It was serene until the neo-cons deregulated the finance industry and the bankers and the government fucked the population over.
This degeneracy was a kind of multiculturalism - in what was basically a socialist country - but not in the category of ethnic group or religious group, but in economic culture.
And tribes tend to be socialist or at least sharing is supported by extreme social pressure.
They may not by as dynamic as other cultures. There’s the rub.
But poor old iceland got raped by Milton Friedman. (and Clinton for that matter, him being another neo-con, along with Bush, Obama and Trump when in comes to Wall st.)
This brings to mind not just Idealist dialectics or Materialist dialectics, but a dialectic between Idealism and Materialism.
If “the left” are winning some culture war on “how to think” then that is in the realm of Idealism.
“The right” are most certainly winning the economic war on “how to act”, which is the realm of Materialism.
However authoritarian “Social Engineers” are becoming over how we think, we’re still at least a hemisphere of voluntary trade of private property and wage labour according to market pricing etc. in how we act.
Perhaps this “degeneracy” in Idealism is merely reactionary: the antithesis to the thesis of Social Democracy i.e. a Capitalist Mixed Economy.
I’m sure everyone here has heard of Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History?” essay - or at least his argument that we’ve reached a (Dragonball-Z-style?) “final form” of human government in the form of this kind of economy.
Perhaps the degree to which “the left” have been dominated economically is merely being sublimated through a culture war out of frustrated impotence in the realm of actual reality. “Fine have the real, we’ll take the realm of the imaginary” - hardly much consolation, hence why I am a leftist who doesn’t follow this “cultural leftism”.
Perhaps if the right were to concede ground economically there would be less backlash in such things as “erasing the perceived difference of identity”?
Rather than complaining about one side or the other in terms of thesis and antithesis, how about we look to a more harmonious synthesis?
I think this is an interesting idea and probably has truth in it.
I tend to think people are being played, perhaps unconsciously, by, let’s call them the neo-cons. Cause the neo-cons don’t give a shit about social stuff. They can pay there way to avoid any of it that might affect them personally in a way they didn’t like. I think they enjoy the hatred between social conservatives and social progressives. I think they are like the most cynical facets of the Roman Empire. They don’t care. Move the mobs around, better is there are two mobs, then they never face a unified mob against them.
One would think that actually looking and see if there is democracy could unify the two mobs. On this the conservatives and the progressives theoretically agree. But they see Hilary or Trump as a respesentative of democracy, and unlike most progressives I see this as much more scylla and charybdis then they do. I see Hilary as a Neo con and in fact I think she would have been more belligerant that Trump in Syria. Much easier for the supposedly liberal female president to sell a more full out war. I think that was the plan. The Left would have made noise, but they would have been heartily undercut by her categories and as their president, whatever reservations they may have had. Trump was less interventionist and still seems to be wrestling with this whatever else his vast faults are. I often think Trump was like the family’s black sheep. He didn’t really have the backing of most of the neo-cons, who have their plan and he is not quite aligned, but he’s in the club. Like Daddy dies and the brother who’s a bit cooky gets the CEO position after clever lobbying. He’s on the same team, but doesn’t have the whole family’s trust, like the oldest sister did.
One good sign is that they are looking a bit more desperate in the candidates they’ve been throwing us. The right needed someone outside norms and so did the Left. They had to break the law to keep Bernie out, and I have noticed grudging respect for Bernie on the right. Many believe he was gypped, which he was, and that he had integrity, if of the utterly wrong kind. I think once Trump has had his run, perhaps two terms, it will get interesting to see how they manage business as usual with two candidates.
They are regarded as entirely modern phenomena but are in fact very old indeed because they were the by product of all empires
Sometimes they worked and sometimes they didnt and you certainly cannot generalise for the entire history of human civilisation
The problem with the modern version is the supposed incompatibility between conflicting ideologies
As some have no problem with trying to assimilate while others have no intention of ever wanting to
An absolute fundamental should be respect for the law of the particular land anyone is living in
As long as that is being observed then multiculturism and diversity can exist as a positive force
This should indeed be the universal standard but unfortunately its too Utopian a concept to ever work in practice
Because for many the definition of interference goes beyond the merely intrusive and into other realms entirely
So the simple act of being offended by someone - simply for reasons of fear or ignorance - can constitute interference
That is interference with ones mental well being - which isnt really interference at all - but thats ground apes for you