"We, The People" and "The Proletarians"

[Egeides]

[This text is consequent to TMA's text about liberals being a trend now]

I think that there's a whole part of the population that doesn't go further in their research and thinking by lack of interest and time. This part thus tends to move in correspondance to the information that is surrounding them, thus creating and supporting a trend.

This is why some that are more elitists will believe that trying to convince everyone is useless since this "everyone" is not interested, doesn't have the time (always life: children, work, pay your bills, look TV...) and doesn't have confiance in finding a COHERENT reality anymore: the gave up. They trust some people and were often deceived many times so do not have confiance into getting something clear out of this mess of contradictory informations. So they just change the people they give their trust to and say "ok, I believe you good and since you're doing magic in this field that's too complicated for me and seem successful, do it at my place". Notice that I said that they "believe" in him, which is a faith in some human they generally do not really know since alot of information is biased, unchecked or uncheckable (he said it, his friends, his image...). Often, with time showing many leaders go down, people even lose confiance in finding a leader or declare "they are all the same": this is where only one that's different from them can sometimes come up (like Hitler).

This is why I tend to believe that only those who are interested into going into the subject itself and get a better understanding, and not into following someone, can really change something. Why? Those who follow were shown to be wrong too often, each leader (which leads) wanting followers and fighting for them, yet there are many leaders but they are all of different opinions but only one true "best way".

But this doesn't mean that "the mass" (I reproach to this term a few things) can't do something though. It only mean that they wont do better by just following leaders, but by knowing more and then chose their leaders a bit better, or even by getting involved (even if it's only in reading a book, talking to the neighbor...). Someone that doesn't believe in this could look at what traditionally hapened with urbanisation in its beginning: people were getting educated, could talk to more people, form groups to discuss and organize, etc. This is how they got less controlled (like with that local witch/priest each agglomeration had), took a bit more confiance in their capacities, and used their potential better to get something better in every existing field.

But this is not finished at all, and what we see now is that there isn't only factors such as urbanization that has an impact on the population, but also the idiot box (globally, but it's not all bad), people being forced to go work/children/sleep, lack of organizational capacities (spiritually (I don't mean only religion here), emotionally with families/friends/groups, etc.), bad education filled with lies (see USSR education), corrupted politics and the like.

I do believe in the population in general, but less for their capacities to not get deceived by people that are professionally specialized in it (I do not mean only politicians here, since it includes each single person specialized in a field and each one deceiving people: marketting, technicians, professionals, proselytizing religious folks, bosses...). The only way to get out of this is to study the limits of rationality (the capacity to know) and then to study everything (since someone can be deceived on everything), which are two things pretty awkward to most. The limits of rationality is a subject seen as very dull/hard, and "everything" generally includes important parts that will also be seen as dull/hard. The value of most isn't really in their capacity to evaluate political/economical (and others) situations, but in their potential, will to be moral (most) and similar aspects (or their very existence in some's view). And this doesn't include only "others", since comparative analysis doesn't show how good someone is intrinsicably but only how good he is compared to someone else, which isn't about value itself. In a society with over-humens, the best would be an idiot. BUT, in our society, it is the one who has "more" that is able to deceive more those who have "less", thus the comparative value has an importance when it comes to social analysis. I'm still very conscious of how it is my intrinsic value that is and that even comparatively it would still always be very pale compared to the infinite (theologically, metaphysically, mathematically or else: same result since same concept).

PS: We can also look at a parallel on Marx here. Come on Edric, I'm waiting for ya ;D

[TMA_1]

in my opinion, people usually tend to be followers rather than leaders. People also take things for granted and like many who live in "democratic" countries. Most people who are involved usually follow trends that they believe best suit them, but rarely do those people go outside of "the box". Generally they follow others because they think those who lead in their similar cause will do all that those who follow wish to be done.

It is the typical sheep to the slaughter idea. The lemmings who follow a leader who supposedly has their ideals in mind, and then fall into the great chasm of ignorance and eventually if the leader is flawed, even death and dispair.

Never trust a leader, because leaders are human. Humans have a tendancy to do bad things, and if you put a human in high posts those bad things become amplified. Those amplified bad things then come to bite you in the ass if you arent careful.

Either choose your leaders carefully, or follow your own plan. that is the safe route. Dont get me wrong, always respect and give honor to those who are in a position of power, but never give them your trust. If you do that they will stab you in the back. It is human nature, and if any of you out there were in a position of power you would do the same thing, so nobody should be judgemental of leaders. I am not, I am just stating a truth of sorts.

