CH86 wrote:FishbellykanakaDude wrote:CH86 wrote:
But in other countries Russia, China, Iran and others, generational decisions are being taken by not just boomers but the ...
I think you're quite incorrect.
Those who "take (make?) generational decisions" are those ...
Except that There is undeniably more "generational tyranny" here in the west than there is in Russia and China: and this situation is the opposite of what it was during the cold war. During the Cold war (at least during the second half), Soviet leaders where overwhelmingly from the generation born from the 1890s to early 1910s who had been lower-level functionaries during Stalin's reign. Meanwhile although Reagan himself was quite old most of the officials with him were much younger, they were late silents and boomers. That Reagan was able to outmaneuver the soviets was predictable then, that the soviets threw in the towel soon after Gorbachev's generation came to power, was also predicable because hardly anyone in that generation actually believed in "soviet utopia" all Gorbachev's generation knew from the system was its tyranny.
While gerontocracy is not as drastic in the modern west than in the pre-collapse USSR, the same factors are present, hardly anybody born after 1960 considers the current "power dynamics" in the west to be "the best thing ever": No, those generations have spent their whole lives dreaming of the day they would get in there and institute drastic reforms because they do not benefit from the current order in the west. Silents and Boomers might like globalism but practically NO ONE younger than them do. The situation is very different in Russia and China. In Russia the eqivalents of Xers and Millies actually are able to particiapate in the system, in fact putin favors them over the silents and older boomers. In China While the culture historically has venerated elder leadership; the Chinese Boomers have actually been doing a good job unlike their western counterparts, and the young have more participation in the party machinery than their western equivalents. And that is a testament to the tyranny of western Silents and Boomers that a civilization that says "old and wise has first dibs on leadership" has younger leaders than the west which historically does not have that dogma.
I agree with you that Russia is more dynamic. The "Frontier Spirit" has come back to them. Our (the US) "Frontier Spirit" is in very poor shape because of the success of US industrialization and "Citification".
China SEEMS to be more dynamic because of it's rapid economic success, but it's only because they have applied their usual strength (mass mobilization) to the task at hand.
Societies make decisions about where they will apply a "strong hand" and where they will tolerate non-uniformity.
I'm an "admirer" of small societies. Not that I'd survive in such a society, but we can all be romantic about some things, eh? Rather autocratic societies seem the better choice, to me, but only if they are "distributed" (not overly concentrated) and they balance their autocracy with "familiness".
That's why my interest in Polynesia/Micronesia societies, "Primitive" Eurasian tribal societies (celts, slavs, germans, finns, siberians, caucasians, etc) and pretty much any other "smallish tribal" society.
The problem is that it's difficult for these small societies to compete with the would-be "universalizers".
I live in one of these universalizer type societies ("The West", USA). I am of a universalizer type religion (Irish-ish Catholic). I see the massive benefits that this type of society grants.
But even in these "smaller" societies the people with the power have the power and can exercise that power.
Until "we" have the power "we" have no power to use.
I think you are incorrect in your assessment of who REALLY holds "the power" in Russia and China. You seem to me to be equating "strong authoritarian rule" with YOUR generation(s), and "weak democratic/globalist rule" with "your elders". The former being "good", and the latter being "evil".
You say you're simply advocating for the freedom of "your generation(s)" to have a voice in ruling society.
If you go up against the strong-man you'd better be ready with the power to overcome him, as no one gives up power voluntarily if it's "lawful" to hold onto it. Period.
You are NOT going to convince the strong-man to hand it over by appealing to "laws" that don't exist.
I understand your complaints. I somewhat sympathize with your complaints. I'm am full on opposed to slavery, though, and the "universalist" Russians (as constituted at present) and Chinese are hell bent on imposing a multi-level slave state on massive populations including those not in their territory proper.
My "solution" (which ain't gonna happen) is to break up all overly-large nations into "more true nations" based on whatever those populations wish to differentiate themselves from others by.
..sorry for the dangling participle.
And I ain't a fan of your fanboyin' for Putin and Xi, and any other slavers.
Aloha 'oe! <shaka nui dude!>