Winners are good for society
As Trump is poised to once again become president of my country (unless someone manages to cap his butt) I feel challenged by my own theory that social "winners" are sort of naturally selected and serve the larger social life cycle, whether the people on the ground understand that or not.
I believe this about leftism: whatever its merits may be, it lost. The western world turned away from it. The opposing perspective didn't win by a blitzkrieg, but by giving the people what they wanted.
To arrive here, you have to stop being sanctimonious and see a social group as it is: a naturally evolving being, playing out it's own story.
I believe this about leftism: whatever its merits may be, it lost. The western world turned away from it. The opposing perspective didn't win by a blitzkrieg, but by giving the people what they wanted.
To arrive here, you have to stop being sanctimonious and see a social group as it is: a naturally evolving being, playing out it's own story.
Comments (39)
Of course.
Evil always triumphs, because it's not hampered by principles, fairness, compassion or shame.
Kind of vague sorry Frank. An OP full of assertions and claims.
Sounds like the thoughts I have when I just wake up, and Im still tired (and tired of fighting).
Could you add some meat to this sauce? :wink:
Quoting frank
Hardly a certainty. He might not even get the GOP nomination.
Quoting frank
I think I might know what youre referring to, but its cloudy. Winners = rich and powerful?
People on the ground = us? Social life cycle = ?
Quoting frank
Im sorry I must have missed that story. What was the final score?
Did it cover the point spread? :cool:
Seriously though who would you say represents leftism?
(Please dont say Joe Biden).
Quoting frank
Which opposing perspective? Technophilia? Classic conservativism?
Trumpism? (aka rabble-rousing).
What exactly DO people want?
Quoting frank
To arrive where? Where are we going? Whos being sanctimonious?
A social group is a naturally evolving being? Where are we, in the forest primeval?
We are surrounded by human decisions and the consequences. Are they natural or artificial?
Is it a social variation of survival of the fittest? (social Darwinism).
Thanks for your thread, could be interesting :smile:
It sounds like my words bounced off your consciousness and left no trace.
But I'll tell you a story.
There was a guy who recently spent a whole morning nursing an ancient woman into death. Her lungs were shot, she was in her nineties. She was exhausted. Her ancient husband laid in the bed beside her, holding her hand, staring at the ceiling. The dying woman was small, and all her small adult children loitered around. More morphine. More morphine. And now she's finally comfortable and she's basically gone. So the guy removed her support and her body immediately did what it had been trying to do: shut down.
This is life. This is what all living things do. This is sometimes what societies do. So who are you in the story of your society? Are you the part that's dying and flowing out of the world? Are you the adult child, loitering around, saying goodbye? Are you the husband who loved her for a really long time?
Or are you the relative who stands at the bedside and thinks ugly thoughts through the whole thing? I'd say if you're the latter, you're just stuck in your own hell. You can open your heart and love all of it.
Isn't this ignoring the complexity of manipulation?
Not only do we have intentional manipulation by political powers utilizing the gullible nature of humans (all humans) and ride the fact that the ones who see through bullshit are a small enough group to not have actual democratic power in elections.
On top of that we have the unintentional or automatic manipulation. How the zeitgeist ebb and flow between the extreme ends of society. When one group had their perspective as a primary driver of society for a while, the other side feels removed from being participants in society and will strike back during times when the primary side has grown lazy in their power.
Right now we also have the algorithmic manipulation of social media. How the business of it push negativity as an interaction method for driving ads, and produce more intense groups of extremes being radicalized by a skewed world view built on misinformation. Algorithms manufacturing a reality that does not exist but affect the values that drive how people vote.
Because of this, most people aren't free in their votes because they are being shuffled around by different kinds of manipulations all the time. The proof of it can be seen in all kinds of marketing, how industries can influence fashion and cultural mentalities by marketing alone. And since democracy relies on 50% of the population's support in order to produce a win for one side, it requires more people than the amount who are able to see past the sum of manipulation.
All democracies are therefore slaves to whatever side manages to manipulate most efficiently and whether or not functions in society produce a balanced or skewed perception of reality (like with the algorithms of social media).
So to put absolute trust in such a fragile system to be good for people just because someone wins, is a rather problematic ideal. Democracy is only the best system so far, and our focus on why it is good is only in contrast to all current alternative systems that truly does not work. Right now, people are too occupied with just keeping democracy alive and going and not fall back into authoritarian regimes, otherwise we would focus on improving democracy past the problem of manipulation.
In the hands of smart people, democracy can function as an alternative to authoritarian power, in which the population are manipulated into believing they are free when in fact they are controlled just as much as in an authoritarian state.
The only question that is relevant: does the state and nation have enough safeguards against such manipulation? If not, how does the population know they are free or in an authoritarian democracy?
Hmm, quite. Bounced like a gnat off an elephants butt! But thanks for trying again.
Quoting frank
Id venture to say that we are possibly all the characters in your story, in different ways, and at different times.
The poor woman herself wasnt always so poor and sick.
She could have lived a life as happy as it was long.
