Philosophically speaking, the great non-event of the 20th century was the ideological battle between capitalism and communism. In my opinion, these seemingly diametrically opposed belief systems are essentially brothers, with each system being on an opposite side of the same materialist coin. Their many arguments can be likened to sibling rivalry. As we begin to explore anti-materialist alternatives, it is worth reflecting on the limited ideological (and spiritual) choices that were made available to us from our leaders in the past century.
As a preface, I should mention that my interest in this discussion is highly abstract and general. I am not so much interested in how these belief systems were used (or misused) by actual historical governments, economists, leaders, and tyrants, as I am with the overarching value system that they imply. I also acknowledge that the effects of their respective implementations into governing systems were not equal for those who were ruled. The good people of South Florida, among others, have a much better perspective on that than I do. My goal is to frame a longstanding ideological antagonism in a new way, using admittedly simplistic means.
To begin with, my starting premise is that both capitalism and communism are materially-based ideological belief systems. When asked the big questions of life, their answers necessarily take material form. What do I mean by this? In very general terms (and on an individual rather than societal level), capitalism posits that meaning comes from excessive consumption (the more I and my fellows consume, the happier we will be), while communism posits that meaning comes from sufficient consumption (as long as I and my fellows consume enough, we will all be happy together).
Here’s what I argue: a certain bar of materialism must be met to live a happy life, but it is a necessary and not sufficient means of reaching real happiness and meaning. The kind of meaning that justifies life itself (the kind of justification that we each feel intrinsically within when we are living it) cannot come from material comfort alone. Let the example of many unhappy affluent families convince you of that. However, there are certain time-tested avenues to real meaning that we can take: love, family, a feeling of connection with one's community, access to natural beauty, a propensity towards meditation, and goals that require enough work to reach (and that result in a general social good), with each step on the way to them providing meaning no matter how difficult the overall journey may be.
By no means, however, am I arguing that the more impoverished one is, the better off they are. This is clearly not the case, and that fact is so obvious that I need not concern myself with it here, other than to direct one to Maslow’s Hierarchy. But I think it is also clear that an increased capacity and ability to consume, after a certain point, does not directly correlate to happiness either. Today's mental health crisis, which seems to be most acutely affecting those countries with the greatest access to material wealth, suggests as much.
So why this general assertion about the spiritual (actually anti-spiritual) relatedness of communism and capitalism? These are introductory paragraphs and thoughts outlining a project I have set out for myself: to preach anti-materialism! The 20th century wrought both the biggest advances in warfare technology (bringing a tremendous cost in human lives) and advances in standards of living (defined materially). Are these trends related? If so, doesn’t it seem urgent to formulate a belief system (ideological or otherwise) for the century ahead that finds its ultimate purpose beyond material comfort? At the very least, we need to work to reconstruct our cultural directions, that they may better teach what are means and what are ends because the unintended consequences of every temporary solution comprise most of the world’s tragedies.
More to come.