• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

SubstantiatingMyExistence

Substantiating My Existence

Published: 2007 Dec 31
Categories: Essays

One day I woke up, recalling a conversation I had with a friend that probably frightened the both of us: what is the purpose of my existence if people can simply fabricate anything they want? Adam Smith, founder of capitalism, wrote that an individual "will be more likely to prevail if he can interest [others'] self-love in his favour... Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want." In other words, it is in your interest to keep me alive. I recall sitting in an anthropology class, hearing the professor explain that the United States, like many developed nations, had a post-industrial economy. Everyone has access to life's physical and physiological essentials: space, housing, food, water, clothing, etc. This can be equated to the base level of Maslowe's heirarchy of needs. The problem is that, how can we now trade with others that it is in their best interest to keep us alive, if everyone already has access to basic necessities? That is why the farmer population has dwindled substantially in the past century: there is plenty of food, so go do something else to substantiate your existence.

If we look at Maslowe's pyramid at the second level, the need for safety, such as clothing, health, a family, a basic moral code, employment, etc., all of these exist. So what now? Do we tell people, "I already have clothing, health, religion, employment, family, etc. Go do something else to substantiate your existence"? As we climb higher in our needs, the need for love and belonging, self-esteem, and eventually self-actualization, these are extremely abstract needs. Those of us who have subscribed to social networks now have plenty of friends, and perhaps sexual intimacy, and we continue to push others, saying, "Go do something else to substantiate your existence."

Because of this perpetual push into abstractions of meaningful existence, society can basically be broken down into three strata: the burgeoise, the middle-class, and the proletariat. Demographics show that in the United States, this can be broken down to 10% buorgeoise, 30% middle-class, and 60% labor-class. The top 10% have enormous wealth. The top 10% can tell the other 90%, "it is in your best interest to keep me alive" because they have a lot of capital. But take the inverse; can a poor person say to the rich, "It is in your best interest to keep me alive"? Not really, when the rich have billions of dollars and have achieved everything they need, they have no need to consort with the poor. Even if the 30% middle-class have an interest in keeping the 60% labor-class alive, can we sustain 90% of the population with less than half of the nation's resources? Chris Giles, an editor for an economics journal, reports that, globally, the top 2% wealthiest people in the world own more than half of the world's resources. Of course, I wish to warn the reader that this does not mean the wealth is locked up and kept away from the rest of society. What this really entails is that the decision-making power over our economies (which translate to decision-making power over our livelihood) rests in the hands of the few. But I do not have sufficient knowledge in economics to understand the picture, so I profess my weakness with this argument. But if we take this illustration with a grain of salt, this shows a fundamental flaw in Adam Smith's economic philosophy and the impetus for economic justice, unless you believe that not all human beings are entitled to life. But it would be a transgression against our founding framers who believed "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This problem becomes personal because I fall on the borderline between middle-class and labor-class. In this situation, I have to prove my worth, either to people who have wealth, and therefore requiring that my skills be extremely advanced to fulfill their more abstract needs; or to people who do not have wealth trying to figure out what to do to put food on the table. In order to think about what shape a new economic and social framework is necessary to resolve the problem in which people find it difficult to prove to others that their lives are worth keeping alive, I have to spend some time thinking about: (1) revolution in the tradition of communism in which property is confiscated and redistributed; (2) a new or expanded economic philosophical framework; or (3) a change in the social structure such that people who need each other can find each other.

Communist thought owes itself to Karl Marx as the father. The idea of redistributing wealth and treating all people equally in terms of labor was a compelling argument for which millions of people died under the red banner. True Marxists had a concern for the proletariat. But over the years, as new leaders added upon Marx's work, including Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, the original intent to create an egalitarian society became riddled with inequality, oppression, and substandard progress. Communism in the year 2007 is not the same as communism in 1907. Trotsky, many left-wing communists, as well as die-hard Marxists, have noted the corruption, nay, bastardization of communism. Today it looks more like a plutocracy: rule by the rich elite. In fact, this was no different than the United States in the early 20th century, where oil, railroad, and telecommunications tycoons had monopolies over the industry and suppressed all competition vigorously, until the government had to step in and break them up, creating a set of anti-monopoly laws. The Communist parties within proclaimed communist nations are really just monopolies under the veil of red. This is not to say that Communist ideology is completely useless, but, like Adam Smith's capitalism, it suffered from fundamental flaws. The good parts need to be salvaged.

Now, as I mentioned before, the decision-making power over the material aspects of our lives rests in the hand of few. But one important problem I face right now is: Do people want to take responsibilities over their own lives? What does it mean to be responsible over your own life? What aspects do we take responsibility and what aspects are we content to shoulder on others? To begin answering that question, I have to explore what the optimal state of a human being is. What constitutes happiness?

Before I explore happiness, I want to add one more thread of thought that needs exploration, the anti-thesis to Adam Smith, "It's in my best interest to eliminate you because your existence is detrimental to mine, or your eradication is beneficial to me." This kind of thought has manifested itself in the form of war, weapons manufacture, etc. I will explore this at a later time, with the hope of minimizing or keeping this area in check.

Next: In Pursuit of Happyness