Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Disclaimer: I am not well versed in politics (I can tell a socialist from a capitalist, I know something about libertarianism, but nothing more) and I do not advocate for or against any political views. The only thing I'm against is corruption and assholes. And they exist both among the movement to which you consider yourself, and in the opposite camp.
The short answer is yes. Any idea appears for a reason. We have a certain need to solve it. Political views are a special case. Therefore, we will move away from it.
Various organizations (anti-violence centers, hospices, charitable foundations, etc.) are created thanks to people who faced a problem and could not solve it with the available tools.
So I had to create my own.
You don't even need to take it that high. Let's say you really like comics. There is no comic book store in your city. If you see that you are not the only one suffering without comics, it is quite logical to open your own comic book store.
From examples that are close to me, I can cite the movement of antipsychiatrists, which actively developed in the last century. It appeared thanks to doctors who saw that the system of psychiatric care does not work as we would like. Well, they just changed the system.
If there was a need, we solved the problem.
Another example is Ayn Rand. She wrote her books because the change in the political system led to the destruction of her father's business. Because of this, the whole family had to move to America. And her books became an ode to capitalism. So much for an injury that has played to your advantage.
And so it works with everything.
People who rely on socialist ideas simply do not see the opportunity to realize the needs that they have in the modern world and therefore want to change it.
Wanting to change the world isn't always a bad thing. Even more often is a good thing.
Thanks to this, there are scientific breakthroughs, changes in scientific paradigms and approaches to solving various problems. But before that, supporters of opposing ideas face each other with horns. In the course of this “battle”, new solutions are born.
So I wouldn't stigmatize socialists, capitalists, libertarians, or anyone else out there. Even authoritarianism has its advantages (which do not negate the disadvantages, in any case).
And actually why should people put up with this, if the whole history of mankind is a change in the world?
The popularity of left-wing socialist ideas is due to the fact that these ideas make more people happy. increasing well – being is good, but not increasing or even reducing it is bad.
And people who are biologically empathetic in general tend to feel happier in a world where most of their fellow human beings are well off.
And once there is an opportunity to change the world a little in this direction… why not?
I immediately recall an episode from the “Heart of a Dog” – I wish you everything”, and “Share everything equally”, but these slogans are not socialist, but the average person, not devoid of intelligence, believes in a bright future in this context. Therefore, the installation is incorrect not because “zhyzn is like that”, but because the misconceptions are like that. And Lenin, for example, did not mean anything like this, this can be read at least in his work “Marxism and Empirio-criticism”, where he argues that equality should be unequal and proves why. Read the classics of Marxism-Leninism. No, the followers of his ideas did not understand, forcing many people to live in the conditions of the red terror for decades. Society has yet to realize and reconsider its attitude to relationships among people, because in fact, the contradictions between capitalism and socialism are far-fetched to a greater extent than they think.
Socialism and Capitalism are two old horse-drawn carts. The Internet, and information technology, is a jet engine with rapidly growing power. The carts will not support the load. The new “Vehicle” can accelerate the development of technology by 13,000,000 times. That's probably what we should talk about. Both capitalism and Socialism have a place on museum shelves.
This is an unfortunate and somewhat politicized explanation.
physiologically, the world is designed so that there is a right and left leg.
The left leg is needed at one stage of walking, the right – at another.
During the times of Gorbachev and Brezhnev, the left leg was in demand. And in the 90s, everyone suddenly started walking with one left foot.
Nowadays, the right one is more in demand, although they constantly try to walk a little left. To do this, they invite one or the other “lefty” to power.
God forbid that the country is not brought to Brezhnev's distortions again, when 90% of sane people want to walk with their left foot.
Probably not. For the most part, they(people) do not fully understand how the world works now. If they understood, then left-wing socialist ideas would spread faster than the coronavirus.
Most people just like slogans about justice, equality, fraternity and the “take away and divide” method in view of its extreme simplicity, clarity and accessibility.
It's funny that no less popular now are the slogans of liberals, which are not too different from the socialist ones:
equality (guarantee of human and civil rights);
justice (equality before the law);
freedom (free market, minimal state intervention).
