By

John Wright

This article is related to the previous Destiny article titled "Left Behind." The connection has to do with whether or not a given individual develops into the mindset of a capitalist or that of a socialist, or possibly a mixture (confusion or enlightenment) of beliefs. It will be interesting exploring how this comes about, and my basic reason for examining this phenomenon is that I know individuals who by most measures should be capitalists, yet they have become socialists. Yet I have not experienced knowing anyone who by most measures should be a socialist but who instead has become a capitalist, perhaps excepting midlevel drug lords. The implication is that some people appear to be born capitalists, while others who did not begin life as capitalists either become socialists early on or sometimes even after having some success in some capitalist endeavor. I will skip the part about drug lords. Actually, I am skipping the entire spectrum regarding individuals who are pathological towards their fellow creatures and/or with regard to society in general.

Socialist Humor: Really? Well then you should skip those selfish capitalists too, John!

Capitalist Humor: Really? Well then you best skip those tax and spend socialists, John!

The obvious idea has to do with cause and effect in the formation of an individual's mindset. This does necessitate examining the inherited characteristics of one or the other, mixed with the early experiences of the environment in which the child is reared. Think primarily about parental influence and whether or not it fits the inherent, genetically determined personality of the child. Think also about the financial success or difficulty experienced by the parents, and how their response to their direct experience is displayed to the child.

My parents were adults smack in the middle of the Depression in the 1930's, and for the remainder of their lives they wasted little money on pleasures and saved what they earned to the point of doing without in the present. As ridiculous as that was, given that my father had reliable income starting in 1939, and a nice career/promotions up to high management for the rest of his life, guess what I am today? Yes, I am very conservative financially. It is joyful/very satisfying for me to be able to pay cash for whatever happens to be necessary, and I prepare for future needs by saving at least 20% of my income.

Now consider the experiences of the child attempting to succeed in a way that pleases the parents. As children, we look for acceptance and love so it is easy to expect a child to mimic parental preferences, let's say somewhere in the age range of five to eight. It is clear that virtually any result is explainable, even including the effects of sibling rivalry, whatever they might happen to be. The point is, how is money to be used? Is it hard to get and precious and never to be wasted, or, is it right to spend it on pleasures believing that more will come in the future as needed? The child picks up the clear signals from the parents (who may agree or constantly be at financial war with each other).

Let's not forget the first real experiences outside the home at elementary school. There, the rubber meets the road. Am I smart? Am I strong? Am I good looking? Do other kids like me? Are other kids afraid of me? Am I afraid of bullies? Does my teacher like me? Does she give me good grades? Do my parents care? And before long ... depending on the answers to the those questions, how much do I care? How will my self impression affect my acquisition and handling of money in my future?

I will do an early "cut to the chase." As a child I do have inherited dispositions emotionally. I may be sanguine or I may be a financial activist of one sort of another. If I get my way in various circumstances either by exerting my will on others, or simply by conquering that which I need to conquer in the physical world, then I am likely to be a budding capitalist. I simply need the experiences of living to fill in the blanks and teach me how to win against opposition of most any sort. Conversely, if I find success mostly by appealing to and responding to the values and wants of my parents and other adults, and finding most comfort in the company of children like myself, then I am less independent and more likely to become a socialist.

There are other drivers used to mold children, like religion, or scouting, or one on one experiences with the same sex parent, like hunting, or dance lessons/children's group activities. If we fit together well with the same sex parent then our identity likely forms without conflict. If we are different from the same sex parent, either by genetics or the success/failure of challenges we experience, we become something else, either more independent or more socially dependent on others.

You can easily see where this is going. Long before the child grows to young adulthood the die is cast. That is to say, the child already has his/her own comfort zones, likes and dislikes, also fears, and either early developed skills to perceive and follow needed actions, or, pathetically, little imagination and little growth. In this last circumstance the dependent person will clearly become a socialist.

Given alignment with parents, it is easy to see a development path to become adult. If not, then everything is up for grabs depending on the specific experiences of the child outside the home. Once again, this is where the rubber meets the road.

Am I an orator easily getting positive attention in groups ... or do I enjoy more making my own soapbox racer as a singular activity? Extrovert or introvert I don't stay neutral for long. Do I feel best in group activities of my age group at church or school, or do I see things, no matter where I happen to be, from mostly my own perspective? Do I accept what adults tell me or do I judge their veracity and reliability? What activities excite me and what ones bore me? Do my hobbies tend to be singular in participative nature or do I choose social settings? How do I feel about splitting gains of any sort with my friends or others vs expecting all people, myself included, to earn their way?