You have to sell your soul to be a politician, it is just the unarguable truth, and anybody who ever tries to break the mold in politics is either thrown out, or integrated into the evil.

[Acriku]

Don't listen to TMA's "never trust a leader," it's not very good advice.

[TMA_1]

lol ahh beh acriku, you have some hairbrained ideas too.

never trust leaders, good grief I sound like some hick conspiracy theorist.lol

It is true though, leaders are human too and if a leader has enough temptation (power = greed) usually they will fall into it. It isnt trying to be aj erk to them, it is just human nature. I mean if I was given enough power, I would try to do my best but in the end it would all go towards my ends, whether they were selfless or selfish MY ends would be priority. It is like the series LOTR. When the gandalf is offered the ring he understands that even if he would use it for good, there would still be evil from the powersource, no matter if he used the ring for good, it would be HIS way, and the rings way.

[Egeides]

First, I do not believe that you have to sell your soul to be a politician. Perhaps to be the hot shot one and to be reelected more easily, but a politicians that makes consensus and brings things in a better direction than would other politicians (which doesn't mean the perfect direction, which for circumstancial reasons is often politically unachievable).

Second, I do not believe that power necessarily corrupts. Many get corrupted, and since no one is perfect everyone has a limit. But this doesn't mean thag someone can't have the power of a government within his hands, maybe just that no human can ALWAYS rule correctly. The problem, I believe, is in great part that those that are attracted by power are in part not-so-honnest people and when they get to power, they will tend to promote their kin or those who wont get them too much trouble (but will be profitable to what THEY want). So there's a mix of good and badd in all this. Some people are better than some others, and both good and bad parts are limited: in one case by popular opinion, in the other by political opinion.

[Caid Ivik]

You are very true, Egeides. They see many carrierists in their life, and miss the better ones. Take Adenauer, Lykurgos, they have made perfect political systems, yet they aren't well known now, but who knows about them, considers them as great persons. Some people look on politicians as some demons, which sold their soul to have the power. And in fact, work with such responsibility is the hardest possible.

[TMA_1]

The problem is this, to be a politician you have to do things, jump through hoops. You cannot be an "outsider" unless you are some revolutionary with ideals that everybody somehow picks up. If that is the case then you might turn into a hitler or something.lol

that was just a joke, but seriously, to be a politician you have to do certain things to get to where you are. You have to join interest groups and cater to certain things that are questionable. If you want to make it big you have to join with other parties that might not hold all of your ideals, but must do so anyway for the sake of being a politician. do you see what I mean?

[Egeides]

TMA:

Let's say that there is a politician that, if he gets to power, will let 2 billions be stolen. Wouldn't it be moral from you to get to power simply to push the politics on the other side? Of course, you may not succeed to bring this toll to zero because of political pressures, but you may bring it to 1 billion. Wouldn't it be moral? Oh, sure, you didn't succeeded into doing only what YOU want, but politics is not about doing what you want, it's about proposing some plans that will go in a direction you believe is better.

Now, what are the limits to this, I'm not sure. But you get the point. Of course, I still expect politicians to be partisan, biased, and so on.

[TMA_1]

no I see what you mean, a politician can do good things, but to be a politician you have to compremise and do bad with the good. It is extremely utilitarian. Machiavelian (bad with spelling and terms, dont kill me about it.) is the best word.

[Egeides]

Sure, since it means that you CAN'T make things ideals. But I believe that a politician making concession but bringing the whole picture to be better succeeded professionally and morally. Of course, the problem is that it's certainly not the case of all politicians, and that it is not necessarily easy. It is the place where the thinking field is as vague as it can get. But I think that to be a moral politician doesn't necessarily mean to always do what you believe is the best, you're simply forced to accept strenghts that you're not in position of fighting and keep statu quo. Basically, you keep statu quo in certain areas to be able to change some key aspects.

Machiavellic? Well it's exactly like in a society where you are dependant on using someone else to live, while you get use. You can't stop using someone just "because in my ideal system I wouldn't". Exactly like in countries where getting paid "for the service" is litterally part of the sallary (like Africa, where honor brings you gifts and is part of the social retribution system. Or like USSR). Of course, it's not perfect. But what you can do is only to change some aspects, not the whole society (all aspects) all at once and by yourself. But anyway, I do not see as obvious that politics is the best way to change societies.

