Skip to content

Social grouping

by on 28/12/2017

The capitalistic economic system is based on principles of profit, return on investments, competitiveness, private ownership of assets and means of production. These principles this economic system is hinged on, are pushing the economy to activities at infinite levels. Since the earth is a system with finite boundaries, it has to cause inevitably ever-increasing crisis, their forms and its dimension are difficult to predict.

If not the capitalistic economic system, what other economic system could substitute it? Marxism tried and failed as an alternative economic system, but was it a failure of the system or was it the failure of individuals, who emerged out of revolutionary governance change, grabbed the leadership and misused it?

In its essence Marxism recognizes the economy and economic social relations as the major mover of the human existence. In its most fundamental level considers the human labor as a central tool in creating and shaping the socio-economic grouping within the state. As such, it does not recognizes individual human being as the basic element of human existence.The result of it, in its fundamental essence, it is not putting the human individual in the center of the system, and out of it, it is repressive to individuality.

The social framework in which individual will act as a productive factor is important to most of the people, whose realization of their identity requires possessing affinity to social grouping. Such a social affinity imposes limitations on the individual behavior, individual opinions, and cultural identity out of any kind of social grouping. So the choice of belonging to a social framework is also a choice to give up individual freedom, individual ideas, and adopt collective thinking. If to open collective thinking to large group of people, it has to be based on symbols, slogans, pre designed forms, pre designed thoughts, etc. that are adopted without any comprehension of the systems and its basic elements that lay behind the slogans and imaginary realities.

On the other hand, human individuals without need for social affinity, are the only people with capacity for free choice, free thinking and free will. These “freed individuals” exist as creators and leaders in the fields of arts, sciences, economic ventures, philosophical cogitation, etc. The people with social affinity see these freed individuals as threat to their social  coherency and try to limit them by different repressive tools. But these individuals are usually those, that also bring grand scale economic, social, scientific, artistic, cognitive breakthroughs and advancement to the society and the economy. Most of the times they are eventually adored by the people with social affinities to a specific group. Therefore, if the aim of economic activity is to create ever growing wealth to growing number of individuals within the society, mostly belonging to social groupings that demand from its members social affinity, it is important to give freedom of action to these freed individuals. It means the people with affinity to any kind of social grouping need to restrain their natural tendency to try to repress and delegitimize the “freed individuals”.

A liberal-democratic-capitalist society makes it possible for such free individuals to exist and freely develop their activities and ideas. But the big majority of the people don’t belong to this category of people, but rather are used to collective thinking derived from the social group, they belong too, and identify with. And the leading ideas of humans belonging to social grouping are based on simplistic symbols, slogans, predesigned forms, predesigned thoughts, ceremonies, norms, internal laws, unique normative behaviours, etc. In some social groupings all these attributes are easily changed  to new ones and can be used to support new modes, new fashions, or exchanged to completely new social grouping with new attributes. But many social groupings are not liberal and the restrictions, norms, rules and cultural forms are zealously guarded with orthodoxy.

The new fashions can be either manipulatively created by certain individuals with clear personal interest and political proficiency to handle the simplistic symbols, slogans etc., or erupt spontaneously among the masses and immediately cause creation of social grouping, around which new forms of expression come into being. Both these forms of expression are based on social groupings and not on individual creation out of act of cogitation and deep recognition of the system and its elements, lying beneath the immediate expressions that prevail within the social grouping. As such, the social mood is governed by surfaced expressions, without to try to understand to the dept the underlying essence of the systems and its elements, these slogans represent, and without capacity to create an alternative system.

These modes and tendencies, change quite often, and appear and disappear as reaction to events, mostly painful, connected to feeling of injustice caused by those “Others”, not us, meaning the “freed individuals”, or other social groupings, even if close in their beliefs to the faith of “our Group”. This causes rise of animosity to the other, sometime in mild form, but sometime it erupts into a very violent form.

The political phenomena of Brexit and election of Donald Trump, is result of such informal social grouping of individuals, who try to express, through their negation of everything normative, their feelings about the obvious injustice caused by the existing system, that frustrated them when these individuals failed to achieve justice within the system. The 2008 economic crisis, and the way the political establishment, obviously protecting itself and the  leaders of the existing system, coped with the crisis, by pouring trillions of dollars into the system, on account of the majority, most of them with tendency for social affinity, was obviously frustrating and unjust event. Just mentioning the amount of  trillions poured into the financial system, that is beyond comprehension of normal humans, while their income remained freezed in the best case, made it easy to recruit people to social grouping, creating its own culture, based on surfacing slogans, misconception and false news. The result is political choices based on short term truths, bringing sometime disappointments, but sometimes unchangeable new realities, completely out of control of the same individuals, who made wrong choices, and are now trapped in situation, they themselves participated on its creation.

From → ECONOMICS, MENUE

2 Comments
  1. Agree, Obama missed his historical opportunity, to force US for once to do the right thing. They were three major issues to be solved, environment, public education and health care. He could solve all three in his first year of presidency easily. All the political and the economic establishment was in state of shock after the colossal economic collapse, and obviously disastrous international policy of G.Bush Junior. Instead he wanted to be o.k. with everyone and started to look for compromise with the Republicans, who could not swallow the fact that a Afro-American democratic president can be smarter then their WASP cowboy nominee. As high were the hopes, so bigger was the disappointment.
    He is the main reason Donald the Great is president now. The democratic followers became desperate when Hillery was nominated as candidate. So they just did not attend the ballot box.

