The Planetmates reveal why civilization equals suffering, Marxism, free life and human misery, enslavement: “The huge structures of civilization are monuments to, and are equal in size to, the size of the freedom lost”:
“…with hired, coerced labor, we have an example of work and free will versus “instinct.” The upshot is that for the worker, that pure pleasure involved in creating something out of relatively nothing, that feeling of awe and magic that one has for that moment identified with the creative principle of the Universe, bringing something from no-thingness into thingness, and had a sense of divinity that way, is denied them.
“There is no planetmate who is similarly deprived.
“So, the amount of surplus value in any society is equal to the amount of additional suffering that has been created through hierarchy and coercion. The huge structures of civilization are monuments to, and are equal in size to, the size of the freedom lost. Surplus value equals additional suffering brought needlessly into an otherwise joyous Nature and occurring as a result of human’s completely unnecessary control obsession.
“The size of public edifice is equal to the amount of enslavement. Consider that next time you look in awe at a city’s skyline.
“Not only are such structures representative of the degree of loss of freedom and degree of suffering but also the size of Ego. These monstrosities are monuments to the degree of separation from Nature and to the size of Ego these Large Accumulators have now and have had, since the beginning of sedentary ways.
“So, Marxists go only so far in uncovering the injustice inherent in societies. They want access to that surplus value that is wrought of that misery of having to do, just about all the time, what one does not want to do. Marxists never question whether it is at all worth it; they never look into whether people who are chained to the products of their hands are ever happy or free, regardless how much of that product comes back to those hands.
“It is for this reason that the Marxist experiments in the Soviet Union and elsewhere turned out the way they did — failed. For they are built on the same idea of humans as being cogs and slaves as is their capitalist counterparts. They were still built upon a conceptualization of humans as “economic man,” and consequently a determination of life’s purpose as being merely material.
“For so many thousands of years had humans been enslaved and working under coercion and glee-less, by the time Marxism was being formulated, that a free life — like the one in Nature — was completely inconceivable. So they built their prescriptions upon the wreckage wrought of your falls from grace in Nature, seeking not for human freedom and release from bondage and suffering but rather for a fairer distribution of the products of that bondage and suffering. Efforts like this are sometimes described as “rearranging furniture on the decks of the Titanic.”
“Another reason your best thinkers for economic justice and your best utopian Marxists could not even conceive of solutions that addressed the real injustices of your lives and of the human predicament, in terms of what it had at this point become, is that whatever they imagined was built firmly within the context of human wrong-gettedness. That is to say, Marxists, in looking into the misery and injustice of the world, looked only so far as the suffering and injustice of humans. Sometimes they did not even look at the injustice or suffering of women. They certainly did not see the injustice and misery of children. And most significantly, they completely abjured planetmates: They sought, just like capitalists, to eke out excess goods at the cost of Nature and planetmate suffering.
“The bottom line is that Marxist and utopian theory, up till now, is built upon the superiority of “man” and his dominion over Nature. Marxists, claiming to be atheist and impugning religion as an opiate of the masses, still built their conceptualization of humans in Reality upon the Judea-Christian notion that humans were given, by God, “dominion” over Nature and all of its life. So, unable to see the blatant and egregious egotism involved in that (making them no different from the Large Accumulators they abhor), and instead attempting to erect an edifice fueled by such unholy and desperate self-congratulations, what they constructed was shaky, flawed, and woefully inadequate. You cannot construct an economic utopia upon the misery of anyone, is what they could not see. As we have said, nowhere and at no time have humans been able to see through their wrong-gettedness and have an inkling of the Unapproved and Hidden. Inherent in that is that humans are also planetmates and that non-human planetmates are as alive and deserving of respect and consideration as are humans: Our suffering matters, you see. And Marxists attempted utopian reformulations of the same tired old human breast-thumping, as had been going on for thousands of years.
“At any rate, such efforts, as those of Marxists, were doomed to failure, for they did not address the true human predicament. Their remedy of a “new boss” did not take into account the fact that the new boss would be same as the old boss. For human happiness, pleasure, spirituality, creativity are used to purchase those surplus economic products of hierarchical societies. That surplus does not rise up magically into existence, produced sui generis. Marxists, if they had been as “scientific” as they claimed, would have known the fundamental law of physics that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed.
“So, no. This surplus value in society is not sprung magically into existence from nothing. No, what one gains in additional good — in surplus — is carved out of one’s soul and purchased with human misery and tragic non-fulfillment in life.
“And where does that surplus come from? Indeed, surplus product is bought at the cost of suffering, work-type suffering. When you added surplus work to your lives, you created surplus suffering equal to that, and then, only after that, surplus product.
“But all this “surplus” is unnecessary … as unnecessary as the suffering involved in its production. People would rather have toys than be happy, is what it comes down to. They would rather be overfed than satisfied. People would rather appear to be having a full and rich life more than they actually want an exquisite existence. And appear to who? Herein we have that sycophancy built upon low self-regard, again. Humans would rather have the “Joneses” be impressed with the amount and quality of their possessions — so that they might think those neighbors approve them, maybe would like them, maybe would look up to and give deference to them — than to actually be happy….”
[Pt 5 of 25rd prasad — Family Fortress.