Re: Communism vs. Capitalism
Communism vs. Capitalism III
The whole of the modern world is divided into two camps with Capitalists on one side and Communists on the other. Actually, Capitalism and Communism are not simply two different attitudes concerning the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of material wealth; they are much more than that.
Take the example of a young girl: in the past – and even, to a certain extent, today – a young girl starts out as a capitalist. She gives no one the right to kiss or fondle her: her charms are her own private property.
Her parents have always told her she should be a capitalist and, for a time at any rate, she follows their advice. But, as the notion of communism spreads, it infiltrates every domain and, eventually, works its way into the mind of this young girl who begins to want to share her beauty and all the charms of her body with others. She has become a communist. It is no different for a boy who wants to make love to every girl: he, too, is a communist and distributes his quintessence to others. Yes, indeed; all that is a form of communism. Of course, I know that no one else understands it like these things. This is why I say that Eskimos are more communistic than anyone, because, when a stranger visits them they lend him their wives.
Let's say, then, that a girl who gives away her capital to the first comer is a communist. Yes, but why does she give away her capital? So as to rob the boy of his. That kind of communism is not very honest. The girl becomes very sweet and generous, true, but only in order to get her hands on the boy's capital, because no one can survive without capital.
A young girl possesses considerable capital, therefore, and with it she can buy all kinds of things or, at the very least, get an invitation to a restaurant for a good meal - after which it is she who will be 'eaten'. But, let's say no more about that! As you can see, it is all quite complicated.
The truth is that Nature shows us that capitalism and communism are both necessary. What is a child? A capitalist. He screams to be given whatever takes his fancy and wants to keep it all for himself. But one day, when he marries and has children of his own, he will be obliged to become a communist; it will be his turn to start sharing out his wealth. It is Nature herself who obliges us to be both capitalists and communists at different periods of our lives. We begin by being capitalists, for we have to become rich. If you want to help others, you must be rich; how can you help anyone if you possess nothing? You can't: If you are too poor, you can't even help your own wife and children. You have to be rich in order to help others.
Nature has given men all kinds of capital: their arms and legs, their eyes and ears, their genitals and their brains are all capital assets which they must put to work to earn riches which they can then share with others. Capitalism must be no more than a means, and the great mistake of Capitalists is to have made it an end in itself. In other words, Capitalists understand nothing about Capitalism - nor Communists about Communism, for that matter. You will soon see why.
Do Communists really and truly practise communism? The Lord alone knows! If they are so eloquent in their condemnation of Capitalists and so ready to combat them, it is often because they would like to be as rich and powerful as them. Personally, I believe in communism. Why? Because Jesus was a communist, but a white communist, not a red communist. Communists and Capitalists alike should be instructed in an Initiatic school, for neither group thinks nor acts correctly. When you make wealth your goal, your ideal, all kinds of unforeseen problems result. On the other hand, if you practise communism without discernment, it will lead to other, equally dire results. If Communists and Capitalists refuse to be instructed in the light of Initiatic Science, they will massacre each other and civil war will pave the way for other wars. Neither group possesses the light that we can give them and that would enable them to work for a high ideal. They are working only for themselves; even when they seem to be working for others, in reality it is only for themselves.
Communists and Capitalists must understand each other in order to help mankind. Both are necessary, for the two currents of capitalism and communism are at work simultaneously in the universe. Why do human beings make these two currents a cause for division as though the balance of the whole universe did not rest on them? Each side does its best to eliminate the other. They talk and talk, and the poor ignorant fools who know no better swallow all their stupid theories.
To keep everthing for oneself is one philosophy; to give everything to others is another philosophy. But neither philosophy is the right one: there is a third solution. Both Capitalists and Communists must give all that they possess, that is to say, their ideas and thoughts and all their work, to a third principle, a principle that is divine. Communistis are ready to give, to be sure, but they give to human beings, and that doesn't really settle anything, for human beings are weak, fickle and ungrateful. And now, if we come back to the example of the young girl that I mentioned earlier, what conclusion can we draw? The conclusion that, instead of keeping everything for herself and being a capitalist or of distributing everything and being a communist, she should begin by becoming rich and giving everything to the Lord. Because the Lord is the only one who can advise her and tell her how much capital to distribute and how, when and whom to give it to.
Nowadays, everybody is eager for instruction and education so as to earn money and be respected and admired, for all doors are open to the rich and educated, and this is just one more manifestation of man's everlasting partially for capitalism; that is to say, for possessions, property and positions of authority. To be sure, this urge takes different forms: some want wealth, others want knowledge.
Knowledge belongs to a higher order, perhaps, but the tendency is always the same: to be rich so as to have a monopoly and dominate others. Yes, those who are very knowledgeable behave exactly like the rich, like capitalists: they are aloof and hostile. As for communists, they are the ignorant, disinherited paupers of the world. They huddle together to share their miserable lot, their crusts of bread, their bottles of cheap wine, their cigarette butts. Yes, it is an advantage for the poor to share with others but, if ever they become rich, look out! There will be no more sharing, no more communism; they will instantly cut themselves off from everyone else. When people capitalists are poor they are communists and when they are rich they are capitalists because, if they continued to communists, they would have to share their wealth and they have not the least desire to share any of it. If you want millions of people to flock round you, there is nothing easier: all you have to do is invite all the beggars and vagrants to eat and drink, and they will come. The rich will never come.
All those who are ignorant, weak and poor have communistic tendencies; they like to invite each other, to be together, to hug and kiss. They are very accessible, very warm and friendly, because they have nothing. Whereas it's impossible to get near the pundits of the intellectual world. If you want to see them you have to ask for an appointment months in advance and, even then, behave exactly like the rich. But this is all wrong: those who are rich in capacities and knowledge must not hold themselves aloof like haughty potentates, they must be friendly and brotherly and share their wealth. In this way they will be genuine communists. If they seek knowledge, they should do so as a means to help their fellow men and not simply for their own benefit.
When I listen to all the political orators who make speeches on television, I can see that, whether they are Communists or Capitalists, they all have a capitalistic attitude: they all feel secure they are all despots; they have no love, no humility, no gentleness.
Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov