Do bear in mind that the root of the problem in the US is our oligarchs. We must deal with them FIRST, or it doesn’t matter what else we do. That’s why half (give or take) of the Democratic party is useless - because they have been corrupted by the oligarchs as well.
I don’t care the terms people use - we’re now calling it Democratic Socialism. Whatever we call it, we need to drive support for that until that part of the party can take over. But it will not happen if we don’t remove the corrupting pressure from the oligarchs.
I would argue the root of the problem is the systems and institutions that enable these oligarchs to exist in the first place and give them the perceived social authority over this country.
The French Revolution didn’t start after they removed the nobility, it started when the people began to unite and build alternatives to the systems they were living under which helped to establish mutual aid and other community networks of support that allowed them to eventually abandon their reliance on the systems of their oppressors.
My only counter is that the tools were put in place by the people with the money. So I have no disagreement with you - I see that distinction as unimportant because I believe we must deal with the rich and their tools already, so… I agree with you :)
Technically oligarchy means rule by the few, but I think it helps to specify how they became the “few”: divine title, descendance, or money? It’s money so they should be called plutocrats.
Part of the benefit of “oligarch” is to point out how common this problem really is, just with different flavors. After this batch is gone, we’ll need to remain vigilant against future oligarchs from any source.
Human nature is where material conditions and social values intersect. A society that places mutual responsibility and collective wellbeing over wealth and status would likely regard greed, domination, and hedonism as character flaws rather than virtues. Those who exploit others for personal gain would be held with the same contempt as other kinds of antisocial behavior. In short, self-serving opportunists would be seen as criminals rather than as being especially clever or successful. The traits a culture rewards are the traits it reproduces.
The common belief that human beings are naturally selfish and chaotic says more about our own values than it does about human psychology. In reality, the overwhelming majority of people are deeply prosocial; we seek belonging, reciprocity, and meaningful community. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, we have an opportunity to outgrow the tribalism and rigid hierarchies that has characterized our species’ infancy, and foster cultures that reward cooperation instead of competition as the highest expression of human nature.
If we keep trying the same thing and keep failing in the same way, then it’s not bad evil humans having a terrible nature, it’s that the thing we keep trying is a poor design given human nature.
Do bear in mind that the root of the problem in the US is our oligarchs. We must deal with them FIRST, or it doesn’t matter what else we do. That’s why half (give or take) of the Democratic party is useless - because they have been corrupted by the oligarchs as well.
I don’t care the terms people use - we’re now calling it Democratic Socialism. Whatever we call it, we need to drive support for that until that part of the party can take over. But it will not happen if we don’t remove the corrupting pressure from the oligarchs.
I would argue the root of the problem is the systems and institutions that enable these oligarchs to exist in the first place and give them the perceived social authority over this country.
The French Revolution didn’t start after they removed the nobility, it started when the people began to unite and build alternatives to the systems they were living under which helped to establish mutual aid and other community networks of support that allowed them to eventually abandon their reliance on the systems of their oppressors.
My only counter is that the tools were put in place by the people with the money. So I have no disagreement with you - I see that distinction as unimportant because I believe we must deal with the rich and their tools already, so… I agree with you :)
Technically oligarchy means rule by the few, but I think it helps to specify how they became the “few”: divine title, descendance, or money? It’s money so they should be called plutocrats.
Part of the benefit of “oligarch” is to point out how common this problem really is, just with different flavors. After this batch is gone, we’ll need to remain vigilant against future oligarchs from any source.
Yes, for about a generation, then it becomes a boring footnote in high school history class… and human nature re-asserts itself.
Human nature is where material conditions and social values intersect. A society that places mutual responsibility and collective wellbeing over wealth and status would likely regard greed, domination, and hedonism as character flaws rather than virtues. Those who exploit others for personal gain would be held with the same contempt as other kinds of antisocial behavior. In short, self-serving opportunists would be seen as criminals rather than as being especially clever or successful. The traits a culture rewards are the traits it reproduces.
The common belief that human beings are naturally selfish and chaotic says more about our own values than it does about human psychology. In reality, the overwhelming majority of people are deeply prosocial; we seek belonging, reciprocity, and meaningful community. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, we have an opportunity to outgrow the tribalism and rigid hierarchies that has characterized our species’ infancy, and foster cultures that reward cooperation instead of competition as the highest expression of human nature.
If we keep trying the same thing and keep failing in the same way, then it’s not bad evil humans having a terrible nature, it’s that the thing we keep trying is a poor design given human nature.