    Like

  2. Today is stoop down day.
    Social groupings are natural to the genus Homo: no group, no survival. But we evolved in groups of no more than 100. Now the groups are up to billions.
    Social groups are thought systems. Some of these thoughts are true, others are errors, others, outright lies.
    Did people “participate” in the creation of the present system? Well… People are being lied to. Are those who believe in liars, and the lies they produce, and the dissemblances they live on, participating in the creation of the system?
    Listen to Obama’ s interview with Prince Harry: people are really impressed by that self-importance of the self-proclaimed self-important permanent “leaders” (Harry and Barry), that deeply wise approach towards the most superficial subjects. A superficiality imposed on us all, because the BBC rules minds.
    People listen to this sort of things with the wrong mood. Such is their first crime. The mood they should have is that they were had, and it’s time for anger. Ah! But anger, they were imprinted to believe, is not wise, but childish, vicious and never excusable.
    The mood they have, instead, is deep admiration for how far a “colored guy” (Obama’s own expression, orally or in writing) went. Only ex-racists would reason that way (congratulating the colored for his/her advancement).
    It’s all very childish.
    It costs lots of mental energy not to be childish. Energy? People are mentally lazy.
    ***
    Obama, or Brexit, Were Exits Of Reason:
    Brexit was a fake revolution organized by plutocrats to save themselves from encroachment by European taxes. Now the British are discovering, even the “leavers” have discovered, they have been had. But it’s hard to admit it. So there won’t be Brexit. Brexit has exited as BINO.

    Brexit was a trick by the global plutocracy, which had run out of options in how to stop European drive towards making it pay more taxes. That way, Brexit has functioned: a distracted EU has abandoned the plutocracy tax drive. At least, for now.
    ***
    Plutocracy always had spokesmen (they are generally men). “When Barry meets Harry”, heralded the NYT, to celebrate the interview of Obama by the English plutocrat, Prince Harry of the UK.
    I read several versions of the interview in the Main Stream Media (MSM), and listened to it several times. As usual the report from the MSM were all alike, and focused on the superficial, from Fox News/CNBC to the Guardian (in the UK).
    My own interpretation, by listening directly, is quite different. The impudence of these two men calling themselves “leaders”, and their obsession to guide the “youth” to “power” jumped at me. Who elected them to their present position? What’s the big deal with “power”? And what does that “power” consist of exactly?
    When looking back to his presidency Obama is satisfied to have given coverage to “20 million Americans”. That’s, according to him, his top achievement. That’s an astonishing small claim to make, even in health care. The USA objective health indicators are often not even first world, and they are still going down. US life expectancy is going down. After a few years of stagnation, starting in 2014, the (sick) percentage of US GDP having to do with health “care”, started its march up again. Why? “Obamacare” was written by Liz Fowler, a VP in a US for profit insurance company, Wellpoint

    U.S. health care spending grew 4.3 percent in 2016, reaching $3.3 trillion or $10,348 per person. As a share of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, health spending accounted for 17.9 percent. That was all under Obama, it has nothing to do with Trump.

    Countries with top-notch health care top out at 12% GDP (France, Germany, Italy). The US performs at the less-than 8% GDP level, so we can say that US healthcare is half corruption. It’s half-care, half-greed.

    There was an obvious solution to the US healthcare problem: MEDICARE FOR ALL. Obama had the right to impose it by executive order on the first day of his presidency. The right, but not the balls. Or the brains.

    When Obama got to power in 2009, he got busy saving the fraction of plutocrats who had lost all their money to the complementary fraction of plutocrats who had got it. As everybody knows, or, at least, Obama knows, the world can’t function without plutocrats, or, at least Obama can’t function without them. When Obama was done, inequality was higher than ever. Higher than under Bush. In other words, plutocracy was greater than ever…
    Obama professes to admire Michael Jordan, a guy who became famous and powerful by striking balloons up through loops. Michael Jordan said:
    “I can accept failure. Everyone fails at something. But I can’t accept not trying.”
    Obama didn’t even try, for health care. His “Obamacare” was just “Romneycare”, implemented by Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney a Republican plutocrat of the venture capital type.
    Obama’s financial system consisted in increasing inequalities further, adding some lipstick to that pig.
    Go explain that to the 1%: they will hate you, because they want you, and We The People, to believe in the lies. So they will call you a racist, a Trumpist, etc.
    Those who have interest in the lies are in power, as Obama doesn’t quite say, but close…

    https://polldaddy.com/js/rating/rating.js

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Adult Level Fiction

Exploring alternative narratives

Only a philosopher

The personal website of John G. Brungardt, Ph.D.

OneXCent

Economy and society under a heterodox perspective.

Eamonn Blaneys Website

"A mind of integrity is the most glorious possession" - Family motto

rogeq.wordpress.com/

Explain Explore Enlighten

Mostly Economics

This blog covers research work in Economics with focus on India.

Econometricus.com

Data-Driven Economics.

Economic Sociology and Political Economy

The global community of academics, practitioners, and activists interested in Economic Sociology & Political Economy -- led by Oleg Komlik

Wiser, Braver, More Optimistic

A blog about books and ideas

%d bloggers like this: