Man as an Economic Organism
(EN: This book is somewhat controversial - not merely because of its topic, but because of its origin. It is presented as a synthesis of various Soviet documents on the practice of brainwashing, but may in fact be a fabrication to provoke outrage and opposition to the communist party and due to its suspicious origin is considered that it may be a hoax or a work of science fiction. I've read it, and preserved notes, as it seems interesting and plausible, in spite of its dubious validity and origin.)
Man is a creature of physical needs, and unlike the animals he must choose to undertake specific actions to provide for himself. Very little in nature is available in a form that is ready to consume - we must make clothing and shelter - and while some things (like food) can be gathered or hunted, man survives better if he arranges nature in a way that makes these tasks easier and more certain (farming).
Man is also a creature of psychological desires. The animal that is well provided of the necessities (it has eaten and drank its fill) has one luxury: idleness. A person who has no present need stockpiles for his future needs, and when he has all he might need in the future he invents other things to desire. Comforts, luxuries, diversions, and entertainments give man a limitless appetite, and never-ending motivation to produce beyond is mere survival needs.
And in man, we see that his priorities can become perverted. He may devote his effort to producing luxury goods and neglect to produce the goods he needs for his survival. In a group, some may produce luxury for themselves while neglecting the survival needs of others (the alcoholic father whose children are starving). And in society, we see resources devoted to the production of luxuries for some to enjoy while the production of necessities for all is neglected.
Directing the resources of society to their best employment to serve the needs of society is the objective of communism.
In a capitalist society, each individual is left to satisfy his own needs and pursue his own desires in a system that is not organized or centrally controlled. There is no central bureau to inform farmers how much wheat is needed to feed the entire nation, so they are left to guess - and as a result may produce too much (resources are wasted that could have produced other things) or too little (resources are misspent producing less important things).
(EN: In general, I will lay off argumentation and present the author's perspective such as it is - but in this case the irony is too compelling. The fundamental flaw in communism is the assumption that a central bureau of politicians, not farmers, is better qualified to predict market demand and manage production to meet it. Proof of the flaw is in this instance quite obvious - the communist USSR depended heavily on wheat imported from the capitalist USA because their central bureau was not as good at predicting and producing as a decentralized system.)
The needs of a human being are finite and objective - it can be determined with some precision exactly how much food of what kinds an individual will consume in a day, week, month, or year - but the desires of a human are infinite and subjective and defy prediction. One cannot objectively prove how much jewelry is enough to make a person satisfied - nor can any individual be counted on to be realistic in the assessment of their own desires.
There is some consideration of the jealousy of man: a person who is quite content with what he has becomes dissatisfied when he sees that his neighbor has a little more. And so he must then strive to become equal to his neighbor, or to envy the wealthiest person in his sphere of perception. His ambition and greed makes him easy for the merchant class to exploit.
As such it seems to be a valid psychopolitical goal to manage the desires of mankind: to lead him to make a more reasonable assessment of his needs and desires, to dull his jealousy of those who possess a little more, and to condition him to be happy with less. The ceaseless toil in pursuit of ever-growing desires is dysfunctional, and should rightly be regarded as a form of insanity.
If this insanity existed in only a few individuals, it would be enough to treat them through clinical psychology - but because this attitude is so pervasive in nations and cultures, it requires a more ambitious solution to curb the ever-growing desire for "more" without limit and without any rational standard.
There's a bit of political posturing, particularly in looking to America as a nation in which there are very few wealthy people who lead lives of decadent luxury while others live in poverty and starvation. The poor are criticized for their lack of willingness to work to improve themselves, but there is admiration for the wealthy who exploit the workers to support their own gluttony.
It is also noted that in systems where there is economic inequality, those who have the greatest wealth also have the greatest power, and use that power to support a system of inequality. The politicians are generally members of the wealthiest families, and their primary concern is the preservation of their wealth and dominance, not the welfare of those less fortunate.