Non-materialist but non-leftist ideology

Is it possible?

One built on spiritual values, spartan hard work, and pride in family, for example?

I think people place too much value on money and things, and it is destructive in multiple ways. At the same time I do not like leftist solutions because they seem rooted in an artificial understanding of human nature.

So...any ideas?

reply to post by Partygirl


We need to look into the past to be able to step into the future.

S&F

reply to post by Partygirl


Transcend partisan compartmentalism and divisiveness and follow you heart?

reply to post by Partygirl


Russian orthodoxy older variety-Libertarian socialist type

Tribal societies

Amish

What your sixth sense is highly active?

reply to post by Partygirl

spartan hard work

Spartan hard work was done by slaves.
So it is not an alternative i would accept,sorry.
I do not see a large enough community that does not want to be stagnant and not uses some kind of universal token as a reward for what have been done that can be used by anyone in exchange for anything.
Of course the negative things are there too. Maybe sometime we will find how to have benefits of monetary system without illnesses that it produces. Replacing it by slogans that mean different things to different people will not work. In some places one can get killed for hurting family pride.
Maybe money with short expiry date will work?

Nowarchy

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


What you propose what jevrej? Kahal? Not interested.

Originally posted by Partygirl
Is it possible?

One built on spiritual values, spartan hard work, and pride in family, for example?

I think people place too much value on money and things, and it is destructive in multiple ways. At the same time I do not like leftist solutions because they seem rooted in an artificial understanding of human nature.

So...any ideas?

I am not sure what you mean when you say "they seem rooted in an artificial
understanding of human nature".

Human nature is a very wide concept, with aspects that could be discussed for
the rest of your life.

I think liberals are perpetually guilty of trying to move past base human nature,
the basic human struggles of the natural world. As a liberal I see no reason why
hunger should exist in such a giant and abundant world, hunger only exists today
precisely because mankind is unwilling to reject the laws of the jungle. To feed all
the hungry people in the world, at cost, would equate to a mere pittance of the
economic activity of the world. As a person, I see that humanity spends most of it's
time defying human nature, which are the base urges of food, shelter, procreation
and social standing. We have put in place laws and a framework of conduct,
that are completely artificial to the old way in which human nature expresses
it self pre - civilization. Domination, war and hierarchy were officially replaced by
said laws and rules, yet our entire monetary system is based upon the same,
pre historic tenets.

I think it is crazy that we can communicate remotely from any part of the
globe (in defiance of mother nature), yet we still insist on the rules that wolves,
birds and bears live by in regards to basic survival. Is it not artificial
to impose the laws of animals on creatures that can fly without wings? The
only reason we adhere to the laws of basic survival is because people are hooked
on tradition and they are unwilling to develop beyond the core
simian construct.

Materialism and this world as it is, is the product of hierarchy which is self
imposed, not natural. Naturally speaking, we would band together and take
what we needed, but again due to progress, we have imposed laws and rules to
govern our artificial construct of the natural world. Now the bands and tribes are
corporations, they execute the same process of cohesion and conquest under the
auspices of modern governance. The eternal question is, do you look to the past,
or do you look to the future? Do you desire to conserve old constructs or do you
desire to progress and pioneer a new construct?

In other ways, if mankind could guarantee a baseline of survival (food and shelter)
it would not be against human nature as it use to exist. Homelessness only exists now
because virtually all the land which could be converted into a "home", is now gone. Even when
this country was founded, you could get virtually ALL you needed for free, from the land around
you, including the land itself. So I also think it is artificial to ignore the fact that the entire basis
of human existence is completely altered when it comes to survival.

In the end you can champion progress in some areas and seek to conserve other areas, it is
completely natural to have a diverse spread of ideas. Labels, BTW, are not natural, but they
are indigenous to humanity.

Peace Izout

reply to post by mastahunta

In other ways, if mankind could guarantee a baseline of survival (food and shelter) it would not be against human nature as it use to exist. Homelessness only exists now because virtually all the land which could be converted into a "home", is now gone. Even when this country was founded, you could get virtually ALL you needed for free, from the land around you, including the land itself.

I am sorry, but you are wrong. When US was founded, it took effort to find land and feed from it. Nobody guaranteed food and shelter to nobody. People had to work very very hard in tough conditions to provide for them-self,whoever failed - died.
If you want to compare - it was harder then, and it is easier now. With welfare and similar social structures.
State should provide for a person fair opportunity to earn food and shelter,yes. State does not have to spoon feed anyone.
In my opinion.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by mastahunta

 

In other ways, if mankind could guarantee a baseline of survival (food and shelter) it would not be against human nature as it use to exist. Homelessness only exists now because virtually all the land which could be converted into a "home", is now gone. Even when this country was founded, you could get virtually ALL you needed for free, from the land around you, including the land itself.

