Saint Frankenstein vs Red Economist: Is the desire for power over others inherent in human nature?

[Laika]

I will be arguing that the desire for power over others is not inherent in human nature and is down to environmental factors, such as socioeconomic organisation.

Saint Frankenstein will be arguing that the desire for power over others is inherent in human nature is down to biological factors. I think this may be along the lines of arguing it is derived from our animal nature.

I'll let SF go first and state his position and see where it goes from there.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Okay.

To me, the urge to dominate others through competition ranging from activities such as sport to all out war are rooted in biological facts. Obviously the sex most prone to this behavior are males and that's because of one aspect above all others: testosterone:

"In men, high levels of endogenous testosterone (T) seem to encourage behavior apparently intended to dominate -- to enhance one's status over -- other people. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, its apparent intent being to inflict harm on another person, but often dominance is expressed nonaggressively. Sometimes dominant behavior takes the form of antisocial behavior, including rebellion against authority and law breaking. Measurement of T at a single point in time, presumably indicative of a man's basal T level, predicts many of these dominant or antisocial behaviors. T not only affects behavior but also responds to it. The act of competing for dominant status affects male T levels in two ways. First, T rises in the face of a challenge, as if it were an anticipatory response to impending competition. Second, after the competition, T rises in winners and declines in losers. Thus, there is a reciprocity between T and dominance behavior, each affecting the other. We contrast a reciprocal model, in which T level is variable, acting as both a cause and effect of behavior, with a basal model, in which T level is assumed to be a persistent trait that influences behavior. An unusual data set on Air Force veterans, in which data were collected four times over a decade, enables us to compare the basal and reciprocal models as explanations for the relationship between T and divorce. We discuss sociological implications of these models."
TESTOSTERONE AND DOMINANCE IN MEN

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5317066/2011-eisenegger-role-testosterone-social-interaction.pdf
Testosterone and Dominance | Psychology Today
Men Are Like Apes When Competing for Status
Men Act Like Dogs to Determine Dominance

So, if the urge to dominate others is biological in foundation, all socio-political attempts to remove hierarchy are ultimately doomed to failure.

 

[Laika]

I'm going to try to read some of the sources, so this may take a while.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm going to try to read some of the sources, so this may take a while.

There's no rush.

 

[Laika]

To me, the urge to dominate others through competition ranging from activities such as sport to all out war are rooted in biological facts. Obviously the sex most prone to this behavior are males and that's because of one aspect above all others: testosterone:

In order to be able to dominate someone, it is necessary for people to be dependent on each other. To have power over another means that that power is relative and not an absolute property. We can see from this dependence that power is primarily one arising out of man's social nature, rather than an individualistic one to compete. The mutual dependence of people necessitates forms of social organization. Competition is therefore not the primary mode of human existence, but is a secondary one arising from socially conditioned institutions.

Whilst there are no doubt biological differences between the genders, it does not follow that these entail differences in gender roles in which a man is dominant and a woman is submissive. This idea of gender roles is often expressed in our conceptions of masculinity.

Importantly, there is a common perception that male homosexuals are submissive, where as male heterosexuality demonstrates dominance. Dominance is not therefore an inherent or biological trait of men due to testosterone as this contradicts the common notion of masculinity which is often homophobic. Nor does this view take into account the existence of the "third gender" whose members are biologically neither male nor female. The submissiveness of homosexual men and of women, the social exclusion of the third gender and the assumed dominance of heterosexual men is down to their social function in a patriarchal and heterosexual order in which they are conditioned to accept male and heterosexual dominance.

For the sake of brevity, I will say only that the family institution is a product of the division of labor between men and women and is the result of specialization of genders to engage in specific forms of activity; men are presumed to be engaged in "productive" labour as the 'bread-winners' and women are engaged in "re-productive" labour concerning children and related domestic tasks. This division of labour is then established as legal and moral norms of behavior. The family structure is not the result of biological differences in gender, but of the necessity of reproducing property relations based on exploitation.

This is not exclusive to capitalism, as the necessity of owning property means it is necessary that people are treated as property in legal entities, and therefore the institution of "marriage" and "inheritance" act as way to ensure property is re-produced, along with conditioning the moral and psychological attributes of existing society in the next generation.

"In men, high levels of endogenous testosterone (T) seem to encourage behavior apparently intended to dominate -- to enhance one's status over -- other people. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, its apparent intent being to inflict harm on another person, but often dominance is expressed nonaggressively. Sometimes dominant behavior takes the form of antisocial behavior, including rebellion against authority and law breaking. Measurement of T at a single point in time, presumably indicative of a man's basal T level, predicts many of these dominant or antisocial behaviors. T not only affects behavior but also responds to it. The act of competing for dominant status affects male T levels in two ways. First, T rises in the face of a challenge, as if it were an anticipatory response to impending competition. Second, after the competition, T rises in winners and declines in losers. Thus, there is a reciprocity between T and dominance behavior, each affecting the other. We contrast a reciprocal model, in which T level is variable, acting as both a cause and effect of behavior, with a basal model, in which T level is assumed to be a persistent trait that influences behavior. An unusual data set on Air Force veterans, in which data were collected four times over a decade, enables us to compare the basal and reciprocal models as explanations for the relationship between T and divorce. We discuss sociological implications of these models."
TESTOSTERONE AND DOMINANCE IN MEN

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5317066/2011-eisenegger-role-testosterone-social-interaction.pdf
Testosterone and Dominance | Psychology Today
Men Are Like Apes When Competing for Status
Men Act Like Dogs to Determine Dominance

As this is a scientific question, it is necessary for me to demonstrate that whilst there is evidence of dominance, it does not necessarily follow that that is the product of biology, such as levels of testosterone in men. it is Hypothetically possible that Testostorne levels are the effect of social relations rather than the cause.

Nature does not abide solely by a law of the Survival of the Fittest. There is well-documented evidence of social behavior amongst animals, whether it is social insects (ants, bees, wasps, etc), as well as social animals, such as lions and wolves. Whilst these may be organized by power structures, these are secondary to their social organism; rather than have evolved and adapted social organization as a superior method of attaining subsistence. Working together necessarily gives them an edge in getting resources.
Hence, we can say that the existence of individual status and social organization are not independent of one another. The question therefore is which is more important; the competition for social status and therefore attributions of social dominance, or the existence of social organization itself. If it is the latter, then it is possible to a social organization without (or with greatly diminished) hierarchical power structures where one person dominates another.

The study cites the relationship between dominance and aggression both in animals and in humans. If the existence of society was dependent on natural dominance, it would mean that such dominance could only be achieved by coercing people into those relationships. Hence dominance could not exist without aggressiveness. That is not the case as is evident by liberal institutions as well as the fact that human beings cannot live (at least for very long) in isolation; they must necessarily be part of the group. social organization is an evolved response to an economic problem. Social dominance is therefore the response to the scarcity of resources and the need to distribute them amongst people. As such, dominance is not inherent.

[there were a lot of sources, so I had a go trying to respond to the first one].

So, if the urge to dominate others is biological in foundation, all socio-political attempts to remove hierarchy are ultimately doomed to failure.

The urge to dominate others is not biological in foundation but is the result of economic relations in society and the psychological conditions of its members to work within that organization. However, it is attributed to biology because the changefulness of human social relations is ignored in formulating legal and moral views of society. the capacity for change is therefore excluded from view when these power relations are attributed to "natural" causes rather than environmental or socio-economic ones.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In order to be able to dominate someone, it is necessary for people to be dependent on each other. To have power over another means that that power is relative and not an absolute property. We can see from this dependence that power is primarily one arising out of man's social nature, rather than an individualistic one to compete. The mutual dependence of people necessitates forms of social organization. Competition is therefore not the primary mode of human existence, but is a secondary one arising from socially conditioned institutions.

But you must ask yourself why those modes of social organization arose in the first place? Where does the urge to dominate others stem from, if not biology? Obviously social dominance behavior is very widespread throughout the animal kingdom. So it's not enough to simply wave it away by saying that it arises from social conditions.

Whilst there are no doubt biological differences between the genders, it does not follow that these entail differences in gender roles in which a man is dominant and a woman is submissive. This idea of gender roles is often expressed in our conceptions of masculinity.