Death is usually painful and messy. But so is birth
Quoting frank
Yes. Sincerely agree. Well put. :up:
But Im straining to see how that relates to the OP? Please fill in the outlines, if you would :smile:
Fascinating question. Historically, a society's myths and folktales would offer justifications for the social order. If you look at your own culture, you can pick up on these. Some of it was delivered to you in an institutionalized setting, some in the form of entertainment, celebrations, memorial events, etc. It's all around you, and this has been the way humans have done it for thousands upon thousands of years. Is indoctrination inherently wrong or unhealthy?
Quoting Christoffer
The state engages in what you're calling manipulation. I don't think any society is free of it. Am I wrong?
When it's time for society to be wrecked, the people rally around a wrecker.
Not really. The US has always been right-wing, but there is plenty of leftism in Europe.
Yea, there's a big dose of Nietzsche in this view.
It's all window dressing
How shall we characterize this being? It sounds as fictional as the 'left' you refer to. The majority of Trumpsters I have encountered believe they are getting what they want by blocking others who want other things. What is the essential spirit guiding these different people? Are the wreckers of the Constitution feeding from the same plate as the bovine consumers made conspicuous at Walmart through the lens of Veblen's description of class?
To me, it looks like they all came to the party with their own supply of dreams.
Does it? Do you agree with Thatcher that there is no society?
Quoting Paine
I'm not quite sure what you're saying. I'm saying: look at human societies the way you look at a troop of baboons. Their social structures orbit the strong, and this is because it's historically been beneficial.
In the case of leader who takes his people in the direction of death, whether it's Trump or it's Hannibal, think of this as natural instead of horrid. The baboon king who leads his troop over the edge of the cliff is serving future generations in that they won't have his bloodline (or that of his followers.) It's more complicated than that, but that's a rough draft.
Don't we still have a five day work week???
Some workers rights still exist too.
(Oh right, they aren't anymore leftist objectives, they're universal practices.)
True. But wasn't that because they discovered that driving the whole populace into the dirt was ultimately dangerous? It leads to Russian revolutions and anarchist antics. It's better to throw a bone to anyone who's likely to stand up for themselves, and let the poorest rot.
Or was it really because of some leftist principles set in action?
Cant help but comment on this. In as simplified manner as I can currently muster, there are two directly contradictory mythoi, or folk-tales, that are currently at work ineven our globalsociety:
1) Greed is good.
2) Greed is bad.
Mythos (1) directly underlies our current global economy: a pyramid structure based on the falsity of infinite growth with infinite resources, driven by materialistic consumerism by the masses, wherein those most greedy (hence, least empathetic toward others wellbeing) will always win by being closest to the pyramids zenith.
Mythos (2), however, underlies so much of our global day to day politics of human interaction (what in my anthropology classes was terms politics with a small p) so as to be nearly ubiquitous to humankindand it is the small "p" politics of individual human interactions we all engage in that, in democratic systems at least, results in the prevailing capital "P" political systems by which individuals are then governed.
(1) is now prevailing worldwide. COP28 as just one noteworthy example of this. (The corruption of USA's political systems by corporate (else, monetary) interests as just one instantiation of this.)
Ill leave it up to others to judge whether mythos (1) and mythos (2) lead to the same long-term wellbeing, eudemonia, among humans.
My main point here is thatgiven their direct, logical contradictionmythos (1) and mythos (2) cannot both be right. This, at least, in so far as depicting that which we ought to strive for for maximal wellbeing. This conflict between the two mythoi being something that underpins a lot of the Trumpist and Leftist (etc., for other perspectives are also present) ambitions in terms of Politics in the US.
You've got a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
Don't let the fact that this time around they pick the turd sandwich collapse your world view.
More like a tragic travesty of democracy when you're a voter within it. Besides, American politics might also have some effect upon non-American politics worldwide, I'm thinking.
As you marked Trump as the standard bearer of the Right, it can be noted there are communitarians of the stripe Thatcher appealed to that support him but that crowd does not represent those who are more interested in getting a greater share of the pie from society, whoever is behind the counter.
And then there are religionists who seek the influence of secular organizations to vouchsafe their interests and powers of reproduction. The Federalist's Society is not promoting Proud Boys for their program. The nationalist agenda of Bannon world needs the apparatus of Federal power to get what they want.
It was these motley stragglers of a travelling show I was referring to as the 'party', not a theory of social leadership.
It sounds like you are using "society" simultaneously in the sense of pre-political activity of individuals and a realm of phenomena that displays regularities of a certain kind. This permits a prosperity Christian and a social Darwinists to root for the same team in a game of chance.
Abandon both wings, make of the absurd political spectrum a triangle, put right and left at the bottom, and add your own at the pinnacle. Now you have a direction.
Speaking of dreams, yours call from a secret place.
Im not sure why people find affiliation with others based on vague notions of ideology and where they put themselves on a linear spectrum. There is exactly one ideology per human being, none alike, and the political spectrum ought to resemble a galaxy rather than a straight line. It would be silly to clutch to such an image of politics.
I was not arguing for the linear spectrum. On the contrary, I am questioning the orientation as has been offered above.
I mean to say that I do not receive an image through your description.
