Yes - Machiavelli's philosophy was amoral. It was also pragmatic. It appeals to our "lesser angels" or baser instincts but is dressed up as a means to an end which can be marketed as a "common good" in order to allow individual and group justification of bad acts.
There is a reason Machiavellianism is one of the personality types in the Dark Triad updated to the Dark Tetrad. Manipulation of emotions and behaviors to achieve a personal or group goal is evil.
Liberalism has failed, but not completely. We can see the failures by virtue of the dismissal of its values in the extreme over the past three years. Legal loopholes such as suppressing with coercion off label anti virals and other drugs to allow EUA to legally occur is one huge instance of failure. Every green light given by the DOJ or Congress or the President that enables conflicts of interest in science, medicine, tech, governance pushes toward fascism and away from liberalism. I mean if that one factor was disabled the system would go back toward balance.
Here is your higher synthesis we have not yet identified (we actually have for Millenia, but not in intellectual circles): Let's call it Ego illusion theory.
Dividing it in into virtue driven (old style) or greed driven (new style) doesnn't solve the problem of massive suffering. Both system have been very succesful in creating suffering. This is no surprise, because they are the two sides of the same coin. They complement and define each other. Both don't work. What many don't get is that being virtious is the same ego trip than being greedy, hence the same results. Moral values are destined to always fail because there is no permanent truth in morals. It is an ego consruct to re-enforce the ego.
The only way to ever stop suffering amongst humans is if all humans transcend their ego's by realizing that it is an illusionary mental construct. This leads to self-realization - realizing who we really are.
Everything else is just moving the deckchairs on the Titanic. Ego based human existence can't be without suffering. It is impossible, no mater what you try because it is based on the false assumption that "we are" this body and this mind instead of the realization that "we are aware" of a body and mind that has absolutely nothing to do with us.
All our suffering is based on believing that we are this body-mind, that is is "us".
If you believe that what hope is left? Our body-minds are programmed by nature to survive and reproduce at all costs - it is the source of all our greed and love (virtue). Both are tools. Greed is a tool. Love is a tool of nature, a tool of life to sustain itsef. Life feeds on life. And other life always suffers as long it is identified with this particular manifestation of life we call "ourselves."
The other thing that most people don't realize is that this "life eats life" suffering circle can't be stopped or eliminated and doesn't need to. It will continue idefintly. And there is nothing wrong with it. That's just how life operates. It doesn't cause any suffering at all, unless we are identified with a particula manifestion of life and consciouss of that self-identification.
Only the identification with it caused the suffering. The moment I fully realize that all I am is one pure awareness, suffering ends for that person together with personhood, greed or virtue.
dear being nobody, going nowhere, i love that you posted this here. this has been my spiritual journey -- from here to here -- with osho, gangaji, adyashanti and many beloveds. i happen to be rereading "a new earth: awakening to your life's purpose" by eckhart tolle. the book is so simple and profound. if you are reading this post and relating to it, you might like the book. may we all awaken. love, shanti
"The American idea of government is that all people are corruptible but if we can set the legislative, executive, and judicial branches against each other, government will not have as much time, energy, and ability to tyrannize the citizenry."
This may have been true in 1787, but since then, extreme wealth inequality has made it a very un-even playing field. Today, government, corporations, the intel community, the media, science, universities, all are controlled by a handful of billionaires. They've created a huge blackmail system, to implement their dark agenda, which they've been planning for decades. We no longer have a social contract; elections are rigged, the news is fake.
"Nearly all of science and medicine have been engaged in mass genocide of the entire population throughout the developed world since March 2020. Given that, wouldn’t we be infinitely better off if we proceeded from the assumption that nearly all scientists and doctors are liars — greedy assholes who just want power, money, fame, and control — and then set up systems to pit scientists against each other and regulators against each other and the public against scientists and regulators?"
I don't think we need to assume this about nearly all scientists and doctors. We need to assume it about the ones in positions of power. That power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"The American idea of government is that all people are corruptible but if we can set the legislative, executive, and judicial branches against each other, government will not have as much time, energy, and ability to tyrannize the citizenry."
Yes, that is part of it, but even more important is the separation of powers between individuals, state governments, and the federal government. Unfortunately, this process has never worked the way it was supposed to and is almost dead at this point.