I am sorry, but you are wrong. When US was founded, it took effort to find land and feed from it. Nobody guaranteed food and shelter to nobody. People had to work very very hard in tough conditions to provide for them-self,whoever failed - died.
If you want to compare - it was harder then, and it is easier now. With welfare and similar social structures.
State should provide for a person fair opportunity to earn food and shelter,yes. State does not have to spoon feed anyone.
In my opinion.

edit on 12-11-2011 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)

I am sorry, but you are thrusting your concepts on to mine erroneously. I never said that
facing down mother nature was easy and I never said that we have it worse now, I am
saying things are completely different. I do not have the option of going out and killing an animal,
gather water from a natural source or claiming my own piece of land. But in the 17 hundreds
I could go out and build a house without having to subscribe to a 30 year mortgage, or be indebted
to people I have never even met for nearly half my life, thank you.

I am not talking about welfare or the state BTW, if you stop thinking in that little box
the state owns, you would be better off. Thinking like you are still in the jungle forces
it upon all of us...

Originally posted by mastahunta
I am not sure what you mean when you say "they seem rooted in an artificial
understanding of human nature".

One example is the leftist tendency to believe everyone is equally deserving. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." Why? Why should a hard-working risk-taker support a layabout?

That's not only against human nature...its against what every plant and animal on earth does.

Leftism has very ambitious goals of re-shaping society, re-modeling human nature..."social engineering" like using the media to get people to change their attitudes on this or that..but who makes the decisions on what is desirable, what constitutes "progress"? Who decides what's the baby and what's the bathwater when tossing out the old? And...there are unforseen knock-on effects to such changes. Leftism is not "backwards compatible"...it demands radical change but doesn't understand the implications of such change.

Leftism demands much from its adherants...because self-interest as a motivator is downplayed, other motivators must be found. They are usually lofty and abstract..."work hard, comrades, for our brighter future together..." and accompined by a barrage of propaganda ("politically correct" indoctrination in liberal regimes...more extreme "brainwashing" in hard-Marxist regimes). But these things ultimately fail as motivators. Society stagnates, black markets proliferate, everyone is corrupt....look at the Soviet Union, say.

There is more I could say along these lines but that's enough for now.

Originally posted by Partygirl

Originally posted by mastahunta
I am not sure what you mean when you say "they seem rooted in an artificial
understanding of human nature".

One example is the leftist tendency to believe everyone is equally deserving. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." Why? Why should a hard-working risk-taker support a layabout?

Ever heard of X - Y theory of management???

You subscribe to the X theory, X theory is based upon the premise that men (workers)
are inherently lazy, that the majority will avoid work at all costs as well as a myriad of
other beliefs... This is probably why you have an aversion to "leftist" ideals.

I subscribe to Y theory which tends to think that men are naturally incline to desire
achievement, progress and the fulfillment which work provides. I think there are for
more hard working people then there are layabouts, exponentially more in fact. The
freeways here that are moving at 2 miles an hour at 6:30 in the morning, I think that
validates my hypothesis, but you are the keeper of your ideas.

I know I tend to think the best of people and I am rarely disappointed,
how about you?

Read about these management styles, it will broaden your horizons.

www.netmba.com...

So based upon this...
It sounds like you equate poverty with, laziness. However in many parts of the
world, people have to walk ten miles to get a bucket of water, they are not layabouts,
yet they might very well be starving. The problem with your assessment of the world is
that you are assigning a very narrow equation, to a very diverse world. I have known
plenty of people who work from dark to dark who are still very poor. By your very equation,
if they are hungry, they are layabouts who are waiting to infringe on the "hard working"
people who are not hungry.

I am not sure how you will ever find a better philosophy if you start out at the base line of
a current philosophy and own it like you do.

That's not only against human nature...its against what every plant and animal on earth does.

Human nature is to survive, to kill things, to dominate and reproduce... Are you talking
about social standards or nature? As far as plants and animals, - they do not own things,
they do not plan,strategically, they do not build great marvels... I am not sure why, out of all
the differences that can be found between humans and plants, you have chosen to adhere
to the most basic survival instincts as a manner to establish the common thread.

Leftism has very ambitious goals of re-shaping society, re-modeling human nature..."social engineering" like using the media to get people to change their attitudes on this or that..but who makes the decisions on what is desirable, what constitutes "progress"?

The forces of progress are always at work, you do realize that the Earth was flat, that people
were burned on sticks for everyones viewing pleasure? It was progress and social engineering
that flushed out those traditions. Slavery is another thing that used to be accepted at mass
in many parts of the world, is progress always finely tuned???

no, but it has flushed out many bad things that you will never know thanks to it.

