![Imagen2.png](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmRemkFE8PooJUyxNQETDx3oLQu6wQs24L2cq9x98iWoyx/Imagen2.png) When we make a brief review of history, we can notice that human behavior over the centuries, or millennia, has always been dominated by a set of particular beliefs, these beliefs are what justify the daily actions of society, and they are the ones that dictate the social objectives and the means to achieve them. The field of ideas inevitably ends up being the one that rules over matter. Thus, in ancient Athens they were devoted to developing political thought, theater, arts, philosophy, science, architecture, and consequently, the Athenians were dedicated to the exercise of the intellect and gave special prominence to the development of culture. In Sparta on the other hand, a predominant importance was given to matters concerning military exercise, discipline, the optimal development of the body, and the total vocation of the individual towards society. https://aventurasnahistoria.uol.com.br/orinoco/media/images/large/2018/04/23/guerra-do-peloponeso-capas-1096585.png On the other hand, I am almost certain that this moment in history will be remembered as a period of development of the applied sciences, and how the technological changes introduced in this period of time shaped and created a very particular culture. The cinema, the discography, the radio, the TV, and later the computers and the Internet, which would allow a leap to the digitalization of all the above, without mentioning the new and improved methods of transportation, the home appliances, and in turn the mass production of all elements, would determine the way in which we conceive life today. In the last 200 years man has managed to solve all material problems, but how suddenly has man been able to create this entire material advance that in the past had not been even imaginable? If we take a look into the past we can foresee the modern material development as a direct consequence of the decay of faith and of Christian establishment, which was the dominant belief of the moment, together with the accumulation of capital that could be extracted mainly from colonialism, these two factors created very particular circumstances, mainly in the United Kingdom, a nation that could acquire a constant flow of capital from its colonies, and that thanks to the introduction of the "Paper Currency" the Banks could, through the loans based on the fractional reserve system, transfer the wealth to the entrepreneurs, who were in charge of directing the process of industrialization, and obtain for themselves the economic power that until then had the aristocrats. Industrialization was possible thanks to the historical circumstances that occurred at that time; the unprecedented accumulation of capital in Europe, which had its peak with the price revolution; the fact that colonial disputes were more important than disputes within European territory; a much broader trade; and finally, discoveries such as the printing press and the steam engine, were in charge of accelerating the fall of the *Ancien Régime* and establishing the bases of the new model. https://www.basf.com/images/corp/about-us/history/130-years-of-basf-in-china/how-it-all-began/01-Ludwigshafen.png-renditions/cq5dam.web.16-9.12.jpg This change in the conception of social organization was incompatible with the model of feudal aristocracy known until then, mainly because labor was disputed, and consequently, the way in which society should be organized. In the United Kingdom aristocrats were forced to give up their political and social privileges to preserve their position as landowners, this was an important step, the new political and social model no longer revolved around a vision based on a religious belief or some transcendental type, but they took a step back so that the production of goods and services and urbanization would become the predominant idea that would quickly take root in the new world view that people would have. This is how society stopped organizing around a political, military and religious hierarchy, to move to an organizational model based solely on productive factors. Since then, the silhouette of modern society could be seen, where people organize themselves around a determined economic activity in order to satisfy their material needs. The vassal was replaced by the salaried worker, the feudal lord by the businessman, the space left by religion on economic and political issues is filled by ideology. With the French Revolution and its consequent events, and with the Spanish American wars of independence that separated Spain from its colonies in America, giving instability to the crown, the new vision of the world promoted by the United Kingdom would expand to finally reach a dominance almost absolute in the West after the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy, the Russian tsarist monarchy, and the German imperial monarchy fell at the end of the First World War. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/70/12/c7/7012c79cad268ae59b2aa986cb399b5d.jpg At this point of history is when everything begins to revolve around the economy, and therefore, is when economicism occurs, that is, the criterion that gives economic factors primacy over those of any other nature. People stopped discussing the values, traditions, and cultural beliefs of society, and the entire political and social debate began to revolve around ideas based exclusively on the organization and management of economic factors; communism, socialism, capitalism. There are three ideologies, although different in their behavior, have a common goal; the organization of society around the means of production. Communism, socialism, and capitalism will be more efficient when it comes to producing goods and services, which they seek, insofar as people can detach themselves from any hint of morality. Because of that, Marx thought to abolish morality, religion and everything that he considered part of the superstructure. >Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience. > >[Source: Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich. (1848). Manifesto of the Communist Party.](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Communist_Party/2) We must understand that morality keeps people under specific behavioral parameters, because if you believe that something is bad or unworthy, you will be abstain from doing so, for that reason, any properly economic system like the ones mentioned above, interprets the moral of the individual as a force that resists the total integration of productive factors. If you are not willing to take a specific job because you consider it unworthy, or because it is not for you, it is a problem. https://beersandpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/antonio-gramsci-fondatore-de-l-unita.jpg But as it was later explained by Antonio Gramsci, the superstructure, that is, the juridical, political, artistic, philosophical and religious forms, cannot be eliminated