I’ve said this a few times before, but it’s wrong to think that most people are greedy/selfish. The capitalist class and the political figures they buy are extreme outliers. We over-index on them due to a mix of negativity bias and the fact that they say everyone is greedy to justify their own positions of power.
Just think about it: Humans are an inherently cooperative species. We developed language so that we could work more effectively in groups and slowly built up complex social relationships that lead to us becoming wildly successful. The fact that some psychopaths learned to take advantage of our group dynamics shouldn’t damn everyone they are exploiting.
This isn’t even about being selfless/altruistic: The vast majority of us just straight up do better when we support each other. Even if the other person doesn’t directly reciprocate, living in a society where it is the norm to help others comes around to help you at some point.
But beyond that, there just isn’t a lot of value in essentializing people like that. Very little about modern society is natural. We aren’t born knowing how to do math or drive cars, but we have the capacity to learn those things. We’ve grown through social evolution, not biological. That’s why a critical part of building socialism is raising class consciousness. We aren’t just changing the structure of society, we’re changing the people to be able to create that new structure. Just as serfs learned that they need not be subservient to their lords before they were able to self govern, we must teach people that they have the power and the right to turn over the current hierarchy and create something better.
You are right - one has to look at ALL of human history. Most of it was in cooperation. Give, take, share and everyone has plenty. Feudalism and after that capitalism have shrunk our peer group further and further and told us selfishness is the core of the human psychology - it is not and we will overcome this.
Wait so the fact that the more money I have the more giving I feel is actually normal ? I thought I was unique. I couldn’t understand how billionaires weres constantly handing out thousands of stacks of hundreds to the homeless.
I’m not sure I believe it. Or maybe most IRL folks I know are just assholes.
I am very concerned by the number of liberals on lemmy who seem adamant about not wanting to read more than a tweet’s worth of text. It’s not like I write books. In theory they’re adults. They should be able to read a couple paragraphs if they want to have a serious conversation.
I dont disagree with the notion that a “changing of the guard” won’t fix everything. It just means there’s different people that risk being corrupted, assuming they weren’t already. Like how after the French Revolution it just meant there different rich people in control.
But to say something we shouldn’t even try because a certain percentage of the population is greedy, or psychopathic, or whatever other trait you want, isn’t that great of an argument. You could say capitalism will never work because people are too dishonest and will lie to fool investors. Which is something that actually happens right now. Enron. FTX. Theranos.
This is THE issue imo. How do we deal with these people? I dont think ANY political philosophy can address that effectively. The original idea of splitting power into three houses wasn’t bad, but these past two years have shown it wasn’t enough.
When it comes to the french revolution the answer is easy:
This was not a workers revolution - it was a bourgeois revolution. It means that feudal lords were replaced with capitalists. As you said, the power went from one small group to another small group, but it still changed an economic system - feudalism to capitalism. The russian revolution is still the better example that should be studied. It abolished feudalism and got a step further to a form of socialist experiment.
I guess there will always be bad people that are hungry for power and have no morals, as you said - no matter the system. Corruption will always be a thing, but it is important to have a system that sanctions it properly and that allows society to have a clear moral stance on such behaviour.
But to say something we shouldn’t even try because a certain percentage of the population is greedy, or psychopathic, or whatever other trait you want, isn’t that great of an argument.
Why do you think the choice is socialism or do nothing? I am arguing for doing something else, namely focusing on reforming democracies and breaking up mega-corporations into smaller companies while keeping the basics of capitalism.
This is THE issue imo. How do we deal with these people? I dont think ANY political philosophy can address that effectively. The original idea of splitting power into three houses wasn’t bad, but these past two years have shown it wasn’t enough.
If you believe this, then you are paying too much attention to the US and not enough to the EU. The EU is semi-working and a lot of the things that aren’t are US corporations and other foreign interests messing things up from the outside while not being fully under EU jurisdiction.
This is THE issue imo. How do we deal with these people? I dont think ANY political philosophy can address that effectively.
Effectively is relative. I don’t think any philosophy can address it perfectly (outside something crazy sci-fi like handing power to an AGI). But clearly some approaches work better then others. Look at Netheralnds, Norway, … They have issues but they work well enough.
What is crazy to me is there being clear examples of countries with systems that work well enough to give great living standards to their people and people saying “fuck that, let’s try a system that doesn’t work even on paper and always resulted in horrible suffering when tried. I am sure this time will be better.” Like why?! Even if you believe there is a way it could maybe work, why take the risk over systems that have proven themselves?