It is worth noting that Adam Smith had zero influence on American Founding Fathers. Adam Smith was serving the interest of British Empire which was in direct opposition to the aspirations of the young American Republic. The structures behind the British Empire never stopped undermining American Republic. The end result is the near total disappearance of the Republic with the emergence of the Anglo-American Empire, a clear takeover by the imperial parasite. American Republic is now a Potemkin Village, a facade left standing to fool us into believing we still live in a constitutional republic. We don’t.
Most of our failures can be attributed to the ruling imperial oligarchy. It was in their interest to dumb down American population and they have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. I believe we should distinguish the liberalism of our Founding Generation and that of the British Empire. Conflating the two can result in a devastating mistake.
G.K. Chesterton is alleged to have written in response to the question, “What’s wrong with the world today?” by saying “Dear Sir, I am. Yours, G.K. Chesterton.”
Ultimately it is our responsibility to choose good over evil, to love God (and therefore His creation and those in it) by loving our neighbour as ourselves, i.e. we must also love ourselves as we cannot know how to love our neighbours if we do not know how to love ourselves.
And as it is written
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no account of wrongs. Love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."
N.B. "believes all things" is better translated 'entrusts' to avoid the sense of naively believing anything one is told. it is the sense of entrusting to God when one has to go through trials and tribulations.
And the word 'love' is agape in the Greek which is a sacrificial love beyond brotherly or family love as includes loving ones enemies.
There is a sense in which loving oneself is self-interest but that also contains the self-interest of others and that is love.
I find the parallels between Machiavelli and Adam Smith most interesting.
The people I truly know are not described by the paragraph:
"Think about everyone you know — do appeals to virtue actually work? Or are you better off anticipating that they will act in a self-interested way and proceeding accordingly? And if you proceed based on this more pessimistic assumption, are you better off in the end?"
Well more than half of people I truly know possess the virtues generally described as lacking in today's column, which could be expanded to account for the presence of virtuous souls among the population and perhaps describe how moral people might survive in the economic maelstrom.
As for liberalism, my sense is that the meaning of the word has been hijacked two ways. First by narrow minded conservative strategists who, at war pretty much as described in today's email, have demonized the word beyond its literal meaning; and also by many relatively clear headed observers of the C-19 attacks on western society to describe those who are either hypnotized, too fearful, or too egotistic to look beyond assertions in the corrupted mass media.
My inclination is to refer to the uncomprehending masses as hypnotized, afraid, or intellectualy rigid rather than liberal.
That's very interesting. I mean, will you be better off to anticipate that people are going to act from self-interest? The point is, if you expect people to behave in a selfish way, your behaviour towards them will reflect that and that will most likely give you your anticipated result. Will you be better of? I doubt it.
IMO, and maybe inline with Machiavelli's focus on the practical, I don't think a sea change shift in the basis of western society is gonna happen soon. Right now we need to focus on the symptoms killing us not the underlying disease which may never be cured. We need to break the monopoly of Pharma. We need to get a President and Congress that will undo the NCVIA and smash their immunity to prosecution. Then we need to implement a step by step plan to prosecute them and their legion of allies, dismantle their power and reduce them back to simple vendors like most other businesses.
classic liberalism (capitalism) cannot be a satisfactory solution for economic system or government. everyone is born in society, so has inescapable obligation to society which implies a form of socialism is inherent to society. lenin did an excellent analysis of capitalism which demonstrated irrefutably to my mind how capitalism leads to financial monopolies and imperialism, in other words purely self interested exploitation by the powerful and financial ruin of the less powerful. in terms of equity we are inclined to hear powerful people say they are "self made" but in fact that only can be true in a society where circumstances allow a degree of economic freedom and opportunity or else "self made men" are consigned to the Coliseum or prison by an unyielding aristocracy. The idea that capitalists promote freedom is a well promoted myth; a good example being the rapidly evolved authoritarianism of various "world" bodies like the Uited Nations and the World Health Organization, largely financed by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Many powerful people also have the advantage of being born into stratified wealth, where inormation and guidance is instrumental in their increased chances for further growth, financial betterment and upward mobility.
