∞ ⋈ ∞ ∞ ⋈ ∞ ∞ ⋈ ∞

The Evil Of Labour (God And Labour)

First published: 16 April 2019

Whilst transitioning from an Old Testament world to a New Testament world, the commandment about labour, is one of the most controversial. With modern technology, increasing unemployment, it cannot be logically comprehended, God of Love will expect only few people to do all the human labour and leave the unemployed in undignified states of being. Socialism and Communism share evil presuppositions of the idea Labour. It overvalues Labour. The source is probably the commandment in the Old Testament about working 6 days and resting one day. During the 2nd World War, in Europe, the commandment influenced the German Christians, who were socialists, and the Russian Jews who were communists, when Germany split in two. Marx's work, which was appreciated by communists, made it very clear in Capital Vol 1, he hated people called capitalists with ideas, whilst calling Labour "the creator". The Nazis, who were socialists, argued vehemently, labour gives freedom ("Arbeit macht frei"), above the entrances to their death camps. I assume it was, among socialists and communists, a feeling, called Caiaphas Syndrome, which caused their favoring of labour at the cost of good ideas. Can the Ashkenazis, the brunt of Hitler's anger, be compared, with the Russian Jews, who were Marxists, who abhorred capitalist ideas? In Mein Kampf, Hitler unequivocally explained his hatred of communists. However, the conviction that labour should be praised at the cost of good ideas, was common to communists and socialists. Preaching, at the entrances of death camps, labour gives freedom, implies the Ashkenazi Jewish people, gathered their wealth, partly from ideas, because, how else could they have gathered wealth if they did not labour a lot. Ashkenaz is the Jewish name for Germany because his descendants settled in Germany. Ashkenazis are called the most intelligent people, which implies much about good ideas. I am still not sure i comprehend the realities of Germany before the 2nd world war, when the influence of labour and ideas are considered. It is probably because mainstream thought generalises about races, without considering individuals. Some Jews were after all Nazis, weren't they? It helps though when thinking about the circumstances, to think about Caiaphas Syndrome, and convictions about labour, causing freedom. Was it not perhaps The Evil of Labour, which caused much of the problems?

Going back in history to comprehend sociology with regard to Labour, the Ten Commandments, referring to about 4000 years ago, can be considered. Another event, which could shed light on issues about labour, could be the story of Cain and Abel. Abel bred animals and Cain was an agronomist. According to DNA analysis agronomists migrated to Europe about 10'000 years ago, from the Middle East. Their DNA is included in the DNA of Ashkenazi Jews. This does not mean however all Europeans with the "Ashkenazi" genes are Jewish. It seems some of those people became Protestants, i.e., who were prosecuted by Roman Catholics. Apparently Europeans with those genes introduced crop farming in Europe. It can be guessed the friction between Cain and Abel was partly because of the old (animal husbandry) versus the new (agronomy), and labour. Animal husbandry men have to shepherd their herds the whole day, whilst the elders, probably have little to do except, think. Crop farmers have free time, after they planted, whilst waiting for harvest time. The Bible says God of the Old Testament did not accept Cain's offer, but accepted Abel's. Bacchus, was probably an agronomist. According to Bertrand Russell, Bacchic rituals influenced Christianity a lot. Was Bacchic rituals the origin of the Eucharist? Enjoying a steak and a glass of wine, could have been part of a peace pact, who knows. Could be, Cain was an agronomist, Abel was "the bull", who with other "bulls", prosecuted agronomists. On the other hand Zeus lived in a cave on Crete, which make it seems, he was ostracised. Did Cain snap and murder Abel, "the bull"? Zeus is also depicted as a bull, who married Europa of Phoenicia, who was the Mother of Europeans. I guess the free time, waiting for the harvest, brought Cain into trouble. Cain was presumably the more creative of the two brothers, because crop farming uses more tools. A common mistake is to compare Abel with Jesus. It is more realistic to compare Cain with Jesus, because Jesus was also a creative man, who enjoyed wine. Cain and Jesus were both ostracised by their communities. An important difference between Cain and Jesus, is, Jesus did not snap. He wanted to be the last creator, sacrificed by his community, for his sin (being creative), due to The Evil of Labour, but unfortunately The Evil of Labour did not stop, as Jesus wanted it to. The ideas ("intelligence") of creators, are still stolen and developed by those who place all value in "physical" labour.

In Greece, at the time of Socrates, The Evil of Labour did not exist, as severely. The nobility had much free time. Those governing structures, which allowed free time to think and do research, were also visible among the aristocracy of Europe, who formed many new ideas, influencing the modern world. Socrates wrote about specialisation, which gives more free time. Marx opposed specialisation, because of it causing boredom and unemployment. Socrates's ideas, for example, were too revolutionary for, his time. He was hermeneutically sacrificed, by those in control. It seems, a common practice of Christians, these days, who made Hermes and Jesus, idols.

Currently The Evil of Labour, is again making people irrational. The Artificial Intelligence Revolution, annul many jobs, but yet, some do not see the reality. They want only the-employed to survive, with dignity, and they do not place value on honesty (nobility). Honest and noble are synonyms. It seems they think the unemployed may live, but only barely, whilst being pitied by them, with charity. They, being the owners of capitalist assets. The owners of capitalist assets claim they are capitalists, but in my view they are much closer to communists and socialists, than real capitalists, due to their convictions about labour, being the be all and end all of production. Jack Ma, an owner of Alibaba, for example, recently proposed a 6 day work week, from 6 in the morning to 9 in the evening. The total hours at work per week for one person would be 90 hours. Probably his views were not reflected accurately in the news. A logical person, respecting Truth and Love, above self, cannot have such a view. 90 hours of work a week should be done by two people. It could be again the irrationality, of minority shareholders, and the greedy, caused by maximum-profit-per-individual. A 90 hours work week would be exploitation. Marx would have flipped when seeing a 90 hours work week, because his false argument was, most of the value formed by labourers ends up in profits of capitalists, because, profits are the differences between selling prices of goods and labour costs. He did not consider the value of intequity.

Intequinism devalues labour, in the sense, contributions made by labour is overvalued, by socialists, communists and capitalists. The labour theory of capital, which was commonly referred to, around the time of Marx, argued all value of products comes from labour. Obviously the mistake was, intequity (capital of ideas) was not factored into communist values. What was the effect? Good ideas were not valued, therefore there was not incentive to form good ideas. This is, even in capitalism a problem, because Labour Law has not developed yet, to include rights to remuneration, due to good ideas. Receiving bonuses for good ideas are conditional on employer approval. The reason is, according to utilitarian philosophy, included in Constitutions, ideas are common property. Imparting of ideas is protected as a "human" right. Socrates's opinion of distinguishing between humans and "gods" and "goddesses", is thus included in Constitutions in an idolatrous way. The origin, i think, is philosophical ideas connected to the Eucharist, partly derived from Socrates, secularised into Constitutions.