Enough background. These thoughts are not at all difficult to understand. The question becomes, do we find concurrence with whomever is closest to us or is there dissonance? While growing up, do I find success in what I choose to try (for whatever reason) or do I fail and not understand why I failed? Do I look for help and force one or more repeat attempts, or do hide my bad feelings or seek condolences?

The basic answer is that I migrate to those environments where I find the most success ... and learn to avoid those environments where I don't fit in or find success with difficulty. There is nothing at all wrong with either response. It is the most natural way to be. I may be a capitalist or a socialist whether I am an extrovert or an introvert.

Now we arrive at two areas of success. One is socialism if our group dynamics experiences are more positive than our independent efforts to get what we want. Conversely, one becomes a capitalist if one looks with disdain on people who can't seem to make hard decisions except with group concurrence ... and also, if one succeeds either privately or publicly in hitting their goal, individually or with like minded individualists as friends or colleagues with skin in the game. There are leaders to be found among capitalists and socialists, though they may disagree with each other in major ways in how to value and then address opportunities or problems.

Now we hit a rough spot ... humans must be socially oriented or we would kill each other. This means our societies will, in a confused manner, need to satisfy the inner needs of young (and older) socialists and capitalists. Each is very different from the other in things respected and valued, though both know they need the other group to make the society healthy and complete. Thus, our largest problem is in figuring out when to cut weakness from the team vs when to use inclusive kindness to make better lives for more people. This is the main issue, it is not simply a rough spot.

We have now arrived at an approximate half way point in the consideration of mindsets. It is now time to confuse everything with politics and life realities resulting from, among other things, the mindsets we developed on our way to becoming adults, whatever "adult" is supposed to mean!

Humor: When does a conservative republican become a liberal democrat? Ans: When he is arrested!

Humor: When does a socialist become financially successful by growing a small manufacturing business into an enterprise? Ans: Never. He employs his peer group, they overspend, they donate needed company funds to charities, the owner goes broke.

Question: Then how is it that our most successful modern enterprises that depend on mass marketing produce CEO's who are publicly socialist? Think Google or Amazon or Facebook. Ans: They are quietly brutal capitalists until they become wealthy, then they can afford to appear supportive of socialist goals and political platforms to gain political stature. This is what can easily happen when an individual ascends to a position of great wealth ... unless they happened to be introverted and independent, in which case one becomes a wealthy conservative capitalist who stays out of the limelight, except when it becomes necessary do group interactions temporarily to acquire more wealth, or when it becomes necessary to kick ass within the company. One might say that introverted wealth, gained by conquering competitors, leads to contributors to capitalist political goals and politicians.

The flip side is the socialist appeal to the masses, in which political power is gained by being very comfortable interacting with groups of most any size. Call it well developed social confidence, honed by years of practice. What is valued by the masses will clearly be the person who appears to best address their needs, financially and otherwise ... especially to the extent that person appears to be emotionally involved with the needs. The desire to work with groups of people to arrive at plans that best represent group goals is key to success politically as a socialist.

What about capitalists who want to be successful politicians and drive how the political group they lead will be served? This could be a minor municipal position or that of national president or any position in between. It depends on the size of the goals of the capitalist and how that person promotes sensible financial conservatism leading to firm confidence in the future for the masses and/or for the group of inner capitalist associates who are willing to support the individual financially and politically in being their temporary leader.

I could continue to describe additional circumstances and methods best used by capitalists or socialists, but in general one radiates concern for the served public down to the weakest individuals, and the other generates enthusiasm for people who are anxious to become financially successful via their own talents, and some assistance from banks or venture capitalists in getting started, or by impressing executives within the corporation in which they work. Show me a failed capitalist from a weak start in understanding how enterprises work, and I will present to you a new socialist. But I can't show you a failed socialist, for how would I determine failure short of starvation?

Stronger, more aggressive personalities are found often with capitalists, but muted by the knowledge of the capitalist that the public wants to have a leader sensitive to their needs and fears. That means money via good jobs and protection from other countries or inclusion to form alliances. Also protection from criminals.

