Transformer: Do you think Southern Euro behavior Alphas are not such great societies for working poor people like in Latin America, do you agree? I think that Paternalism and Authoritarianism is a big reason why there is such political instability and economic inequality in Latin America.
https://www.aei.org/articles/from-popular-sovereignty-to-the-reality-of-state-paternalism/
https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Regimes-Latin-America-Dictators/dp/0742537390
https://items.ssrc.org/from-our-archives/industrialization-and-authoritarianism-in-latin-america/
In Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, and North Africa, and even traditional Southeast Asian and Asian cultures, there are not a lot of problems for working poor people. Al of these societies are very much pro-worker, pro-poor,
Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, and North Africa: All of these societies are collectivist, not individualist, and they are very pro-worker, pro-poor, pro-common man populist. In addition, almost all societies over there are socialist in name or in deed.
Feudalism was always an uncomfortable fit in the Arab World and it took a lot of mangling of Islam to try to justify it. As soon as the Arab World went free, it all went socialist right away. Despite tremendous efforts by Western neoliberal dipshits to try to shove neoliberalism down Arab throats, it refuses to take hold. Almost no one wants it. The fact that neoliberalism is grotesquely anti-Islamic is probably the main reason. Furthermore, neoliberalism is very hard to impose on a collectivist culture, though it is possible as in Latin America and the Philippines.
Men in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand are traditionally very Alpha. Most of Southeast Asia has been socialist for 50 years now. Radical capitalism was an aberration for SE Asia because all of SE Asia has always been a very collectivist culture. Check out Fire in the Lake by Frances Fitzgerald about how the collectivist nature of Vietnamese society made the Viet Cong almost impossible to defeat.
Very unequal Thailand is a recent aberration but it’s been run by military rule and juntas for most of recent history. Communist guerrillas were extremely succesful in Thailand during the Vietnam War. The Pentagon said there were just a few guerrillas but people who went over there to study them found that they were everywhere, especially in the North.
For some reason they faded away but recently class war has returned to Thailand with a vengeance with the wars between Yellow Shirts (rightwing middle class) and red shirts (workers). Of course the Yellow Shirts are winning because the army supports them, but still, rightwing individualist economics is an aberration in collectivist Thailand.
In China, Korea, Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia the men seem to be quite Alpha. The Philippines and Indonesia have retained Latin America-style systems with extreme inequality and authoritarianism
Japan and Korea were probably barely feudal. Obviously they were never individualist and even their capitalism is very collectivist and uses a lot of state involvement in the economy all the way down to actual planning of the economy.
China was under rightwing economics (feudalism) for much of its history. Communism was an easy sell in China because it was always an extremely collectivist culture.
In addition, capitalism never took hold, as feudalism was the only form of rightwing economics the Chinese knew. The feudalism was so bad that many to most Chinese peasants were effectively slaves and quite a few actually were slaves. 88% of Chinese young people say they are Marxists. 87% of Chinese support the Communist Party. That’s because the CPP is a natural fit for Chinese collectivism.
The Philippines was a colony forever, and after independence, somehow feudalism developed. The Philippines is a collectivist culture that has developed a very Latin American-style economic system probably due to being colonized by Spaniards. Everywhere the Spanish colonized, they wrecked. However, they have also had armed Communist rebellions almost non-stop from 1945-on. The most recent president, Duterte, says he is a socialist.
Indonesia was another country that went hard rightwing, in this case classical fascist, after independence, however not before murdering 1 million Communists as the Communists were the most popular movement in the country. Obviously Communism hasn’t been popular since and in fact it is illegal to have that political opinion. However, the last couple of presidents did refer to themselves as social democrats.
Both the Philippines and Indonesia are horribly class-cucked. In addition, both are subject to a reactionary merchant ruling class in the form of overseas Chinese, a feudal-type people who retained the pre-Communist feudal culture of China when they left long ago. Not having been subject to a revolution, they are a feudal type ruling class that mirrors the Latin American ruling class in many ways.
Feudalism can absolutely arise in a collectivist culture whereas US style rightwing individualist neoliberal economics has a difficult time getting a foothold.