Recognizing the opportunities afforded to all by inherently socialist societies, wealth accumulation by financial elites and corporations must be severely limited (taxation and redistribution) to maintain an equitable and sustainable society. Given the consequences of excessive ego and psychopathic behavior seen in some highly talented individuals (I call this the lex luthor syndrome), the value of socialism must be inculcated strongly early in life and there must be serious penalties for anti-social behavior. It is better to limit individual freedoms to a degree rather than face the consequences of recurrent psychopathic excessive behavior (wars, economic crime, covid scams).
"demonstrated irrefutably to my mind how capitalism leads to financial monopolies and imperialism." Yep. Over time, unfettered capitalism leads to a consolidation of wealth (and power) and this inevitably leads to the kind of "crony" capitalism we see today, if not global totalitarianism. That tendency needs to be checked. In America at least, during the New Deal Order, this was accomplished by a extremely high top-end tax rate and lots of regulation. The first thing that Mr. Free Market Ronald Reagan did when he came into office was gut taxes on the wealthy, corporations, and capital gains, and gut regulations.
"When two selfish jerks negotiate against each other in a market economy, engaging in rigorous due diligence on the assumption that the other person is trying to screw him, one genuinely can end up with a fair deal for both sides." Hardly! This assumption may function in impersonal, large-scale or corporate economies where no one has any real accountability, but not in small-scale village economies where everyone knows each other. I live in just such a small community, and its smallness means everyone knows everyone. So the minute some merchant or tradesperson tries to screw someone, within hours or days everyone knows to avoid them like the plague. They simply can't get away with being dishonest. E.F. Schumacher in his classic Small is Beautiful makes a similar point. In such an economy, a reputation for quality work and fair prices is as valuable as gold. If anything then, we need a return to more locally based economies.
I also question the assumption that Communism was an appeal to virtue. Solzhenitsyn in his 1975 book Warning to the West, pointed out that Lenin from the very beginning was an ice-cold psychopath quite willing to murder anyone who got in the way of the Bolshevik Revolution. Not exactly a virtue signaller, then. The "virtue" of Communism was just a rhetorical trick to fool the masses. It was always about power. This is quite different from the modified socialism we had in Canada until recently, which provided universal medical care, pensions, and unemployment insurance. When one is talking socialism or Communism, therefore, clear distinctions must be made; just as with capitalism, not all apples are the same variety.
Finally, to quote historian Arnold Toynbee, in his dialogue with Japanese philosopher Daisaku Ikeda, in response to Ikeda's statement that, "The idea that the end justifies the means has been the driving force of many organizations..." Toynbee responds: "An end does not justify a means. Means and ends must be ethically consistent. It is psychologically impossible to do right at stage two by deliberately doing wrong at stage one. If one is wrong at the outset, it is impossible to reach a righteous goal." —The Toynbee-Ikeda Dialogue, Kodansha International Ltd., Tokyo/New York, 1976, p. 211.
Anything else is just self-justification to do wrong, the moral laziness to allow oneself to not follow a high ethical standard. As English poet John Milton said: "License they mean when they cry, Liberty!" This is why a Christian standard is important in society, whether or not we profess the faith. And in fact your excellent multi-point plan for reforming the pharmaceutical industry is based on a high standard of ethics, not mere self-interest.
I don't agree that communism is just a rhetorical trick. Lenin's goal was to overturn a hereditary nobility, similar to the French Revolution and the American Revolution. What is more offensive than the idea that a person born into a wealthy noble family is a higher class individual than a person born working class or poor. That's an idea that's as virulent as racism. Have you heard the Queen of the Netherlands at the World Economic Forum saying that people should have mandatory digital ID's and be tagged and herded like cattle. Do you think for a minute that those rules will apply to her own family. The Russian Empire expanded by military conquest and by terrorism and Lenin's own brother was executed for political activity.
Lenin himself only lived till 1924. There is no denying the fact that the wealthiest Russians were living in Gilded Age luxury while most working class people and the poor had nothing to lose. Lenin came from a priveleged family and there was reason for him to revolt unless he truly believed in what he was doing. The Russian revolution was a brutal revolution because it was a reaction to the excessive brutality and inaction of the ruling class. Lenin may have been a psychopath but that doesn't mean he wasn't correct in his assessment that a historical change could only occur by revolutionary violence equal to the violence of the oppressor. We are confronted by a similar situation today where governments institutions representing the ruling class are overtly complicit in promoting medical genocide. They have web sites literally spelling out what they are doing. Millions of people have died from toxic chemical injections shot into their veins by ruling class psychopaths, so the genocide is already under way. Pandemic "X" may be the next step. Is your sense of propriety offended? The government is way ahead of you because they are already jailing demonstrators who know the last election was rigged. Maybe you should just go on pretending that Lenin was too extreme.
