But if the entire system revolves entirely around “bourgeoisie interests” as we have demonstrated earlier, then we must also go one step further in trying to figure out what “bourgeoisie interests” actually are. Can one actually pinpoint specific “bourgeoisie interests”? Or are these interests so wide-ranging and vague, that one’s attempts at defining and pinpointing such interests would automatically be rendered incomplete and limited? Would we be able to make headway in our efforts at trying to pinpoint and understand such interests? Or would we eventually run into a wall?
One can contend that if certain fragments of evidence, facts, statistics, and certain statements are pieced together, we could construct a hypothesis or even get a basic understanding and picture as to what the essence or nature of “bourgeoisie interests” actually is, in addition to an understanding of the basic aim or goal of such interests. For instance, if we were to take Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement in the early 1990’s into account, bourgeoisie interests translate mainly into the development and fostering of a sense of dependence and helplessness on the part of the overwhelming majority of people. “Bourgeoisie interests” translate directly into the overt control of people’s bodies, minds, and property by fostering a sense of dependence and helplessness on the part of the overwhelming majority of people through morally questionable means and strategies. As Netanyahu said:
“America is a golden calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece until there is nothing left but the world’s biggest welfare state that we will create and control…This is what we do to countries that we hate. We destroy them very slowly.”
As Prince Harry said recently, it is all “a dirty game.” Hence, if we were to dissect and analyze specific bourgeoisie actions and policies in order to get at the basic aim or motive of their core interests, that basic aim or motive which underlies core bourgeoisie interests would amount to a fostering of a sense of dependence and helplessness on the part of the overwhelming majority of the world’s people. ‘Philanthropy’ and bourgeoisie altruism, as Brooke Harrington noted, do not fully compensate for the top-down actions and measures which exploited and gutted people from both a material and psychological perspective.
Although socialism could be a way of compensating for the top-down actions which extracted and exploited the masses from both a material and psychological standpoint, socialism – as evinced by Netanyahu’s statement – is also a mark and sign of a weakened and diminished society. Thus, socialism is a double-edged sword. As Gustave Le Bon wrote: “Socialism will soon constitute the new faith of the suffering masses whose existence is often and inevitably rendered far from enviable by the economic conditions of temporary civilization.” If adopted by Western peoples, Socialism “will be the signal for their entry on one of the last stages of decadence” and in turn “facilitate the destructive invasions by which [Western peoples] are threatened.”
Le Bon also argued: “The Socialism that will prove [the West’s] ruin will doubtless be couched in strictly scientific formulae, of value at the best for an ideal society such as humanity will never produce, but this latest child of pure reason will be more intolerant and more redoubtable than all its elders.” But luckily for the Western world: “This hour…has not struck yet. To reach it we have still to traverse certain phases.” And to a certain extent, the ultimate political and social outcomes of today’s political and social strife depend on what the threshold is for Western peoples when it comes to suffering under the yoke of a strangulating sense of dependence and helplessness that has been fostered from above.