Therein lies the paradox of the group, the principle of group is used more to divide, to scatter a society than to bring it together, and an individual comes to realize that to be a member of one group more often means the he/she is excluded from any other group, and from any effective majority. Because a behavior of a group is not unlike a behavior of an individual.
Any offense against a group is immediately individualized - it becomes an offense against an individual - in return the individual tries to ignore such trespasses, or tries to transfer them to other group members.
That is why if an individual’s rights are broken, the rest of the group to which that individual belongs singles him/her out, as an anomaly, as an exception to the rule that a group serves to protect an individual; the individual is singled out to protect the majority. In order to protect him/herself the singled out individual seeks a new interest group onto which to transfer the rights of representation - if there is no group to delegate, that individual will ignore the breach of his/her rights.
This is what made the holocaust possible, Jews of Nazi Germany were denied membership in one group (the nation) and weren’t ready to form another one, which would function on their behalf. Millions murdered in the planned extermination were perceived as an enemy group by their executioners, but the only existing connection between them was that they were all victims of a crime.
Out of this came a new protective identity, a new sense of the group for people who had survived the attempted erasure. They were given the right to form a group, and they are sustained by the system as an example of what happens to the people who don’t’ react with group behavior when they are attacked. The importance of this lesson is even greater because today the victim is given a chance to become an aggressor.
The reward for such corrected behavior is the fact the former victim and now aggressor is allowed to retain its victim identity. Either by being labeled as aggressor or by changing the course of its politics towards peace Israel would become removed from its present role as an important example for the Western idea of individuality.
That is why the state of Israel is greatly supported by the USA, which is, not paying for the sins of the past, but for the sins of the present and the sins of the future, in an effort to maintain the idea that the holocaust happened to the Jews and not to the world. It happened to them, it happens to them and it will keep on happening to them - to Jews, a people singled out by God, themselves, the rest of the world - or to anyone else who falling out of one group fails to form a new one. But not to us. To them.
In short, the function of groups within the system is to divert attention of the people from the fact that we all already belong to a majority, we already belong to the largest possible group for the benefit of which we all should be working - the group of human kind 6.
In this sense, the phenomenon of homeless people is an example of a new holocaust. The homeless people are a nonexistent group (since they are not organized), a number of individuals who are chosen to provide an example for the majority of population on the basis of their material status. The only thing all homeless people have in common is the fact they don’t have a home. And not because they have decided not to have a home, or because they have given up on their homes, but because they were not allowed to keep their home - they were denied the right to a home by the system in order to serve as an example to the rest of the people, showing what will happen to anyone who doesn’t abide by the rules of the system - the chief rule taught by this example being - one is obliged to work more. The fact remains - no nation, state, or group can claim its greatness, unless all of its members enjoy equal security and protection, and even if one group manages to satisfy its interests, it should always recognize it only belongs to a wider group the status and condition of which needs to be improved.
But the flawed nature of a group identity is best seen in the example of war. In order to save his/her life an individual is expected to fight. In order to preserve his/her identity an individual is expected to give it up. An individual is expected to die so that others can live. But those others are to live only until there is a need for them to die in order for yet others to live.
In this way the group is protected, but in reality, only those who are expected to live are protected, and those are the individuals who eventually decide whether there is going to be a war or not. This undermines any equality proclaimed by almost every group but practiced by none. To oblige a hungry person to eat is hardly the same as to oblige a hungry person to starve. Yet the ruling system functions so that those who dedicate their lives to obtaining the power are required to live, and those who dedicate their lives to planting roses are expected to die upon request.
The premise is that a president of a republic is more valuable than a gardener. The premise is that there is something either intrinsic to the person of the president, or something in the amount of time and effort he/she had put into becoming a president that makes him/her more valuable than the gardener. The premise is that the function of a president is infinitely more important than the function of a gardener. The premise is that there is just one person capable of being a president, and that is the person who is the president at the any given moment. On the other hand anyone can function as a gardener. The premise is that in the time of war the president remains the president, or becomes one even more so, while the gardener is to become a soldier and is required to kill or be killed. All these premises are wrong; they are all illusions created by the system, and when a president dies the system replaces him/her just as easily as it would replace a gardener.
The idea that by saving a group one saves oneself is an illusion one realizes before dying - one is ready to die for a group only because one doesn’t really believe one can die if the group doesn’t die. The superego of the group functions as the individual’s alter ego, an invisible shield one is convinced exists while actually it doesn’t.
