"HOW do we prevent/cure this psychopathy in society? ... Will even 'killing Capitalism' cure us (i.e. humanity) of this?"
Good questions. Well, first of all, those who want to rail against the system of capitalism as some kind of primary *cause* of psychopathy, are definitely barking up the wrong tree. It simply isn't the system. For one thing, a century of psychopathic "Marxists" (curiously, and by far, the ones running things at the top) have easily been as abusive as capitalists, or worse. Not acknowledging this is simply denial; but of course vested interests live on, just as they do for psychopathic capitalists.
Desires for both social cooperation (objects of socialism) *and* possession and material rewards for effort (objects of capitalism) are ineradicable parts of human nature, and in the 21st century it is only fools (or monsters) who think we can completely destroy either as the path to nirvana (though WEF is putting in quite the effort). So let's start understanding this through biology and evolution for psychopathy, and environmental psychopathology for sociopathy. And leave the (macro)economics for later.
The (naturally) powerless *never* actually become powerful. It's an oxymoron. Happy lives for the powerless require instead a healthy (non-psychopathic) society with noblesse oblige. But pied pipers certainly spring eternal; if we are careless, we'll go on fooling ourselves that some new-and-improved revolution will fix it all.
"I'm absolutely livid with anger"
I think it's better to think of the iron law of oligarchy as completely natural, and that psychopaths have *always* risen to the top. Nothing has really been getting worse in human nature. It is the accumulation of technological power is really what is allowing things to get worse. The bright side is that we are, very likely, now in a world that, in breadth, has never been more conscious of the destructive effects of psychopathy.
>>"a century of psychopathic "Marxists" (curiously, and by far, the ones running things at the top) have easily been as abusive as capitalists, or worse."
That is as ABSURD as saying that 'Israel are the GOOD guys and Palestinians are the BAD guys" - which you would know if you had even a remote inkling of what Marxism is (or what left and right mean or even what Capitalism is).
We've had this conversation before, Anti-Hip -> not only do you NOT understand basic political terms, but you actively refuse to LEARN and EDUCATE yourself. You seem to be so fearful of the cognitive dissonance that this may cause you that you will do ALMOST ANYTHING (including arguing with your OWN definitions of terms) to avoid it.
I have no time to waste in conversing with such people, and I wish you good luck. <EOF>
"That is as ABSURD as saying that 'Israel are the GOOD guys and Palestinians are the BAD guys""
Yes, that kind statement sure would be absurd. Except I didn't say anyone was "BAD" here -- except the psychopaths. You know, as in the people we're both complaining about? Geez, I tried to start out agreeing with you! Problem is, while psychopaths corrupt a capitalist state eventually (decades, or at least a handful of years), they corrupt Marxists almost instantly, or before, power is achieved.
But of course, sure, let's shift the blame for that corruption from psychopathy to capitalism. That's what the psychopaths *who rise up in* Marxist organizations want (just as psychopathic capitalists rise to the top, and have their own blame games), because IRL, in a declared Marxists state, they sure as hell aren't gonna have any actual democracy. But let's just keep going in denial about it, and blame instead all of the capitalist-states' instances of democracy-denial. And people keep falling for their BS, despite now a century of "Oopsies!". Psychopaths LOVE this divide-and-conquer.
"... if you had even a remote inkling of what Marxism is (or what left and right mean or even what Capitalism is) ... not only do you NOT understand basic political terms, but you actively refuse to LEARN and EDUCATE yourself. "
LOL, yeah, I know nothing about left, right, capitalism, and Marxism. Nothing at all! Sure, I readily acknowledge I must have plenty of aspects of these things I don't know, or am in error about. I'm human, and so are you. But we don't get very far here, do we?
Because, in far too many cases, you have yet to demonstrate *in your own words* SPECIFICALLY what is problematic, so I/we can sink our teeth into it. You have these, apparently, fuzzy ideas that you are, apparently, unable to condense adequately for this public forum. So you do what we called in grad school "hand waving" the discussion, off stage, where it is no longer an annoyance. "It's in the literature!" a professor of mine like to joke, about people who hadn't fully or properly digested what they memorized prior to regurgitation, and so all they talk about is the pointers. It's easier to remember names and titles than to understand if the pointer's referent is coherent and true. Because once you *sufficiently* understand the referent, you should be able to condense it to nearly any smaller size. THAT'S what knowing something is (in the common, traditional sense). And here, you are commonly refusing to do that.
To wit: You attack nothing specific in my previous post. It's as if it just went boing off your head because you couldn't handle it. Talk about projection of cognitive dissonance! How about we talk about just one little piece? Say, human proclivity to control objects?
(I have my education, plenty of both *formal*, as you harp on and on about, and life experience. That's all I'm going to say on that at this point until you step up to the plate. )
"You seem to be so fearful of the cognitive dissonance that this may cause you that you will do ALMOST ANYTHING ... to avoid it."
Hmmm... That cognitive dissonance can just as easily apply to, for example, your ignoring my accusations about Marxism-in-the-field.
" (including arguing with your OWN definitions of terms)"
Again -- identify IN YOUR OWN WORDS the problems you find. Don't give me a damn hour-long video to watch. No, it most often does NOT take that long to understand a root premise.
"HOW do we prevent/cure this psychopathy in society? ... Will even 'killing Capitalism' cure us (i.e. humanity) of this?"
