It is capitalism that is creating that narrative you talk about. Under capitalism, wealth equals success. Power creates wealth which means you are a successful person. Indigenous peoples have had better forms of governance, but unfortunately they have had their systems wiped out by captialist conquerers who have imposed their lifestyles on them and made a complete mess of what in the past may have been, if not a perfect, then a much better system for ordinary people.
Although, I do think that capitalism is perhaps the ultimate expressions of those destructive narratives, we humans were busy fighting wars of annihilation for millennia before capitalism. We do ourselves no favor if we shorten the timeline of what we are facing. Even a quick look into numerous ancient religious texts will make that clear. Capitalism is not the cause of our problems, but it is one of the biggest obstacles to resolving them.
Before capitalism, there was feudalism which is a pre-cursor to capitalism. I don't believe that humans are by nature war mongers and greedy. But I do believe that humans can learn to be any way they are pushed toward. Especially if they are being directed to what looks as if it will give them a better life. That's where the narrative comes in. Trying to convince people that enriching a few landlords, bosses, and political leaders will actually be better for themselves.
Exactly. It's humans that are the problem and capitalism is just the latest manifestation of it. Susan T "believes that humans can learn to be any way" and so you have no common basis to argue the point.
Yes, humans can learn - to become skilled in this and that much better than monkeys or dolphins - but their nature stays the same no matter how better they learn (the word again) to hide their true intentions and nature (another word again).
Is every person you know inherently selfish and destructive? We would not have survived as a species if that were so, we are actually biologically wired for altruism, the first signs of civilisation weren't trade, but evidence of healed wounds that required others to deliberately keep that individual alive during the extensive healing time, instead of leaving them to die.
Part of the narrative is that we are all individually selfish. Most are not, but humans are supremely adaptable and malleable when it comes to majority rule, tapping into our natural survival conformity is how we are manipulated.
You are talking about how some people decide to conduct their lives. Not everyone decides to "hide their true intentions" etc. It is not human nature at all. It is something that people have learned to do either defensively or to grab power.
That's right - "some" people. Now we need to define "some". Apparently, in the west "some" means majority that forms the foundation of their current systems. They "decided" and so have the system to suit them.
You claim it's not "human nature" to hide true intentions. I assume then that you always speak your mind in every situation. Do you? Probably not. Why? Because you were taught "manners". And what are manners if not controlling one's natural instincts - ie fight one's human nature. By means of learning.
You are being silly. Humans have no instincts, an instinct being defined as something one is born knowing how to do. Everything humans do is learned one way or another. I suppose a great deal depends on where you learn what you learn. But humans are remarkably adaptable and can eventually understand that what they learned at one time no longer applies, if it ever did. A spider has the instinct to spin webs because they are born knowing how to do that. I doubt they can unlearn that.
Sounds like someone who has had the privilege to not have to fight to control the things he creates. Get back to me if you ever have the things you create so chronically ripped from you with no recourse that you go mad, like the majority of Americans.
"Sounds like someone who has had the privilege to not have to fight to control the things he creates."
I apologize about that comment. I was in a bad mood, but there is never a justification for an evidence-free accusation.
That said, I have run into plenty of people who came from money/stability/etc and higher who lived in huts etc. for months, and from that slice of time (still possessing an upper-class or upper-middle-class brain along with unbroken relationship escape hatches) claim to know what being homeless is like. But I don't know you. May I ask how were you raised?
Getting back to the capitalism topic, if you care to:
"I disagree that having power over the things one creates is a primal human urge. / It's not about power over, it's about cooperation with. Striving for power over things is the basic problem with 'civilization' if that's what it is."
I still say maintaining "power over the things one creates", AND "cooperation with" other humans within one's social environment, AND (I'll add) conflict with other humans both inside (temporary) and outside (perpetual) one's social environment are, yes, natural human needs/instincts. I would say "Striving for power over" *other* peoples' creations is, instead, "the basic problem with 'civilization' " How else could Marx talk about "appropriation" of labor if he wasn't asserting that something the laborer created was being taken from him?
The problem with Marx, however, is from that, *then* he asserts a sweeping generalization of some kind of right to "common" ownership (in practice, always perpetually controlled by a vanguard!) -- a generalization plucked from his imagination that, IMO, quickly becomes far worse than that the capitalist version (which at least is "closer to the earth), and which has caused easily as much misery since 1917 as capitalism since the rise of heavy industrialization since early 19th century.
As a tangential note, I am *beyond skeptical* at this point in my life of all the things my "betters" (I don't mean you) have tried to tell me over the decades, from the religious to the government to the education establishments and beyond. Analogous to evangelical Christians' use of "WWJD" (What Would Jesus Do?) I have my own immediate, conscious reaction to EVERYTHING told to me that clashes with my experience: "WWIBT" (Why Would I Believe That?) Thus I have less-than-zero respect for authorities ipso facto, which is quite different from my younger stupid days several decades ago, and, apparently, *especially* quite different from most "normal" people today.
Humans have been believing in false narratives and supporting oppressive empire for about 6,000 years. Read some history. Roman legions? Persian Empire? Mongul invasions?
It is capitalism that is creating that narrative you talk about. Under capitalism, wealth equals success. Power creates wealth which means you are a successful person. Indigenous peoples have had better forms of governance, but unfortunately they have had their systems wiped out by captialist conquerers who have imposed their lifestyles on them and made a complete mess of what in the past may have been, if not a perfect, then a much better system for ordinary people.
