The Factual realm of humanity
Within the field of existence, humans fall within the category of most social-oriented habitants. For centuries the civic human beings have astonishingly been capable of capturing the skills of their most talented individuals. They have been able to bundle, henceforth, successfully channel it towards solving the most sophisticated impediments. To enhance further, be it for convenience or precision, the upright genus of the species has established numerous cultural networks in the name of civilizations. Nevertheless, despite the overwhelming societal integrity, humans have repeatedly declined to respect one fundamental notion- that is, individual diversity and the contrast between personal and social gravity.
A comparative glance into Ants’ Life
Over centuries the latter has played a significant piece in establishing a disparity between denominations of people within societies. To elaborate on what it implies, I would like to shed comparative light on other species, in this case,” Ants.”
Ant world is a collaborative one, as it is devoid of designated leadership. For past decades, Scientists have been studying the behavior of various species of ants. It comprised of ways that worked towards deciphering the orders relating to community survival. However, they are still in search of clues as to how they coordinate their behaviors. The world’s widest known ant colony expands over 3,700 miles, totally built by collaborative efforts of the individual ants.
The remaining speculation is that ants can efficiently self-organize through their interaction. According to scientists, such organized cooperation prevails because no one is in charge of their team. The ant wields no scheme, has no leader, and prevails solely by way of self-organization and collaboration. Ants are capable of creating incredible structures out of triviality. Ant colonies’ depiction is that of super-organisms, a phenomenon defined as the collection of species behaving like a single organism.
Ants beget collective intellect
The ants are known for their collective intellect, even though they are incapable of an informed alliance. Hence It’s incredible and inspiring to think that these tiny insects with tiny brains can create such extraordinary substances. Ants, by nature, sustain the process of an intricate decentralized network. Everything they do is base on the interaction of many individual ants rather than having one leader who delegates tasks down the ladder of hierarchy. They only follow a few straightforward requirements to make that system a coup.
Deborah Gordon is a professor of biology at Stanford University, and The author of ” Ants At Work: How An Insect Society is Organized and Ant Encounters: Interaction Networks And Colony Behavior” has uncovered that ant colonies are incredibly efficient. And to function without central management, as the single unit, they must rely on simple interactions like touching antennae.
Humans, with all due sophistication and understanding the significance of collaborative offering in a social setting, have utterly lagged to implement what ants endure day in and day out. Therefore, it is reasonable to state; the lower primates have better mastery and concept of social interaction. Yet, humans pride themselves as being social and call for social unity and collective values.
Human as an individual
An individual is a distinct entity, whereas the selfhood of individuality is the state of being as separate from other people. Every individual possesses unique goals, rights, and responsibilities. The distinct definition of an individual is vital while differentiating it within the realm of biology, law, and philosophy.
Although individuality and individualism commonly mature with aging, time, experience, and wealth, a rational adult self within the current standards is considered a” person” by the prevailing law of the land, even if the individual denies individual liability such as” I don’t follow instructions.” In the eyes of the law, an individual is accountable for the execution of their actions, decisions, directives, and are subject to prosecution.
From the time a person reaches adulthood, coinciding with the granting of voting rights, tax, and military duties, individual right to bear arms- an individual is deemed accountable. Concomitant with hierarchy, someone’s ultimate reward for his or her accomplishment and accountability alike for the downfall found is at the top of human social structures.
Humans as Social being
As Fritz Heider and Mary Simmel’s famous 1944 writing of the” animation of two triangles and a circle orbiting a rectangle” points, the Human standard status by nature is an indication of their automatic social essence. Heider and Simmel’s Article suggests that the perception of particular shapes is not intuitive; since forms of any stimuli and situations must elicit that perception.
