We went from the expectation that government could solve everything to expectation that Big Business could solve everything. Big government means big taxes. Big Business as the solution to everything means high profits but surprisingly little opportunity. When we put profit first and keep deferring all other concerns we go too far in one direction by assuming that the sacrifices that others make lead to wonderful results for all. No, we get poverty for multitudes while a few people get to live like sultans.
No matter what the ideology, people have basic needs for certain levels of life (Maslow's hierarchy of needs?), and if most people are compelled to live low on that hierarchy of needs in a society... then that is an unhappy society.
![[Image: Maslows-Hierarchy-of-Needs-730816.jpg]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AmB0cO6ik6w/VpJCAm0oSdI/AAAAAAAOljA/UMNs94-7nIk/s1600/Maslows-Hierarchy-of-Needs-730816.jpg)
It's clear that the higher one is on this scale the happier one is. The dominant reality of one's life at the time is as a rule the deficiency at the lowest level. Thus if one is an aristocrat with a huge stash of wealth in France but one is in a Bolshevik torture chamber and at best can expect to be led back to a filthy, cold, crowded cell for the next torture session or for summary execution, your food is inadequate and awful... then the stash of wealth in France doesn't mean much right then, does it? One can be at the bottom, also, if one is in mortal peril from a situation (house fire, drowning, gunpoint, and of course certain injuries and illnesses)... I have seen people at the point at which people give up and fully understanding such. Late-stage pancreatic cancer, anyone?
In an extremely-bad social order, the lands of the Gulag or the KZ-lager, physiological needs can be in gross peril with little notice for anyone. The typical American prison is a little better off; the system wants people to survive ten-year sentences and have much time to regret longer ones. Hygiene can be sort-of-OK, and food may be adequate (if awful). But you really own nothing, and freedom at the end of the term implies poverty and loneliness if you have not made adequate plans -- well, in a prison one rarely gets to make plans for anything.
But getting beyond the second level of needs may be different if the social order depends upon mass poverty to keep costs down and profits high. The worse the job, as a rule, the more frequent must be the threat of losing one's job. A really-bad employer wants people on the outside competing for jobs that people already have. Survival on such a job may require one to make compromises of values, such as acquiescence in exploitation and abuse. Having to make moral compromises (do you work unscheduled overtime off the clock so that you can keep the job only to neglect your children, or do you say "Take this job and shove it"?) A slave society operates on such a level, but so does the typical early-industrial society in which working conditions are poor by every standard, including a high risk of industrial accidents or conditions such as exposure to mercury that will ultimately bring personal ruin. If one has customer contact, then the customers are much richer than you and more powerful -- and they let you know it. People at this level might put off starting a family as a reasonable means of ensuring that the misery of life is theirs alone. It's every man for himself economically, and happiness is unlikely.
The third level is one in which life is more than bread alone. Companionship and friendship make life pleasant. Even in the workplace, a company that has a low turnover of employees makes bonding between people easier. Although the second level might have higher shares of profits for elites, this one at least allows people to do genuine collaboration and to look out for each other. This is an environment in which people are less likely to have to watch their backs. Less needing to defend themselves, people can have a healthy focus on longer-term objectives. If I were a boss I would want people operating at the least at this level. People can think ahead and can plan. People can have goals to work for other than putting food on the table and paying the rent. To be sure, any worker must do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay to get or stay at this level... but most people find such worth it. People are happy enough and they are unlikely to feel exploited. They almost certainly are not relying upon addictive behavior. People have stakes in their work, and they will not have high turnover if things get good.
One level up is esteem, ideally something that one warns by acting with above-average competence and getting recognition for such -- and being a good person when the temptation to be or do bad arises. So your deeds are praiseworthy for competent execution, and you like what you do. You are also a good person. It is not enough that people envy you -- and not even relevant. Your achievements speak for themselves. I do not care whether people envy me or pity me, thank you.
Finally... self-actualization. I have never been close to this. At my best I have shown some of the traits. It is not simply success. People commercially successful but with messed-up lives (Jim Morrison, Marilyn Monroe) are far from here. (Maslow used Richard Wagner and Vincent Van Gogh as examples of people who were successful at one thing but miserable at practically all else. A highly-successful gangster (by the standards of his milieu) has legitimate fear of being killed by a rival (Bugsy Siegel) or law enforcement (John Dillinger), or ending up with a harsh prison term (John Gotti).