Again, you have to ask what caused those social conditions to arise in the first place, if not for biological reasons. Testosterone is linked to aggression, confidence, confrontation and violence. Estrogen are not associated with any of those behaviors. (Actually, estrogen is correlated with depression, although males commit suicide at a higher rate even women attempt it more, due to them choosing more violence methods such as guns.) This all goes back to primate mating strategies, where the male must out-compete the other males in order to secure a chance of reproducing. The habit of males to compete with other males for the female's attention through mating displays and eye-catching behavior is a part of this. Then, once he has her and she has given birth, the male has to defend both her and his young from predators. So the male as the leader and protector has a very long evolutionary history in our family tree. I do not see how this is something that humans just "made up" at some point out of sadism.

Importantly, there is a common perception that male homosexuals are submissive, where as male heterosexuality demonstrates dominance. Dominance is not therefore an inherent or biological trait of men due to testosterone as this contradicts the common notion of masculinity which is often homophobic. Nor does this view take into account the existence of the "third gender" whose members are biologically neither male nor female. The submissiveness of homosexual men and of women, the social exclusion of the third gender and the assumed dominance of heterosexual men is down to their social function in a patriarchal and heterosexual order in which they are conditioned to accept male and heterosexual dominance.

Of course, most gay men are not effeminate. I'm actually not sure what causes some males to be effeminate or some women to be masculine (although masculinity in women has been linked to them having higher than average testosterone, at least in some cases, so maybe there's something similar going on with effeminate males but the other way around; I'm not aware of any studies on the hormonal makeup of specifically effeminate males, however). In the gay context, it seems to be a mimicry of heterosexual relationships, particularly in the lesbian butch/femme culture.

Biologically speaking, there is no such thing as a "third gender". There are various intersex conditions which result from chromosomal and hormonal abnormalities, however (and I would include transsexualism in that category). As I mentioned, effeminate males and masculine women may have hormonal abnormalities. More research has to be done on that. But science is showing more and more that sex behavior differences are largely the result of biology and not social conditioning, as Marxism would have us to believe. (Note that I'm not saying this a good or bad thing, it just is. I'm actually a transsexual, myself, and the scientific findings on it actually make our fight for understanding more grounded than if it was just some social construct mess.)

For the sake of brevity, I will say only that the family institution is a product of the division of labor between men and women and is the result of specialization of genders to engage in specific forms of activity; men are presumed to be engaged in "productive" labour as the 'bread-winners' and women are engaged in "re-productive" labour concerning children and related domestic tasks. This division of labour is then established as legal and moral norms of behavior. The family structure is not the result of biological differences in gender, but of the necessity of reproducing property relations based on exploitation.

Actually, for most of human history, humans have lived in smaller, family-oriented groups within clans and tribes. Both sexes would mostly stay at home and do things around the house. However, hunting was mostly something that males did. There is a theory that males did the hunting more to show off their abilities to prospective mates.

The so-called "nuclear family" is a concept that mostly emerged in the post-WWII years and is pretty much a bastardization or distortion of primal instincts merged with modern Western individualism.

You can read more about where this is rooted in our evolution here: Sexual division of labour - Wikiwand

This is not exclusive to capitalism, as the necessity of owning property means it is necessary that people are treated as property in legal entities, and therefore the institution of "marriage" and "inheritance" act as way to ensure property is re-produced, along with conditioning the moral and psychological attributes of existing society in the next generation.

But what is the root of that? Marriage, as I understand, began as a way to ensure paternity, stability and inheritance for quite pragmatic means.

As this is a scientific question, it is necessary for me to demonstrate that whilst there is evidence of dominance, it does not necessarily follow that that is the product of biology, such as levels of testosterone in men. it is Hypothetically possible that Testostorne levels are the effect of social relations rather than the cause.

So now you're doing the chicken or the egg argument, eh? You still are failing to show how those social behaviors came to be if they are not biologically driven. That they are biologically driven has a wealth of scientific information to back it up from a multitude of fields. You are basically asking me to ignore science.

Nature does not abide solely by a law of the Survival of the Fittest. There is well-documented evidence of social behavior amongst animals, whether it is social insects (ants, bees, wasps, etc), as well as social animals, such as lions and wolves. Whilst these may be organized by power structures, these are secondary to their social organism; rather than have evolved and adapted social organization as a superior method of attaining subsistence. Working together necessarily gives them an edge in getting resources.

