Be happy, not proud

One should always feel happy, and not "proud" about their work, as we are taught to be in our lives. The word proud carries certain connotations, which confuse and divide viewers. This is similar to how the word "love" is vague and can refer to multiple aspects of love.

One should replace:
"I'm proud about (doing something)" with
"I feel happy that I was able (to do something)"

Parents are generally responsible for why kids are "proud of their abilities". Parents often tell their kids that they are unique, and hence better than the other kids. Kids are also expected to learn that their parents are the best parents of all world, and that's how love in the family works. This is a bonding made through an insecure pattern. They cannot find a proper identity in the whole of society, so they isolate and separate themselves and fight against the rest of the world. But the real world is something that's belonged to everyone, and everyone were born just as children with the same feelings, and there was nothing to fight against.

Proud can, for example mean something like, 'I'm proud that I was able to help the world change for the better'. That, is one of the things that I'm talking about. You can never change the world into anything else, in the same manner you as a fish cannot make a permanent change to the ocean. You can make a splash, and it may be of some temporary importance, but on the larger scale, it's just a splash.

That is not to devalue the splash, it is to point out how much of an importance, and self-aggrandizing you assign to it. Suppose making a splash would help fishes in a way. Perhaps it would take a bigger fish, or a skilled fish to make a bigger splash. And because of it, other fishes don't partake in splashing sports because they don't see them making a difference. Perhaps instead of fishes being egoistic, they could've talked about it, and came to the realization that all of us could've splashed together and it would've made better splashes and it would've been much easier than having to rely on the bigger fishes to splash for them. This is just a random example, and it can easily go out of context.

In the same sense, the world wasn't waiting for you to save it. The world is always the same, and it is only the human constructions and beliefs on it that's ever changed. Maybe the sun will go larger, and we'll need to work around it, but for now, we haven't gotten that far. In any case, doing good isn't something to be proud of, to think that you are the only one who has done something like that. In fact, all things were always doable, and you're just someone who attempted to do it.

Tag: captialism

Also, everyone has their own interests, but not everything may be valued by the rest of the people due to shared beliefs. In that case, pride only creates a sense of separation from the rest, making you feel that you are better than the rest, either because you are better at something than other people or if you are interested in something that other people do not value. This also makes people not want to share the knowledge or tricks which they used to get better at it with other people to preserve their superiority, and some of them may choose to market it for other benefits.

By marketing, they will have access to more belongings and a better lifestyle, and they'll fail to realize natural belongings, food for example belonged to everyone as a whole, in other words, to nature. It is through pride of the ego that we invented marketing, for marketing, we invented "ownership", and that's how we deviated from nature.

No one could've ever forced (aside from by slavery) someone to do some common good for all people. If a man worked just enough for himself, there would be no reason for people to hate him.

The only thing that could've happened is that a person had the resources to help others, such as if the place where a person chose to live had a lake, or if a tree a person planed bore more fruits than what the average tree in a place grew. In such cases it would be reasonable to assume that people would've desired the fruits of his tree, and would've argued that the tree is the common property of all people. Note that the tree did not belong to the person, it was only nurtured by them. This is bad, because while the tree was the common property of all people, they did not nurture it together.

Tag: communism

The only fair way of life is when people take care of everything that matters to them together. In the communist parlance, this is that whatever affects a group of people should be collectively owned by that group of people.

One might say that if there is no concept of ownership, people will be lazy and will never do anything. But that is totally meaningless, because why would people even work under capitalism? It is for survival, and that is the same without money. The only differences would be benefits such as equality and reduced unnecessary labour.

If they give the example of Scar's rule in Lion King, it still doesn't address what people will do for survival. It somehow assumes that people will be okay with starving due to emptying the resources by endless and mindless consumption. But does that not make it seem like people are no longer concerned with sustainable growth for their survival? If that was the case, why do we see people always fight for survival under capitalism? For this reason, this is a baseless argument.

They might say no development will take place because people will be content with lowlife. That's not true either. What a free society will allow is give opportunity to all people to express their suppressed talents which had no direct goal in a capitalist system. More ideas out there can only lead to more innovation. Studies will be done for gaining actual knowledge and improving the state of the world rather than to make a higher class of living under the existing system. Aside from that, it could also slow down innovation in the beginning, because the first focus will be on getting food and healthcare to everyone.

That doesn't mean anyone can't work to invent systems on their own, it's just that they'll have to get it in a land that's lived on by a united set of people who care about health and food, instead of by using your monetary advantage. For the general population, it would mean that the development of technology is seen as something that could help the economy with the primary goal of stability, and not something one has to develop so that they can earn a better social status by marketing it to those who can afford it and earning profits while many others are starving.