Human egoism and overpopulation, big economics and political problems

“The pride of man makes him love to domineer, and nothing mortifies him so much as to be obliged to condescend to persuade his inferiors. Wherever the law allows it, and the nature of the work can afford it, therefore, he will generally prefer the service of slaves to that of freemen.”

Adam Smith. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Book III, Chapter II

Index
1. Overview

1.1. The system of private property

1.2 The postulates of the economy are only intellectual exercises

1.3 Base of the political systems

2. Original Accumulation, vision of Adam Smith and Karl Marx

3. Comparison between the two points of views

4. The population growth, appreciation of Adam Smith and Thomas Robert Malthus

5. Unsustainable

6. Conclusions

1. Overview
Why does exists poor’s and rich’s?

Why one’s does governs and others obey?

For understanding the scope and answer those questions, first of all it is necessary consider two essential aspects: a) how was created the first wealth in the world? and, b) how did evolve the societies toward the different forms of government?

In the first stages of the human development, man lived in small groups of peasants and in a communitarian economic system, where shared the means of life with other members of the group; but that Honey Moon did not last too much. The human egoism dominated man hearts and appeared the first signs of struggle for the Earth resources and the dominium of one’s men over other men.

At the beginning of the times, land was communitarian property and nobody had individual rights over her.

1.1. The system of private property
The first big jump toward the new political and economic system of private property was the appropriation (robbery) of land by the strongest and rich men; this led to the establishment of the private property on land. The second step was the accumulation of stock. The first forms of capitalism appeared at the end of feudalism; however, the previous appropriation of land was the first expression of the wealth concentration.

But what did determine that deep change ---robbery of land and private property--- in the social behavior of man?

The answer is: a) the fear and b) the sexual instinct. The fear to the lack or scarcity of material means of life and the uncontrolled desire of sex. But pure love, fraternal love also exists and it is the other big might that inspire human beings life. The fear provokes the wealth accumulation wish because man wants to assure the goods that need. But for obtaining those goods he requires, in turn, to dominate the other people; therefore he searches the politics power.

Man made war to appropriate land and women of the conquered lands. In the Holy Scriptures and in the world history there are numerous examples of this. The fear and the sexual desire ---pleasure--- are the two forces that determine man behavior.

As a consequence of the uncontrolled sexual appetite ---and fertility--- the population grew; the effect of that growth was the multiplication of the social needs. The material means of life began to be scarce and this fact developed the human instincts of survival and the human egoism. Each one began to fight against other for the possession of the limited resources.

Land is the primary resource. And land encompasses the other essential resources. Land is wealth, the true wealth. Therefore, the first action of man was to appropriate land. But land and their physical expressions ---in material goods--- was not enough. Hence man created other symbol of wealth: the money.

Everyday the population grew more and more. But the resources do not augmented in balanced proportion and, moreover, they were not distributed fairly. This has been the essential cause of poverty and richness of one’s and others. The rich and strongest men ---since the physical and intellectual point of view--- have taken the best part of the earth resources and the capital factor; the poor’s and weak has received nothing.

In its first stage, the process of expropriation of the weak peasants was made through blood and fire. In parallel to the robbery of land to the peasants and the accumulation of stock, the rich and strongest men developed the political institutions ---states, governments, laws--- to guarantee their property and privileges and the dominium of the poor’s and weak . The maintenance of that process along the centuries has been based in the same principle: the violence. But ---in the modern times--- employing a romantic and false justification: the prevalence of law. The juridical system of the countries is the base where is supported the privileges of the owners of the power and wealth. It is too its moral justification. You must obey the law. It does not matter if the law is fair or unfair, moral or immoral. If you do not obey, the system has the legal force to punish you. The financial crisis of the year 2008 in the United States and other Industrial countries is an excellent example of the unfair laws. The bankers ruined their banks --- but kept their personal fortunes--- and the governments had to give them millions of money in bailout. That is the law.

1.2 The postulates of the economy are only intellectual exercises

In all the political and economical systems, the politics and the private economy advance together. The private economy cannot work without the institutional political support. The private economy is not independent and do not dominate the market. The private economy depends of the politics because the most important economics decisions ---the economic policies--- are taken by the politicians and the governments and not by the economists neither the entrepreneurs. For the mentioned reason, the postulates of the economic theory, the laws and the mathematical base of the economy ---like science--- are only intellectual exercises over situations that can occur or not in the true reality. In all the political and economical regimes are the governments ---through their policies--- who determine in last instance the conduct of the market. However, it is necessary underline that the politics and the politicians need the cooperation of the business and the entrepreneurs to reach the goals of the economic and social development. The public economy and the private economy, though have different objectives, need achieve basic agreements to benefit the society.