Human as the social animal
As Social Animals, humans are inherently in acquaintance with others, therefore based on the theory of Simmel and Heider, active interpretation of Aristotle’s famous aphorism needs abandonment. Necessarily an individual’s societal status is a dominant impetus that molds thought, behavior, physiology, and neural activity. Nonetheless, motivation over the human mind, hormones, and comprehension require citadel with affirmation that being social is a challenge, automatic, and infinite. Such a problem stems from factors already spoken of previously. Social processes they rely on must first be triggered before they are deemed practical. Humans may be inclined to view the realm through a social lens, but is not automatic.
Despite clasping abilities beyond those of the other species, including mind, empathy, transforming empathy into care, and generosity, humans, consistently fail to utilize these capabilities with focused precision and efficiency.
Significance of loyalty
People, by nature, engage in feats of commitment, moral concern, and cooperation toward human inner orbs, but typically succeed at the price of folks outside of those circles. Our generosity is not unbounded; in contrast, it is sectarian. In support of the latter phenomenon, through many considerations, the hormone oxytocin plays a crucial role in forming social pacts. Accordingly, it is shown to facilitate union toward one’s ingroup but can increase shielding aggression from one’s outgroup. The self-sacrificial intragroup love co-evolves with intergroup war, and that societies valuing loyalty to each other tend to be those who are most likely to endorse violence toward outgroups.
Competition or cooperation
The ability to adopt serves the perspective for those to heighten competition as much as it boosts collaboration. It merely highlights the emotions and desires of those we like but also accentuates the selfish and unethical motives of people we despise.
Furthermore, for individuals to contemplate the psyches of others, they first require motivation as well as possessing essential cognitive remedies. Motivation and cognition are finite, just as is their capacity to be social. Its abilities hamper any intervention that aspires to boost the consideration of others in terms of empathy, benevolence, and compassion. The common notion is that at some point, the spring of working memory on which our most valuable social abilities rely on will dry out.
It is also the general concept that, Because our social capacities are primarily non-automatic, ingroup-focused, and finite, therefore we can resign from the robust interpretation of Aristotle’s statement. At the same time, the concept of humans being “social by nature” has lent credibility that humans need other humans to survive; that they tend to be perpetually ready for social interaction, and should examine the social features of benevolent functioning is essential.
History of civilization and governing
The concept of human individuality and social hierarchy perpetuated” the Civilizations.” It represents a sophisticated way of existence that initially appeared as the ancient people started up evolving structures of urban colonies.
The emergence of the Civilizations preliminary dates back to Mesopotamia, which is now called Iraq and Egypt. Nations expanded in the Indus Valley by 2500 BCE in China by 1500 BCE and in Central America, currently Mexico, by 1200 BCE.
Cultures eventually extended to every continent, with the particular exception of Antarctica. Every society possesses distinct traits, including large population hubs, monumental architecture, unique art styles; shared communication strategies; systems for administering territories, the complex division of labor, and the division of people into social and economic classes. Altogether, cultures toil to preserve their legacy by building vast memorials and structures, which is just as valid today as it was thousands of years ago.
Shared communication is another element that civilizations share. That encompasses spoken language; alphabets; numeric systems; signs, ideas, and symbols; and illustration and representation. Shared communication facilitates the essential infrastructure for technology, trade, cultural exchange, and government to be formulated and shared throughout populations. All civilizations confide on government executive bureaucracy that goes back to ancient Rome. Intricate regiments of labor carve every state; meaning, constituents conduct distinct specialized chores.
In the precarious civilization, farmers cultivating one category of harvest depend on another for different food, clothing, shelter, and information. It is, in contrast to a solely agricultural society where members of a given community are self-reliant, provide food, shelter, and clothing for themselves.
The drivers of Societies that bank on trade are usually corps of duty footprints. Finally, the key to the development of civilizations is their historical ordinance forcing people into various classes. It’s a complicated notion that can be taken apart into two portions: income and type of work performed. Such a form of Shifting levels has traditionally been problematic and happens over generations.
