This is a fantastic post, Monica. It rings true to me, especially this key point you make: “It’s possible that one the most challenging aspect of human progress isn’t fighting against oppression, but learning to live without the meaning and purpose that struggle provides. Learning to find fulfillment in harmony rather than conflict, in bridge-building rather than battling.” Thank you for continuing to add such clarity and insight to what we are all experiencing.
Thank you for another great post, Monica. This is what I think in response to this:
"Which brings me back to my questions: Do we inherently crave conflict and challenges, even when our lives are going well and we are making progress? As a society, why is it so difficult for us to acknowledge victory and move on to new challenges that don’t undermine the progress we’ve made?
"Maybe there’s something psychologically compelling about struggle. Maybe being part of a movement fighting for change offers community and a sense of moral clarity that can be addictive. Or, as humans, perhaps conflict and challenge provide meaning, purpose, and identity in our lives that harmony doesn’t."
Let us acknowledge one of the major causes of the constant shifts towards division no matter how much social and economic progress is made by marginalized groups: the capitalist system itself. You noted at one point that we should take advantage of these social advances to unite towards correcting the class-based issues that affect all of us, and always have to varying but often significant degrees.
This is something the capitalist class does not want. It *needs* to sow division between different demographics in the working class so that unification on the economic front never happens. The capitalist class are fully class conscious, whereas the working class as a whole is not. This is proven by the fact that it was uber-corporations like BlackRock, State Street, and JP Morgan that created DEI requirements and pushed the "Woke" mentality. It may have found its academic roots in the post-modern writings of Foucault and his ilk many decades ago, but it always was and remains pushed by the most affluent of society.
In short, the capitalist class and their PMCs -- Personal Managerial Class, the affluent "upper middle class" -- are the main purveyors of this. It's very good for keeping different segments of the working class pissed off at each other and embroiled in conflict so we're all at each other's throats instead of angry at the ruling class. And it allows the two wings of the Duopoly to play these differences in social values against each other, engaging in a faux contest that keeps various segments of the working class tethered to the Duopoly, and therefore capitalism.
Secondly, once a marginalized group comes close to achieving equality, and finally achieves a voice in society, many of them will harbor lingering, sometimes intense resentments towards the group that enjoyed nominal privileges within the capitalist system up to that point. So, once they gain something close to equality to the former oppressing group they lash out at them instead of seeking harmony. "This is our chance to punch the people who used to punch us around."
Thirdly, many soldiers cannot give up a war without losing their sense of purpose, as you noted. As a result, a once important and necessary movement devolves into a racket, with new players taking it over and using it in attempts to acquire power and privilege of their own rather than simply ensuring equality. Hence, the move for equality becomes one for "equity" in its stead. And many members of the former oppressing group enter the racket to acquire and secure their own power so they do not get swept under the rug.
Do we need conflict from a psychological standpoint? I think that largely depends on the type of society we live in. In this one, those that rule over us find it a necessity to keep these conflicts among the lower economic classes going on perpetually, lest we turn our ire towards the handful of people with the truly significant amounts of power and privilege.
Thanks very much for highlighting these important points, Christopher. I do think the class element, exacerbated by a bastardization of capitalism, contributes mightily to the division we’re experiencing. When we bicker amongst ourselves, we can’t appreciate our common struggles and challenges.
TL;DR: to cement progress, we should eliminate the very system that has supported the progress made to date.
Blaming this on capitalism another example of activism looking for a villain to hate to justify its own existence.
Look at the most tolerant societies on earth. Hint: they're rich, because they have liberal, democratic, free economies. No other system has worked in the history of the world, except in activists' dreams. Utopian thinking is what's causing all our problems, let's stop celebrating activism for activism's sake. Like chemotherapy, it has uses in small doses, but it makes a terrible diet.
And the ability to create a better society is not a “utopian dream” any more than the technological capacity to fly to the moon, travel from one part of the world to the other in just one to 24 hours, or to produce an abundance for all is since technology advanced to this point. But it is currently impossible for many to afford this since all of this is still commodified past a point when it’s materially necessary to do so. And most of us are finding our ability to afford even our groceries and a place to live to be constantly diminishing while just a few can afford ten mansions that they do not even need.
Creating such a better society is now fully within our grasp technologically, just as flying to the Moon has been for only a short time in human history. This type of system has never been tried before because all nations that are claimed to have actually tried it — like Russia in 1917— did not actually have the technological capacity to do so. Nor did the many Third World nations who claim to have created a “different” system. As a result, they only created a variation of capitalism run by the state, and that is not an Industrial Democracy but rather state capitalism.
Why, sure, if Stalin had the technology, he could have killed WAY more than ten million!
The problem with utopianism isn't that it needs modern technology (which, of course, it would never have been able to develop - how convenient that free societies continued to exist to create the new technologies that you say the utopians needed!). The problem is that utopian thinking doesn't take into account human nature. There's a reason why all the utopian schemes - socialism, communism, fascism - always end up in a blood bath. They are fundamentally flawed.
I doubt, though, that a total body count well above fifty million, and billions others immiserated, could dissuade you from your credulity. After all, if you are unmoved by the unprecedented world-wide enrichment that occured during the last few decades of relatively free trade, why would a few broken eggs bother you?
