[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 297 KB, 664x663, AD7EE0AA-E2DF-45D1-85D1-AAD67E8746E9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12243356 No.12243356 [Reply] [Original]

I always hear politicians and armchair-politicians say “X society is successful becuase their population is happy, Y population is unsuccessful becuase their people are in despair.” Is that really the ultimate goal of politics? Population happiness? They rarely speak about anything other than happiness or economic condition (which can be related back to happiness becuase a better economy equals happier people). There has to be a deeper goal of government than happiness.

And if the entire point of government is happiness then wouldn’t several small communist states (that compete with each other economically and have different laws and such) with an administrating federal government be the best choice?

>> No.12243830

why would there be any other goal than happiness and wealth?

>> No.12243834

>>12243356
The ultimate goal of politics is power.

>> No.12243981

>>12243830
It seems shallow that an entire organization with tens of thousands of members is made to simply make sure people are happy.
>>12243834
Maybe for the politicians but what is the reason for the common people?

>> No.12243990

>>12243981
it doesn't matter if it seems shallow, that's what it's for. what do you want it to do?

>> No.12244003

>>12243981
>Maybe for the politicians but what is the reason for the common people?
there is none. political philosophy was literally funded by tyrants so they could find ways to keep their wealth and power.
I'm not shitting on it or anything, I think it's a good thing, but that IS objectively how it began as a practice.

>> No.12244009

>X society is successful becuase their population is happy, Y population is unsuccessful becuase their people are in despair.
We're all just bricks in the wall anon. Happy people produce more. (Don't give me that bullshit someone on benefits is happy) A society thrives with more producers than consumers. That's why commies hate capitalists, because the consumers are front and center. That's why capitalists hate commies, because the lack of producers is front and center. Build shit, make shit my nigger.

>> No.12244041

>>12244009
>communism is when people get free shit

>> No.12244142

Why is this picture of Daffy so captivating? Definitely a mainstay

>> No.12244260

happiness isn't something you achieve. it's a bit of luck.

>> No.12244760

>>12243830
1488

>> No.12244767

>>12243356
The politicians are appealing to the low IQ masses. Bread and circuses, you know this anon.

>> No.12244865

>>12244041
You didn't address his points, and he isn't wrong. Creative people are happier because they actually do something with their lives instead of, well, consume 24/7.

>> No.12244983
File: 106 KB, 880x720, 1544913778584.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12244983

The presumption that the government is working on behalf of the citizens is the core ideological underpinning of popular government. Whereas Louis XIV may have considered the most important precepts of government the attainment of prestige and power for the Crown (that is, himself), and consequentially the whole of France (as France was the Crown), he was able to do so because his rule wasn't founded on the presumption of representing the people's interests, only his own. Monarchy is a non-popular form of government. Of course, there were still ideologies—the divine right of kings, the power of tradition—which secured his legitimacy, these ideologies were not centered around the people. In rolls the Glorious, American, and French Revolutions, which are really a decisive turning point in the concept of government. It is this time when you hear concepts such as "the rights of man," "the popular will," "the equality of man," "natural rights," ect.; there is a distinct movement towards an ideology which places the people at centre stage, replacing religious foundations of power with natural rights-based governments (let’s not talk about what those natural rights are founded on wink wink). Law over Crown, Man over God—this was the birth of Humanism, the shift from Civitas Dei to Civitas Terrena. Of course, the heart of Christian ethics continues to beat softly in western civilisation, it was simply no longer the explicit foundation of legitmacy. The Humanistic shift was heavily motivated from a desire to break down the structural beliefs of natural aristocracies, natural law, or any kind of formal distinction in the superiority of certain people and the right to rule, which led to a strong belief in equality. So now we have a government "for the people, by the people," what ought the goals of such a society be?
Enter Bentham
Aside from gifting history his embalmed corpse and the concept of the Panopticon, he also formulated a popular ethic for the popular age: Utilitarianism. "The greatest happiness for the greatest number," you couldn't find a more Humanistic concept. Tempered to fit into the rights-based societies by John Stuart Mill (The unfortunate subject of Bentham's child-rearing experiment), the Idea of public happiness became a core principle of popular government. At this point the industrial revolution is really heating up, and a spectre began to haunt Europe; The spectre of Communism! Now, while Napoleon's conquests had done a great deal to spread the spirit of the revolution, entrenched monarchies and aristocracies were still holding out in many continental countries (and in Britain for that matter), and the common citizen, for all his rights, was hardly living the utilitarian ideal. Here the worker, here the pleb, here the downtrodden, yearning to be free, were awakened to the power they hold if only they work collectively; here the birth of trade unionism and a further focus on the welfare of all in society.