Going up this scale of priorities is satisfying. Going down is miserable. I know my limitation now, and even the third level is difficult for me to attain.
No matter what the ideology, people have basic needs for certain levels of life (Maslow's hierarchy of needs?), and if most people are compelled to live low on that hierarchy of needs in a society... then that is an unhappy society.
It's clear that the higher one is on this scale the happier one is. The dominant reality of one's life at the time is as a rule the deficiency at the lowest level. Thus if one is an aristocrat with a huge stash of wealth in France but one is in a Bolshevik torture chamber and at best can expect to be led back to a filthy, cold, crowded cell for the next torture session or for summary execution, your food is inadequate and awful... then the stash of wealth in France doesn't mean much right then, does it? One can be at the bottom, also, if one is in mortal peril from a situation (house fire, drowning, gunpoint, and of course certain injuries and illnesses)... I have seen people at the point at which people give up and fully understanding such. Late-stage pancreatic cancer, anyone?
In an extremely-bad social order, the lands of the Gulag or the KZ-lager, physiological needs can be in gross peril with little notice for anyone. The typical American prison is a little better off; the system wants people to survive ten-year sentences and have much time to regret longer ones. Hygiene can be sort-of-OK, and food may be adequate (if awful). But you really own nothing, and freedom at the end of the term implies poverty and loneliness if you have not made adequate plans -- well, in a prison one rarely gets to make plans for anything.
But getting beyond the second level of needs may be different if the social order depends upon mass poverty to keep costs down and profits high. The worse the job, as a rule, the more frequent must be the threat of losing one's job. A really-bad employer wants people on the outside competing for jobs that people already have. Survival on such a job may require one to make compromises of values, such as acquiescence in exploitation and abuse. Having to make moral compromises (do you work unscheduled overtime off the clock so that you can keep the job only to neglect your children, or do you say "Take this job and shove it"?) A slave society operates on such a level, but so does the typical early-industrial society in which working conditions are poor by every standard, including a high risk of industrial accidents or conditions such as exposure to mercury that will ultimately bring personal ruin. If one has customer contact, then the customers are much richer than you and more powerful -- and they let you know it. People at this level might put off starting a family as a reasonable means of ensuring that the misery of life is theirs alone. It's every man for himself economically, and happiness is unlikely.
The third level is one in which life is more than bread alone. Companionship and friendship make life pleasant. Even in the workplace, a company that has a low turnover of employees makes bonding between people easier. Although the second level might have higher shares of profits for elites, this one at least allows people to do genuine collaboration and to look out for each other. This is an environment in which people are less likely to have to watch their backs. Less needing to defend themselves, people can have a healthy focus on longer-term objectives. If I were a boss I would want people operating at the least at this level. People can think ahead and can plan. People can have goals to work for other than putting food on the table and paying the rent. To be sure, any worker must do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay to get or stay at this level... but most people find such worth it. People are happy enough and they are unlikely to feel exploited. They almost certainly are not relying upon addictive behavior. People have stakes in their work, and they will not have high turnover if things get good.
One level up is esteem, ideally something that one warns by acting with above-average competence and getting recognition for such -- and being a good person when the temptation to be or do bad arises. So your deeds are praiseworthy for competent execution, and you like what you do. You are also a good person. It is not enough that people envy you -- and not even relevant. Your achievements speak for themselves. I do not care whether people envy me or pity me, thank you.
Finally... self-actualization. I have never been close to this. At my best I have shown some of the traits. It is not simply success. People commercially successful but with messed-up lives (Jim Morrison, Marilyn Monroe) are far from here. (Maslow used Richard Wagner and Vincent Van Gogh as examples of people who were successful at one thing but miserable at practically all else. A highly-successful gangster (by the standards of his milieu) has legitimate fear of being killed by a rival (Bugsy Siegel) or law enforcement (John Dillinger), or ending up with a harsh prison term (John Gotti).
Going up this scale of priorities is satisfying. Going down is miserable. I know my limitation now, and even the third level is difficult for me to attain.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.