More friendly and socially concerned socialist politicians clearly gain favor by financial inclusiveness as a matter of policy, not based on some talent requirement or sense of personal responsibility for the masses. Beyond financial inclusiveness is acceptance and support for any of many social/life preferences of the broad masses, rather than promoting any coherent value system. These mean the socialist politician will promote major entitlement programs of many sorts that, shall I say, spread the wealth of government from tax revenues. Religions excepted, the socialist politician will avoid categorizing people as more important or less important in experiencing life. Religions are bastions of socialism but with specific moral requirements for the members, e.g. Catholics. (Digression: Would you, if forced, identify Islam as a capitalist or socialist type of religion? Think carefully before answering. This one isn't as easy as it may appear.)

Now let's take a look at the preferences of different parts of the public, the masses, regarding individual preferences for capitalist or socialist political platforms. This, by the way, is where the rubber meets the road ... where we find out the different adult drivers that cause individuals to become socialists or capitalists. Interestingly, these cause and effect subjects make a whole lot of sense. It simply takes a bit of searching for motives with a broad view of possibilities. A good starting place is to ask the question, does the individual succeed or fail financially in whatever their chosen occupation, or, does money simply appear from somewhere in compensation for services rendered?

Consider career areas like college professor, minister or priest, politician, actor or actress. People employed in these areas do not work for corporations that produce physical products (chemicals, clothing, houses, cars, aircraft) or high technology services (medical, mechanical engineering) or for small businesses that provide direct products or services to the public (pizza parlors, gas stations, etc.). Instead, they work in established institutions at least one step removed from having to show a profit. Money simply appears via another part of the institution, whether it is money from church collection plates or tuition students pay to attend college, or tax revenues collected from the public or movie studio revenues from leasing movies to theaters, etc.

The mindsets of people in these groups will most likely yield socialists, with a very few notable exceptions (John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, or in the case of politics, conservative republicans connected with businesses that do make/provide products, loans, etc.). It is easy to understand where college professors, especially in the humanities, would be heavily weighted towards socialism. This would be true also for some physical scientists at universities where they can get tenure and in many instances survive on the basis of getting government grants (think publish or perish).

Looking at corporations existing for profit and you are definitely looking at capitalists in management and likely in technology roles for non-management. Yet corporations like automobile manufacturers employ the majority of their positions using a union oriented high school only labor force, and that part is typically socialist as it is virtually constantly in conflict with management over compensation for hours worked.

Let's move on to what has become a national curse, pitting socialists against capitalists, especially in the political arena. I am referring to the Media, which is a collection of corporations most often owned by wealthy socialists, and which produces political drivel, dissembling and outright lies to drive election results. There are a few capitalist media companies, but nothing in comparison to the number of socialist media companies. If you think about it, capitalists are usually concerned directly with what it takes to make a profit in a business where potential customers can choose whether or not to buy something. Capitalists are generally not focused on popularity with the general public, except with direct focus on their products, not on how to run a country politically. But capitalist media shares the curse of one sided views and dissembling common to socialist media, merely in the opposite direction.

Socialists are far better geared, by natural values inclinations, to be effective communicators to the general voting public. Capitalists "capitalize" on the frequent lack of budget controls of socialist politicians in power, that lead to high government debt and currency devaluations, cursing profligate spending and tax increases. That, of course, appeals to the working class people who have jobs, sometimes more than one, and struggle to succeed financially. It also appeals to bankers and other financial professionals who try to guard the financial strength of the country opposite other countries that are in fact always trying to become more powerful, at our expense, like China. Controlling expenditures based on value of national contribution by the citizen, rather than simply existing, is a hallmark of capitalist thinking, and clearly opposite from socialist thinking.

Where each of us find comfort in media has pretty well been established while we were young, sometimes with variations based on education or business success/failure or personal financial success/failure. Now you have a pretty clear understanding of how people develop their mindsets. This won't help you promote the side you choose, but at least you can better understand why we differ so much from each other in a representative democracy/republic.

This article addressed what is a very important subject, indirectly, and that is how to operate a country successfully with likely major changes in who has the power of government every two to four years. Frankly, it is rather scary. It is not immune to pressure from foreign powers. Ways of making this all work are frequently hidden from the general public, and so it must be, in order to be effective, regardless of which side is in power. Well, at least know that what you see and hear via media should always be taken with a grain of salt, regardless of the source. Remember to reject Ad Hominem attacks on politicians ... all politicians. Peace.