[Caid Ivik]

But macchiavelist doesn't mean only opportunist. Good politician must find the right time, when to stop blindly following the leader and come with initiative. Then, you are able to give the land your ideas, your work, your soul. Then you are fully consumed by politics.

[Edric O]

Acriku pointed out a paradox that everyone seems to have ignored: When you tell someone not to trust any leaders, you are in fact putting yourself in the position of a leader.

So if they do as you say, then they shouldn't trust any leaders, including yourself. So they shouldn't do as you say, and in fact they should trust leaders, including yourself, which means that they shouldn't trust leaders...

You see the problem.

The only way out of this paradox is to encourage people to think for themselves rather than to blindly support or oppose various leaders. This is the position I hold.

As far as Marx is concerned, the poor guy spent all his life telling people to believe in themselves and not fall into the trap of blind obedience, only to have the stalinists use his name 100 years later to promote the exact things he fought so hard against. Talk about the irony of history...

[TMA_1]

edric...

you basically said, tma you are wrong, instead of not trusting a leader, you have to stop blindly following or rejecting a leader.lol

YOu put up a good argument with the paradoxes of distrust, but that argument is flawed in this way.

There will always be leaders, and always be those who are the common people. I dont blindly follow a leader, that means I dont trust them. it is that simple.

[Caid Ivik]

Without trust, what should we achieve? Like you trust your doctor, shops, friends or God, even your vorgesetzter should earn your trust. It demotivates leader himself to work for your good, when you remain to be suspicious about him. It is easy to say: think for yourself. But one thing is thinking, other realisation. And we ARE limited.

[TMA_1]

I dont trust people, and that has come from experiance. I only trust a few who I have come to trust through experiance. How can I trust an entity that has never upheld the views they say they will uphold? I am not going to give my trust to something that has shown no trustability (bad english). You guys are telling me I should trust my government, but that is saying I should have faith in my government. Why should I have faith in something that is imperfect and makes mistakes constantly?

just because i dont trust my government doesnt mean I dont follow their rules of law, and respect them. I just dont trust that they will do good for me and others.

you guys may think that as odd, but it is how I feel.

[Egeides]

I do not trust politicians by default. What I'm saying is that it is not "oh, it's the politicians" but that instead it is alot wider. I do not trust what politicians say generally speaking: they are under the rule of machiavelism. But as persons, I think that they aren't necessarily bad and I do not think we can automatically say that they're wrong. Now, I'm not sure it is the best way to act by Machiavel's rules (I didn't go in detail enough), but I don't believe that there aren't good politicians. In your replye, you kindda put them bad by default.

[Edric O]

TMA, I never said you were wrong in your distrust of leaders. In fact, I agree with you and I share that same distrust. It's always healthy to keep your skepticism of human leadership. All authority must be questioned.

However, you are dead wrong about one thing:

There will always be leaders, and always be those who are the common people.

Leaders will only exist as long as people tolerate their existence. It is certainly within our power to lead ourselves. The only question is whether we have the courage to do so.

Remember: The power of a leader comes from his followers. They were the ones who had that power all along, but never realized it.

[TMA_1]

I agree with you in one way, that is the people should be in control always.

You have to admit though that this either grows into anarchy, or a huge divide with a powerhungry leader.

look at my country as an example. I am saying that in a situation like america's, where the leaders dont listen to the people, how can you trust them?

[Dude_Doc]

To follow leaders has become a sort of natural way for people. We do it in school, in corporations, the corps, in religion and so on. Maybe people are not yet ready to govern themselves?

I believe that our world has 2 different futures, one of them is ultimately inevitable. One is right-wing political, with leaders, corporations, commercialization, and stock-marketing. That future in turn, may or may not turn into a dictatorship, a unified mankind with one leader, one military force, and so on. From that point, the world can either be ruled by a good dictator, or an evil one.

Note: The development can stop at the "corporate" level, making our "choices" three, instead of two. From the corporate level, we could either develop to dictatorship or feudalism, like in Dune (each planet is ruled by it's own leader and system).

The other "choise" is left-wing politics. The world will become more humanitarian, medicine will develop, arts will become personal, not commercial (as they are today), there will probably be open democracy, and so on. In short, the kind society Edric speaks of.

In one way or another, I do believe that mankind will be unified. From there, it is up to the people to decide wheter they want one leader, or choose by themselves.

[Sneakgab]

Four: The entire world goes insane and everybody starts performing seemingly random acts... resulting in complete destruction:D