Why Socialism Doesn't Work
Why Socialism Doesn't Work
Yesterday, 9:18 PM
Quote:men operate best in systems built around a hierarchy. examples: the government, the military. We see it in the workplace. We can even see it in their friendships. There is the one who dominates and makes all the decisions/who is idolized as better, and the many who are dominated, who seek validation and will support the leader unconditionally, and it just so happens men work best in these conditions. They thrive when they are being told what to do.
In a male only workplace, the employees naturally submit to the boss, however, in a female only workplace the women don't usually dominate or submit to each other. It's more of a collaborative space where every woman's thoughts are taken into account by the manager.
Men naturally submit to stronger men around them. They idolize men that are better than them and they actually want and expect those men to dominate them. They like making the boss happy. Men only want to dominate others if they believe they are the strongest in the room.
Men have this ingrained need for a pack, you can see it with teenage boys vs teenage girls. Teenage boys are in a pack, while teenage girls have like 2-3 best friends with whom they are equal. But with pack comes hierarchy. Women are more independent by nature, like cats, while men are more like dogs.
Also the giveaway to me was the male's propensity to create idols and follow them, like those manosphere influencers. Nothing is more beta than being a follower, yet they do that so readily. They like being told by an alpha man what to do
TL/DR The masculine is both domination AND submission. The feminine is cooperation
And one of the noteworthy comments on this reads:
Quote:Hierarchy is a patriarchal thing. Men will destroy one another and put their own patriarchal world in danger through their own stupidity. I've also seen women arguing that it's nothing wrong to fight against each other for power in a women-only society, and they point to hyenas as an exmaple. I always disagree with that. Where there is hierarchy, there is opression, and no women should suffer from that. A women-only world should be decentralized and everybody deserves equal rights.
It's a slight oversimplification, to be sure, but there's definitely something here, IMO. Like you can even see it in young children; like how everyone knows the ranking system of the Boy Scouts, but few could tell you what that of the Girl Scouts is because the latter ranking system barely matters. I'm a lifelong hardcore video gamer and I've similarly noticed over the years that men tend to prefer more challenging games (something to conquer) that are more straightforward and linear, with clear directions, or else ones that are designed mainly as competitions between players, while women will tend to prefer more open-ended experiences that allow them more freedom and opportunities for collaboration. In these and a thousand other different expressions, you will find the point that both dominating and submitting to power are male-skewing traits, while autonomy and free cooperation are female-skewing desires, valid.
I think you'll also find that that which works for hyenas isn't necessarily in the human woman's DNA. It seems pretty clear to me that human females are much less competitive, and this gets to the heart of why experiments in socialist socio-economic reorganization never seem to work out. Of course they don't! They all involve men, invariably including as the leaders of these projects! Seriously, whenever you talk to an ideological capitalist about why socialism failed in the 20th century, the argument you get back is that equality is unnatural to our species; that human beings strive to compete with each other, pursue social stratification on instinct, and so trying to force them not to is always going to fail and make them less productive. But ideological capitalists are also mostly male, by no coincidence! It begs the question of whether vying to always be part of a competitive game is in fact human nature...or whether it's more like just male nature. Is the case of the free market crowd really just men projecting their own instincts onto the rest of us? I think it is.
Why do you think socialist societies tend to wind up as repressive police states and personality cults despite ostensibly being aimed toward the elimination of the class system? Men. The hierarchical male mind turns them into castes; turns shared property into state property and the state into private property run by men. Men as a sex are incapable of building an egalitarian world. It's not the way they're hard-wired. They need to be excluded from such efforts. Conversely, I can see no reason why women, left to ourselves, cannot build more sharing into our economies and less tyranny into our systems of government. We're naturally more collaborative and caring!
This is why I disagree with the socialist feminists -- the Bernie bro types who insist that economic restructuring must precede female empowerment. It's not that I ain't a socialist, it's that socialism can only be built successfully by women on our own, to which end the liberation of women from male oppression must take precedence as a priority over a socialist reorganization of the economy in order for the latter to have hope of working out.