Yes, I'm well aware of the history leading up to the Bolshevik Revolution, and no, I'm not in favour of being ruled by hereditary elites. I have too much Irish ancestry to ever be a monarchist. But if you think starting a revolution with bloody violence is the answer, then respectfully you haven't learned much from history. Toynbee's principle is correct: you cannot achieve an ethical goal by resorting to unethical means.
You may be a supporter of Communism; that's your choice. Since you raise historical points, remember that Communism went from bad to worse, from Lenin's opening orgy of violence to Stalin's murder of millions of his own people, including about half his own party members.
As I mentioned, I live in a country that has had a moderate form of socialism that has provided many social benefits to Canadians, though these seem under threat now as formerly democratic governments move toward totalitarianism. What we need is to move away from the political "isms" of the past and create something new based on what we've learned, something that is ethically based and doesn't rely on violence to achieve its ends, thus negating its own ethics.
"An end does not justify a means. Means and ends must be ethically consistent. It is psychologically impossible to do right at stage two by deliberately doing wrong at stage one. If one is wrong at the outset, it is impossible to reach a righteous goal." If that doesn't say it all! Thank you for commenting.
You're welcome! In an age of shallow public debate too often typified by either/or binary arguments, I try to introduce depth and nuance of thinking. We have a great tradition of knowledge to draw upon. Let's use it!
You do present ideas well, it’s easy to read. The reforms you suggest are so reasonable, that you wouldn’t think anyone would be against them. Perhaps you could highlight those as an individual X post.
Yes - Machiavelli's philosophy was amoral. It was also pragmatic. It appeals to our "lesser angels" or baser instincts but is dressed up as a means to an end which can be marketed as a "common good" in order to allow individual and group justification of bad acts.
There is a reason Machiavellianism is one of the personality types in the Dark Triad updated to the Dark Tetrad. Manipulation of emotions and behaviors to achieve a personal or group goal is evil.
See: https://maggierusso.substack.com/p/the-dark-tretrad
Classical liberalism or liberalism has always been problematic. Because it assumes that all mankind is good at heart and has morals.
We are not angels. Liberalism has become "Woke" captured by evil minds.
The historical track record of humans following ideologies is millions of dead humans. Humans are not angels and therein lies the problem.
Liberalism has failed, but not completely. We can see the failures by virtue of the dismissal of its values in the extreme over the past three years. Legal loopholes such as suppressing with coercion off label anti virals and other drugs to allow EUA to legally occur is one huge instance of failure. Every green light given by the DOJ or Congress or the President that enables conflicts of interest in science, medicine, tech, governance pushes toward fascism and away from liberalism. I mean if that one factor was disabled the system would go back toward balance.
Here is your higher synthesis we have not yet identified (we actually have for Millenia, but not in intellectual circles): Let's call it Ego illusion theory.
Dividing it in into virtue driven (old style) or greed driven (new style) doesnn't solve the problem of massive suffering. Both system have been very succesful in creating suffering. This is no surprise, because they are the two sides of the same coin. They complement and define each other. Both don't work. What many don't get is that being virtious is the same ego trip than being greedy, hence the same results. Moral values are destined to always fail because there is no permanent truth in morals. It is an ego consruct to re-enforce the ego.
The only way to ever stop suffering amongst humans is if all humans transcend their ego's by realizing that it is an illusionary mental construct. This leads to self-realization - realizing who we really are.
Everything else is just moving the deckchairs on the Titanic. Ego based human existence can't be without suffering. It is impossible, no mater what you try because it is based on the false assumption that "we are" this body and this mind instead of the realization that "we are aware" of a body and mind that has absolutely nothing to do with us.
All our suffering is based on believing that we are this body-mind, that is is "us".
If you believe that what hope is left? Our body-minds are programmed by nature to survive and reproduce at all costs - it is the source of all our greed and love (virtue). Both are tools. Greed is a tool. Love is a tool of nature, a tool of life to sustain itsef. Life feeds on life. And other life always suffers as long it is identified with this particular manifestation of life we call "ourselves."