Group’s strength lies in member manipulation. A single successful individual member of any group personifies the success rate of the group. A single successful individual member of a group maintains the illusion of success of the entire group. If, on the other hand, an individual member of a group finds him/herself in harm’s way, he or she will be effectively disposed of by the rest of the group, again serving to prove the success rate of the group, only this time as an exception to the rule. This way the illusion of benefits of belonging to a group is maintained. It is the goal of a group to include as many successful individuals possible, and exclude as many unsuccessful individuals possible. By this, group functions as an individual support apparatus, where all are not equal, but all are for one, and one is for oneself.
This is why today we have a society in which there exists prosperity of the individual and not the prosperity of the community. If one is able to achieve prosperity, everyone should be able to reach it. But not in the society where the purpose of all the group members is to enhance the prosperity of one group member, not in the society where one’s prosperity is measured by how far above the rest of the community he or she gets. In the society of today a single successful individual counts as proof of the prosperity of the entire society. In the society of the future a single individual left behind will be regarded as the failure of the society as a whole.
The system, on the other hand, is a mechanism to which all groups belong. This explains the fact that wars have no effect on the system, it survives regardless of the outcome of any conflict, whichever side wins a war, it relies upon the system, which makes it evident that there could be no war to abolish the system, quite the opposite, by making all war illegal people would be one step closer to controlling the system rather than have it control them.
In its paradoxical nature the system is functioning as a completely self-aware and self-orientated entity, and while it my have been first established as a mechanism of protection and connection between members of the early societies, it has equally early usurped the position of control and the collective consciousness of the people to become obsessed with self-preservation.
What’s more, people have come to regard it as a fact, as a constant, so that, for example, it has become perfectly acceptable for a candidate for any government office, to manifest highest of ideals in campaigning for the office, only, once becoming a part of the system, to denounce them 7.
To all the paradoxes of the system the pair presents an alternative. Pair is the only group in which an individual is in majority. Only members of a pair can decide on the nature of that pair, it is a completely autonomous unit, and in regard to gender, duration, modes of relationship, etc. no pair is obliged to resemble or copy any other pair. Pair is the only group with a fixed number of members, it cannot function as a pair by including new members, the same as it cannot function if one of the members is excluded. Each individual member achieves fulfillment only when the other one achieves it as well. Two people learn from each other and better each other.
But why a pair?
First of all, in every individual there is a yearning for the other. But more importantly, it is within a pair that a person receives the firmest proof of his/her existence. Mirrors are useful, but they distort the picture. For a very long time God was useful too. In order to escape the rest of the society an individual had invented God to his/her own image, by turning the ultimate power and control in the hands of the God an individual relieved him/herself of any responsibility. In return he/she expected absolution, but the absolution is yet to come. The era of individualism is the era of monotheism. In its Western emanation it is the era of capitalism, era of Christianity 8.
By its very existence, a pair refutes paradoxes employed by the system. Every work performed by a pair is immediately work performed for one self, for the other, and for that joint identity that a pair creates. Members of a pair are sharing responsibility, and sharing success, as well as sharing their private property, proving that sharing property doesn’t necessarily mean making a less good use of it. In comparison to any other group, a pair gives each individual a governing role but at the same time tying the success of the individual with the success of the group, since pair is a group governed by communication and not by control, the only association in which a person can retain eye contact with his or her counterpart.
This is why the pair should become a paradigm of a new society, one that would replace the system of control with communication, an eye contact society, where each individual would learn to understand the success of the entire society as the only measure of his/her own success.
Because time has come when combined actions of separate individuals have endangered the existence of the entire human kind. With no absolution on the horizon humanity will need to take their God from the haven and put it back to the Earth 9. The responsibility will need to once more belong to the people, and the self-absolution will become attainable only through collaborative positive action. In that new society, a pair should be recognized as one of its units which would result in a seeming “doubling” of at least one part of the society. What has so far gone wrong with the world is the fact that the division between private and business interests of individuals has become accepted as a norm, although the fact is that this world is governed by people who follow exactly the opposite rule. In other words, what has so far gone wrong with this world is the fact that only some people have made no division between their private and their business interests. And it is the world of tomorrow in which all of the people will need to recognize their private interests, their business interests and their public interests should be the same so that there is a tomorrow. In that, the example and practice of the pair can be at least a part of the solution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1] There is a very good reason why this is only an outline. In fact, a few reasons might be distinguished. First of all there is enough open space left in this outline which if filled could very well comprise a book, or several books. The problem with several books is that it takes time to read through them and yet their main points might escape even a careful reader. The problem with several books is that it also takes time to write them, and once written they might contain more main points then the authors had intended to include. For that reason the authors might want to use an outline, with only a few main points, not connected as strongly as they would be within a book, but standing out individually and more prominently. The authors might also use the form of the outline to claim a sort of patent on their ideas, they might want to create a debate ahead of any book they might produce in future, they might like to have some initial feedback to incorporate it in this future book and thus make it more… fool-proof? For all these reasons and more this is an outline, and some of the spaces left open are intended to be filled, and some might be overlooked, hopefully only for the time being.
