View Single Post
Old 10-05-2016, 05:11 PM   #20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)

The psycho-analyst Carl jung interviewed thousands of people in his career which spanned many decades. Through these interviews he was able to discearn patterns in human behaviour.

For example he noticed that some people were energised by being around other people. He called these people 'extroverts'. However he also found that other people were energised by being alone and needed to recharge after being around other people; he called these people 'introverts'.

This then split people into a dichotomy of introverts or extroverts. These operated on a sliding scale so people were these things to varying degrees for example one person might be very introverted and another person might only be a little introverted.

He then outlined a few other dichotomies. he called all these 'cognitive functions' and discearned roughly 16 personality types. Everyone used all the functions but people had preferences and those preferences defined their personality type.

Different personality types are motivated by different things for example some are morally driven and some are driven by a desire to be the boss.

So all people are different and the problem comes in that some people expect everyone to be the same or behave the same. If you are trying to conceive of your ideal society you will need to take into account the fact that not everyone will agree with your vision for society.

A film called 'divergent' came out a few years back where society was split into 5 groups who all had different jobs eg farming, police, government, science etc. Each citizen upon reaching a certain age was then put into the group that most suited their personality type. This is an oversimplification of personality type theory but there is some truth to these categorisations.

The point i'm trying to make is that people all see the world through a different lens

Then on top of personality types people have layers of societal programming eg religious, cultural, nationality etc which can then also colour how they see the world and other people

So you can think of people as like sliding scales and you can think of society as a sliding scale for example on one end of the scale you could have people who only ever think about other people and at the other end of the scale you could have people who only ever think about themselves. Those different extremes would no doubt have different visions of what their ideal society would look like.

Equally if you consider society itself you can have at one end of the scale an 'authoritarian' society where people are ruled autocratically by a single dictator and at the other end of the scale you could have a society where there is no authority and everyone is equal ie a 'libertarian' society

In a society that believes in taxing people you can see tax as a sliding scale too. So you could have a society where no one is taxed or you could have a society where everyone is taxed and then you can also have different sections of society being taxed to different degrees. So one change we have seen in the last fifty years is that the rich have been given more and more tax breaks and the pension money the rest of society has put into the pot has been used to finance that so that now the rest of society will have to work to older ages before they receive any pension if at all.

A balanced society would have no one in poverty and a large middle class, but in western society we now have growing poverty levels and a shrinking middle class whilst the super rich hold an increasing portion of the wealth

The options usually presented to the public by the corporate media is between authoritarian-right politics or authoritarian-left politics which both include the rich being protected by a powerful state. Some mention is made of libertarian-right politics but the corporate media never discusses the possiblity of a libertarian-left society

So if you are considering possible alternative societies one option might be to look into libertarian-socialism/anarchist-communism and a 'gift economy'

But a non-coercive society where people are free to do what they want to do as long as they harm no others will not appeal to all personality types because some personality types want to have power over others so their ideal society will be a coercive hierarchy, authoritarian society where they can be the boss and call the shots

This then is the constant tug and pull over who holds the power. if we hand the power of decision making over to others we shouldn't then be suprised if they act in their own interests! Perhaps a healthier balance would be achieved if more people had more democratic say.

At the moment we live in a coercive, authoritarian system which seeks to bend people to that model of behaviour and thinking, which is one of competition between the general populace but under the control of the ptb. This then arguably encourages the worst side in human nature by making survival depend on competition instead of cooperation (divide and rule)
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act

Last edited by iamawaveofthesea; 10-05-2016 at 05:43 PM.
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote