Well, mental and physical pleasures are different aren't they? Humans are complex in the way they percieve their pleasures, it's just that most people do not know how to act wisely in chasing happiness. I'd rather not associate my own thoughts with orthodox economic thought, because I don't know it and again, my own worldview is pretty shit. I havent studied much of any philosophy, and havent practiced logic amd argumentation. That being said, I'll make what I said more clear.
What I was trying to say was that the masses are ignorant of philosophy and consciousness, and awareness. They are ignorant mostly because of cultural upbringing, the focus on their loved ones in the modern system, and education. The extent to which they're unconscious is just too widespread for me, and while I also believe that all men and women have the potential to be aware of themselves and society, and how unwise all of us really are, stagnation is just too powerful, and the energy and time required to ferment change is too great.
I remember from a Mexie video, where she stated to aggressive far-leftists that after revolution, would you have really changed your moral and conscious value? Or would you fall for agression, and from my perspective fall for the pleasure of both power and anger.
Sorry, my "pulling rabbits out of hats" comments wasn't directed at you. Should have been more clear about that with my tone, it was directed solely at orthodox economics.
The reason I associated that was because the argument you made is the basis for the entirety of orthodox economics and it's taken as a given by many people. Humans act in their own interest therefore a mathematical model can be built that represents economic units as pleasure seekers, selfish actors or some other very similar model. The problem is that no one has actually proven humans by their nature act in any of these ways making the whole field pseudoscience. On one hand I'm inclined to respect not associating your thoughts with seemingly unconnected things, but on the other hand I think a lot of these philosophical and political conversations actually do wrap back into each other in a way that demands making that connection sometimes.
Are mental and physical pleasures different? I don't know if they are. If we break everything down to our experience of both of those pleasures they're both just information that our brain interprets as pleasure. Why do you think the body and mind are different in regards to pleasure specifically? I'm not saying they're the same, I'm saying I don't know. Explain to me why you're inclined to make distinction between them.
I agree that the masses are largely ignorant in the way you describe. I also agree that both you and I are only ever so minutely more aware then they if at all. I disagree that the effort needed to ferment change is too great. There's something working in our favor here. Because there is so much cultural resistance to a paradigm shift in awareness every small action that one of us takes is magnified significantly by anyone who actually does find value in something we say or do. The pool of potential adherents to a new paradigm is so vast which makes it much easier for a message to resonate with someone.
To illustrate this. If I go out and vote that does next to nothing. If I point out the flaws in political lobbying in the United States and someone bites, suddenly I've opened the avenue for that person to not only tell others but continue farther down different paths of reasoning. Is that enough to actually change the world? I don't know, I think it's fatalistic not to at least try. Especially when all the people who I have engaged with that want to talk about this sort of thing really enjoy new perspectives when we actually get to sit down irl and suss things out.
"I remember from a Mexie video, where she stated to aggressive far-leftists that after revolution, would you have really changed your moral and conscious value? Or would you fall for agression, and from my perspective fall for the pleasure of both power and anger."
I've actually changed my perspective on this quite a bit over the past few months. The picture in our heads of a violent upsurge that suddenly propels the population forward into a new golden age is inaccurate. The United States specifically would not survive the counterrevolution if revolt occurred today. Successful revolution is made when people have a new common culture to rally behind and they have built up significant organizational and economic leverage prior to revolt. Where organizational leverage is the presence of institutions capable of filling the void left by the old society and economic leverage is the productive capacity to either force the old world to hand over the economy to the new society or enough productive capacity to simply ignore the old economy. The United States has neither of these right now. Despite what I may have said a year or so ago I make no illusions that revolution would work right now. (For what it's worth I also think people aren't as bad as we might often perceive them. Not many people dedicate their lives to the pursuit of pure power. It might be hard to conceptualize given all the rhetoric around this, but just consider for a moment that teachers, doctors, scientists and other such humanitarians vastly outnumber the businessmen of the world.)
But let's shift our focus a bit. What of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria (DFNS?.) What of Catalonia? What went wrong in Russia? In the first case the people of the DFNS surely have both the organizational and economic leverage to maintain the revolution. And I don't think it's fair to to call them a failure when they inevitably get invaded by a country magnitudes larger than themselves. The same could be said for the Catalonians in 1936. The CNT-FAI actually refused political office when it was offered to them. As for Russia. The problems were multifaceted but I think it's fair to say that as seems to be the case with both Northern Syria and Catalonia external pressure is at fault once again. The authoritarian elements of Russia's revolution were a small minority. Their rhetoric only became effective once the Kaiserreich had already seized vast swaths of land threatening to stamp out the revolution. The only organizational leverage capable of surviving that pressure was authoritarian out of necessity. It's no coincidence that the only revolutions that survived long enough to form long lasting states were the ones that turned authoritarian. If you want a working example of all the people who didn't betray their ideals proving humans are capable of such a feat just look at the revolutions that were defeated through hostile conquest (Catalonia, The Paris Commune and soon the DFNS.)
What's my point? That revolutions take generations of social change before they actually happen and there are long periods of unrest and social evolution beforehand. The economy and political institutions lag behind the shift in cultural consciousness. If there is ever to be revolution in the west, we surely are living through the first generations of its nascent birth just as the Spaniards who were opposing the monarchy even prior to the 1860s had. It took nearly a century for true sustained resistance to appear there. The case is similar with Russia and I'm sure many here are familiar with how long the Kurds have been resisting the Turks.
What does this mean abstractly though? In reference to the species as a whole? Where does our global culture shift in the future? If one looks at the revolutions in China, Russia, Spain, Syria and many others as symptoms of a larger approaching event in the same way that one can map out the smaller cultural shifts and acts of uprising prior to those individual revolutions. Then, a global revolution starts to appear. I think that global social revolution will not come overnight, or dramatically. In fact, I don't think we'll even notice it as it happens. Future historians will chart it in the same way we charted the renaissance though.
These smaller events are just pieces of a larger meta-narrative on cultural evolution. There are competing meta-narratives to leftism yes, but capitalism isn't one of them. It's already fading just as monarchism before it did. The true competitor that I can personally identify is authoritarianism. And when presented with that ultimatum I'd rather take a chance and die than submit to domination. It's against the human spirit to just lie down and die.
""I remember from a Mexie video, where she stated to aggressive far-leftists that after revolution, would you have really changed your moral and conscious value? Or would you fall for aggression, and from my perspective fall for the pleasure of both power and anger."
So yes, we will have really changed our moral and conscious values. We will not fall to aggression and power or raw pleasure. This will happen gradually, none of us alive today will likely live to see it or ever be fully enlightened with what form this new culture takes. But it will happen, or at least I must act as if it will for to do otherwise is the same as death.