Yup. The Pigs win, because the horses are too nice.

Would you rather be a rich pig or a poor horse?

I wouldn't like to be in Animal Farm at all.
Where we actually are, I don't get a lot of choices of where in society I would rather be.

Every generation will have its sinful elite, not because the people failed to express the true ideals of liberalism or Marxism, but because we never escape our nature. — frank

Would it be easier if we accept our determinism and destiny?
All of those "political theories" are just a clever move to remain a politician in power. Are they worthy to read or understand? absolutely. But I don't see the ideals of liberalism and Marxism worthy in nowadays. The society got more complex than ever and the younger generation no longer want to get in revolutions if they live well-off with materialistic entertainment.

Whoever is called a great minister,
when he finds that he cannot morally serve his prince, he resigns. — Confucius

"Unless," said I, "either philosophers become kings in the cities or those now called kings and rulers love wisdom seriously and adequately, and there is a conjunction of these two things, political power and philosophy, while the motley horde of the natures who at repesent pursue either apart from the other are excluded by force, there will be no end of evils, dear Glaucon, for the cities, nor, I think, for the human race either." — Plato. Republic,

People have inherently different objectives, agenda and ideas of how things work and what ought to be done. Yet the modern society gives those in power a lot of power, far more than the "Sun King" Louis XIV had in his time. Hence systems should be built to limit the powers of those that have it and have safety valves. Democracy as a safety valve can work. And can the separation of powers.

Egalitarianism, democracy and all these positive and morally just ideas can end up to be simple rhetoric that has nothing to do with reality. Power is so intoxicating for some that they will hold on to it until they die. All other desires, be that sex, fame, wealth, aren't so intoxicating. People will kill others for power, if they can achieve it with murder. Hence there simply has to be ground rules and idea in the minds of the leaders that they have power for a limited time and then it goes to the next people.

A system without those safety valves can easily create autocrats.

I wouldn't like to be in Animal Farm at all.
Where we actually are, I don't get a lot of choices of where in society I would rather be. — Vera Mont

The problem with animal farm, as with marxism, is that there simply aren't any of those safety valves that you have in a democracy and in a justice state. Especially when you start with a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, you simply will get a dictatorship. Has happened so every time. People not agreeing with you aren't people, they are the enemy.

You might argue that every society has it's pigs leading us, but that's not the case. The pigs can act and behave quite differently. In a perfect society, we will feel that our pigs are incompetent in many things, but somewhat OK. Yet they aren't thieves and murderers. In a democracy, it doesn't get better than that.

There are some humans who will always look for and find the way to turn upheaval to their advantage, whether it's an invasion, a war, an economic disaster, or a revolution. When egalitarianism is a popular goal, these people will champion it, but they have no intention of being anywhere but at the top of the shuffled deck.

This is the main reason stratification has always followed the removal of a Czar, a French or English King, a Chinese emperor, and so forth. Every generation will have its sinful elite, not because the people failed to express the true ideals of liberalism or Marxism, but because we never escape our nature. — frank

I just finished a book that closely examined the series of European revolutions in 1848. The reality is that there are a variety of different strata or classes which, for different reasons can either become radicalized (tending to support the proletariat) or reactionary (tending to support the elite). Eventually, one class that ideologically supports revolution swings to the reactionary side to protect social stability (i.e. those who have 'something to lose'). Probably this is due to a failure to recognize the true extent of the proletariat and a wish to belong to the sphere of the elite (which by its nature has to be extremely tiny). But human greed, or human nature as you say, has a lot to do with that.

You might argue that every society has it's pigs leading us, but that's not the case. — ssu

Show me three dictatorships without individual, identifiable dictators having hijacked a system that was originally intended for the common good.

The pigs can act and behave quite differently. In a perfect society, we will feel that our pigs are incompetent in many things, but somewhat OK. Yet they aren't thieves and murderers. In a democracy, it doesn't get better than that. — ssu

I don't understand. What perfect society? Which democracy makes it okay for leaders to be incompetent as long as they're not murderers?

