The Road to "Nowheresville" in the Social Imagination...

 

 

Utopia – literally “nowheresville” – was the name of an imaginary republic described by Thomas More in which all social conflict and distress has been overcome. There have been many versions of Utopia over the years, many of them visions of socialist society. Although Marx and Engels defined their own socialism in opposition to Utopian Socialism (which had many advocates in the early nineteenth century), they had immense respect for the great Utopian socialists like Charles Fourier and Robert Owen.

 

The problems with Utopian socialism are that it does not concern itself with how to get there, presuming that the power of its own vision is sufficient, or with who the agent of the struggle for socialism may be, and, instead of deriving its ideal from criticism of existing conditions, it plucks its vision ready-made from the creator’s own mind. Further, it gives no guidance as to how we should act here and now, in the really existing world, confining itself to telling us how to act as if everyone were to recognize the same ethical principles [Thomas Moore pictured].

Plato wrote The Republic in 360 BCE, an idealization of a slave society with a rigid class system, divided between philosophers, warriors and commoners. Justice and social stability were ensured because everyone was assigned to a station in life appropriate to their interests and virtues. The structure of the Republic was an image of Plato’s conception of the structure of the human being: Reason, Spirit and Desire. The above excerpts were taken from ~ https://www.marxists.org/subject/utopian/index.htm

 

 

COMMENTARY: Over 40 versions of Utopia were published between 1700 and 1850. So, a good question to ask why the social imagination of some or maybe a majority of human beings is 'hell bent' on Utopia and it always seem to necessarily become socialist ... communist? Well, Plato was right, the necessary structure of the 'created' human being has built in reason, spirit and desire (indeed, 'created' as I could not possibly think/believe that an evolving ape would ever possess reason/spirit/desire). The problem is that most writers and thinkers or dreamers have not embraced the fact that this is a fallen condition. This 'program' is corrupt but it will be rebooted by the Creator not by the creation. 

For non-believers, evolutionist atheists all I can say is this... Reiterating, Thomas Moore, the problem with Utopian socialism is that it does not concern itself with how to get there, presuming that the power of its own vision is sufficient, or with who the agent of the struggle for socialism may be, and, instead of deriving its ideal from criticism of existing conditions, it plucks its vision ready-made ... TM

Do you know why proponents of socialism do that? Because, the truth in any 'organized' society regarding actual means and ways needs real capital. And, capital flow controls waste as much as it controls outcomes. Get it? With any kind of socialism, there is no fair or just way forward or sustainability. Why? As Roman Emperor Claudius said, "When the money runs out you better look out". Indeed, that's about capital. Socialism does not generate capital. It takes and consumes capital until there is nothing left. You may tell me there is no fair or just way forward or sustainability in a free market... the answer is that in a FREE market there is always a way forward for everyone who is willing to partake. Socialism is the road to "Nowheresville" ~ Thomas Moore.

 

Higher Education... a Waste of Time and Money in the Social Imagination!

    

                                         College is for clowns...

    Famed former Wall Street broker Jordan Belfort commented on the diminishing value of a college education, after a new report found some college students learned less than high school graduates a decade after their enrollment. College is a "complete waste of time" for most students, he believes.

"If you want to be a professional, a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant or something that really requires a degree then yes, you should go to college, and you should try to go to the best school you can and make the most of it," Belfort said while on "Varney & Company" on Tuesday. 

"But all of these other sort of softer subjects like gender studies and all this other stuff, what are you going to do with that stuff, honestly? So I think it’s a complete waste of time," he added [https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/wolf-of-wall-street-says-college-complete-waste-time-students-avoid-plague].

    As we age and begin to ponder what we want to do when we “grow up,” higher education soon enters into the equation. But in the 21st century, would it be ridiculous to contemplate that there is more than one path? Sentiments that college is a waste of time have slowly bubbled up into the mainstream.

    Perhaps you’ve even encountered such a perspective yourself. Organizations like Praxis and Mike Rowe have long asserted that college isn’t synonymous with success. And that a good living is possible without the burden of time and money that college requires... If I asked you to list people from the last 50 years whom you’d consider to be the wealthiest, who would come to mind?

    I’m betting you’d name people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, whose products run the world. Or maybe Mark Zuckerberg, whose company possesses the world’s greatest contact database. What about the late Walt Disney, a name that represents one of the largest media empires in existence. There’s Michael Dell, who made computing affordable for the massess. And Richard Branson, with a business model that permeates droves of different verticals.

    If that’s not good enough, how about someone in our own industry? Indeed, you can find many who come from various places on the spectrum of life, there is one thing that is true for them all. Every single one of them were college dropouts. That is, if they even went to college at all [https://careeroncommand.com/college-is-a-waste-of-time/].

 

COMMENTARY: College education is a racket, always has been. Sure, a lot of people think that college gives a person a leg up in life. Speaking as a sociologist, its only the circle of friends and acquaintances that you create at college that actually gives you that 'leg up', if you are clever about it. What about doctors and surgeons? They can be trained the same as a car mechanic. And, that goes for lawyers too and engineers.