A glance back into history
Glancing back into history, one commonly can revisit civilizations flourishing and flop. There are a variety of prevailing Rationales, as to how Historiographers indicate their justifications based on three patterns about the fall of enlightenment. That includes internal change, external pressure, and environmental tumble. Nevertheless, The fall of civilizations is never the outcome of a single event or pattern. Occasionally, cultures happen to “disappear” entirely. Society dynamics are the universal force of internal shift to new civilizations.
A sudden population transformation or a transition in demographics may impel a civilization’s infrastructure to break down. Populations may thrive, due to migration or an era of exceptional health. Or they may shrink due to ailment, extreme weather, or other environmental circumstances. At some point, communities may even redefine themselves. As societies evolve, metropolitan areas may grow vaster and culturally apart from rural and agricultural neighborhoods.
Collapse of dominions
Vast dominions may expand across large regions that languages, cultures, and customs may dilute the identity of the empire’s inhabitants.
The Mayan Civilization
Internal changes contributed to the collapse of the Maya civilization, which had thrived in Mesoamerica for more than a thousand years is one such example. The “Classic Maya” collapse happened relatively quickly in the 800s. Diseases such as dysentery and lethal hemorrhagic fevers killed and disabled thousands of Mayans.
The understandable instance of external pressure on a civilization occurs in the form of foreign invasion or sustained warfare. Protecting a civilization’s borders can be extremely costly and mandate an active military at the expense of developing or maintaining other aspects of a culture. External pressure can lead to the abrupt end of civilizations with or without the adoption of another.
The Aztec Empire
The collapse of the Aztec Empire with the arrival of European conquistadores exemplifies the external pressure. External pressures often lead to the gradual disintegration of societies. The plunge of what we often think of as Ancient Egypt is an excellent illustration of how external frictions that redefined a civilization throughout hundreds of years. Egypt encountered longstanding, intermittent conflict on its borders, with contending cultures such as the Nubians to the south, the Assyrians in the Middle East, and the Libyans to the west. Later, ancient Egypt confronted the civilizations of Greece and Rome.
Natural perils such as drought, floods, and tsunamis, serve as natural disasters that impact civilizations.
Start of socialism
The advent of socialism tours back in the 1789 French Revolution alongside socio-political transformations, which it gave rise. The Communist declaration written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels before the Revolutions of 1848 that swept Europe, was based on the original Socialist ideology referred to as” scientific socialism.” Later during the final third of the 19th century, social democratic parties arose in Europe, discerned themselves from Marxism. The Australian Labor Party was the world’s first elected socialist party. It formed government in the Colony of Queensland for a week in 1899. In the first half of the 20th century, the Soviet Union and other communist parties represented socialism in terms of the Soviet model of economic development and the creation of centrally schemed frugality authorized by a state that owns all the means of production. However, other tendencies denounced what they saw as a lack of democracy.
Socialism and adaptation of the mixed economy
Over time, Socialist administrations organized the diverse economy with partial nationalizations and social interest. Today we can vouch for myriad forms of socialisms and hybrid models of capitalism and socialism. In general, today’s socialism pertains to any political or economic hypothesis that emphasizes on the population, rather than an individual. Pertinent to socialism is that it should clench and manage the estate and natural resources. Hence, the term “socialism” has been historically referring to various economic and political systems. Throughout history, we have observed it in different forms, including utopianism, anarchism, Soviet communism, and social democracy.
Origin of capitalism
The history of capitalism is eclectic and historically subject to significant criticism. The fully-fledged capitalism has emerged in Northwestern Europe in Great Britain and the Netherlands of the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries. Over the subsequent centuries, capitalism has encountered a variety of different strategies, scales. It is associated with a range of revelations in the spectrum of economic stability and wealth. The current configuration of capitalism has become the dominant financial system throughout the world.
Why people dislike socialism
Typically, socialism’s critic’s points finger to its tendency to undermine work ethic. In contrast, those with positive impressions explain; it facilitates equality.