Edited Yesterday, 10:08 PM by Impress Polly.
There's a thread over on Womad.Life called "Submission is a male trait" that reads as follows:
Quote:men operate best in systems built around a hierarchy. examples: the government, the military. We see it in the workplace. We can even see it in their friendships. There is the one who dominates and makes all the decisions/who is idolized as better, and the many who are dominated, who seek validation and will support the leader unconditionally, and it just so happens men work best in these conditions. They thrive when they are being told what to do.
In a male only workplace, the employees naturally submit to the boss, however, in a female only workplace the women don't usually dominate or submit to each other. It's more of a collaborative space where every woman's thoughts are taken into account by the manager.
Men naturally submit to stronger men around them. They idolize men that are better than them and they actually want and expect those men to dominate them. They like making the boss happy. Men only want to dominate others if they believe they are the strongest in the room.
Men have this ingrained need for a pack, you can see it with teenage boys vs teenage girls. Teenage boys are in a pack, while teenage girls have like 2-3 best friends with whom they are equal. But with pack comes hierarchy. Women are more independent by nature, like cats, while men are more like dogs.
Also the giveaway to me was the male's propensity to create idols and follow them, like those manosphere influencers. Nothing is more beta than being a follower, yet they do that so readily. They like being told by an alpha man what to do
TL/DR The masculine is both domination AND submission. The feminine is cooperation
And one of the noteworthy comments on this reads:
Quote:Hierarchy is a patriarchal thing. Men will destroy one another and put their own patriarchal world in danger through their own stupidity. I've also seen women arguing that it's nothing wrong to fight against each other for power in a women-only society, and they point to hyenas as an exmaple. I always disagree with that. Where there is hierarchy, there is opression, and no women should suffer from that. A women-only world should be decentralized and everybody deserves equal rights.
It's a slight oversimplification, to be sure, but there's definitely something here, IMO. Like you can even see it in young children; like how everyone knows the ranking system of the Boy Scouts, but few could tell you what that of the Girl Scouts is because the latter ranking system barely matters. I'm a lifelong hardcore video gamer and I've similarly noticed over the years that men tend to prefer more challenging games (something to conquer) that are more straightforward and linear, with clear directions, or else ones that are designed mainly as competitions between players, while women will tend to prefer more open-ended experiences that allow them more freedom and opportunities for collaboration. In these and a thousand other different expressions, you will find the point that both dominating and submitting to power are male-skewing traits, while autonomy and free cooperation are female-skewing desires, valid.
I think you'll also find that that which works for hyenas isn't necessarily in the human woman's DNA. It seems pretty clear to me that human females are much less competitive, and this gets to the heart of why experiments in socialist socio-economic reorganization never seem to work out. Of course they don't! They all involve men, invariably including as the leaders of these projects! Seriously, whenever you talk to an ideological capitalist about why socialism failed in the 20th century, the argument you get back is that equality is unnatural to our species; that human beings strive to compete with each other, pursue social stratification on instinct, and so trying to force them not to is always going to fail and make them less productive. But ideological capitalists are also mostly male, by no coincidence! It begs the question of whether vying to always be part of a competitive game is in fact human nature...or whether it's more like just male nature. Is the case of the free market crowd really just men projecting their own instincts onto the rest of us? I think it is.
Why do you think socialist societies tend to wind up as repressive police states and personality cults despite ostensibly being aimed toward the elimination of the class system? Men. The hierarchical male mind turns them into castes; turns shared property into state property and the state into private property run by men. Men as a sex are incapable of building an egalitarian world. It's not the way they're hard-wired. They need to be excluded from such efforts. Conversely, I can see no reason why women, left to ourselves, cannot build more sharing into our economies and less tyranny into our systems of government. We're naturally more collaborative and caring!
This is why I disagree with the socialist feminists -- the Bernie bro types who insist that economic restructuring must precede female empowerment. It's not that I ain't a socialist, it's that socialism can only be built successfully by women on our own, to which end the liberation of women from male oppression must take precedence as a priority over a socialist reorganization of the economy in order for the latter to have hope of working out.
