The Democracy of Good Deeds and the Communism of Bad Deeds

Goodliness is the absence of ugliness. It is the idea of the basic goodness of man, in order to attain a harmonious co-existence among men in this material world—- where violence and other forms of evil are ever permeating.

It is often said that to err is human. Indeed the man is said to be imperfect that it is almost impossible to see in your mind’s eye the perfect goodliness of man. It is in fact upon these premise that I seek to push the idea of a mode of action I shall call now “The Democracy of Good Deeds and the Communism of Bad Deeds”.

It is upon the point of imperfection of man that we should find motivation to improve ourselves for indeed to be human is to be imperfect. Let us not tolerate however the idea that “I am human therefore I sin”, but rather “I am human and therefore I err”.

Is it human to err so gravely?

It is not that we should demand upon ourselves to evade every mistake (it would be unrealistic), but it is for us to deviate from doing deeds that are gravely wrong. There are deeds committed by men that are so grievously abominable that there is no room for reasoning out that they are merely mistakes or errors of judgments. It is purely evil where men take great pleasures from the indiscriminate lavishing of the flesh, without regards to responsibility and consequences.

Just as so to the very greedy businessman who takes all the wealth for himself disregarding the labour of his workers, to undervalue the fruits of another man’s labour, for a man may have hundreds of acres of land but without workers to help him produce wealth from such land, it is virtually useless to him—he might as well sell it.

Just the same with the government official who routinely steals money from the finances of the government; for the act of altering accounting records is not a mere error of judgment anymore.

The idea that I am promoting here is the concept that men should always be conscious and cognizant about every major action or words that he make in his everyday life; to be fully aware of its effects to himself or herself as well as to others; for every action has a two-pronged effect, that is, the effect on the self and the effect on others.

If I speak these words, how does it benefit me and how does it affect others? That is the basic question that should be inculcated in each and every one of us, as if to allow such mechanism of thought to be already a second skin to us, a habit that could not be easily broken—to have that perpetual questioning mind and heart, the very spirit of the inner workings of our consciences.
One may argue that this concept of constant awareness to every word or action may curtail the spontaneity of human interactions. We must not however be very particular about this disadvantage, for indeed there are many words or actions that we could do without the questioning heart and mind.

The act of drinking coffee or tea, whether to sing or dance, or whether to read or write—these are actions that do not demand proper guidance of the questioning mind and heart so that men could still flow with spontaneity in their daily conduct.

But whether or not to appropriate this money knowing full well that it is not yours is an action that requires proper contemplation especially when it is already of sizable amount.
Just like the act of whether to seduce this woman or not?

The same as to the question of whether or not to gossip against another person or not, just the same as to the question of whether or not to help a man with an empty stomach lying on the side streets. These are deeds that demand the guidance of our questioning minds and hearts.
The concept of the democracy of good deeds is easier to illustrate and understand if every one of us treats the self as a body of government. For indeed every government is democratic or communistic, proletarian or authoritarian. Either, or.

“So what is my form of government?” you might ask. What is best suited for me and most beneficial to me? What form of government could enhance my spiritual self?

A purely democratic government, where there is an unhindered flow of freedom, is not ideal for as I mentioned earlier, everything in excess is scoffing by nature. Absolute freedom results to wantonness and excesses.

A purely communistic government is at the same time not ideal for it would strangle us and prevent us from experiencing a meaningful life. A suitable government for the self therefore would be a well-balanced government, not purely democratic but also not purely communistic.
It should be a government that is situated somewhere in the middle of two extremes.

This form of government, if we relate it to the government of the self is what I call “The Democracy of Good Deeds and the Communism of Bad Deeds”.

It is a concept of self-government that in its truest form is the propagation of all good deeds and if possible the curtailing of all bad deeds. If this concept would be attained, we would attain a certain level of goodliness that exacts the very idea of how the Creator had intended man to be—righteous and enlightened—entirely fortified in his resolve to struggle against the piercing menace of evil, and then of temptation.

In the democracy of good deeds and the communism of bad deeds, it is ideal that man should propagate good deeds democratically, that is without hindrances in so long as it is possible while on the other hand, bad deeds are curtailed by a government with an iron hand, a communistic attitude towards mischief and waywardness.

If we say that man is of no perfection as we all should admit, then we must recognize always the possibility of sin that in this context, man should be about ninety-five percent good in his everyday conduct and five percent bad, this five percent are for those mistakes that are committed unknowingly, a sort of a margin of error, for indeed no man is perfect.
Is this concept attainable? That is the million-dollar question. It is a question that every man should ask himself every day and every hour of his life.

For certain, if one would hold this concept of the democracy of good deeds and the communism of bad deeds as proper and acceptable guidance, one would more or less feel a sentiment of enlightenment and of awakening of the self.