1.3 Base of the political systems
Since their creation, the political systems were established over a basic principle: the use of force or the threat of use of force. All the political systems are sustained in that principle. Man obey only for fear or own interest. The rulers and the rich know it perfectly. They employ both.

But man searches power and wealth for a basic reason: to satisfy his sexual desire. That is the true truth but nobody is able of to recognize it openly. The society has two faces: a) the apparent, institutional, legal and moral and b) the real, the true and not recognized. The Adam Smith’s concept that heads this work is a good example of the true human beings feelings. Fear, hedonism and egoism govern its life.

The world problems have two kinds of causes: a) intangibles and b) the materials.

The human egoism ---that is equivalent to the uncontrolled desire of pleasure--- is the foremost intangible cause of the big problems of the world. That uncontrolled wish of pleasure provokes the uncontrolled desire of sex, of wealth and politics power possession.

But the big desire of sex is, in turn, the cause of the overpopulation and this, the source of the big material problems of humanity: a) the overexploitation of the natural resources, b) the damage to nature and environment, c) unemployment, d) poverty and e) illnesses. In the table may be appreciated the hierarchy of the diverse situations.

2. Original Accumulation, vision of Adam Smith and Karl Marx
The study of the Original Accumulation is essential for the comprehension of the evolution of wealth along history.

Adam Smith employed the term “Previous Accumulation”, Karl Marx used the words “Primitive Accumulation” but I prefer “Original Accumulation.”

Adam Smith (1753-1790) is the father of the Economic Liberalism. His vision regarding the Original Accumulation is a concept that cannot be ignored in the study of richness. The opposite thesis of the Economic Liberalism is the Scientific Socialism. Karl Marx (1818-1883) is considered the father of this conception and for that reason his opinion about the Original Accumulation must be taken in account.

In the book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Book I, Chapter VIII, Adam Smith wrote:

“Of the Wages of Labour

The produce of labour constitutes the natural recompense or wages of labour.

In that original state of things, which precedes both the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock, the whole produce of labour belongs to the labourer. He has neither landlord nor master to share with him. But this original state of things, in which the labourer enjoyed the whole produce of his own labour, could not last beyond the first introduction of the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock. It was at an end, therefore, long before the most considerable improvements were made in the productive powers of labour, and it would be to no purpose to trace farther what might have been its effects upon the recompence or wages of labour.

As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a share of almost all the produce which the labourer can either raise, or collect from it. His rent makes the first deduction from the produce of the labour which is employed upon land.”

And in the Introduction of the Book II about Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock, Smith wrote:

“In that rude state of society in which there is no division of labour, in which exchanges are seldom made, and in which every man provides everything for himself, it is not necessary that any stock should be accumulated or stored up beforehand in order to carry on the business of the society. Every man endeavours to supply by his own industry his own occasional wants as they occur. When he is hungry, he goes to the forest to hunt; when his coat is worn out, he clothes himself with the skin of the first large animal he kills: and when his hut begins to go to ruin, he repairs it, as well as he can, with the trees and the turf that are nearest it.

But when the division of labour has once been thoroughly introduced, the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases with the produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of the produce of his own. But this purchase cannot be made till such time as the produce of his own labour has not only been completed, but sold. A stock of goods of different kinds, therefore, must be stored up somewhere sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work till such time, at least, as both these events can be brought about. A weaver cannot apply himself entirely to his peculiar business, unless there is beforehand stored up somewhere, either in his own possession or in that of some other person, a stock sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work, till he has not only completed, but sold his web. This accumulation must, evidently, be previous to his applying his industry for so long a time to such a peculiar business.

As the accumulation of stock must, in the nature of things, be previous to the division of labour, so labour can be more and more subdivided.” End of the quotes.