The other thing that most people don't realize is that this "life eats life" suffering circle can't be stopped or eliminated and doesn't need to. It will continue idefintly. And there is nothing wrong with it. That's just how life operates. It doesn't cause any suffering at all, unless we are identified with a particula manifestion of life and consciouss of that self-identification.
Only the identification with it caused the suffering. The moment I fully realize that all I am is one pure awareness, suffering ends for that person together with personhood, greed or virtue.
dear being nobody, going nowhere, i love that you posted this here. this has been my spiritual journey -- from here to here -- with osho, gangaji, adyashanti and many beloveds. i happen to be rereading "a new earth: awakening to your life's purpose" by eckhart tolle. the book is so simple and profound. if you are reading this post and relating to it, you might like the book. may we all awaken. love, shanti
"The American idea of government is that all people are corruptible but if we can set the legislative, executive, and judicial branches against each other, government will not have as much time, energy, and ability to tyrannize the citizenry."
This may have been true in 1787, but since then, extreme wealth inequality has made it a very un-even playing field. Today, government, corporations, the intel community, the media, science, universities, all are controlled by a handful of billionaires. They've created a huge blackmail system, to implement their dark agenda, which they've been planning for decades. We no longer have a social contract; elections are rigged, the news is fake.
"Nearly all of science and medicine have been engaged in mass genocide of the entire population throughout the developed world since March 2020. Given that, wouldn’t we be infinitely better off if we proceeded from the assumption that nearly all scientists and doctors are liars — greedy assholes who just want power, money, fame, and control — and then set up systems to pit scientists against each other and regulators against each other and the public against scientists and regulators?"
I don't think we need to assume this about nearly all scientists and doctors. We need to assume it about the ones in positions of power. That power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"The American idea of government is that all people are corruptible but if we can set the legislative, executive, and judicial branches against each other, government will not have as much time, energy, and ability to tyrannize the citizenry."
Yes, that is part of it, but even more important is the separation of powers between individuals, state governments, and the federal government. Unfortunately, this process has never worked the way it was supposed to and is almost dead at this point.
It is worth noting that Adam Smith had zero influence on American Founding Fathers. Adam Smith was serving the interest of British Empire which was in direct opposition to the aspirations of the young American Republic. The structures behind the British Empire never stopped undermining American Republic. The end result is the near total disappearance of the Republic with the emergence of the Anglo-American Empire, a clear takeover by the imperial parasite. American Republic is now a Potemkin Village, a facade left standing to fool us into believing we still live in a constitutional republic. We don’t.
Most of our failures can be attributed to the ruling imperial oligarchy. It was in their interest to dumb down American population and they have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. I believe we should distinguish the liberalism of our Founding Generation and that of the British Empire. Conflating the two can result in a devastating mistake.
G.K. Chesterton is alleged to have written in response to the question, “What’s wrong with the world today?” by saying “Dear Sir, I am. Yours, G.K. Chesterton.”
Ultimately it is our responsibility to choose good over evil, to love God (and therefore His creation and those in it) by loving our neighbour as ourselves, i.e. we must also love ourselves as we cannot know how to love our neighbours if we do not know how to love ourselves.
And as it is written
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no account of wrongs. Love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."
N.B. "believes all things" is better translated 'entrusts' to avoid the sense of naively believing anything one is told. it is the sense of entrusting to God when one has to go through trials and tribulations.
And the word 'love' is agape in the Greek which is a sacrificial love beyond brotherly or family love as includes loving ones enemies.
There is a sense in which loving oneself is self-interest but that also contains the self-interest of others and that is love.
That is the path to a good society.
I find the parallels between Machiavelli and Adam Smith most interesting.
The people I truly know are not described by the paragraph:
"Think about everyone you know — do appeals to virtue actually work? Or are you better off anticipating that they will act in a self-interested way and proceeding accordingly? And if you proceed based on this more pessimistic assumption, are you better off in the end?"
Well more than half of people I truly know possess the virtues generally described as lacking in today's column, which could be expanded to account for the presence of virtuous souls among the population and perhaps describe how moral people might survive in the economic maelstrom.
