I mentioned greed, not self-sufficiency.

Wiktionary defines greed as “a selfish or excessive desire for more than is needed or deserved [...]”. In parallel, Wikipedia states:

Greed (or avarice) is an insatiable desire for material gain (be it food, money, land, or animate/inanimate possessions) or social value, such as status, or power. Greed has been identified as undesirable throughout known human history because it creates behavior-conflict between personal and social goals. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

... which is in accord to what I was saying and contrary to your disagreement.

Greed is at direct odds with just deserts, aka fair appraisals of merit.

I first want to verify we're addressing the same thing - greed - before bothering to reply further.

If you don’t live in a large northern American city, move to one. Then the possibility of another Trump presidency may not seem so daunting. In Chicago, where I live, we now have 4 self-declared socialist alderpersons and a mayor who identifies as a socialist ( or at least as a progressive). Of course their actions in office will likely fall far short of any socialist ideal, but I think it’s very cool that there was such willingness among urban voters to support them. I suspect that as millennials and gen Z’ers become the dominant share of voters, this move to the left in northern cities will continue. Since I don’t plan to live anywhere besides a large liberal city, what happens in Oklahoma or Florida is irrelevant to me. — Joshs

Are you saying I'm wrong that leftism failed? Are you saying you think social safety nets should be expected to expand in the US? That the massive earnings of Wall Street will be used for the welfare of the poorest? That in the foreseeable future the average person will see herself as an American stakeholder?

I mentioned greed, not self-sufficiency.

Wiktionary defines greed as “a selfish or excessive desire for more than is needed or deserved [...]”. In parallel, Wikipedia states:

Greed (or avarice) is an insatiable desire for material gain (be it food, money, land, or animate/inanimate possessions) or social value, such as status, or power. Greed has been identified as undesirable throughout known human history because it creates behavior-conflict between personal and social goals.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

... which is in accord to what I was saying and contrary to your disagreement.

Greed is at direct odds with just deserts, aka fair appraisals of merit.

I first want to verify we're addressing the same thing - greed - before bothering to reply further. — javra

I think we're talking about the same thing, it's just that I see good and evil as inextricably intertwined. The knife is a tool and a weapon. That sort of thing.

I see good and evil as inextricably intertwined. The knife is a tool and a weapon. — frank

I read this as entailing that being just in decision X is inextricably entwined with being unjust in decision X, or else that being right about what one ought to do is inextricably entwined with being wrong about one ought to do - and vice versa in both cases. Which paints a different impression of the thread's theme. In which case, never mind. It's not a tale I subscribe to.

Which paints a different impression of the thread's theme — javra

Thanks for the thought provoking reply. The thread is about the requirements of life, and how those requirements may differ from what we expect or want.

There blatantly is. But the US has been rightwing for as long as I have been alive.

You cannot call several instances of cheap/free healthcare anything but leftwing. Stop being silly.

As Trump is poised to once again become president of my country (unless someone manages to cap his butt) I feel challenged by my own theory that social "winners" are sort of naturally selected and serve the larger social life cycle, whether the people on the ground understand that or not. — frank

Your theory isn't all wrong. Many or most "Winners" have preloaded advantages. Being born into wealth and privilege isn't an iron clad guarantee of success, but it is a major leg-up on everybody else. (See Domhoff: The Higher Circles and Who Rules America). The mass of people are trained to recognize "winners". Who directs this training? The people who run things (the winners) of course.

Civil society isn't a level playing field. It doesn't work like a gang where a strong man will emerge out of a nasty contest for leadership. Civil society is a rigged game, as far as "winners" are concerned.

I believe this about leftism: whatever its merits may be, it lost. The western world turned away from it. — frank

The western world (speaking of Europe--the people who are the original West) didn't turn away from leftism. They embraced it. Communism? No. Socialist programs? Yes. Democratic government? Yes. Even the United States -- after we had tried everything else, did the right thing and established a variety of social welfare programs (SSA, Unemployment and Disability Insurance, Medicare, Medicaid Federal Housing Authority, etc.)

Trump is a "winner" in the sense that he is good at manipulating parts of the system for his own benefit. Gee whiz, he's certainly not the first person to do that! Given that he's kind of an amoral narcissistic asshole, he doesn't accomplish a whole lot of good things. But FDR manipulated the system too. FDR was a much better man than Trump, and was responsible for a lot of good things.

Civil society is a rigged game, as far as "winners" are concerned. — BC

Do you think it was rigged for Jeff Bezos?

Jeff, Mark, Sam, Tom, Dick, Harry -- all of them.