In his book, Capital, A Critique of Political Economy, 1867, Part VIII, Primitive Accumulation, Karl Marx wrote:

“We have seen how money is changed into capital; how through capital surplus-value is made, and from surplus-value more capital. But the accumulation of capital presupposes surplus-value; surplus-value presupposes capitalistic production; capitalistic production presupposes the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labour power in the hands of producers of commodities. The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn in a vicious circle, out of which we can only get by supposing a primitive accumulation (previous accumulation of Adam Smith) preceding capitalistic accumulation; an accumulation not the result of the capitalistic mode of production, but its starting point.

This primitive accumulation plays in Political Economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The legend of theological original sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is by no means essential. Never mind! Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work. In actual history it is notorious that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, plays the great part. In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time immemorial. Right and “labour” were from all time the sole means of enrichment, the present year of course always excepted. As a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic.

In themselves money and commodities are no more capital than are the means of production and of subsistence. They want transforming into capital.

The capitalist system presupposes the complete separation of the labourers from all property in the means by which they can realize their labour. As soon as capitalist production is once on its own legs, it not only maintains this separation, but reproduces it on a continually extending scale. The process, therefore, that clears the way for the capitalist system, can be none other than the process which takes away from the labourer the possession of his means of production; a process that transforms, on the one hand, the social means of subsistence and of production into capital, on the other, the immediate producers into wage labourers. The so-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production. It appears as primitive, because it forms the prehistoric stage of capital and of the mode of production corresponding with it.

The economic structure of capitalist society has grown out of the economic structure of feudal society. The dissolution of the latter set free the elements of the former.

In the history of primitive accumulation, all revolutions are epoch-making that act as levers for the capital class in course of formation; but, above all, those moments when great masses of men are suddenly and forcibly torn from their means of subsistence, and hurled as free and “unattached” proletarians on the labour-market. The expropriation of the agricultural producer, of the peasant, from the soil, is the basis of the whole process. The history of this expropriation, in different countries, assumes different aspects, and runs through its various phases in different orders of succession, and at different periods. In England alone, which we take as our example, has it the classic form.” End of the quotes.

3. Comparison between the two points of view
Adam Smith presents an ascetic or perhaps an eclectic appreciation of the Original Accumulation. He does not explain openly how the violence, the murder and the robbery of land to the first commoners, the first peasants, was the base of the process. Smith recognizes the landlord’s rights to explode the peasants and receiving rent.

On the contrary, Karl Marx highlights how the violence was the method employed by the first rich to accumulate its primary wealth before the apparition of the first forms of capitalism.

This appreciation on the origin of wealth would determine the position of each one of them regarding the paper of capitalism in the society.

If you consider that something is right and moral you accept it, but, on the contrary, if you think that something has been not acquired by right and moral methods, perhaps you will reject it. Adam Smith considered the capitalists methods like something right. Karl Marx taught the contrary.

Along the centuries the workers had been simple slaves.

The philosophical position of Marx contributed ---years later--- to change the social and economic situation of the workers, because it opened the door to new reformists movements, like the syndicates, and new political parties, that fought by their social rights. For example, an Italian friend, remembers me that at the beginning of the 20th century, in Italy, cradle of western culture, the peasants were formally freemen but, in the social and economic reality, they were true slaves. He told me: “it was Benito Mussolini who made the first social reforms to improve the quality of life of the Italian peasants. At the beginning of his politics career, Mussolini was socialist. Mussolini, for first time, gave to the Italians peasants a participation in the benefits of production. In an official decision, he imposed that 55 per cent of the benefits of production had to be given to the peasants; the other 45 per cent was for the capitalists owners of land”, assured my friend.

The Marxist communism was a result of the unfair economical and social conditions that existed in Russia, the Eastern Europe and China. But the Marxist Communism did not change those unfair conditions. On the contrary, the communism created new dictatorships that devastated those countries during the past 20th century.

The nations that had reached the most standards of economic and social progress are those countries that had adopted an intermediate model between capitalism and socialism, like the Nordic countries. For example, I read recently, that Norway is the country with the major level of happiness.

4. The population growth, appreciation of Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus

The high rate of population growth is the principal cause of the economic and social problems of the world. In the last two hundred years, the world population grew as never before.

But the most paradoxical is that the maximum growth has been registered in the poorest and underdeveloped countries.

So far, the world, as a whole, has not focused its attention in this problem. Only the principal countries directly affected by the phenomenon, like China, have taken in account the issue.