As for liberalism, my sense is that the meaning of the word has been hijacked two ways. First by narrow minded conservative strategists who, at war pretty much as described in today's email, have demonized the word beyond its literal meaning; and also by many relatively clear headed observers of the C-19 attacks on western society to describe those who are either hypnotized, too fearful, or too egotistic to look beyond assertions in the corrupted mass media.
My inclination is to refer to the uncomprehending masses as hypnotized, afraid, or intellectualy rigid rather than liberal.
That's very interesting. I mean, will you be better off to anticipate that people are going to act from self-interest? The point is, if you expect people to behave in a selfish way, your behaviour towards them will reflect that and that will most likely give you your anticipated result. Will you be better of? I doubt it.
IMO, and maybe inline with Machiavelli's focus on the practical, I don't think a sea change shift in the basis of western society is gonna happen soon. Right now we need to focus on the symptoms killing us not the underlying disease which may never be cured. We need to break the monopoly of Pharma. We need to get a President and Congress that will undo the NCVIA and smash their immunity to prosecution. Then we need to implement a step by step plan to prosecute them and their legion of allies, dismantle their power and reduce them back to simple vendors like most other businesses.
"The Virtue of Selfishness"...Ayn Rand...nothing more, nothing less. Don't get lost in the weeds.
thanks RM
classic liberalism (capitalism) cannot be a satisfactory solution for economic system or government. everyone is born in society, so has inescapable obligation to society which implies a form of socialism is inherent to society. lenin did an excellent analysis of capitalism which demonstrated irrefutably to my mind how capitalism leads to financial monopolies and imperialism, in other words purely self interested exploitation by the powerful and financial ruin of the less powerful. in terms of equity we are inclined to hear powerful people say they are "self made" but in fact that only can be true in a society where circumstances allow a degree of economic freedom and opportunity or else "self made men" are consigned to the Coliseum or prison by an unyielding aristocracy. The idea that capitalists promote freedom is a well promoted myth; a good example being the rapidly evolved authoritarianism of various "world" bodies like the Uited Nations and the World Health Organization, largely financed by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Many powerful people also have the advantage of being born into stratified wealth, where inormation and guidance is instrumental in their increased chances for further growth, financial betterment and upward mobility.
Recognizing the opportunities afforded to all by inherently socialist societies, wealth accumulation by financial elites and corporations must be severely limited (taxation and redistribution) to maintain an equitable and sustainable society. Given the consequences of excessive ego and psychopathic behavior seen in some highly talented individuals (I call this the lex luthor syndrome), the value of socialism must be inculcated strongly early in life and there must be serious penalties for anti-social behavior. It is better to limit individual freedoms to a degree rather than face the consequences of recurrent psychopathic excessive behavior (wars, economic crime, covid scams).
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
https://www.rt.com/russia/591074-vladimir-lenin-letter-to-american-workers/
"demonstrated irrefutably to my mind how capitalism leads to financial monopolies and imperialism." Yep. Over time, unfettered capitalism leads to a consolidation of wealth (and power) and this inevitably leads to the kind of "crony" capitalism we see today, if not global totalitarianism. That tendency needs to be checked. In America at least, during the New Deal Order, this was accomplished by a extremely high top-end tax rate and lots of regulation. The first thing that Mr. Free Market Ronald Reagan did when he came into office was gut taxes on the wealthy, corporations, and capital gains, and gut regulations.
"When two selfish jerks negotiate against each other in a market economy, engaging in rigorous due diligence on the assumption that the other person is trying to screw him, one genuinely can end up with a fair deal for both sides." Hardly! This assumption may function in impersonal, large-scale or corporate economies where no one has any real accountability, but not in small-scale village economies where everyone knows each other. I live in just such a small community, and its smallness means everyone knows everyone. So the minute some merchant or tradesperson tries to screw someone, within hours or days everyone knows to avoid them like the plague. They simply can't get away with being dishonest. E.F. Schumacher in his classic Small is Beautiful makes a similar point. In such an economy, a reputation for quality work and fair prices is as valuable as gold. If anything then, we need a return to more locally based economies.