So societies where all the man are Alphas are often very good for poor and working class men and I would argue that they are good for men period for obvious reasons.
I think that Paternalism and Authoritarianism is a big reason why there is such political instability and economic inequality in Latin America.
Why would societies where all men are Alphas end up paternalistic? Why would authoritarian societies be bad for poor and working class people and for men? Southern and Eastern Europe have traditions of authoritarianism and very pro-worker populist governments.
North Africa and the Middle East is still very authoritarian, and it is very good for poor and working class people and for men. Russia is somewhat authoritarian and has been authoritarian for much of its history. For the last hundred years, Russian society has been very good for poor and working class people and for men. All of these places have traditions of relatively equal societies and strong redistributionist economics.
Paternalistic governments help their people. Rightwing governments in Latin America tend to be anything but paternalistic.
It is true that some societies where most men are Alphas have evolved a rightwing authoritarian, often semi-feudal system, however, many other such societies have not done so. Societies where most men are behaviorally Alpha oddly enough seem to be collectivist societies (someone explain this to me). But the rightwing authoritarian societies where most men are behaviorally Alpha actually look more feudal than US-style neoliberal, although they sometimes preach the latter.
3
20
20
20
“Societies where most men are behaviorally Alpha oddly enough seem to be collectivist societies (someone explain this to me). ”
The U.S. Military, really all modern standing militaries, are effectively Alpha-dominated Communist centrally-planned societies. I’ll mull over why.
As for why right-wing Alpha societies turn feudal? IQ must be factored in. Low-IQ countries that go the right-wing capitalist way simply don’t have enough high-IQ types to make it in the free market. So the bulk of the population Alpha or not ends up starving, or a serf, or both. The few high-IQ Alpha males and their relatives are the victors in the winner-take-all game of capitalism. I don’t believe socialism is necessarily better for low-IQ societies, but it definitely helps redistribute the misery so things are more bearable for the general populace.
I really don’t think socialism at the moment is a great idea for low-IQ countries. But it can arise if the ruling capitalist class is entrenched old money and not very permeable. Latin America used to have a race-based CASTE system for Christ’s sake! Entrenched old money isn’t really capitalist at all – it’s feudalism masquerading as a free market. I don’t believe Latin America is capable of anything else. I foresee any regime, even a socialist one, to eventually become feudal simply with a new ruling class not descended from the old one.
The only hope is a secular rise in IQ for the countries so they can all produce more under capitalism. Afterwards, they can go the European route and turn into social democracies when they can afford it. Only with higher average IQ’s can entrenched ruling classes be otherthrown. A population needs to be smart enough to produce and become aware of its social contract with the government. I doubt most leftwing participants in Latin America or any low IQ country really understand what they are signing up for in terms of a social contract. Europeans are smarter so they understand how much they are putting into society, so they demand a piece of of the profit pie directly from the capitalists.
Clearly I’m not a socialist but I don’t mind it if a society can afford it and truly understands what it’s ponying up in order to attain this collectivist structure. The typical European voter is conscious of the economic inefficiencies of their social democracy but consider it an equal trade outside of mere economic terms. Low-IQ peasants just don’t want to starve or be beaten by armed thugs of their aristocratic overlords. They are somewhat aware of what they can get, but have no clue as to what they are giving up.
“I really don’t think socialism at the moment is a great idea for low IQ countries. ” Let me rephrase this:
I don’t think low IQ countries are capable of being socialist since they don’t have enough capitalist production. It’s meaningless to talk of economic central planning or wealth redistribution when there ain’t no economy to centrally plan nor wealth to redistribute. The amassed wealth of the ruling few is usually barely enough to fund a national bureaucracy. Very little is left over for infrastructure, let alone welfare.
However, collectivist mentality is FREE. And East Asians, probably for biological reasons, excel at it. Also high IQ helps. Look at China and the USSR. They industrialized under communism. And then when into a capitalism/socialism mixed economy. I doubt Latin America can take that path they are too individualistic, violent and dumb.