If there is not a global consensus on the need of demographic control, the situation will be every day worse and in too few years will be unbearable. To ascertain this, it is enough to see how the poverty augments in sustained form in the underdeveloped nations. The poverty has many causes but one of the first is the overpopulation. It is not the same a family with two children than a family with six or eight children.

In the time of Adam Smith, 18th century, the situation was different. As a matter of fact he assured that:

“The most decisive mark of the prosperity of any country is the increase of the number of its inhabitants”. End of the quote. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Book One, Chapter 8, Of the Wages of Labour.

But Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) thought something different; in his book An Essay on the Principle of Populations, Book One, Chapter One, Malthus assured that:

“It may safely be pronounced, therefore, that population, when unchecked, goes on doubling itself every twenty-five years, or increases in a geometrical ratio.

The rate according to which the productions of the earth may be supposed to increase, it will not be so easy to determine. Of this, however, we may be perfectly certain, that the ratio of their increase in a limited territory must be of a totally different nature from the ratio of the increase of population. A thousand millions are just as easily doubled every twenty-five years by the power of population as a thousand. But the food to support the increase from the greater number will by no means be obtained with the same facility. Man is necessarily confined in room. When acre has been added to acre till all the fertile land is occupied, the yearly increase of food must depend upon the melioration of the land already in possession. This is a fund; which, from the nature of all soils, instead of increasing, must be gradually diminishing. But population, could it be supplied with food, would go on with unexhausted vigour; and the increase of one period would furnish the power of a greater increase the next, and this without any limit.” End of the quotes.

5. Unsustainable
Nevertheless all the advances achieved by science and technology and the development of the democratic institutions, hundreds of millions of people suffer hunger. Already it is not only a problem of distribution but a problem of production. Man has devastated the environment and the natural resources. The scarcity of water is every day something real in too many places of the world. The deforestation and pollution of seas, rivers and lakes is the other evident reality.

“Until recently economic theory has not seriously considered that a global shortage of natural resources could occur, and even less a global shortage of water and petroleum.” Pablo Rafael Gonzalez, A Statistical Yearbook 2008. Running Out How Global Shortages Change the Economic Paradigm, page 11, Algora Publishing, New York. 2008.

But the global shortages of natural resources have begun and are visible in countries and regions where there was abundance in the past recent. The stress or scarcity of water exists already in several regions of the United States and Mexico, in the Caribbean and in South America in unthinkable countries like Brazil and in other countries as Bolivia, Peru and Chile. The same happen in some countries of Europe, like Spain and Italy, in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

The stress or scarcity of water is and will be the gravest problem that humanity will face at mid term; their consequences will be disastrous for the wellbeing of the world population.

The global scarcity of natural resources is, and will be, a consequence of two phenomenons: a) the overpopulation and b) the overexploitation of the resources.

6. Conclusions
- For the comprehension of the current economic and social disparities it is necessary to know the evolution of wealth since the first times.

- The Original Accumulation is the previous period to the Capitalist Accumulation.

- The Original Accumulation of wealth was a consequence of two facts: a) the robbery of land by the strongest and rich men and b) the violence and crime against the first peasants.

- In its first stage, capitalism used analogue methods but substituted crime by the overexploitation of the workers, especially women and children.

-The economy depends of the politics, because in all the countries, the most important economic decisions are taken by the politicians and the governments and not by the economists neither the entrepreneurs.

- The human egoism is the foremost intangible cause of the world problems and the overpopulation the first material cause.

- If there is not a global consensus on the need of demographic control, the situation will be every day worse and in too few years will be unbearable.

- So far, the world society has not given the due importance to the problem of stress or scarcity of water that is the most important challenge for the population survival.

- The overpopulation and the overexploitation of the resources are destroying the planet and, if that trend continues, in too few years the Earth might be inhabitable.

- It is something essential, vital for mankind, to detain the destruction of the forests and to begin a global campaign of reforestation. This might be a way to combat the poverty, create millions of ecological employments and preserve the water and the environment.

