To convince a human heart

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 anything.

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.