Of course humans are a social species. We would not have survived if we weren't. Psychopaths, for example, are an evolutionary aberration because they do not possess the social instincts that normal humans do. They are evolutionary failures, if you will. But while we are a social species that tends to cooperate in general, we still do have an innate urge to compete with each other and this is rooted in the urge to ensure the survival of our lineages.

Hence, we can say that the existence of individual status and social organization are not independent of one another. The question therefore is which is more important; the competition for social status and therefore attributions of social dominance, or the existence of social organization itself. If it is the latter, then it is possible to a social organization without (or with greatly diminished) hierarchical power structures where one person dominates another.

But I say this is impossible. Even in Marxist states, the ruling elites still competed with and backstabbed each other. In Fascism, there is a middle way by allowing humanity's natural instincts to compete and dominate to be exercised in a controlled way for the benefit of the Nation as a whole. Systems such as Libertarianism and Communism both fail in that they both go too far to the extremes. Libertarianism basically ignores and disdains humanity's social nature and Communism tries to erase the innate impetus for personal excellence. (Fascism is tied into meritocracy. It's similar to a monarchy without basis in heredity. It encourages human excellence and the most deserving people to rise to the fore.)

The study cites the relationship between dominance and aggression both in animals and in humans. If the existence of society was dependent on natural dominance, it would mean that such dominance could only be achieved by coercing people into those relationships. Hence dominance could not exist without aggressiveness. That is not the case as is evident by liberal institutions as well as the fact that human beings cannot live (at least for very long) in isolation; they must necessarily be part of the group. social organization is an evolved response to an economic problem. Social dominance is therefore the response to the scarcity of resources and the need to distribute them amongst people. As such, dominance is not inherent.

Even when people are happy and have resources, they still participate in displays of dominance and aggression. Look at sports such as boxing, wrestling, rugby, hockey and American football. Obviously there is something innate here that needs an outlet.

[there were a lot of sources, so I had a go trying to respond to the first one].

No problem. Sorry for flooding you.

The urge to dominate others is not biological in foundation but is the result of economic relations in society and the psychological conditions of its members to work within that organization. However, it is attributed to biology because the changefulness of human social relations is ignored in formulating legal and moral views of society. the capacity for change is therefore excluded from view when these power relations are attributed to "natural" causes rather than environmental or socio-economic ones.

You will have to provide empirical evidence for that bold claim. The only way I can see that being true is if we somehow transcended our biology.

 

[Laika]

I agree that there is an inherent desire to "dominate" our surroundings, but I wouldn't call it that though. I'd say it is really a desire to 'over-come' obstacles, challenges, to exert ourselves and to achieve goals we set for ourselves. That sense of personal power, our capacity to change our surroundings and ourselves is something which is innate. It is part of the urge to survive and is necessary for us to grow as individuals and as a species. This is an aspect of our freedom.

When you talked about Sports as demonstrating an innate desire to express dominance and aggression, I would agree with you. As it is a process whereby we over-come our surroundings and master them to achieve goals. In this sense, I wouldn't disagree that phyisology of an individual can demonstrate a tendency towards dominance such as through Testosterone levels.

What I'm not sure sure about is whether this innate urge to change our surroundings is that this implies we must come to dominate other people. Whereas our surroundings are innate objects, people are not. They have a capacity to reason, feel, empathize.

I'm somewhat stumped because I can't actually reply to your arguments by saying that "equality" is man's natural state as I don't actually believe that. Nor am I in a position to do so, since the evidence clearly contradicts such a claim as inequality exists. I don't believe in a perfect equality of outcome, where everyone is the same or forced to be the same. Whilst People all belong to the same species, there are also individuals with unique attributes which are developed in their own lifetime. The Marxist definition of equality does not mean erasing those attributes or a person's individuality only social class. This includes gender differences that can be attributed to biology, rather than gender roles which are "socially constructed".

You haven't actually said anything I disagree with and I'm pretty sure that when you have made factual statements, they can well be backed up. Your position sounds well-informed. I think the question is how far these biological differences imply social ones and that's where I would disagree. This is bizarre.

What I would say, is that in your description of Fascism as a meritocracy, I would question whether excellence is a property endowed only to the few, as opposed to a potential that exists in us all. it is only the fact that our society is not based on an abundance which means that only a minority can develop those talents. Consequently, the majority can rule in the long-run. If you agree with that, then I don't think there is a fundamental difference of opinion between us.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I agree that there is an inherent desire to "dominate" our surroundings, but I wouldn't call it that though. I'd say it is really a desire to 'over-come' obstacles, challenges, to exert ourselves and to achieve goals we set for ourselves. That sense of personal power, our capacity to change our surroundings and ourselves is something which is innate. It is part of the urge to survive and is necessary for us to grow as individuals and as a species. This is an aspect of our freedom.

