I believe this about leftism: whatever its merits may be, it lost. — frank

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 I’m still tired (and tired of fighting).

Could you add some meat to this sauce? :wink:

As Trump is poised to once again become president of my country — frank

Hardly a certainty. He might not even get the GOP nomination.

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. — frank

I think I might know what you’re referring to, but it’s cloudy. “Winners” = rich and powerful?
“People on the ground” = us? “Social life cycle” = ?

I believe this about leftism: whatever its merits may be, it lost. — frank

I’m 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 don’t say Joe Biden).

The western world turned away from it. The opposing perspective didn't win by a blitzkrieg, but by giving the people what they wanted. — frank

Which opposing perspective? Technophilia? Classic conservativism?
Trumpism? (aka rabble-rousing).
What exactly DO people want?

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. — frank

To arrive where? Where are we going? Who’s 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.

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. — frank

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?

It sounds like my words bounced off your consciousness and left no trace. — frank

Hmm, quite. Bounced like a gnat off an elephant’s butt! But thanks for trying again.

So who are you in the story of your society? — frank

I’d venture to say that we are possibly all the characters in your story, in different ways, and at different times.
The poor woman herself wasn’t 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…

You can open your heart and love all of it. — frank

Yes. Sincerely agree. Well put. :up:

But… I’m straining to see how that relates to the OP? Please fill in the outlines, if you would… :smile:

Isn't this ignoring the complexity of manipulation? — Christoffer

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?

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? — 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.

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. — frank

Not really. The US has always been right-wing, but there is plenty of leftism in Europe.

as Nietzsche states in BGE 200, the weak always seek repose within those they see as great. — Vaskane

Yea, there's a big dose of Nietzsche in this view.

ut there is plenty of leftism in Europe. — I like sushi

It's all window dressing

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. — frank

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.

How shall we characterize this being? It sounds as fictional as the 'left' you refer to. — Paine

Does it? Do you agree with Thatcher that there is no society?

To me, it looks like they all came to the party with their own supply of dreams. — 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.

I believe this about leftism: whatever its merits may be, it lost. The western world turned away from it. — frank

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.)

Don't we still have a five day work week??? — ssu

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?

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. — frank

Can’t 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 in—even our global—society:

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 other’s wellbeing) will always win by being closest to the pyramid’s 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 humankind—and 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.)

I’ll 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 that—given their direct, logical contradiction—mythos (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.

Social winners are naturally selected yet that doesn't always mean they are good for society. Natural selection can be an explanation for why things are the way they are, but that isn't the same as a moral justification for why things are the way they are, or an argument that it is what is best. This is exactly why we discuss and argue over politics. We're in a constant state of review and evaluation. If Trump wins, that could be best explained by a populist movement that he rode in on which is opposed to what you call leftism but that might be overly simplistic. Also: when is the last time a conservative ticket won the popular vote? 2004? I don't necessarily see things heading in the conservative direction, overall. To me, it looks more like with the gerrymandering and attempt to retain power by any means necessary that they are desperate. That makes them dangerous, but isn't by itself evidence that leftism has failed in the sense that it lost the overall popularity contest with the 'people on the ground.' To me it implies the opposite -- that what is resonating with people more is what the Trumpists oppose and want to stop. If you vote against him, he wants your votes discounted or thrown out.

American politics is comedy gold.

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.

American politics is comedy gold. — Tzeentch

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.

Does it? Do you agree with Thatcher that there is no society? — frank

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.

When the Left abandoned its defense of freedom it turned Right, conservative, and reactionary. Now you can’t slide a piece of paper between the two sides. It’s all about seeking and maintaining the power and prestige of their political institutions rather than lessening their grip on other human beings.

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.

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. — NOS4A2

Speaking of dreams, yours call from a secret place.

I’m 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. It’s 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. That’s 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?

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 other’s wellbeing) will always win by being closest to the pyramid’s zenith. — javra

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.

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 humankind—and 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. — 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.

My main point here is that—given their direct, logical contradiction—mythos (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. — javra

Could it be that each has its advantages? That each might be life-giving in the right circumstances?

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. — Paine

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?

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 — frank

If you don’t 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 it’s very cool that there was such willingness among urban voters to support them. I suspect that as millennials and gen Z’ers become the dominant share of voters, this move to the left in northern cities will continue. Since I don’t plan to live anywhere besides a large liberal city, what happens in Oklahoma or Florida is irrelevant to me.