Thousands of intelligent people (college grad and not) have been passed by for someone who 'knew someone' on the inside or through similar circles of 'butt kissing'. No, I don't have a chip on my shoulder like you want to think I do. I just despise nepotism and the who's who crap along with all the politically correct virtue signally one has to do in order to get noticed or appreciated let alone ahead. 

Those people named above in the article excerpts, who were not college grads, still became incredibly successful because they were smart, bold risk takers and they made sure that they were in the right place at the right time in order to get noticed. If they did not, they still persevered rather than blame anyone or anything.  

 

Migrants Don't Want Junk Food Socialism... They want Good Food Capitalism! Its all in their Social Imagination!

 

Migrants at Chicago’s largest shelter call food horrible, rather buy their own meals as city spends millions...

WGN NEWS CHICAGO ~ March 14 2024

By: Lourdes Duarte and Peter Curi

As the city of Chicago spends millions of dollars on food for migrant shelters, some asylum seekers are now buying their own meals.

Former shelter residents can be seen outside the largest shelter in Chicago as they’ve created a make-shift business to provide an alternative for the food some are calling “horrible.”

New arrivals are choosing to use their own money to pay for food even as the city signs a multimillion dollar contracts with two different businesses.

Seventy Seven Communities Meal Service (501c3) has already been paid $3.7 million to feed migrants, but could stand to make as much as $45 million.

A second company, 14 Parish (501c3) has received $3.8 million with the potential to make as much as $57.6 million.

The residents who are choosing to skip the free food…and eat outside gave us pictures of the city provided meals, saying they may look fine but taste terrible.

The city even switched vendors earlier this year hoping to address the issues – but trouble has come up again.

The sent us this statement saying it collects feedback from residents on the food service, adding: “The City seeks to work with our food service provider partners to continually improve food options for residents based on the feedback we receive.”

WGN Investigates did contact the food vendor for the Pilsen shelter – 14 Parish. They said that they’re meeting all the nutritional requirements in the city contract.

Meanwhile, the story also brings up some questions about how much food is provided at shelters. There is no mandate in place but it is part of the city’s effort to meet the basic needs of new arrivals.

 

COMMENTARY: There is no need to say more unless you can't put 2 and 2 together.

ONLINE SOURCE ~  https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/migrants-at-chicagos-largest-shelter-call-food-horrible-rather-buy-their-own-meals-as-city-spends-millions/

 

 

*The so-called food service providers are registered 501c3s [making a profit???] supposedly following state guidelines... ohh scary!

Campaign Promises and Actual Outcomes in the Social Imagination...

People often measure a government’s success on fulfilled campaign promises. And, most people want their government to address domestic problems first, such as: unemployment, inflation, taxes, along with health and safety. Yet, in reality, a government is only able to fulfill some of its promises because at the end of the day, it never did perfectly align its goals with what voters believed they would do. Governments have agenda's of their own. 

Really? Yes, and those agenda's have to do with power, prestige and money. The average 'Joe/Jane' do not like that idea because they idealize the whole process of the campaign and voting as essential to their democratic dream come true. Sure, in theory, elections appear as opportunities for people to make a choice as to what happens in their government and who represents them in terms of what happens - outcomes.  

This implies that a political system, wherein the masses vote and get their voices heard, is composed of honest parties, an informative unbiased media and civil society. This is, in fact, most desirable in a democracy. Yet, all too often, not just today but in the past, way too many citizens are disgruntled with politicians and campaign promises let alone any kind of satisfactory outcome from their voter participation.

    Psychology today pointed back in 2010 that voters are the eternal optimists who can't learn from experience. We want to believe that our politicians will improve our lives. But when post-election reality hits, we forget how unrealistic we were in believing that somehow "this time," the outcome would be different. In 2008, many Obama supporters and independent voters alike got caught up in this sort of mass delusion of inflated expectations. Supporters sought miraculous results from Obama and the Democratic Congress who they voted into office and when the miracle failed to materialize, they reacted with outrage and contempt. Tea Partiers capitalized on the angry mood of disillusioned voters, many of them basing their candidacies on the premise that their candidates would fulfill a new set of largely unrealistic promises.

    Research in marketing psychology provides intriguing insights into why broken campaign promises "hurt so bad." The effect known as "negative expectancy disconfirmation" has been demonstrated in studies involving consumer products that fail to deliver on their promised effects. According to this research, we have a bias toward being more angry when a product fails to perform than to be happy when it lives up to its claims.

    If politicians are ever to be able to lead, there will have to be an end at some point to the negative expectancy disconfirmation effect. We have to learn to trust again. Great leaders require not only the ability to take bold action, but the willingness of citizens to allow them to try to win without having to make wild and unrealistic promises. On the morning after, it would be nice to wake up and be able to feel that whoever won or lost, the change is one we can truly "believe in."

ONLINE SOURCE ~ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201011/promises-promises-when-politicians-don-t-deliver

 

COMMENTARY: Well, its sad isn't it. What? The whole darn thing is sad... campaign promises and actual outcomes. Even sadder is that the so called psychology here is right but confused. How? Looks like at key phrases: voters are eternal optimists, we want to believe so we have a high expectation... and the so called solution is to learn to trust. Trust in 'great leaders'?  Who is that, who decides who is great and who is not? Basically, the best advice here is to set the bar low (trust only that you have set the bar low enough) and you will not be disappointed.