Although, I do think that capitalism is perhaps the ultimate expressions of those destructive narratives, we humans were busy fighting wars of annihilation for millennia before capitalism. We do ourselves no favor if we shorten the timeline of what we are facing. Even a quick look into numerous ancient religious texts will make that clear. Capitalism is not the cause of our problems, but it is one of the biggest obstacles to resolving them.
Before capitalism, there was feudalism which is a pre-cursor to capitalism. I don't believe that humans are by nature war mongers and greedy. But I do believe that humans can learn to be any way they are pushed toward. Especially if they are being directed to what looks as if it will give them a better life. That's where the narrative comes in. Trying to convince people that enriching a few landlords, bosses, and political leaders will actually be better for themselves.
Exactly. It's humans that are the problem and capitalism is just the latest manifestation of it. Susan T "believes that humans can learn to be any way" and so you have no common basis to argue the point.
Yes, humans can learn - to become skilled in this and that much better than monkeys or dolphins - but their nature stays the same no matter how better they learn (the word again) to hide their true intentions and nature (another word again).
Is every person you know inherently selfish and destructive? We would not have survived as a species if that were so, we are actually biologically wired for altruism, the first signs of civilisation weren't trade, but evidence of healed wounds that required others to deliberately keep that individual alive during the extensive healing time, instead of leaving them to die.
Part of the narrative is that we are all individually selfish. Most are not, but humans are supremely adaptable and malleable when it comes to majority rule, tapping into our natural survival conformity is how we are manipulated.
You are talking about how some people decide to conduct their lives. Not everyone decides to "hide their true intentions" etc. It is not human nature at all. It is something that people have learned to do either defensively or to grab power.
That's right - "some" people. Now we need to define "some". Apparently, in the west "some" means majority that forms the foundation of their current systems. They "decided" and so have the system to suit them.
You claim it's not "human nature" to hide true intentions. I assume then that you always speak your mind in every situation. Do you? Probably not. Why? Because you were taught "manners". And what are manners if not controlling one's natural instincts - ie fight one's human nature. By means of learning.
Thus spaketh the great wizard of butts.
Go after Susan T, Jeapo 😉. She's ripe. 🤣🤡
You are being silly. Humans have no instincts, an instinct being defined as something one is born knowing how to do. Everything humans do is learned one way or another. I suppose a great deal depends on where you learn what you learn. But humans are remarkably adaptable and can eventually understand that what they learned at one time no longer applies, if it ever did. A spider has the instinct to spin webs because they are born knowing how to do that. I doubt they can unlearn that.
"You are being silly." - you got me, girl!
Re instincts - I assume you sucked a nipple. Maybe you had lessons in the womb.
What is the substitute system that satisfies the primal urge to have power over the things one creates?
Sounds like someone who has had the privilege to not have to fight to control the things he creates. Get back to me if you ever have the things you create so chronically ripped from you with no recourse that you go mad, like the majority of Americans.
"Sounds like someone who has had the privilege to not have to fight to control the things he creates."
I apologize about that comment. I was in a bad mood, but there is never a justification for an evidence-free accusation.
That said, I have run into plenty of people who came from money/stability/etc and higher who lived in huts etc. for months, and from that slice of time (still possessing an upper-class or upper-middle-class brain along with unbroken relationship escape hatches) claim to know what being homeless is like. But I don't know you. May I ask how were you raised?
Getting back to the capitalism topic, if you care to:
"I disagree that having power over the things one creates is a primal human urge. / It's not about power over, it's about cooperation with. Striving for power over things is the basic problem with 'civilization' if that's what it is."
I still say maintaining "power over the things one creates", AND "cooperation with" other humans within one's social environment, AND (I'll add) conflict with other humans both inside (temporary) and outside (perpetual) one's social environment are, yes, natural human needs/instincts. I would say "Striving for power over" *other* peoples' creations is, instead, "the basic problem with 'civilization' " How else could Marx talk about "appropriation" of labor if he wasn't asserting that something the laborer created was being taken from him?
The problem with Marx, however, is from that, *then* he asserts a sweeping generalization of some kind of right to "common" ownership (in practice, always perpetually controlled by a vanguard!) -- a generalization plucked from his imagination that, IMO, quickly becomes far worse than that the capitalist version (which at least is "closer to the earth), and which has caused easily as much misery since 1917 as capitalism since the rise of heavy industrialization since early 19th century.
As a tangential note, I am *beyond skeptical* at this point in my life of all the things my "betters" (I don't mean you) have tried to tell me over the decades, from the religious to the government to the education establishments and beyond. Analogous to evangelical Christians' use of "WWJD" (What Would Jesus Do?) I have my own immediate, conscious reaction to EVERYTHING told to me that clashes with my experience: "WWIBT" (Why Would I Believe That?) Thus I have less-than-zero respect for authorities ipso facto, which is quite different from my younger stupid days several decades ago, and, apparently, *especially* quite different from most "normal" people today.
"Exactly. I wish people put the blame on the root cause instead of something else."
The root cause is UNFETTERED capitalism.
Humans have been believing in false narratives and supporting oppressive empire for about 6,000 years. Read some history. Roman legions? Persian Empire? Mongul invasions?
There ain’t no “fetters.” They been bought.