Why is that? Because the rednecks who think they are much cooler than the average maximum, this is havat it for both cheeks.
For capitalists, liberalism is a guarantee that their property will remain inviolable. That thousands and millions of beggars are committed to dying for the rich to keep their wealth.
It is a pity that few people have read and understood Marx. Socialism is not a utopia, it is a natural stage in the development of society. Not so long ago, cars were considered a utopia. “Humanity will always ride horses, it's obvious.” It was the same with electric light bulbs, when they appeared it was quite obvious that humanity will always be illuminated by kerosene burners and candles.
The only problem is that stupid cattle will not be able to build socialism until the concept of “mine”becomes obsolete. So far, these are just dreams.
And why, in general, “put up” (the problem is already in the question itself) with an imperfect world (especially when its main ideals are commodity-money relations, human exploitation by man and consumer society), stagnate?? In my opinion, that's why we are Homo Sapiens, so that we can continuously improve our mental abilities along with the achievements of our civilization, gradually bringing it to the ideal, or at least laying the foundation for this right now! As it was sung – ” we were born to make a fairy tale come true, to overcome space and space, the mind gave us steel hands-wings, and instead of the heart – a fiery motor.”!
You didn't formulate your question very correctly, so a Marxist circle has just gathered in the answers. Not only socialists, but also libertarians, classical liberals, nationalists and others who are not indifferent are not ready to accept it. It's just that everyone has different reasons for changing things. The right believes that the world is dominated by leftist ideas; the left believes that the right has won. The crisis of elites both in the West and in our country has led to discontent and radicalism on both sides.
I personally stopped being so interested in politics and ideologies after I was treated by a psychologist) Under any regime, you can be happy and dissatisfied, only if we are not talking about completely neglected totalitarian countries.
To put up with the world means to live in caves and be content with the most minimal benefits. A person has always sought to change something, and simplify his life, otherwise humanity would have remained in the Stone Age. The same applies to social relations with morals – at first there was a cooperative tribe headed by a more experienced person (who passed on his observations to the younger generations so that no one would step on the already known rake), with the development of society, the concept of wealth began to appear (until a certain moment, a person was not interested in things that can neither eat, nor drink, nor protect himself from the cold), the concept of power expanded – the head was no longer necessarily the most experienced, his functions began to change, and the social division began to tighten (the warrior became more important than the farmer, even if without the latter the tribe could have died of hunger) and laws appeared. Then there were states in which there were many tribes/clans, and the head was no longer the most experienced person, not the strongest, but the one who was the heir of the previous leader, and such a person acquired religious functions (some kings were perceived as a deity or his main representative). And so on to our modern society…
What I mean:
– There are always people in humanity who strive for progress and make life easier.
– A person has unlimited needs: there is food-good, but now you need to hide from bad weather; there is housing-good, but you need to provide him with food; hunger and cold are no longer threatening-good, but without distractions in your free time it is somehow boring; there is entertainment – not bad, but you want to share them with someone; there is communication-it's better, but life is still not easy; there are some technologies-excellent, but; there is religion – now you can not be afraid of death, but in this life there is still a lot of injustice; there are laws – but in the world there is still a lot of cruelty; there is morality – but for some reason someone has privileges from birth, and someone's life consists only of restrictions; and so on…
– Inequality and injustice are not exactly original concepts. Yes, the strongest or fittest survive in nature, as conservatives and social Darwinists point out, but such things as slavery, ambition, the desire for excessive accumulation of wealth, mass extermination of members of one's own species, superiority in wealth or good inheritance – all these are things that have appeared in the course of history, and which can also be reduced in the course of the evolution of society.
