Funny thing is, a lot of students that I teach here talk about how they feel like they will have more freedoms in twenty years than they do now.
I’m doubtful. People are happy where they’re at right now. As long as that continues, China will do what China does.
I’m actually more surprised nothing has happened back in the States yet
Are they though?
The US is past that point so now it needs more than wealth.
Americans don't even know what real poverty looks like.
Losing 'friends' around the world - 30 years ago, americans were heroes, WW2 saviors of the europe and the world, America was land of endless opportunities and most importantly - freedom. Now its the opposite - unlawful killing of somebody with tons of civilians with drones wherever they want, and in the same time being very friendly with horrible regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia because oil and money. Freedom and US ain't the same thing after 9/11.
Plus on top of that workaholic US mindset, that weird attitude that your job defines who you are and whats your position in society. None of this can make masses happy, in contrary.
America has so much discontent because of certain policies that have made our country worse over time. Health care, world view, etc.
GDP doesn't tell you where the money is going, and who benefits from it.
GDP may as well be a measure of how well the rich are doing because it tells you next to nothing about how the most disadvantaged in society are doing.
I figure that is intentional though.
I have visited countries where personal freedoms are curtailed but the general population had food, water, shelter and luxuries so they were content. It is only the moment they realize that those things are in danger or they covet what other nations have that problems arise.
You can't miss what you never lost.
The point of this is that since we live in a society that values freedom above all, it makes sense that we allow these sort of organizations and associations. At the same time, I think it's increasingly difficult to argue that things from religion to facebook to twitter are having a net positive impact on society. In times when we were more homogeneous, this was different. When most of everybody holds a common and shared identity, there is no real out-group, and the identity can help create unity and unitedness. But as we become more diverse, the lack of a shared identity means we end up splintering off into a variety of large ideological cliques which view themselves as mutually incompatible (even if that's not necessarily entirely true). And that causes a lot of problems.
And so if we had a governmental system that was based more about utilitarianism, rather than ours which is based more on the fundamental value of freedom, it seems to be logical to work to prohibit these sort of things - even with 0 consideration given to the fate of the state itself.
This has led to the degradation of real community; you could equally argue that transport is the issue. The point is that if you enable people to maintain cultural identies across geographical boundaries, you will cause the breakdown of local solidarity.
To argue that we must therefore develop some sort of bland global monoculture is as terrifying as it is depressing.
> USSR became the first state to have as one objective of its official ideology the elimination of existing religion, and the prevention of future implanting of religious belief, with the goal of establishing state atheism (gosateizm).
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union
They are quite satisfied with religion that supports the Communist Party; like earlier Communists they see religion subservient to the elite as the opiate of the masses in capitalist society, and have very much included that among the elements of capitalism that they have reintroduced.
OTOH, they are extremely concerned that the churches remain subservient to the existing elite, reinforcing its rule, since otherwise they would simply by existing challenge it.