2] Money by itself should hold no value. Only if used, invested or spent does it acquire value, so that it becomes what it had been intended to be - a form of value transportation, rather than value storage.
3] If one considers work a necessity, and a life within a pair a sort of a norm, it seems almost incredible that although they are expected to live together, two people are almost never allowed to work together. What’s more, the idea of two people sharing work might seem preposterous to some. But in the future this proposition should get a more careful consideration. Why wouldn’t two people, who already share their life, share their work as well? If they would occupy a single position they would naturally receive the same salary as a single person doing the same workload. Salaries for most of the higher qualified work are sufficient for sustaining whole families, and it’s only when a person attempts to obtain a status symbol that such a salary becomes inadequate. But what if two people would not be interested in pursuing status? What if they would value time they spend together above all? They would be able to take care of a workload corresponding to a single salary, but in maybe even half the time it takes single person to deal with it. They would not profit in terms of money, but they would have more time to invest in themselves, and other interests aside from work. What’s more, the job they would share would not only be a source of income but a source of satisfaction and fulfillment. These are the very reasons why the system would not want to allow it - since work is intended to be a source of dissatisfaction, artificially created desire, pain, stress and control. The system doesn’t want to reduce the number of unemployed by giving work to two persons instead of one. The system doesn’t want the higher productivity of two people giving their maximum in less time, and instead prefers the exhaustion of an individual worker over the longest time period possible. The system doesn’t want people to have more unsupervised free time. The system doesn’t want people to seek other interests which possibly would not include making money or spending money. The system, in spite all of its bragging, does not support equality of sexes, preservation of family life, child care, stability, preservation of the environment which could all benefit from allowing members of a pair to work together.
4] The main reason the socialist state disintegrated lies in the fact that socialism is merely a form of capitalism. By taking direct control of all the private property through nationalization, socialist state found itself in charge of the property it had no practice of owning. Essentially, nothing changed, except for the fact that the people had been relieved of taking care of the property. And while in the capitalist state private owners take care of the property, and the state functions as a control mechanism, the socialist state found itself in a position of the owner with no control mechanism which basically resulted in bad management and population that needed to be suppressed by more obvious, but less effective mean of control. This is why, from the outside, the socialist state appeared to be more oppressive, while in fact it has never applied pressure such as the capitalist state applies on its population, and has offered more existential security in exchange for the position of no responsibility.
5] Although it might not appear so at a first glance, there is much less distinction and competition between gargantuan corporations governed by pragmatic, material interests, than between small, grass-roots, non-government, civil rights organizations and movements. Every interest group presents only a minority by itself, but the fact is that the rich minority has been more successful in uniting and merging their interests, while the underprivileged have failed in assuming power simply because they choose to perceive their differences as something over which they should stay in competition.
6] It would probably be more correct to say that human kind forms not a group, but a super group (although the term lacks certain strength since due to its use in popular music). The main difference between human kind and any other group is that it cannot function on the principle of exclusion - there is no way to exclude any person form the human kind, and human kind cannot claim any actual success until all of its members’ needs are satisfied.
7] These ideals are the offerings to the system; a candidate is expected to shed them once initiated as a servant of the system, assuming work for the benefit of the system, instead for the people who gave him/her their support. Thus, instead of performing the role of mediators, or representatives of the people on the court of the system, candidates employ the excuse of political wisdom or compromise to assimilate with the system. Instead of being champions of the people, politicians become willing victims of the system, consenting to be devoured alive by the state as “the coldest of cold monsters”, to serve as living cells of what would otherwise be a dead and abstract concept, for the illusion of power and the false promise of immortality.
8] According to the way he exists in Christian mythology, Jesus Christ is a model individual, someone who, if he had never existed, was surely invented by the system, the same system which has been surviving for centuries. As an individual Jesus Christ has been doubly singled out, as the God, and as a victim over whom the system triumphs, serving as an ultimate example that within the system only reverence is achieved through victimization. When observed from this perspective, in the foundation of the Christianity there is an individual who is ultimately overpowered by the system, and the entire religion appears to be little more than a consensus by which the system has been granted the supreme power on Earth, while the oppressed individuals have only to hope for an after-life alternative.
9] Isn’t it quite obvious what effect transplantation of God into heaven, outside of the Earth, had on our environment? While we had gods residing in our forests and our seas and our rivers, we dared not show disrespect by abusing them, but since we decided that God should occupy that great penthouse in the sky, we stopped regarding our planet as sacred.