Who decides what's the baby and what's the bathwater when tossing out the old? And...there are
unforseen knock-on effects to such changes. Leftism is not "backwards compatible"...it demands
radical change but doesn't understand the implications of such change.

Society decides whats the baby and whats the bath water, like it always has... If leftism is not
backwards compatible, does that mean that rightism is not forward compatible? Society works
out the details, that is the true effect of nature. I think it is the only reasonable and incorruptible
market system there is... popular sentiment. If people do not like changes, they will change
those changes until the balance is struck, free market social order theory, if you will.

PS

How can you get beyond materialism, when your first notion in your response was to
defend the function of materialism?

reply to post by mastahunta

I do not have the option of going out and killing an animal, gather water from a natural source or claiming my own piece of land. But in the 17 hundreds I could go out and build a house without having to subscribe to a 30 year mortgage, or be indebted to people I have never even met for nearly half my life, thank you.

Listen, you have all the options you want. You can work for several years and gather enough money to buy cheap land. Right now i did search on the net and found land in Arizona for 15000$. I doubt you will have to take a mortgage for 30 years to get it or even work for 30 years to save money for it. Rest is up to you.

I am not talking about welfare or the state BTW, if you stop thinking in that little box the state owns, you would be better off. Thinking like you are still in the jungle forces it upon all of us...

?
I force someone to do something? Or it is you who suggests to completely destroy current system just to try another utopia? Current jungle is by no means a final social structure, lots of different types were tried through the ages so this is also going to be obsolete. But going back to tribal existence, while knowlingly suffocating progress and causing starvation on uber-massive scale is not better option then the current system offers,by far.
What puzzles me is the lack of desire to try and see how this will work on small scale by willing individuals and thus pull others in,if it is succesfull. No, people who push for it need everyone to go their way first. Maybe because they fear that old bad alternative will be preferable for majority.

Right on. It all sounds good on paper and in rhetoric. But the historical & empirical evidence point to the fact that mankind manages to prostitute and ruin just about every system of government we can invent.

It has to come from the heart and not through legislation. The first century church had it going on for awhile. The Amish--as someone mentioned--seem to get it.

Some of the Caribbean islanders are sucessful with the 'it takes a village to raise a child' practice. I like that.

And I exited the city for the country a few years ago and found some of the country folk still get it.

Gonna have to a cleansin' of some sort--a do over--for it to be the norm, though, I'm afraid.

Good OP.

reply to post by USAisdevil


Tribal is the way but there are too many people on this planet for everyone to live Tribally me thinks

'A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent.'

Tribes dont have bankers, they dont have corrupt politicians and they dont have officers (overseers) telling you what to do, instead everyone inside a tribe is given a very strong set of morals and values by their parents and elders that means they do not need these essentially corrupt roles in their society.

"Power tends to corrupt, and Absolute power corrupts completely"

Originally posted by Partygirl

Originally posted by mastahunta
I am not sure what you mean when you say "they seem rooted in an artificial
understanding of human nature".

One example is the leftist tendency to believe everyone is equally deserving. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." Why? Why should a hard-working risk-taker support a layabout?

That's not only against human nature...its against what every plant and animal on earth does.

Leftism has very ambitious goals of re-shaping society, re-modeling human nature..."social engineering" like using the media to get people to change their attitudes on this or that..but who makes the decisions on what is desirable, what constitutes "progress"? Who decides what's the baby and what's the bathwater when tossing out the old? And...there are unforseen knock-on effects to such changes. Leftism is not "backwards compatible"...it demands radical change but doesn't understand the implications of such change.

Leftism demands much from its adherants...because self-interest as a motivator is downplayed, other motivators must be found. They are usually lofty and abstract..."work hard, comrades, for our brighter future together..." and accompined by a barrage of propaganda ("politically correct" indoctrination in liberal regimes...more extreme "brainwashing" in hard-Marxist regimes). But these things ultimately fail as motivators. Society stagnates, black markets proliferate, everyone is corrupt....look at the Soviet Union, say.

There is more I could say along these lines but that's enough for now.

edit on 12-11-2011 by Partygirl because: (no reason given)

I can understand your reasoning.
Your question, " Why should a hard-working risk-taker support a layabout?" comes into my mind every time I look at many of my family. In fact, I think I said it before I dragged my sister out the door and locked it behind her.
The promise of a lofty utopian future is a tough one to fulfill. It's been promised many times before, and never quite hit the mark.

reply to post by Partygirl


uhm.. standard american christian right-wing?

reply to post by Maslo


they are the biggest bunch of jokes... Say and do something like Sarah Palin and family

reply to post by USAisdevil


Well yes, but they are non-materialist (believe in god) and non leftist as the OP wants.