When you talked about Sports as demonstrating an innate desire to express dominance and aggression, I would agree with you. As it is a process whereby we over-come our surroundings and master them to achieve goals. In this sense, I wouldn't disagree that phyisology of an individual can demonstrate a tendency towards dominance such as through Testosterone levels.

I don't have much to disagree with here. I think the urge to dominate our surroundings is part of it and something rather unique to humans because of our complexity.

What I'm not sure sure about is whether this innate urge to change our surroundings is that this implies we must come to dominate other people. Whereas our surroundings are innate objects, people are not. They have a capacity to reason, feel, empathize.

Dominating others doesn't have to be a bad thing. Not everyone is cut out to be a leader or the best at whatever. That's fine. They have their own calling in life. I'm actually not such a big fan of cults of personality because I think that leaders must be humble and realize that it is bigger than them. That was one of the failings of Hitler's Germany, because he knew the end was coming and basically wanted to take Germany with him. This is also where my religious beliefs come into play. No matter how important you think you are, even Il Duce or der Führer must answer to a higher Authority and be held accountable. So I do not agree with secular worship of the State or the Leader (I don't agree with secularism at all, by the way, and the Leader should live as an ascetic sage-warrior, ideally ). They are both merely means to an end.

To sum it up: my ideology accepts that domination is a basic fact of life and seeks to channel it for higher purposes that benefit the entire Nation.

This includes gender differences that can be attributed to biology, rather than gender roles which are "socially constructed".

I disagree there. I think that gender roles are arise naturally from the differences between the sexes. Men are usually one way and women are usually another. There are, of course, exceptions to this but that is the general rule. The State should not go out of its way to restrict the opportunities of women, but I suspect that without Far Leftist theories of gender being indoctrinated into the masses, a more natural flow of life will settle into place. I have no problem with the apparently smaller number of women who are naturally inclined to be warriors and even the Leader of the State. But I do not think those vocations are the natural inclinations of most women. Either way, such positions would have to be earned by merit. If you want it, you'll have to fight for it and prove yourself. Then you will have the satisfaction of truly deserving it.

You haven't actually said anything I disagree with and I'm pretty sure that when you have made factual statements, they can well be backed up. Your position sounds well-informed. I think the question is how far these biological differences imply social ones and that's where I would disagree. This is bizarre.

Haha. Seems we've already reached an impasse.

What I would say, is that in your description of Fascism as a meritocracy, I would question whether excellence is a property endowed only to the few, as opposed to a potential that exists in us all. it is only the fact that our society is not based on an abundance which means that only a minority can develop those talents. Consequently, the majority can rule in the long-run. If you agree with that, then I don't think there is a fundamental difference of opinion between us.

In Fascism, all economic activity would be subordinated to the State, class collaboration would be enforced and modest living would be promoted for all citizens. Outsourcing would be banned, immigration would be restricted and illegals would be deported. In a Fascist society, everyone would be given the opportunity to thrive.

Fascism is a form of democracy, but not in the decadent sense that Enlightenment thinkers envision it. It is a mass movement par excellence. The State is the manifestation of the Nation's Will and the Leader provides an heroic human ideal for all to stand behind. So it is the rule of the masses, but in a much more perfected way than the vulgar pleasure-seeking and corrupt short-sighted selfishness we have now. Fascism is the Nation rising itself to greatness instead of the decaying mediocrity we have now under liberalism and capitalism. Also, the Nation is a similar concept to the Christian Body of Christ. We are One, but we each have a different role to play. So none should feel inferior nor superior to his fellow countryman.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

God, how I've missed extolling Fascism. It feels like a homecoming, getting to express my most idealistic side.

 

[Laika]

I don't have much to disagree with here. I think the urge to dominate our surroundings is part of it and something rather unique to humans because of our complexity.