I also question the assumption that Communism was an appeal to virtue. Solzhenitsyn in his 1975 book Warning to the West, pointed out that Lenin from the very beginning was an ice-cold psychopath quite willing to murder anyone who got in the way of the Bolshevik Revolution. Not exactly a virtue signaller, then. The "virtue" of Communism was just a rhetorical trick to fool the masses. It was always about power. This is quite different from the modified socialism we had in Canada until recently, which provided universal medical care, pensions, and unemployment insurance. When one is talking socialism or Communism, therefore, clear distinctions must be made; just as with capitalism, not all apples are the same variety.
Finally, to quote historian Arnold Toynbee, in his dialogue with Japanese philosopher Daisaku Ikeda, in response to Ikeda's statement that, "The idea that the end justifies the means has been the driving force of many organizations..." Toynbee responds: "An end does not justify a means. Means and ends must be ethically consistent. It is psychologically impossible to do right at stage two by deliberately doing wrong at stage one. If one is wrong at the outset, it is impossible to reach a righteous goal." —The Toynbee-Ikeda Dialogue, Kodansha International Ltd., Tokyo/New York, 1976, p. 211.
Anything else is just self-justification to do wrong, the moral laziness to allow oneself to not follow a high ethical standard. As English poet John Milton said: "License they mean when they cry, Liberty!" This is why a Christian standard is important in society, whether or not we profess the faith. And in fact your excellent multi-point plan for reforming the pharmaceutical industry is based on a high standard of ethics, not mere self-interest.
I don't agree that communism is just a rhetorical trick. Lenin's goal was to overturn a hereditary nobility, similar to the French Revolution and the American Revolution. What is more offensive than the idea that a person born into a wealthy noble family is a higher class individual than a person born working class or poor. That's an idea that's as virulent as racism. Have you heard the Queen of the Netherlands at the World Economic Forum saying that people should have mandatory digital ID's and be tagged and herded like cattle. Do you think for a minute that those rules will apply to her own family. The Russian Empire expanded by military conquest and by terrorism and Lenin's own brother was executed for political activity.
Lenin himself only lived till 1924. There is no denying the fact that the wealthiest Russians were living in Gilded Age luxury while most working class people and the poor had nothing to lose. Lenin came from a priveleged family and there was reason for him to revolt unless he truly believed in what he was doing. The Russian revolution was a brutal revolution because it was a reaction to the excessive brutality and inaction of the ruling class. Lenin may have been a psychopath but that doesn't mean he wasn't correct in his assessment that a historical change could only occur by revolutionary violence equal to the violence of the oppressor. We are confronted by a similar situation today where governments institutions representing the ruling class are overtly complicit in promoting medical genocide. They have web sites literally spelling out what they are doing. Millions of people have died from toxic chemical injections shot into their veins by ruling class psychopaths, so the genocide is already under way. Pandemic "X" may be the next step. Is your sense of propriety offended? The government is way ahead of you because they are already jailing demonstrators who know the last election was rigged. Maybe you should just go on pretending that Lenin was too extreme.
Yes, I'm well aware of the history leading up to the Bolshevik Revolution, and no, I'm not in favour of being ruled by hereditary elites. I have too much Irish ancestry to ever be a monarchist. But if you think starting a revolution with bloody violence is the answer, then respectfully you haven't learned much from history. Toynbee's principle is correct: you cannot achieve an ethical goal by resorting to unethical means.
You may be a supporter of Communism; that's your choice. Since you raise historical points, remember that Communism went from bad to worse, from Lenin's opening orgy of violence to Stalin's murder of millions of his own people, including about half his own party members.
As I mentioned, I live in a country that has had a moderate form of socialism that has provided many social benefits to Canadians, though these seem under threat now as formerly democratic governments move toward totalitarianism. What we need is to move away from the political "isms" of the past and create something new based on what we've learned, something that is ethically based and doesn't rely on violence to achieve its ends, thus negating its own ethics.
"An end does not justify a means. Means and ends must be ethically consistent. It is psychologically impossible to do right at stage two by deliberately doing wrong at stage one. If one is wrong at the outset, it is impossible to reach a righteous goal." If that doesn't say it all! Thank you for commenting.
All good points! Thank you!!! 🙌
You're welcome! In an age of shallow public debate too often typified by either/or binary arguments, I try to introduce depth and nuance of thinking. We have a great tradition of knowledge to draw upon. Let's use it!
You do present ideas well, it’s easy to read. The reforms you suggest are so reasonable, that you wouldn’t think anyone would be against them. Perhaps you could highlight those as an individual X post.