Charity & Culture: The Irony of Marxism

Jackson Capper | 14 June 2019

The Atom of a Social System

To truly understand the workings of a social system, whether it be in terms of its economy or its culture, it is necessary to understand its components. To understand a social system, it is necessary to understand the human behaviour. To understand human behaviour, it is necessary to understand his desires.

Human desire governs all social systems, for desire is what governs the human. There is no social system without the human, and there is nothing characteristic about a human without his desires.

The Desires of Men

The physical flesh of man cannot be distinguished from the animal and the animal has only one original desire: to perpetuate one’s own offspring. For those that desire it, do. Those that do, desire it. This reciprocating process is the only means for a finite organism to exist at all. Whatever ceases to desire the perpetuation of their own flesh ceases to exist.

This desire occurs to the degree that a given offspring resembles their own. The most important offspring of any individual is his own flesh as he bears the continuation of it during his lifetime. Therefore, the immediate survival of his own flesh is of most importance, especially before his fertility matures. When his children are born, they become the succession of his flesh so his immediate concerns adapt to promote their survival. Such desire becomes so overwhelming that parents are likely to sacrifice themselves if it means the survival of their children. These are the sparks of charity.

The desire to perpetuate one’s own flesh is primary, but it manifests in various secondary desires, such as to perpetuate one’s spouse, or to accumulate resources for inheritance. Fulfilling these secondary desires are merely a means to an end, which is to fulfil the primary desire and have one’s children succeed him.

Flesh & Family

For this desire to be fulfilled, an animal must be able to discern between those whom are their offspring from those who aren’t. The intuitive mind of man is not perfect, but it efficiently produces desire efficiently enough such that a man’s own children will be his immediate concern. However, such intuition bleeds into those that are not his immediate children.

A man’s brother resembles his own flesh so a man will desire his brother’s survival. A man’s cousin resembles his own flesh so he will desire his cousin’s survival. The degree to which the flesh is resembled is the degree to which a man desires the survival of that flesh.

This is the mechanism that drives a family to benevolence. This is the reason unconditional love can exist between members of a family and the only reason why a man is willing to endure suffering for the sole benefit of another.

Given that such benevolence occurs relative to the degree that the flesh resembles ones own, it cannot be said that such benevolence starts or begins anywhere. It exists on a continuous spectrum, from one’s own flesh, to the flesh of his children, to his siblings, and to his extended family. It can extend towards those whom are of the same family, race, species, and can even extend to the welfare of other species.

Culture: The Generalised Family

If the flesh is the primary concern, a man should not sympathise with the welfare of unrelated people, let alone of other species. However, there are other signals which can trigger sympathy. In fact, any form of relation to oneself can trigger sympathy. This might be the knowledge of a neighbour supporting the same sports team, or his membership to the same club. Even localities can form a sense of belonging. These relating qualities trigger what would otherwise be invoked by a member of family. A man will treat his neighbour as if he were family at least to a degree, simply because they share a common feature.

Our sympathy for animals and unrelated people stems from more primitive relations. So, evermore weaker sympathies occur. The degree to which we can relate to the organism is the degree to which we can sympathise. We can relate to other species with even a nervous system since we presume that such a species can experience suffering. A human does not sympathise for a tree so much, for whatever suffering a tree might endure we have no concept of. We cannot relate to the experience of being a tree.

The only useful meaning we can apply to “culture” is the common features within a group of individuals. Features can be comprised of physical features, but also language features, lifestyle, and traditions. Every concept that comprises a human experience can be attributed to culture. Therefore, we should consider culture to be any set of experiential qualities. The appearance of flesh being one, but also habits, language, manners, and even diet.

Therefore, culture is the generalised form of family. The means of sympathy and consequent benevolence. For example, an adopted child can be regarded as family simply because of such relations. Sharing the same home, eating together, and having the same values invoke the sympathies that otherwise exist for the immediate offspring. The sympathies induced by culture may be a secondary desire in that the survival of one’s immediate peers promotes the survival of one’s immediate children. Or, it may be a confused intuition that mistakes the peer for an immediate child signalled by relating to them. What matters is that the desire is produced from culture. What matters is recognising the influence of culture to induce sympathy and consequent benevolence, despite there being no immediate perpetuation of one’s own flesh.

Charity: The Manifestation of Culture

The stronger a family’s culture, the stronger their unconditional love. This love manifests in the willingness to endure suffering with no immediate benefit for the individual. It is sacrificial, and distinguishes the selfless from the selfish. Culture activates the correct human desires in order to fulfil Marxism’s ultimate utopian principle: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Ironically, it is the Marxist who attempts to destroy the means to this end. The maximisation of human dignity therefore in the nurturing of his tribal nature. Only then can capitalism be made redundant, and the bourgeoisie will share their wealth not by force, but by benevolence. The bourgeoisie will not need be threatened, nor his ambitions stumped, nor his ingenuity hindered. He will see not a class of alien, unrelating foreigners; he will see brothers and sisters of the same values, language, and manner and share as if they were family.