Neither side offers freedom. Its a tug of war between two competing elements of Republicanism, who act as praetorian guards to the system of control they compete over. There are other directions and lines upon which one can travel politically. Thats all I was saying.
Do you see your promotion of Trump in these terms?
Do you observe "a naturally evolving being" that the OP describes?
Yes. I agree with this, although I'd say this has been the prevailing mythos for at least a couple of thousand years. It's made us who and what we are.
Quoting javra
I don't agree with this. A case of Mythos (2) would be the traditional Russian mir structure, in which the community "owns" the resources and divides them as needed. Sons spend their lives in the shadows of their fathers because there is no advancement, no growth, no change. This was also the spirit of the Bronze age, when crops were brought into the temple to be divided and distributed. Again, there was no growth, no competition, and no change.
I think in our world, self-sufficiency is a requirement everywhere. You have to stand up for yourself even in the family unit. If you don't learn how to do it there, your life prospects are dim.
I'd say that what happened in the 20th Century is an echo of the Bronze Age collapse: Mythos (2) broke down, and Mythos (1) took over, first and foremost to bring the crisis to an end. There was no wicked industrialist on the scene. The myth that supported life prevailed.
Quoting javra
Could it be that each has its advantages? That each might be life-giving in the right circumstances?
I didn't mark Trump that way, although I can understand why you got that impression. I think Trump is just a society wrecker. He was elected, in part, to serve that purpose.
I am proposing that a significant contingent of his support comes from those who want to preserve society in their image. Take, for example, the conservative cultural warriors who want to control education and reproductive rights (both physical and institutional). They are seeking the power to bring those social conditions into fruition.
The existence of many agendas makes me doubt how much these groups actually share beyond their shared enemies. The rappers of "Great Again" share the couch with secessionists cradling automatic weapons in their bunkers. They are watching different movies in their head.
True, his base is varied. What I was trying to do was fit him into my theory that winners are good for society. Does that work when the winners are wreckers? Are wreckers a symptom of disease? Or do they arrive on time to play their role in transformation?
If you dont live in a large northern American city, move to one. Then the possibility of another Trump presidency may not seem so daunting. In Chicago, where I live, we now have 4 self-declared socialist alderpersons and a mayor who identifies as a socialist ( or at least as a progressive). Of course their actions in office will likely fall far short of any socialist ideal, but I think its very cool that there was such willingness among urban voters to support them. I suspect that as millennials and gen Zers become the dominant share of voters, this move to the left in northern cities will continue. Since I dont plan to live anywhere besides a large liberal city, what happens in Oklahoma or Florida is irrelevant to me.
I mentioned greed, not self-sufficiency.
Wiktionary defines greed as a selfish or excessive desire for more than is needed or deserved [...]. In parallel, Wikipedia states:
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed
... which is in accord to what I was saying and contrary to your disagreement.
Greed is at direct odds with just deserts, aka fair appraisals of merit.
I first want to verify we're addressing the same thing - greed - before bothering to reply further.
Are you saying I'm wrong that leftism failed? Are you saying you think social safety nets should be expected to expand in the US? That the massive earnings of Wall Street will be used for the welfare of the poorest? That in the foreseeable future the average person will see herself as an American stakeholder?
I think we're talking about the same thing, it's just that I see good and evil as inextricably intertwined. The knife is a tool and a weapon. That sort of thing.
I read this as entailing that being just in decision X is inextricably entwined with being unjust in decision X, or else that being right about what one ought to do is inextricably entwined with being wrong about one ought to do - and vice versa in both cases. Which paints a different impression of the thread's theme. In which case, never mind. It's not a tale I subscribe to.
Thanks for the thought provoking reply. The thread is about the requirements of life, and how those requirements may differ from what we expect or want.
You cannot call several instances of cheap/free healthcare anything but leftwing. Stop being silly.
Your theory isn't all wrong. Many or most "Winners" have preloaded advantages. Being born into wealth and privilege isn't an iron clad guarantee of success, but it is a major leg-up on everybody else. (See Domhoff: The Higher Circles and Who Rules America). The mass of people are trained to recognize "winners". Who directs this training? The people who run things (the winners) of course.
Civil society isn't a level playing field. It doesn't work like a gang where a strong man will emerge out of a nasty contest for leadership. Civil society is a rigged game, as far as "winners" are concerned.
Quoting frank
The western world (speaking of Europe--the people who are the original West) didn't turn away from leftism. They embraced it. Communism? No. Socialist programs? Yes. Democratic government? Yes. Even the United States -- after we had tried everything else, did the right thing and established a variety of social welfare programs (SSA, Unemployment and Disability Insurance, Medicare, Medicaid Federal Housing Authority, etc.)
Trump is a "winner" in the sense that he is good at manipulating parts of the system for his own benefit. Gee whiz, he's certainly not the first person to do that! Given that he's kind of an amoral narcissistic asshole, he doesn't accomplish a whole lot of good things. But FDR manipulated the system too. FDR was a much better man than Trump, and was responsible for a lot of good things.
Do you think it was rigged for Jeff Bezos?