I’ve said this a few times before, but it’s wrong to think that most people are greedy/selfish. The capitalist class and the political figures they buy are extreme outliers. We over-index on them due to a mix of negativity bias and the fact that they say everyone is greedy to justify their own positions of power.
Just think about it: Humans are an inherently cooperative species. We developed language so that we could work more effectively in groups and slowly built up complex social relationships that lead to us becoming wildly successful. The fact that some psychopaths learned to take advantage of our group dynamics shouldn’t damn everyone they are exploiting.
This isn’t even about being selfless/altruistic: The vast majority of us just straight up do better when we support each other. Even if the other person doesn’t directly reciprocate, living in a society where it is the norm to help others comes around to help you at some point.
But beyond that, there just isn’t a lot of value in essentializing people like that. Very little about modern society is natural. We aren’t born knowing how to do math or drive cars, but we have the capacity to learn those things. We’ve grown through social evolution, not biological. That’s why a critical part of building socialism is raising class consciousness. We aren’t just changing the structure of society, we’re changing the people to be able to create that new structure. Just as serfs learned that they need not be subservient to their lords before they were able to self govern, we must teach people that they have the power and the right to turn over the current hierarchy and create something better.
You are right - one has to look at ALL of human history. Most of it was in cooperation. Give, take, share and everyone has plenty. Feudalism and after that capitalism have shrunk our peer group further and further and told us selfishness is the core of the human psychology - it is not and we will overcome this.
Wait so the fact that the more money I have the more giving I feel is actually normal ? I thought I was unique. I couldn’t understand how billionaires weres constantly handing out thousands of stacks of hundreds to the homeless.
I’m not sure I believe it. Or maybe most IRL folks I know are just assholes.
Removed by mod
“No matter what points you make I’m dead set in my beliefs and I’m never changing them no matter what.”
There, I shortened your walls of text for you.
I am very concerned by the number of liberals on lemmy who seem adamant about not wanting to read more than a tweet’s worth of text. It’s not like I write books. In theory they’re adults. They should be able to read a couple paragraphs if they want to have a serious conversation.
Ah, thank you! So much more readable than the 4 pagaraphs from darthelmet.
I dont disagree with the notion that a “changing of the guard” won’t fix everything. It just means there’s different people that risk being corrupted, assuming they weren’t already. Like how after the French Revolution it just meant there different rich people in control.
But to say something we shouldn’t even try because a certain percentage of the population is greedy, or psychopathic, or whatever other trait you want, isn’t that great of an argument. You could say capitalism will never work because people are too dishonest and will lie to fool investors. Which is something that actually happens right now. Enron. FTX. Theranos.
This is THE issue imo. How do we deal with these people? I dont think ANY political philosophy can address that effectively. The original idea of splitting power into three houses wasn’t bad, but these past two years have shown it wasn’t enough.
When it comes to the french revolution the answer is easy: This was not a workers revolution - it was a bourgeois revolution. It means that feudal lords were replaced with capitalists. As you said, the power went from one small group to another small group, but it still changed an economic system - feudalism to capitalism. The russian revolution is still the better example that should be studied. It abolished feudalism and got a step further to a form of socialist experiment.
I guess there will always be bad people that are hungry for power and have no morals, as you said - no matter the system. Corruption will always be a thing, but it is important to have a system that sanctions it properly and that allows society to have a clear moral stance on such behaviour.
Why do you think the choice is socialism or do nothing? I am arguing for doing something else, namely focusing on reforming democracies and breaking up mega-corporations into smaller companies while keeping the basics of capitalism.
If you believe this, then you are paying too much attention to the US and not enough to the EU. The EU is semi-working and a lot of the things that aren’t are US corporations and other foreign interests messing things up from the outside while not being fully under EU jurisdiction.
Effectively is relative. I don’t think any philosophy can address it perfectly (outside something crazy sci-fi like handing power to an AGI). But clearly some approaches work better then others. Look at Netheralnds, Norway, … They have issues but they work well enough.
What is crazy to me is there being clear examples of countries with systems that work well enough to give great living standards to their people and people saying “fuck that, let’s try a system that doesn’t work even on paper and always resulted in horrible suffering when tried. I am sure this time will be better.” Like why?! Even if you believe there is a way it could maybe work, why take the risk over systems that have proven themselves?
Billionaires go to prison and get executed in China, because power is concentrated in the Party and politics are in command.
That seems pretty fucking good to me.
Removed by mod
Believing billionaires deserve to live? Yup, reddit.world