>> No.12244990
File: 107 KB, 1243x1080, 1543197276195.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12244990

>>12244983
The catch call of the revolution: Liberté! égalité! fraternité! could well map onto the three waves of popular revolution. We had our first, the revolution of Liberté, and it seemed the second, the revolution of égalité, was just around the corner on the eve of 1848. However, the revolution would have to wait as the Monarchists and Aristocracies broke the uprisings of 1848 and kept their grasp on power in society, and their particular ethics of prestige and tradition. However, for all the extraordinary leadership we saw in that period, pandora’s box, once opened, could not be closed again.
The war to end all wars would be the catalyst of this second revolution. While the dull thunk of the guillotine (and Louis XVI’s head) could be seen as the moment when the symbol of the crown was broken forever, it would be the first great war that would finish what that fateful day had started. A war of attrition, a war of mass casualties and mass rhetoric, a people’s war, that is what WW1 represented. The levée en masse was an invention of the revolution, a particular by-product of popular government; if the everyone rules, everyone has a stake in the protection and interests of the country, and so everyone must fight. The levée en masse is a far more dangerous tool for those who do not make the pretences of ruling on behalf of the people. A fact that poor Alexander and Wilhelm would soon find out. The pressure of this war, and the historical conditions of serfdom, would see Russia the centre for the second wave of popular revolutions—the revolution of égalité: The Communist Revolution.

>> No.12244999
File: 24 KB, 275x281, 1543512496862.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12244999

>>12244990
The Communist Revolution and America’s growing Liberal Internationalism under Wilson would spread this idea of citizen happiness even further, as economics, not politics, would become the driving force of history and society. Our story could almost end here, however the straggler of the revolution, fraternité, would show that popular government can be formed around other concepts. This third wave of popular revolutions would, of course, be Fascism and Nazism (you might place Japan’s weird militaristic Kokutai belief here too) which rejected the universalism of liberalism and communism, and the idea of humanism along with it. The nation would instead be centred again around prestige, power, and national destiny—only now of the “people” and “race,” rather than the crown or sceptre. This rejection on universalism led to events we are all familiar with, and after the cataclysm of the Second World War the third revolution laid in ashes. What they found in those ashes only served to further reinforce the belief in the necessity of Humanism. Then followed the cold war, a war of ideological posturing more than anything. One of the primary propaganda points of America and Liberal-Capitalism was the happiness of the citizen in the “free choice” of consumerism, and the depression of those in the fetters and chains of communism. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Liberté became the sole survivor of the three revolutions; however, the other two had parts of their genealogy woven in. Though this may not represent “the end of history,” for now Liberalism stands triumphant.
It is unsurprising that in modernity happiness is considered the primary goal: Since Humanisms conception, to every challenge it faced, the pursuit of happiness has only been reinforced. Prestige, Power, strict equality, all are seen as passé due to the circumstances of history. The siren call of consumerism further promotes the valuation of happiness-as-meaning, and, as we know, Bread and Circus has always been attractive to the masses. In the hallowed halls of academia it is only Utilitarianism and Deontological ethics that are studied. So, whether Happiness is the ultimate goal of politics, or whether it ought to be, Is a question for philosophers to answer, but it is easy to see why it is so.
That’s my take anyway.

>> No.12245012

>>12243356
The ultimate goal of politics is to claw your way to the top and consolidating your wealth, power, and influence to start the cycle all over again until you’re king of fuckshit mountain

>> No.12245094

Politics is a construct and phenomenon that has developed to fulfill different roles and has thus taken multiple similar interpretations nowadays.

>> No.12245140

>>12244865
he's right but he's wrong about communism

>> No.12245145

Happiness is quite possibly the gayest thing in the universe.

>> No.12245242

>>12243356
Government is just scalled up administration. As such, it has no purpose, but rather, it's a tool for achieving a purpose. That purpose can be anything, however, it usually has something to do with making people shut up.

>> No.12245602

>>12243356
What alternative would you propose?

>> No.12245872

>>12245602
I know it’s kind of ironic, but freedom. I think that the government should only provide protection from foreign threats, regulate economics, and reduce domestic violence. The primary goal of government should be to keep its people as free from oppression as possible. And the people should repay it with the machines continued existence. I guess that could be interpreted as keeping them happy, but I don’t think most of what the government does nowadays is not keeping people free but it does keep them happy. In short, think America circa 1910

>> No.12246038

>>12243356
It's to maintain the societal order and enforce the will of the entity it deems supreme whether that be God,the king or the people.

>> No.12246482

>>12244865
That is true, but more an argument against consumerism,which capitalism directly endorses. If everyone would sacrifice empty consumption for creative efforts, the economy would entirely collapse.

>> No.12246517

>>12245872
that’s not a problem with government, that’s a problem with corporate influence.

