What does the term “politics” encompass? It refers, first and foremost, to government, political parties, the state structure, the government, elections, civic and political activities, and so on. In a positive sense, people need government to organize and structure society in the best possible way. To this end, a state and political system is created that, to one degree or another, seeks to fulfill these tasks. The latest achievements in this regard are the republican form of government and democratic systems. Various political parties are formed, each of which envisions such a system in its own way. This vision is reflected in the parties’ platforms. Individuals join a party because they share its stated goals and the means to achieve them. Note that we are talking about a specific person who has a personal interest in a social system in which they, too, will live better. Often, this “better” is associated with an improvement in one’s material circumstances. But to a large extent, it is not necessarily a material interest. It is, for example, an interest in freedom of speech, elections, assembly, information, culture, art, and so on. But even though it is not material, it is still a personal interest.
As mentioned above, this is a positive, socially beneficial version of people’s pursuit of power.
But there is also a negative version—promoting a system of government in which I personally could enrich myself constantly and on a large scale. I could enrich myself far more than under the rule of those political rivals who are currently in power. This is corruption; this is embezzlement; this is the kind of power and position that would provide me with significantly greater opportunities for personal enrichment.
Personal interest is present in both the first (positive) and the second (negative) scenarios. In the second, it is achieved through criminal means; in the first, through socially beneficial means.
In addition to political parties, there are various non-political civic organizations that publicly state similar goals of improving people’s lives in both broad and narrow spheres. But this, just as with political parties, is an association of people with the same or similar views, reflecting their personal interest in a particular structure of certain spheres of society that will personally benefit them.
There are labor unions. Any labor union is an association of people in the same or similar professions dedicated to expressing and protecting the interests of its members—specifically, people in those professions. Protection, first and foremost, against the employer, as well as against other potential negative influences. What do they protect? You might say, “their professional interests.” Yes, but these professional interests are the essence of their personal interests: in wages, in working hours, in working conditions, in occupational safety, in certain narrowly professional issues, etc.
When I think of Marxism-Leninism, a question arises: why did such great thinkers as Marx, Engels, and Lenin, in substantiating their class-based theory of social structure, did not dig deeper and did not discover (and if they did, then why did they not say so “loudly” enough) that at the heart of their class laws lies a single, deeper law—the law of personal interest. And if they had known and understood this, then both they themselves and their followers—socialists of all stripes, and especially communists—would have known for certain, as they built their models of the state, that no matter how hard they tried, building a society in which every member cared more about the public interest than their own personal interests would be close to a utopia. (Although the utopian socialism of European thinkers was, in fact, one of the components of Marxism.) So what kind of great thinkers are these, anyway?!
What is one of the fundamental differences between socialism and capitalism? It is public versus private (individual) ownership of the means of production.
And I dare to assert, without fear of repeating myself, that the communist-socialist model of state-building failed, collapsed, and effectively disappeared precisely because it stubbornly refused to acknowledge the law of personal interest and tried in every way to place the public interests of the people above personal ones. The capitalist system proved to be stronger and more viable precisely because it does not fight against an objective law—which, as is well known, cannot be overcome by definition—but is based entirely on the law of personal interest and personal gain! There, private and personal interests have been prioritized over social interests for centuries and, for the most part, continue to be prioritized today.
Although it must be said that in developed capitalist countries, significant progress has been made over the years in ensuring both rights and freedoms, as well as a fairly high standard of living for ordinary people. But it must also be said that this was achieved through the persistent struggle of people for their personal interests, which is what prompted parties and governments to act in this direction.
That said, as far as I know, as soon as governments start leaning too far “to the left,” the economy begins to suffer.
Thus: the law of self-interest in politics operates quite obviously and is visible to the naked eye. Always keep this law in mind, and most political events, phenomena, trends, and conflicts will become clearer to you. In most situations, it is a struggle between united (and not only) personal interests and personal gain.
Lately, in Ukraine and beyond, the phrase “conflict of interest” has been mentioned more and more often in the worlds of politics and business. I would say: “It’s mentioned somewhat timidly.” There isn’t enough courage to call these conflicts by their true nature. Namely: “conflict of PERSONAL INTERESTS”—either between the interests of two individuals or between personal and public interests. Embrace the Law of Personal Gain and stop confusing people with empty rhetoric. Call things by their proper names, and then we’ll reach the truth more quickly and find ways to combat these criminal PERSONAL INTERESTS, rather than searching for them at random for years, skirting around the issue, too shy to utter these words. Armed with knowledge of the Law—as an objective, scientific principle—we could have long ago used this knowledge, already firmly established in the public consciousness as scientifically proven, to fight against these phenomena, rather than wandering in the darkness of guesswork and assumptions about the nature of unlawful phenomena, particularly corruption.
Addendum.
I mistakenly omitted the formula (wording) of the law of personal interest here.
The formula reads as follows:
“Most people, in most situations, are guided of personal nterest and personal gain.”
An explanation of the reason for this error, as well as information on where to find the rationale for this law and related topics on this forum, can be found—if you’d like—in my response to a question from user Jay, who, I’d like to thank him, pointed out my mistake.