Dominating others doesn't have to be a bad thing. Not everyone is cut out to be a leader or the best at whatever. That's fine. They have their own calling in life. I'm actually not such a big fan of cults of personality because I think that leaders must be humble and realize that it is bigger than them. That was one of the failings of Hitler's Germany, because he knew the end was coming and basically wanted to take Germany with him. This is also where my religious beliefs come into play. No matter how important you think you are, even Il Duce or der Führer must answer to a higher Authority and be held accountable. So I do not agree with secular worship of the State or the Leader (I don't agree with secularism at all, by the way, and the Leader should live as an ascetic sage-warrior, ideally ). They are both merely means to an end.

To sum it up: my ideology accepts that domination is a basic fact of life and seeks to channel it for higher purposes that benefit the entire Nation.

I have somewhat BDSM tendencies, so I do actually understand what you mean when you say Dominating others isn't necessarily a bad thing. it can be very satisfying. If you substitute "humanity" for god, I suppose I feel the same way. we are all bound by the laws of history, our progression and advance as a species. Nor do I support the Cult of Personality as it is degrading and insulting to ordinary people and I feel both that and state worship are dangerous, as if we come to believe someone is innately superior, we necessarily leap to the conclusion they are infallible. That is a dangerous way to lead and to be led.

I disagree there. I think that gender roles are arise naturally from the differences between the sexes. Men are usually one way and women are usually another. There are, of course, exceptions to this but that is the general rule. The State should not go out of its way to restrict the opportunities of women, but I suspect that without Far Leftist theories of gender being indoctrinated into the masses, a more natural flow of life will settle into place. I have no problem with the apparently smaller number of women who are naturally inclined to be warriors and even the Leader of the State. But I do not think those vocations are the natural inclinations of most women. Either way, such positions would have to be earned by merit. If you want it, you'll have to fight for it and prove yourself. Then you will have the satisfaction of truly deserving it.

In Fascism, all economic activity would be subordinated to the State, class collaboration would be enforced and modest living would be promoted for all citizens. Outsourcing would be banned, immigration would be restricted and illegals would be deported. In a Fascist society, everyone would be given the opportunity to thrive.

I'm hesitant to describe myself as a feminist, because I don't believe in gender equality; I believe in female emancipation as women have the same capacity for freedom as men and have as much to contribute to society. perhaps it can be in different ways, but I agree, the state should not restrict opportunities for women. to pursue equality for it's own sake is to cripple people and I'm not wholly comfortable with political correctness because that sort of equality is deeply authoritarian. it conceals the symptoms of inequality in thought and speech- not the objective causes in our institutions. people are only equal in so far as they are together as they cannot be the same. And yes, I confess somewhat an attraction to the idea of a "warrior" elite, as it chimes with the idea of being a revolutionary. people have to prove their ability to lead.

I don't think the state is an independent entity, nor is the power of the state absolute. it is subject to objective limits to its power, nor does it rule above the people but through them. I feel much the same way, as under Communism everyone should has the ability to develop their talents; for that a society based on material abundance is necessary.

And yes, I believe in class collaboration- but only so long as the workers are the ones forcing the bourgeois to comply with the "will of the people." it just may not necessarily be voluntary.

Fascism is a form of democracy, but not in the decadent sense that Enlightenment thinkers envision it. It is a mass movement par excellence. The State is the manifestation of the Nation's Will and the Leader provides an heroic human ideal for all to stand behind. So it is the rule of the masses, but in a much more perfected way than the vulgar pleasure-seeking and corrupt short-sighted selfishness we have now. Fascism is the Nation rising itself to greatness instead of the decaying mediocrity we have now under liberalism and capitalism. Also, the Nation is a similar concept to the Christian Body of Christ. We are One, but we each have a different role to play. So none should feel inferior nor superior to his fellow countryman.

I feel I need to make a slight alternation...

Communism is a form of democracy, but not in the decadent sense that Bourgeois Enlightenment thinkers envision it. It is a mass movement par excellence. The State is the manifestation of the Proletariat's Will and the Leader provides an heroic human ideal of the New Man for all to stand behind. So it is the rule of the masses, but in a much more perfected way than the vulgar pleasure-seeking and corrupt short-sighted selfishness we have now. Communism is the Working Class rising itself to greatness instead of the decaying mediocrity we have now under liberalism and capitalism. We are One, but we each have a different role to play. So none should feel inferior nor superior to his fellow countryman.

But we seem to be largely in agreement.