The more interesting question, for me, is why so many other people follow incompetents, pretenders, charlatans and crackpots?

Would it be easier if we accept our determinism and destiny? — javi2541997

Yes. I didn't mean to be expressing angst, though. It's just a thought that occurred to me about why the ideal of egalitarianism never seems to get far. It's not that our wills are being thwarted by greedy evil doers, it's that we naturally gravitate toward hierarchy and there are those who actively seek to turn events to their favors instead of waiting patiently for human spirit to manifest itself or whatever.

Power is so intoxicating for some that they will hold on to it until they die. — ssu

Exactly. But they couldn't succeed if the population at large didn't want to be led, right?

Probably this is due to a failure to recognize the true extent of the proletariat and a wish to belong to the sphere of the elite — Pantagruel

And egalitarianism is the club we use to kill the elite so we can take their place. :up:

And egalitarianism is the club we use to kill the elite so we can take their place. :up: — frank

Unfortunately, if we do not at some point figure out how to manage an equitable redistribution of wealth and educate enough people to ensure it stays redistributed, hard economic realities dictate that there will be a vicious clash between "those who have literally nothing left to lose" and "those who stole the basic necessities of life from everyone else".

You would think that 'enlightened self-interest' would rear its head eventually.

Exactly. But they couldn't succeed if the population at large didn't want to be led, right? — frank

Or if the elite weren't using the power of their resources to completely shred value of the information, to the point where most people are so obsessed with misinformation, and conspiracy theories about misinformation, that they simply have no idea what is going on, or what is actually in their own best interest. Per my post on the value and power of public information, which got zero comments.

Unfortunately, if we do not at some point figure out how to manage an equitable redistribution of wealth and educate enough people to ensure it stays redistributed, hard economic realities dictate that there will be a vicious clash between "those who have literally nothing left to lose" and "those who stole the basic necessities of life from everyone else". — Pantagruel

But hasn't that happened over and over? In order to equitably redistribute wealth, a revolution would be required. Once the revolution is under way, there's a portion of the population already making their way to positions of power.

It's cyclic.

Or if the elite weren't using the power of their resources to completely shred value of the information, to the point where most people are so obsessed with misinformation, and conspiracy theories about misinformation, that they simply have no idea what is going on, or what is actually in their own best interest. Per my post on the value and power of public information, which got zero comments. — Pantagruel

:up:

It's not that our wills are being thwarted by greedy evil doers, it's that we naturally gravitate toward hierarchy — frank

It's both. But I do have a problem with the phrase 'naturally gravitate'. I do think social animals evolved an advantage in designating leaders and instituting rules of privilege, indulgence and protocol: it keeps interpersonal conflict to a minimum and reinforces solidarity, which is good for the group.
Human groups have experimented with all kinds of social structure. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/56269264 more rationally and practically than other animals, and have come up with many ways to circumvent individual ambition in those who would overreach.

The problem we have now is far too many people, too great a diversity within populations and an increasing inability to communicate. Yes, ironically, the more technology enables us to broadcast information, opinion, propaganda, lies, misunderstandings, jingo, spin, malice, campaign promises, gossip, advertising, preachment, news, statistics, editorials, educational material and entertainment, the less we actually communicate with one another, the more alienated each individual becomes, the more lonely and anxious we feel. As social animals, we can't bear isolation. So we are attracted to the virtual tribes created by artificial "leaders" and their slogans, and their simplistic solutions.

Show me three dictatorships without individual, identifiable dictators having hijacked a system that was originally intended for the common good. — Vera Mont

Well, I can think of Vietnam (earlier North Vietnam), which after Ho Chi Minh hasn't had a similar father figure, but something like 14 different presidents (or something in that number). Then there is Myanmar, which has been ruled by generals for quite a while, not by one superior individual general. Either country isn't a democracy. A third one doesn't come to mind now, hence it's usual that a political movement that drives for political change by using dictatorial powers usually will end up with one individual as a dictator.