Good questions. Well, first of all, those who want to rail against the system of capitalism as some kind of primary *cause* of psychopathy, are definitely barking up the wrong tree. It simply isn't the system. For one thing, a century of psychopathic "Marxists" (curiously, and by far, the ones running things at the top) have easily been as abusive as capitalists, or worse. Not acknowledging this is simply denial; but of course vested interests live on, just as they do for psychopathic capitalists.
Desires for both social cooperation (objects of socialism) *and* possession and material rewards for effort (objects of capitalism) are ineradicable parts of human nature, and in the 21st century it is only fools (or monsters) who think we can completely destroy either as the path to nirvana (though WEF is putting in quite the effort). So let's start understanding this through biology and evolution for psychopathy, and environmental psychopathology for sociopathy. And leave the (macro)economics for later.
The (naturally) powerless *never* actually become powerful. It's an oxymoron. Happy lives for the powerless require instead a healthy (non-psychopathic) society with noblesse oblige. But pied pipers certainly spring eternal; if we are careless, we'll go on fooling ourselves that some new-and-improved revolution will fix it all.
"I'm absolutely livid with anger"
I think it's better to think of the iron law of oligarchy as completely natural, and that psychopaths have *always* risen to the top. Nothing has really been getting worse in human nature. It is the accumulation of technological power is really what is allowing things to get worse. The bright side is that we are, very likely, now in a world that, in breadth, has never been more conscious of the destructive effects of psychopathy.
>>"a century of psychopathic "Marxists" (curiously, and by far, the ones running things at the top) have easily been as abusive as capitalists, or worse."
That is as ABSURD as saying that 'Israel are the GOOD guys and Palestinians are the BAD guys" - which you would know if you had even a remote inkling of what Marxism is (or what left and right mean or even what Capitalism is).
We've had this conversation before, Anti-Hip -> not only do you NOT understand basic political terms, but you actively refuse to LEARN and EDUCATE yourself. You seem to be so fearful of the cognitive dissonance that this may cause you that you will do ALMOST ANYTHING (including arguing with your OWN definitions of terms) to avoid it.
I have no time to waste in conversing with such people, and I wish you good luck. <EOF>
"That is as ABSURD as saying that 'Israel are the GOOD guys and Palestinians are the BAD guys""
Yes, that kind statement sure would be absurd. Except I didn't say anyone was "BAD" here -- except the psychopaths. You know, as in the people we're both complaining about? Geez, I tried to start out agreeing with you! Problem is, while psychopaths corrupt a capitalist state eventually (decades, or at least a handful of years), they corrupt Marxists almost instantly, or before, power is achieved.
But of course, sure, let's shift the blame for that corruption from psychopathy to capitalism. That's what the psychopaths *who rise up in* Marxist organizations want (just as psychopathic capitalists rise to the top, and have their own blame games), because IRL, in a declared Marxists state, they sure as hell aren't gonna have any actual democracy. But let's just keep going in denial about it, and blame instead all of the capitalist-states' instances of democracy-denial. And people keep falling for their BS, despite now a century of "Oopsies!". Psychopaths LOVE this divide-and-conquer.
"... if you had even a remote inkling of what Marxism is (or what left and right mean or even what Capitalism is) ... not only do you NOT understand basic political terms, but you actively refuse to LEARN and EDUCATE yourself. "
LOL, yeah, I know nothing about left, right, capitalism, and Marxism. Nothing at all! Sure, I readily acknowledge I must have plenty of aspects of these things I don't know, or am in error about. I'm human, and so are you. But we don't get very far here, do we?
Because, in far too many cases, you have yet to demonstrate *in your own words* SPECIFICALLY what is problematic, so I/we can sink our teeth into it. You have these, apparently, fuzzy ideas that you are, apparently, unable to condense adequately for this public forum. So you do what we called in grad school "hand waving" the discussion, off stage, where it is no longer an annoyance. "It's in the literature!" a professor of mine like to joke, about people who hadn't fully or properly digested what they memorized prior to regurgitation, and so all they talk about is the pointers. It's easier to remember names and titles than to understand if the pointer's referent is coherent and true. Because once you *sufficiently* understand the referent, you should be able to condense it to nearly any smaller size. THAT'S what knowing something is (in the common, traditional sense). And here, you are commonly refusing to do that.
To wit: You attack nothing specific in my previous post. It's as if it just went boing off your head because you couldn't handle it. Talk about projection of cognitive dissonance! How about we talk about just one little piece? Say, human proclivity to control objects?
(I have my education, plenty of both *formal*, as you harp on and on about, and life experience. That's all I'm going to say on that at this point until you step up to the plate. )
"You seem to be so fearful of the cognitive dissonance that this may cause you that you will do ALMOST ANYTHING ... to avoid it."
Hmmm... That cognitive dissonance can just as easily apply to, for example, your ignoring my accusations about Marxism-in-the-field.
" (including arguing with your OWN definitions of terms)"
Again -- identify IN YOUR OWN WORDS the problems you find. Don't give me a damn hour-long video to watch. No, it most often does NOT take that long to understand a root premise.
Anti-Hip, I guess you didn’t understand my comment above - I’M NOT INTERESTED in conversing with someone (LIKE YOU) that -
(1) Is not interested in educating themselves or learning
(2) Wishes to redefine terms to suit their own needs instead of understanding what they really mean
(3) Has problems with critical thinking due to ideological indoctrination over a number of years
(4) Does not converse in good faith
So, NO - I am not going to waste my time conversing with you further (now or later). Goodbye and good luck to you.