Summerlander wrote:Global socialism would solve the problem of labour and wealth distribution. This would be done with the aid of factual information---as Marxism originally intended---rather than sovereign propaganda. The theory is near perfect by itself, if not too idealist within a framework where, ultimately, society (the whole entity) comes first and the citizen second. The citizen comes second because it is assumed that once the social cogwheels are in motion, the communist terminus ad quem will evenhandedly make individuals valued and indispensable to the nation. A functional society then becomes our sole purpose.
The problem, as inferred, is that Marxist strategics only tell us what should be done to reach a classless society. It seems to assume that the socialist struggle will eradicate human greed by subverting capitalist systems. The economical equation, as it were, rightly demonstrates that capitalism is labile ground for the promised revolution, but ignores the resentment felt by dispossessed nobility and gentry---besides the insatiable dictator at heart!
Deutschland has always had a ruling imago in mind and any candidate who didn't fit its jingoistic criteria stood little chance. Adolf Hitler was well aware of this when his party deposed the Weimar Republic. He convinced the public that they had been victimised and stressed the need for ultra-nationalism. To a great extent, he was the ideal personification of the vox populi when Germany was down. That's how the führer exercised his charismatic persuasion from the offset. And he knew he had to deliver in order to render a whole nation beholden to his caprice. So the people would be emotionally tied: The Fuhrer helped us; he knows where we're coming from; his propositions must always be right; we owe him allegiance and must accomodate his beliefs; he's a godsend and his word is ample proof about who the enemy is. (And so it came to be that the blood libel against Jewry---which festered amongst Christian zealots prior to the Vatican's Second Council---along with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion canard, were taught as logical facts to German children.)
The difference between terrorists and dictators is that the former want to obtain fast results through fear and violence whereas the latter insidiously take advantage of the status quo. Nonetheless, morality is a useful concept which---in assuming everybody can be reasonable while acknowledging egoist clashes---panders to our wish for safety, wellbeing, mutual respect and dignity. So, nothwithstanding the objective nonexistence of universal ethics, a deontological ideal is still required to uplift justified mores in the community. Ultimately, the need for control is anthropically nascent and tied to the natural drive for survival.
Morality is a feature of human psychology and an ideal that still requires exploration and refinement on a scientific as well as philosophical level. We have hedonic propositions that recommend the immediate quenching of desires; we have utilitarian alternatives than can seem ethically counterintuitive short-term albeit beneficial to a majority in the long run. The literature on the subject is rich and progressive---ranging from Confucianism, to the ethics of Spinoza, Kant, Russell, and finally arriving at contemporary musings by the likes of Grayling, Harris and others in the realm of secular humanism.
Needless to say, religious scripture is outdated on the matter. The use of religion and the reasons behind it in humankind's infancy is allusively illustrated by the Ricky Gervais movie The Invention of Lying. This poignant comedy depicts examples of how religion and superstition are tools for control and comfort when reality is too painful to bear for the unprepared mind and fear of chaos is perpetual. You fear annihilation? No problem. There's an afterlife; you are immortal. Are you unhappy? Heaven awaits you provided that you follow certain rules of conduct in this life. Having an existential crisis? The Big Man in the sky made you for a divine purpose incomprehensible to all. This Guy is better Hitler! You have to love and fear Him. He is responsible for the good, the bad and the ugly. The lord does whatever the fuck He wants and you have to venerate Him because He knows everything and is the be all and end all. Everywhere and nowhere. The perfect dictator with an indisputable totalitarian recipe.
In atheistic circles, it is said that women have a higher proclivity for such beliefs (or that their wishful thinking is stronger), but religion is undoubtedly man-made! In scripture and gospel, women are utterly exploited by men: from a nefarious and egocentric male desire to silence, inculpate and objectify the opposite gender. Adam, it seems, is the real culprit for having attempted to dissuade Eve from the Tree of Knowledge. Men, we once were led to believe, aspire to the summum bonum and therefore could never reach a depth of psychopathy whereby profound lies are told. Women have always tried very hard to see the putative sanctity of manhood which was, after all, made in the image of the Creator.
It is no wonder that wives tend to penalise mistresses more than their two-timing husbands. It is a wonder, however, how feminists have not rebelled against the main offender in the Levant and the world beyond! I still chortle when I recall this excerpt from Gervais's satirical fantasy: 'The world's gonna end unless we have sex right now!' How many men would use this line in a world where every statement is taken to be true?
Yes, an alien invasion would bring us closer together ...
What you said about Marxism is quite interesting, but I feel complete equality is impossible, considering that inequality is a part of life.