I don't understand. What perfect society? Which democracy makes it okay for leaders to be incompetent as long as they're not murderers? — Vera Mont

What I tried to say: in democracies people aren't always jubilantly happy about their elected leaders and there simply always is an opposition. That's why they change from time to time. And this is an inherent, structural issue in democracies: people have different ideas about what the best policies would be. Hence it's a fallacy that you could have an elected leadership that everybody, 100%, would approve.

In this case the best thing is that even if we don't accept all those that can win elections, at least they do have to share the founding principles of a justice state, starting from basics like people don't abuse their position of power, abide to the laws, and honor the democratic process.

Exactly. But they couldn't succeed if the population at large didn't want to be led, right? — frank

Many times people aren't asked who leads them and try to stay away from the dangerous mess that is politics. If your country is a failed state, the biggest problem for you isn't who claims to be the leader.

And sometimes it is not even ask those who are put into power: for example emperor Claudius was put to be the fourth emperor of Rome, because the deaf limping guy was the last male in the family to survive the reign of Tiberius and Caligula. That he was found by the Praetorian guard hiding behind a curtain might really have happened.

Many times people aren't asked who leads them and try to stay away from the dangerous mess that is politics. If your country is a failed state, the biggest problem for you isn't who claims to be the leader. — ssu

Do Finlanders go off into the tundra to avoid governmental interference?

Do Finlanders go off into the tundra to avoid governmental interference? — frank

Lol, no. Neither do the Swedes.

Interestingly Finns do have a quite different view about their state and government that the Americans. We are just happy that our country has survived as an sovereign state. Looking at other Fenno-Ugric people in Russia, it's quite clear that our tiny population is quite expendable. Nobody would have given a rats ass if the Finns would have been assimilated to Russians and never had their independent country.

Hence we have a lot of faith and trust at our goverment. Small place, not much corruption, everybody knows nearly everybody. Heck, I do voluntary work for the government! :meh:

A third one doesn't come to mind now, hence it's usual that a political movement that drives for political change by using dictatorial powers usually will end up with one individual as a dictator. — ssu

Oligarchies, yes; I should have thought of that option. But military dictatorships still have a chain of command, just like monarchies, even if the turnover rate at the top is too fast to establish a single figurehead. They may not all get statues, but they give one another lots of medals - some with a poisoned pin.

in democracies people aren't always jubilantly happy about their elected leaders and there simply always is an opposition. — ssu

But democracy is not the usual outcome of a populist revolution. Democracy is the usual outcome of a gradually dismantled monarchy. First, the aristocracy demands a hand in governance in return for supporting the king; then rules and limits are laid on the king; then a constitution is drawn up; the aristocracy metamorphoses into a senate or Hose of Lords; then the middle class wants a look-in because it's supplying the funds, so it gets a parliament, and so on, until the big general strike when all the common men finally win a right to vote, and then all their wives go on strike.... A long process of democratization, not one big clash of arms.

And then, it's just as usual for democracy to devolve into oligarchy, nepotism, dynastic rule, military dictatorship and despotism by a once-charismatic megalomaniac.

It is a game of opportunity.

In a selfish, individualistic and inherently distrusting society, egalitarianism gains potency. Such a state of affairs favours good will as it is unusual, and the general populous are ill equipped to deal with it. It easily overpowers as it has the advantage of being unfamiliar, understated and insidious/covert.

In an egalitarian, co-operative and trusting society, selfishness, manipulation and exploitation gains traction in much the same way.

Whatever is more difficult to detect and contend, becomes the more influential force.

At the end of the day, balance is always the go to.

Just as when everyone is Conservative, a Liberal ideal is new, fresh, appealing and a clear demonstration of potential for change, and when a society is overly Liberal, Conservative values become the hallmark of progress.

The majority is stagnancy, a stalemate, uninspiring, boring and unworkable. The minority is the forefront of innovation.

This pendulum has been swinging to and fro for millenia.

But democracy is not the usual outcome of a populist revolution. — Vera Mont

Populist no, definately. But notice that populism (not to be mixed with something being popular) is confrontational and adverserial: it's us, the ordinary people, against them. Be they the leaders, the elite, the rich or some ethnic minority that is seen to dominate.