The Pew Research Center found earlier in 2019 that 55% of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of “socialism,” while 42% expressed a positive view. About 65% told they had a favorable view of “capitalism,” and a third viewed it negatively. Those who perceive socialism as unfavorable portray it as a considerable hazard to capitalism. At the same time, the rest who see it as useful proclaim the contrary. That is because it builds upon the purposes of capitalism. Still, those who have an optimistic opinion of socialism express an explicit preference for a system that again blends socialism and capitalism.
Why people dislike capitalism
Criticism of capitalism emerges from a myriad of political and philosophical strategies, including anarchist, socialist, religious, and nationalist perspectives. The Critique of capitalism rambles from conveying contention with the doctrines of capitalism in its aggregate to communicating controversy with particular explanations of capitalism. A handful of people speculates that curbing negative aspects of capitalism can merely be attained through the uprising of the constituents. Yet, some think that structural upheaval can come slowly through political reforms. Many critics support merits in capitalism and strive to balance it with some form of social supervision, typically through state legislation. Central to the critiques of capitalism are indictments that capitalism is intrinsically exploitative, unsustainable. That creates economic inequality, is anti-democratic, and leads to an erosion of human rights and that it incentivizes imperialists’ proliferation and war.
Capitalism and socialism: metaphorically interpreted as Apples and oranges
To the opinion of those who support individual sovereignty socialist norm wouldn’t ask the citizens to be who they are not as individuals. Instead, they assume it would establish a social network that underscores the cooperative or social dimensions of human beings, leaving everyone to live better while preserving competitive drives. Furthermore, Individual socialism presumably asks everyone to comprehend who we are by coming to terms with the reality of our interdependence and understanding what we gain from the” collaborations.” So that allows us to carry out everyday tasks such as eat, have clothing, receive healthcare. Indeed, the catchword is” collaboration” and attain our full potential if we have social support. The controversial definitions are mainly equating cooperation within the context of collectivism. In a sense, it refers to socialism as reproducing, the highest form of individualism.
The concept of rational Individualism
In contrast to the notion of individual socialism, one can read about another theory by Michael A. Beitler, called” Rational Individualism: A Moral Argument for Limited Government and Capitalism, Practitioner Press International.” The concept expands on the scenario- like in the face of the economic struggle; it is not surprising that often people turn to the government to receive aid. Without acknowledging these benefits and approving the administrative expansion, it would not only prolong the tough moments but also changes the course of society closer to full-fledged socialism.
Limited government and individualism
Michael Beitler, a businessperson, and professor is the advocate establishing limited government and free markets. His vision was the foundation for Rational Individualism. His instructive prose provides an easily understood explanation of the diverging principles form the landscape of politics and economics in the 21st century. Citing many influential thinkers, Beitler highlights the policies of socialism and capitalism, deducing that socialism being immoral, whereas capitalism is the only moral political-economic system.” Socialism is furthermore unsustainable, as it violates the fundamental economic validity that production comes before consumption. In a society based on collectivism, production will ultimately curtail. Under collective norms, individuals do not have the right to benefit in full from their work. Hence; Continued consumption without production will lead to excessive deficit spending and increased government interventions.
Extreme socioeconomic scheme
The two extreme socioeconomic models resemble the flavor for apples or oranges. In either case, despite the approach, the individual mindset, attitude, and knowledge are of the significant determinants of if the system is considered auspicious. In both scenarios, there is a definite form of attainment, but by specific prerequisites. That includes state of ideological, education, and baseline economic homogeneity among the populous. In other words, the more uniform the societal structure, the more natural it is to uphold the entire society to the same standard.
Cultural diversity and reemergence of individualism
The expanding cultural diversity and further the differentiation of a person’s identity are directly proportional to their inclination towards capitalism, more precisely” rational individualism,” as described by Michael Beitler. That is why Hybrid models have emerged parallel with scientific and economic evolution. However, unfortunately, the definition and propaganda as to what socialism and capitalism pertain. Within the mix, mistakenly administrations strive to incorporate some form of social programs in the way of Welfare or social entitlement. It is evident that within the 21st-century realm, there is no genuine socialism, capitalism, or societies that recognize individual sovereignty. Before we can understand the root of a given problem, we need to acknowledge the role of individuals. Concomitantly we must appreciate their particular expectations, something which opens the door to the position of people and governments.