You answered it yourself and right to the point. Unfortunately, it takes many years to understand and accept this. Christ came to the slave system, but did not call for socialism. The kingdom of God is within you
The world is unfair, of course. And people are definitely not ready to put up with it, why should they? This is generally our nature to challenge the outside world and change it to suit ourselves and our needs, well, it all works both ways, of course, someday we will reach complete equilibrium, this is how the whole world is arranged in fact from subatomic particles to living matter and macro-objects of the cosmos-order is created from chaos and everything exists at some very fine point of equilibrium,
I believe that the universe is disgusted when a person humiliates a person for the lack of some information. It's impossible to know everything. The cosmos feels human suffering as its own. And shared happiness is the same. Happy people do not accept aggression in relations between people. Only by explaining the benefits and losses can a child and a person be controlled. Forcing people to work when they cannot is violence and exploitation of the vital resources and health of humanity. Therefore, apparently, people's overall health leaves much to be desired. Trust is falling, and immunity (immuna) is faith.
Yes, it is. The world is unfair, but there is no reason to put up with it.
Especially since the world never freezes in place and changes all the time.
And why do you replace the concept of “the world as it is now” with a completely different concept of “the world as it is” and this means that the world is unchangeable?
When, in fact, the history of events proves us otherwise.
The world is constantly changing.
The slave system was and has sunk into oblivion…
The feudal system gradually disappeared like a phantom… Nothing is eternal. There was communal rural labor – it became individual or hired.
Therefore, it is illogical and untrue to say that the world should be forever as it is now.
As for the foundations and reasons that do not allow socialism to exist, as the most humane system, focused on the comprehensive development and dignity of man.
When it becomes the order of things to treat psychopaths who worship only power, the power that makes it possible to satisfy their extremely dangerous passions: a sick craving for unlimited power over the destinies of others and for unlimited accumulation of material goods, which requires mandatory and constant deprivation of others, because goods in unlimited quantities are impossible in the physically material, and therefore finite earthly world.
It is for the sake of realizing the sick fantasy “about the fullness and boundlessness of ownership” that millions of people lose a piece of bread.
A sick brain, at the mercy of painful, delusional ideas, is insensitive and cruel to the suffering of people.
When doctors recognize that such psychopaths are dangerous to the health and life of people, that they drive people to mental exhaustion and illness, to suicide.
When the psyche of most people will change enough not to submit to the force, for the sake of this very force, despite their dignity, reason and conscience, being completely at the mercy of fear, which only stretches out the torment and shame of working for pennies, deprived of their family, home and land, forever in need.
When such psychopaths are called to account and forced to go to treatment, then socialism will become as natural and acceptable as other reasonable things.
Reasonableness. This is not the case in a society of so-called “reasonable people”, which in fact consists of mindless and soulless, inhuman psychopaths who oppress others, driven by an uncontrollable animal fear of the cruelty of the political and economic power of such psychopaths to a gradual stifling of self-esteem, reason and conscience.
Unfortunately, in Russia, liberal ideas do not take root, because absolutely the opposite prevails.To take away and divide everything is a utopia that is propagated to the ignorant masses, lumpen people and those who have fallen down the social ladder against their will. Lenin came up with the idea of raking in the heat with someone else's hands, which threw the development of the country back many years. But history doesn't teach anyone anything! And now the old fairy tales are being put together in a new way – do not break them down and build them! In the genetic memory of the people, the image of a strong leader, leader, king, in short, the leader of the pack, who will lead them somewhere, is laid down. And Jesus also said: “To the one who asks , it is given.”
And what is the world “like”? If he is like this only because we created him like this. There was no one else to do it but us. And the popularity of left-wing ideas is their psychological unwillingness of people to accept injustice, their desire for perfection, their desire for progress.
The word left and actions like “go left” are very popular among people of all countries and generations. Therefore, this word was picked up by the socialists and …they fool people with their own ideas …FROM THE INTERNET.
Psychology has nothing to do with it. The usual wordplay. Dahl's dictionary and philology will help you here.
Divide your question into 2. Why did these ideas arise? Why did these ideas become popular?
They have become popular because they promise equality in all aspects, including financial, educational, racial, gender, etc.And people crave it.
Why they arose-read Marx and Lenin.)))