Populists don't want democracy. They just want to gain power and once in power they usually have to find the enemy somewhere else.

Democracy is the usual outcome of a gradually dismantled monarchy. — Vera Mont

Or just like in Germany, Czechoslovakia (with then dissolved itself) and in the Baltic States, can come back if the state has been earlier in history a democracy. And that's one thing positive about democracies. Yes, you can get an autocrat elected, who does a self-coup and changes the democracy into being in name only, yet democracies can recover.

A long process of democratization, not a big clash of arms. — Vera Mont

Few countries have been able to transform from a monarchy to a democracy (usually becoming constitutional monarchies) without any violence. Sweden comes to my mind. With the UK people usually forget that the country was a republic (if you can call the military dictatorship that) for a while.

But notice that populism (not to be mixed with something being popular) is confrontational and adverserial: it's us, the ordinary people, against them. Be they the leaders, the elite, the rich or some ethnic minority that is seen to dominate. — ssu

Okay. I was interested in why so many of the people - us - are prepared to follow the leaders of such a movement. Presumably, not because each of the foot-soldiers hopes to dominate someone, but because they're hoping to get free of oppression. Those leaders may not want democracy, but the followers presumably do.

Few countries have been able to transform from a monarchy to a democracy (usually becoming constitutional monarchies) without any violence — ssu

Gradual doesn't rule out violence. The violence, however, is not a single clash, but long civil war between contenders for one throne, or a struggle for independence from a foreign power, or sporadic factional conflict or religious upheavals... all kinds of violence that's not about Joe Bloe getting a vote, but each contributing to a situation that erodes the absolute power and opens the way to more participants in decision-making.

In a selfish, individualistic and inherently distrusting society, egalitarianism gains potency. Such a state of affairs favours good will as it is unusual, and the general populous are ill equipped to deal with it. It easily overpowers as it has the advantage of being unfamiliar, understated and insidious/covert.

In an egalitarian, co-operative and trusting society, selfishness, manipulation and exploitation gains traction in much the same way.

Whatever is more difficult to detect and contend, becomes the more influential force.

At the end of the day, balance is always the go to.

Just as when everyone is Conservative, a Liberal ideal is new, fresh, appealing and a clear demonstration of potential for change, and when a society is overly Liberal, Conservative values become the hallmark of progress.

The majority is stagnancy, a stalemate, uninspiring, boring and unworkable. The minority is the forefront of innovation.

This pendulum has been swinging to and fro for millenia. — Benj96

Well said. I absolutely agree. We want what we don't have.

In other words, good never ubiquitously prevails because there is bad in the world. Therefore, we should shun a striving for that which is good; instead favoring either the bad or a magical type of eternally unchanging, self-sustained, homeostasis between good and bad that never progresses in either direction.

Am I missing something significant in this interpretation of the issue?

Heck, to each their own. Hence the myriad conflicts of life.

In other words, good never ubiquitously prevails because there is bad in the world. Therefore, we should shun a striving for that which is good; instead favoring either the bad or a magical type of eternally unchanging, self-sustained, homeostasis between good and bad that never progresses in either direction. — javra

Yes. That's exactly what I was saying.

Fair enough. For the record, to state the obvious, the bad (those who endeavor to get away with wrongs) incur plenty of suffering in life as well. More like a choice between which kind of suffering one wants to experience - that which comes from pursuing good or that which comes from pursuing bad - one can add to this "types of pleasures" as well.

A "cause", is by your definition, outside of any stakeholders in how claims of right happen. That puts the Magna Carta and the American Civil Rights outside of whatever you have in mind.

The exclusion makes it hard to engage with your proposition.

More like a choice between which kind of suffering one wants to experience - that which comes from pursuing good or that which comes from pursuing bad - — javra

You're looking at the issue very moralistically. As I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread, I don't think what I'm describing is about evil people. It's our nature, which I conceive as partly genetic and partly a collection of habits that have a winning track record for us.