People vs. government
John Adams, the second President of the United States and one of the world’s first economists, said once!
“Liberty once lost is lost forever.”
He believed, rightly, that government is the people’s servant.”
Historically governments comprising that of United States administration have turned into self-liberated forces. They have merely become an outsized and imperial power, desperate for taxes. Governments often hunted down resources overseas sustained by military and control of the global monetary system.
The Bill of Rights
The establishment of the Bill of Rights confirmed this underpinning of America in law. The latter represents reflection as to why the bill existed in a negative sense. And how to constrain the actions of government rather than to designate the rights of the citizens. Its purpose was clear to safeguard the people from the government, not the other way round. In a complex system demanding state intervention as described by the Socialist system is a matter of convenience. Maintaining individuality is the reflection of the innate human plea. The conflict of interest inevitably would ensue through loopholes that come with hybrid models.
Closed system, open market, and socioeconomic status
Both the capitalist and free-market policies are economic environments based on the law of supply and demand. They both pertain to determining the price and production of goods and services. Yet, capitalism focuses on the generation of wealth and ownership of capital and factors of production. In contrast, a free-market system concentrates on the exchange of wealth or goods and services. Some of the critical aspects of capitalism are a competition between corporations and owners, private ownership, and motivation to produce a profit. Although in a capitalistic society, the free-market defines the production, pricing of commodities, and services under supply and demand; however, some government ordinances may occur.
On the other hand, a private owner in selected capitalist systems can retain a monopoly on the market and stave off free competition. In a free market, there is little or no government regulation. It is a system where a buyer and a seller transact freely when they willingly concur on the price of a good or service.
Closed market economy
In the closed economy or market, the country doesn’t trade with outside economies. The private economy intends to be self-sufficient, meaning no imports come into the country, and no exports leave the nation. The purpose of a closed economy is to provide domestic consumers with everything they need from within the country’s boundaries. Today there is no genuine free-market economy as one hundred percent private economy is non-existent. The prevailing systems carry one form of the economic framework within the spectrum from free to closed systems.
Socialism is not for everyone particularly individuals
One major factor that desires close attention is that every solution, be it socialism, capitalism, free market, or tight economy, has worked reasonably well at some point in an era and social settings. But, none has been able to sustain for a lengthy period. Administrations have frequently tried to create hybrid economy models to maintain sustenance. As of today, something that is still in progress by many nations with inconsistent continuation. But, Almost in all cases, One thing was prevalent. That is across the board ignorance of individual attitude and part by their respective administrations. Instead, regimes at best (if not authoritarian) almost exclusively have relied on the collective mindset of Populist rhetoric to implement a system that invariably paints pictures of policies that potentially carry the best of all socio-political scenarios.
Emergence of Populism
The Populous attitude is the signifier of the prevailing behavior towards socialism vs. capitalism, and thus, in turn, influenced by Semantic drift and societal engineering as well as overwhelming sentiment towards socialism and capitalism.
Take home message
A human being is an individual first before considered a social person. Clash of opposing traits of the human being, social nature, and individualism, along with the goodness of convenience of profiling and consolidation, has utterly dictated the formation of solutions merely through trials and failures. A human being must learn to differentiate between collective or consolidated means of group effort and that of independent collaboration. Perhaps it’s time to learn a lesson from the downwards of the species within the evolutionary ladder.
Ants work with other members of their civic establishment towards the betterment of life. Hence, It is imperative to recognize the fact that we can maintain our individualism and independence within a society while concomitantly respecting our shared social values. The fundamentals of universal welfare socialism are glamorous, and so is the competitive nature of capitalism. Still, with the expansion of the human knowledge base and thus the expectation, it is even more critical to respect individual sovereignty, something that is inconsistent with norms of socialism.