I would argue, that generally there are three ways to "lead" humanity forward. More like just two; And
those being: To convince the human mind (as with facts and logic) and to convince the human heart (as with
candy and flashing lights). The third in the sense being to not try to convince anyone and to just use
power to do stuff whether people like it or not.
So, ignoring the latter, we might argue that these two 'ways' are the actual two sides separated by the
faultlines of ... let's call it: Cultural incongruence. Except ... it's probably not that simple. Like so
would one eventually try to make arguments of both kinds. To speak to the mind and the soul, as it were.
I would argue - and that as just pointed out to some fault - that the contentions between socialism and
capitalism follow that "mind versus heart" logic. And as it stands, the other would follow. Find the mindful
way forward - and your heart will align to it. Find the heartful way forward - and your mind will align to
it. So - at the end of the day ... yea, it's whatever, I guess.
And, the Amazing Atheist - though it might not be all that on point here - made a few interesting remarks
in that regard. As like ... another axis of dimensionality to this:
So, more to the point do I find myself leaning into the facts and logic part - to then be flabbergasted
over the possible response of "cool, but I don't care!". I mean, it might just be my own head trying to
prepare for eventualities; But I also found it to be true so far, that by and large, I'm so used to people
being "unconvinced" that I couldn't handle if I should ever convince anyone of anything by any means.
And since I mostly lean into the intellectual, I suppose I have a bias that way; Maintaining the belief
that by facts and logic there's at least a 'reasonable' expectation I might hold to actually ever accomplish/change
Within that Bias it then stands, that I align myself with the facts and the logics - and thus also try to
maintain a sort of "high ground" on the facts and logic having. So I surround myself, virtually, parasocially,
with like-minded individuals; And that way give myself the sense of a community that harbors these good thoughts
of intellectual superiority - we might say.
And it stands against that then, that people who disagree with the corresponding bastions and capitals of
these facts and logics, stand out as foolishly bending into an emotional apotheosis of ... well, we might
as well call it wrongthink.
That further creates these faultlines of division, or some of them, as the emotionally minded individual lives
their life in dependency of a given scope of familiarity. The way things work - as based on how they used to
work - perhaps fed with post-apocalyptic fantasies in which we get shown how even after collapse, we would
somehow work to get things back to 'normal' - yet being possibly not equipped to label those flourishing
societies as socialist in nature. The Walking Dead: "Socialism and Warlords".
And I would assume, that as the mind there follows the heart, the individual then ties the familiar concepts
to intellectual pivots - giving it some name like capitalism or liberalism - where the understanding of "the
other", say: communism or socialism, is regarded by a given desire to remove or undo certain aspects of that
functioning world. And it is certainly a true observation, that individuals who are utterly convinced by their
wrongthink don't make much arguments that paint a different picture. And it is painful or annoying. The
pendulum sortof swings back and forth on that one.
So is it often so, that these arguments or debates come to a point, where the intellectual (I'll maintain
the categories as introduced herein) has to basically dig the emotional one out of one of those ditches
of misconception. And it possibly doesn't help that there are intellectual arguments for capitalism such
as there are emotional arguments for socialism. TO make an oversimplified case however, the socialist would
have to dig the capitalist out of the ditch of believing that socialists want to abolish work and innovation.
A misconception that would exist, because work and innovation are pillars of a functioning society - and by
their faulty logic tied to capitalism. When the socialist then somehow manages to 4D chess the capitalist into
perceiving the possibility that socialism might also hold values for work and innovation, so it would seem,
the capitalist short-circuits - and 'anyway' falls back on their familiar defaults. "but but but" - struggling
to mount some other argument.
So could we then speak of incentives. As that's one of those strong-points on the capitalism side, and sure
enough: One that is highly charged with emotional value. It is ... right there in the word. Incentive ...
alias a condition to 'make someone want' to do something. Say, due do work in order to earn money so they
won't die. Arguably that's an 'intellectual' point - and it is ... yea. Let's put it that way: It is of a
highly detestable school of logic - whereby the emotional condition of the human being is recognized as the
fundamental component to political reason. Or how to box it. I call it detestable, because it maintains a
framework of logic and reason wherein the individual is held captive within their primitive motions. And yea,
eventually that lends itself to the kind of thinking where endeavors of an intellectual kind, such as spending
time on "useless studies" (history, social-studies, art), are regarded as invalid interests.
These then get called "emotional" - because there sure is an emotional side to the intellectual way too - and
at that point, sorry ... I have to scream into the void.
Whether or not the matter of incentives is such a strong point then, is as I see it a matter of belief. Well,
all data seems to indicate that we aren't merely complicit - such as with the bare minimum. We want more. And
ever so often, that implies work - such as for a fulfilling life - but whether or not you want to acknowledge
that fact, depends on ones beliefs ... and how open they are to such arguments ... and that people don't care
as much as we'd want to has thus far been the whole point here. Give or take.
It is still a strong point though, as within the structures of Capitalism, especially when talking of
exploitation and enforced scarcity for instance, it simply emanates from the immediate need. Because in places
where financial safety nets don't exist any offering of money can amount to a positive, it does in that
regard however also exist to safeguard the existence of capitalism. And as would be a mantra of capitalism:
No matter the cost. Such as what we give up on, or cannot afford, once the struggle for money takes the
center spot of everyones attention.
Now, the picture I want to paint here isn't to spam you with socialist rhetoric and talking points, but to
highlight how the individual belief can be right or wrong; And does overall lead to vastly different takes
on one and the same thing. Work, so, doesn't exist because we want or need money. It exists because that's
how we survive; Such as growing crops, harvesting them, cooking the food, maintaining the fire - things like
that; And not all of that, as of yet, is 'work' in the "earning money" sense. It's just work that yet has
to be done, unless you can afford servants that ... do it for you.
In other words we might say that it is what differentiates us from animals. So at least in the sense, that
we at some point - leaning into the narrative of evolution - evolved to the point where our caloric needs
exceeded that which we could sustain naturally. Such as eating grass from a willow perhaps. I'm not sure
if we're even biologically capable of that.
In that regard then, work is intrinsic to us as a species. And capitalism - or late-stage capitalism - in
that regard - is merely a means to exploit that. And not for a common good. That's what simple capitalism
would do; But where now money flows as an effect of our natural exchanges, people eventually found ways to
basically siphon some of it away, effectively.
So is that now a fundamentally different narrative, versus that of capitalists; And yet both sides would
agree, that work is important.
Money could be important, because it allowed us to develop structures that permitted freedoms away from the
most basic needs. So, people could do work that wasn't immediately required for survival.
This now is something capitalists can use - I guess they do when they speak of 'innovation' - but is also
something socialists say; Although not so much tied to money, but more the general idea at play there.
Anyway, eventually there is no real solution; Except for one: A great reset. A reset of belief structures,
as it were - or so a common grounds to come to regardless of individual beliefs; As to then start to create
new conditions for common sense to grow in.
And that's - I'd argue - at least one of my purposes.