as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels proposed, but must be supplanted by others, for that reason Gramsci argued that Marxism was also a superstructure. For communism to manifest in the way described by the Marxists, the people who make up society, mainly the proletarians, must first adopt communism as an idea that can supplant all the others, so decreeing state atheism as was made in the Soviet Union would not lead to any substantial change if people are not really atheists, which according to Marx means to discard the beliefs imposed by the previous ruling classes. In this way, both communism and capitalism, in order to reach their productive excellence and fully develop fully, since they can not eliminate the beliefs that society possesses, must necessarily supplant them by their own set of ideas, which in practice they are nothing more than materialism, utilitarianism, scientism and economism. People must be willing to carry out any economic activity as required by the dictatorship of the proletariat in communism, or the invisible hand of the consumer in capitalism. That is, the will of the individual must submit to the conditions presented by the economic factors. In communism the individual must submit his will to the needs of himself, but not seen from an individual perspective, but seen as part of a collective, that is, the individual must have class consciousness. In socialism, for its part, the individual must submit his will to the needs of the State, that is, to a group of people who govern with absolute power, but who govern with class consciousness. And finally, in capitalism the individual must be willing to submit his will to what can give him more economic gain. The individual put himself at the disposal of any of these doctrines assumes that the productive factors should work for the benefit of the entire group in a fair manner. This is how, although they vary in their ways and in their behavior, these three doctrines share a set of similar principles, which are utilitarianism, understood as the thought that considers the most useful is the best and, therefore, the value of behavior is determined by the practical nature of its results; materialism, understood both by the consideration that there is only matter and that reduces the spirit to a consequence of it or that it is simply non-existent, and as an attitude that gives excessive value to material things; scientism, understood as the tendency to give excessive value to scientific notions, especially to sciences based on the data of experience, considering that they are the only valid knowledge; and finally, economism, described as the philosophy that interprets the sum total of human life in terms of the production, acquisition and distribution of wealth. ![Imagen1.png](https://ipfs.busy.org/ipfs/QmR5kCEuStnMGU5Q48eAYhjzKnoStmucTin8XkeanZ8fHP) The main problem with this group of beliefs is that they are materialistic ideologies, and as a consequence, they need propitious material conditions to be valid, which makes them very rigid and impractical, which is why those who profess it always find some valid reason why their ideology has failed to move from theory to practice, or for which it simply can not be implemented. If the material circumstances change, the ideology loses its pillars, and because the material conditions are in constant change, this type of materialistic ideologies will always be doomed to failure. Marx argued that communism was the last of the revolutions, because it would be the moment when the broadest class of society would impose itself on the rest, to the point where society would be made up of a single and indivisible mass of proletarians, nevertheless, he admitted that first there must be certain material conditions, such as industrialization; without industry there are no proletarians, and therefore, there can not be a dictatorship of something that does not exist. Therefore, if a society never industrializes, lacks the material possibility to do so, or if it transcends a post-industrial era, it would be nonsense to profess Marxism. Just like Marxism, the rest of the material ideologies are equally unable to function, or condemned to expire. On the other hand, most of these extraordinary ideologies that seek to reorganize society, don't transcend being, however brilliant the creator may be, a mere utopia formulated by the abstraction that some individual made of the world in his head, an entelechy, so it is likely that the propitious conditions imagined at a certain moment, never exist. https://www.malsalvaje.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/utopia.jpg However, we are in the modern world, every day there are more people who abandon ideals, values, principles and change them by a material doctrine. They fight for impossible material conditions. The new liberals don't defend the principles and the real pillars of liberalism, but defend a certain structure, something like the equivalent of worshiping a golden calf, idolize a specific legal form, and everything that is different is wrong under its vision, regardless of whether the conditions are ideal or not. A liberal must defend the idea of liberty, not a form of static and specific government, forms change, institutions change, circumstances change, but the ideal must persist. Determine our values, those for which we are willing to give everything, even life, should be a priority, and once defined, we must proceed in accordance with them. Values and principles don't depend on material circumstances, they do not change unless we want them to be, this kind of ideas belong to the intelligible world, and as a result, they are immobile and immutable, we must decide if we will fight for them in the material world. If a man's liberty depends on something foreign to him, as the different ideological theories I have mentioned above suggest, then the liberty does not really exist, and it is a mere illusion. And if within the values you defend is not liberty, then rectify, because to believe and defend something, you must first be free to do so. Liberty comes first, then comes the rest. Liberty does not depend on material conditions, it depends on our will to conquer it. --- Image Source: [1](http://gatossindicales.blogspot.com/2016/07/nacer-trabajar-consumir-y-morir.html), [2](https://aventurasnahistoria.uol.com.br/noticias/reportagem/licoes-peloponeso-semelhancas-guerra-fria-435029.phtml), [3](https://www.basf.com/zh/company/about-us/history/130-years-of-basf-in-china/how-it-all-began/in-the-beginning-were-the-dyes.html), [4](https://www.pinterest.es/pin/624804148275653406/), [5](https://beersandpolitics.com/gramsci-laclau-claves-del-discurso-politico-la-fractura-social/), [6](https://towardsautonomyblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/beyond-economism-the-prospect-of-the-commons/), [7](https://www.malsalvaje.com/2018/06/03/una-reflexion-sobre-la-utopia-un-texto-de/) https://steemitimages.com/DQmNPVpoHikcSoNb82Gvoe3GTQkxHmEWQ6dZfU6AeabD9G2/U5drdSsVTuCnmk12Cb8fzMd7tBYk2b8_1680x8400.png