>> No.12246532

>>12243834
This
>>12243981
>Maybe for the politicians but what is the reason for the common people?
Exercise of power. Governments work on the principle that if they were not there to tax and protect you then another group would move in to exploit you with whatever power they have available.
Citizen happiness is a lot like the icing on the cake: ultimately less necessary than you may believe, but it won't taste the same without it. For an interesting example of the icingless cake look to ancient Sparta or 19th century imperial Russia: enslaved or peasant populace held in check by fear of military action

>> No.12246880
File: 23 KB, 266x400, 51GaLh+SAKL._AC_SY400_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12246880

>>12245872
Have you read pic related? Assuring freedom and liberty isn't always so clear-cut an issue.

>> No.12246890

>>12244983
Didn't read

>> No.12246900

>>12243356
Goal of democratic politics is to make fantastic promises aka lie to everyone to get votes.
Goal of all politics is to gain power and stay in power.
What it ought to do beyond that is pointless speculation.

>> No.12246921

>>12243356

A look at any small (or large) currently existing or past communist state reveals that their people live in a continuous state of material deprivation and hunger due to the inefficiencies of planned economies, with an ever-present existential terror due to constant threat of being sentenced to long periods of forced labor (which is often actually a death sentence) for crimes of belief.

If a government's goal is to create maximum happiness then communism is not the answer.

>> No.12246923

>>12243981
>Maybe for the politicians but what is the reason for the common people?
Again power. Once you see that leftists are not fighting for causes but for *funding* for their causes they conviniently lead and thus greatly benefit from, you can't unsee it. Every group is the same. Except libertarians who genuinely just want no power or money, which is why they will forever remain fringe group.

>> No.12247037

>>12243356
>How Russia was created
So glad to be an American, seriously

>> No.12247333
File: 203 KB, 533x545, 1544181066938.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12247333

>>12246890
No one did...

>> No.12247375

The goal should be libidinal intensity, jouissance

>> No.12247423

>>12243356
>I always hear politicians and armchair-politicians say “X society is successful becuase their population is happy, Y population is unsuccessful becuase their people are in despair."
I've literally heard no politician ever say this

>> No.12247833

>>12243981
>Maybe for the politicians but what is the reason for the common people?
Security, ostensibly

>> No.12248389

>>12247333
I read it and liked it anon.

>> No.12248428

The ultimate goal of any political system is military strength. Not sure why this isn't stupidly obvious to anyone. Any nation isn't capable of defending itself is bound to be destroyed/turned vassal to a stronger nation.

>> No.12248429

>>12244983
>>12244990
>>12244999
That's a nice take, if bit forced at times.

>> No.12248498

>>12247333
I did and congratulate you.

>> No.12249011

>>12243356
People are (mostly) unnatural happy. It's part of our nature, as it keep us motivated to act and socialize to improve our situation and the one of our nearest relatives

Regarding the communal thing, if your commune have everything needed for everyone, in the long it will have too much population to substain, so will need to forbid people to either have kids even if wanted, exile someone or start forceful expansion. In all cases it will fall the happiness condition

>> No.12249103

>>12244983
>>12244990
>>12244999
it's a very West/North and modernity-oriented analysis. but happiness and 'the good life' have been the focus of philosophy for much longer and in much broader geographical/cultural ranges than that. while it's true in the Western context that the state itself has only risen to prominence in modern times, I would not put this as the all-defining feature of government-controlled happiness's history

>> No.12249919

>>12249103
Where do you think it did begin then? My knowledge of political history and theory is mostly limited to Europe.

>> No.12250818

bump

>> No.12250873

>>12244009
>happy people produce more
Objectively false, both on a micro and macro scale. On a micro scale of people within a nation, those who produce the most industrial goods are never the happiest. They're efficient, so they don't have time to pursue happiness. Similarly for the macro scale: high industrial-producing nations pretty much only have high rates of happiness when those countries have low living standards across the board, because happiness within a nation is largely determined by the scale of inequality. Outside of that conflating factor, the happiest nations are not high-producing. The highest-producing nations are not the happiest.

>> No.12250907
File: 276 KB, 562x953, happiness.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12250907

>>12244009
>>12250873
See pic

>> No.12251363

>>12243356
Happiness is overrated. Plastic consumistic (((happiness))) more than any other kind.
By today's standard the perfect society is an Eternal Lotus-Eaters's machine.

>> No.12251882

>>12244865
>Creative people are happier because they actually do something with their lives instead of, well, consume 24/7.
I always knew that I was not a creative person.

>> No.12252051

>>12250907
>gross domestic product
now show us gross domestic product per capita instead; GDP does not indicate individual productivity, it's just a measure of size

>> No.12252207

>>12250907
Retarded comparison