Political economy, the paper of the State and of the market

Since the beginning of the times until now the chiefs of tribes, monarchs, feudal lords, statesmen and politicians decided the mode of production and the distribution of wealth in all the societies.
The main economic influence has been of the governments and not of the private producers, the farmers, fishermen, craftsmen, industrials, traders nor entrepreneurs. They have played a second place because all them has been controlled by the governments, through laws and administrative decisions.
So that it is a historic lie of the Marxist philosophy assuring that the mode of production and distribution of wealth determine the political and social regime of the society; on the contrary, the politics determine the economic and social system of the society. In consequence, may be assured that the laws of market (supply and demand) have not dominated the economy of the countries. The true is that was the monarchs and now the politicians whose decide the limits of the economy and until where the economics concepts are applicable or not. Moreover, they have decided ever something essential in all the historic stages: the fiscal (tax) and commercial policies. At difference of the laws of the science, the laws of the economy are relative and are linked to the social behavior of the big human groups.
It is obvious that the monarchs and politicians has not been isolated and non permeable people; they are too human beings and like the rest of the people they receive the influence of the social media, the custom and the economic institutions of the society. But, in the reality, they have accumulated the true power; that power, in turn, has been supported in the most important of all the powers: the weapons.
In all the times the common citizens has understood this reality and in the most of the cases they have accepted the authority of whose exert the political power; when this not happened occurred the great revolutions.
The modern world knew two great revolutions: the French Revolution (1789) and the Bolchevique Revolution (1917); they changed the course of history. The first led to the born of a new social class, the bourgeoisie; this class was dominated by many years by the monarchs and the feudal lords but in 1789 the bourgeoisie took the power and began to govern a part of the world. This political revolution was, at the same time, a consequence of other important historic fact: the First Industrial Revolution that began at the middle of the eighteen century with the development of the industrial scale of production and the modern machines.
The effects of the French Revolution are still present in the world; they are the abolition of the monarchy in France and other countries, the creation of the Bourgeois Liberal State that encompasses the representative democracy and the capitalist system of free market.
In 1776, thirteen years before the French Revolution, appeared in London the first edition of the book an Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations of the philosopher Adam Smith; this book would be the economic bible of the new bourgeoisie class.
The second one, the Bolchevique Revolution, destroyed the Russia’s monarch’s power, imposed also a new class ---the proletarian class--- and the communist government in a very important part of the world: Russia, Eastern Europe, China, North Vietnam and North Korea.
The communism received their inspiration from the opposed thesis of the Wealth of Nations of Adam Smith. The new theory was presented in the book The Capital of the philosopher Karl Marx, in the year 1867, ninety one years after the first edition of the Wealth of Nations. The Capital became the new economic bible of the communists.
The effects of the Bolchevique Revolution are also still visible; these are the communist regimes that yet survive in some nations. The Communism demonstrated that is not sustainable in the time and for that reason disappeared in the Former Soviet Union and in Europe in the year 1989.
The capitalist system has passed also by serious and recurrent crisis; in the 20th century the most severe was the Great Depression of 1929 and now, in the 21st century, the international financial system fall in the years 2008 and 2009.
The indifference of the statesmen
It provoked those great economic crises. The lack of control on the financial system was one of the main causes of the economy fallout.
Until where the State must exert control over the economy is an old economic discussion.
The State has had ever the faculty of deciding the essential affairs of the economy but in some moments and circumstances the leaders of the governments has resigned to that prerogative. This caused the big economics problems.
It must have a balance between the State and the market, without this balance neither the economic development nor the business is possible.
In the last decades of the 20th century the monetarist thesis reborn promoted by Milton Friedman and his pupils of the School of Chicago. The principal idea of this conception is the absolute free market, this mean, the non intervention of the State in the economics affairs.
As it is obvious, because of practice and legal restrictions, the thesis of absolute free market was not possible of to apply in all their intensity, but she influenced the political action in some countries, especially in Great Britain and in the United States since the governments of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan until the recent government of George Bush Jr.
As consequence of the most recent financial fallout (2008-2009), the authorities have tried of exert a major control on the economy and especially over the financial system; on January 3 2010 in Atlanta, the Federal Reserve chief, Ben Bernanke, declared that “…Regulation must be the first line of defense against speculation…” But the lobbyists of the free market have a great power and influence. They got the bailout for the banks without restrictions. Essential industries, like the automaker and the common citizens did not have the same luck.
The global crisis seems to be permanent. In the last days have appeared the financial problems of Greek and probably Spain, situation that might have an important effect over all the Euro Zone.
Meanwhile, the jobless, the poverty and the environment problem everyday affects a major number of people in the entire world, including the developed industrial nations.
Which will be the future? What do you think?