The desire for justice, equality and “brotherhood” – do their job. If we look around us, we can easily see that such justice, imagined by man, does not exist in nature. It seems that all people are similar. Two arms, two legs, one head. All, but not all. And even here we will find exceptions. Why is that? Again for us. Don't let us think so. With all the imaginary sameness – we are all different. With different characters, different abilities, different thinking. And they try to convince us that we are all the same. That's the beginning of the lie. And then – more, with all the ensuing consequences. And those who say that all people are different, the greatest value in life is human life. They also lie. Yes, each person is unique and their life is valuable, but this is not an absolute value. Absolute value is LOVE and living out of love.
There is hierarchy and competition in the pack.Therefore, the monkey instinctively tends to occupy either a higher position or an equal one.It seems to the monkey that if it can read Ideas, then it is no longer a monkey.This particular monkey has a better way of storing information than other elephants and ciliates.But the method of processing and responding is the same.And therefore the monkey strives for equality not because it strives for it,but because it cannot jump higher, it agrees to equality. After a lot of crazy experiments,it was found that neither a human nor a monkey would tolerate two bananas in the hands of the same subject.At best, they will agree to an equal number.Moreover, if under the terms of the experiment,another participant will receive more buns-bananas, then the person refuses to participate in the experiment….and monkeys, too.This is a lower status in the pack hierarchy.The monkey doesn't just love left-wing ideas-it's biology,the pack,and instinct.Abydna d-a-a
And humility and Happiness to be content with what you have is a religion and generally a different stage of development, a completely different attitude,worldview.Although religious doctrines, at least monotheistic ones, give ideas of social equality, and division according to conscience.So not everything is so simple with humility then…
This results in an interesting picture.If it's atheistic, then why not share it with the rich? Why not? Especially if You Force It.And the moral is simple-it does not exist, and it is atheistic.Moreover,the resources of both the Planet and the infrastructure of the state are used by the rich,so it is necessary to share them in order to maintain this very infrastructure in proper condition.As well as the production forces in the form of people, also keep in proper condition.So it turns out that socialist ideas in their purest form are Common sense.And ignoring them is just not reconciling yourself to the World as it is.You have to pay for everything-and you have to accept it.
In fact, the popularity of leftist ideas lies in the very program of human functioning. Exaggerated communism has been sewn up in our subcortex since monkey times: follow the leader, take away and divide. Because of this, the absolute majority is not capable of strong-willed actions and decision-making, and therefore experiences stress from responsibility and the need to do something. People are comfortable being told what to do and are regularly given suhpai. With the establishment of democracy as the dominant political system, the majority of the population found themselves in a situation where they had to take responsibility for themselves, and were seriously traumatized, prompting them to vote for left-wing populists who promised mountains of gold. They are not interested in where the money comes from in the budget, and they do not want to hear that the introduction of an unconditional income or an increase in the minimum wage will raise prices and hit their standard of living.
Old – school leftists who tell us how cool it was in the Soviet garbage dump (apartments were given!), paternalism takes completely sinister forms-they literally stop reflecting and dream of being where the party said “it is necessary”, the Komsomol answered “there is” and you only need to work with your hands. Love for China, North Korea and other garbage dumps, faith in their God-chosen and rapid progress, with real evidence of utter lack of gratitude, works only on the basis of superficial associations: they also have a red rag instead of a flag, socialism in the name and everyone works at the factory.
And what is the world like? Even if we do not take the history of its development, at the moment the world in Somalia and the world in Canada are very different.
People will never be able to accept that the world is “like this” simply because changing the world is inherent in our way of thinking. Man, as a rational being, transforms the world according to his needs.
And left-wing ideas are popular simply because they are based on terms that are simple enough to understand: “equality”, “justice”, “honesty”, and so on. The idea of “select and divide” will always be popular among cattle, it allows you to get everything without doing anything. At the same time, if you pay attention to those among whom left – wing ideas are popular, they will mainly be representatives of low social strata with a lack of education and understanding of the economic foundations of society.
In general, all left-wing areas of political thought (communism, socialism, social democracy, social liberalism, etc.) are dead ends. There have been attempts to implement them in various countries, and these experiments have always ended in social and economic disaster.