Stalin wasn't present in 1917 Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. That was all Lenin. He was a student of Marx, but they lacked the technology in what was still largely an agrarian nation to facilitate an Industrial Democracy. An advanced industrial base is required. So, they set up a "vanguard" party to create a form of bureaucratic state capitalism "until" the nation was sufficiently industrialized. And of course, once it was, this authoritarian, class-divided state refused to hand over the reins to the working class. There never would have been a Stalin to follow Lenin if technology had been sufficient to create an actual bottom-to-top run economy controlled by workers rather than by bureaucrats "on their behalf."
First of all, you misuse the term "utopianism". It simply means "planned society" in its actual definition, not a "perfect" society. An Industrial Democracy would not be a "perfect" society, but it would be a *good* society.
And it's not "convenient" or overly so that a truly free stateless, moneyless, and classless society requires advanced technology because an industrialized foundation is important to be materially capable of mass production, with the type of automation that can produce an abundance for all and eliminate scarcity.
No society without technology was truly "free." All had a ruling class that made all the decisions in a top-to-bottom manner, with that small handful of society collecting and enjoying the lion's share of the wealth while the vast majority had to struggle to obtain variously modest to tiny degrees of it. Some, like the USA, had a nominal political democracy, but that gets heavily compromised by those with the most money, since they can bribe politicians who make the decisions on their behalf, so that elections make no difference.
In recent years this billionaire control has become more blatant, as we see with an increasingly impoverished working class, a ruling class that allows some of its handful to acquire a personal fortune of $400 billion, and a very robust censorship regime that can arrest you, de-montetize you, de-bank you, unilaterally declare you a "terrorist," or ban you from social media communication forums for having the wrong opinion about a war, government policies, or certain foreign nations.
This is what happens when you make money all-important and only a few people have enormous amounts of it while the great majority does not -- at a point in history when we can now technologically produce an abundance for all.
The blame for this not "human nature." That's a Social Darwinist excuse and the post-Enlightenment materialist replacement to justify indefinite rule by the few that replaced the old theologically based claims that God had decreed things to be that way. Human nature is *adaptable*, and people behave according to the environment in which they are born into and forced to operate within. And the economic system that forces us to work a certain way and acquire wealth a certain way is what will affect our behavior the most. If the system glorifies and actually requires greed, mistrust, back-stabbing to get ahead, and the idea that "success" is based on who happens to have the most money, then you're going to see some truly bad human behavior. Saying it's simply hard-wired into our biological nature is, again, a pseudo-scientific excuse to rationalize the eternal retention of class-divided, money-based society at a point past its material justification.
As for a system that is fundamentally flawed and resulting in a bloodbath, look at all the despotic class-divided regimes that the U.S. supports across the world. Look at the bloody wars the U.S. is funding and fighting, including the horrific proxy wars against Russia and the genocide and land grabs it's now facilitating alongside and on behalf of Israel in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen, with designs on Iran. War is actually a profit-based racket under capitalism, and the most cataclysmic aspect of its basis on ruthless competition so that a few can have the most -- again, at a point in time when modern productive technology could eliminate scarcity and the need to compete for money and control.
There is already such a huge body count that you mentioned going on around the world thanks to capitalism. The inner city environs that I live in is riddled with crime (I had to invest in an expensive parcel box to keep my packages from being taken by porch pirates), mentally ill homeless people, and drug addicts accosting and shouting at people. My neighbors are good people who are struggling to afford ever-rising property taxes and constantly risk losing their homes, not to mention afford the maintenance to keep them up; to afford a single bag of groceries; to keep their utilities turned on, including their heat during the cold winter season; and none of us can afford even a simple vacation to the next state over.
And in the meantime, those politically active like me get routinely kicked off of social media for the "wrong" (read: unpopular or not billionaire-sanctioned) opinions and risk being de-banked or de-monetized. Substack is thus far a haven for that, but it's still getting expensive to read and follow as many writers as we'd like.
That is not a system I want to live under or see humanity live under for the rest of eternity now that it's no longer necessary from a material standpoint. Socialists like me are not fighting for some other type of class-divided society, like the state capitalism of the former Soviet Union, or the smaller ones in Third World countries. A classless and moneyless society has never been tried, but now is the time that we need to start looking forward instead of holding on to the past and a system that has outlived its progressive usefulness to the world.
"It's the old "real communism has never been tried" trope... willfull ignorance."
It's not willful ignorance, it's *fact* that is well known -- and clear -- to anyone who has actually read what Marx and Engels described in their works, and what people supporting Classical Marxism, i.e., Industrial Democracy throughout the mid-20th century to the present have been describing -- and what the Soviet Union established in 1917, and what all those small Third World countries who called themselves "socialist" or "communist" created.
It was made *very clear* by Marx and Engels, and very clear by all proponents of Industrial Democracy, that an *advanced industrial base* capable of more or less eliminating material scarcity and providing *an abundance for all* via mass production with advanced automation. And resulted in a system that was run bottom-to-top by all the workers, with none having notable power & privilege over anyone else, does not use or rely on money, and does not have a state with a professional police force & military to enforce the edict of a few.
Did the Soviet Union resemble this? No, it was established in a still largely agrarian nation. When the very class-divided society based on control by bureaucratic vanguardists finally industrialized the nation, the entrenched bureaucratic class refused to turn it over to the people, declaring that this was now "a distant goal" but it still had a "workers state." It continued to have all the common features of a class-divided system: the use of currency and requirement of having it to purchase items, with access to the collectively created wealth severely limited to most citizens; decision-making power by a few operating from top-to-bottom; a very strong centralized state that used police and military power to enforce the decisions of these few.
Those Third World nations to this day lack sufficient resources to provide an abundance to even just the people living within its borders.
The common trope for conservatives to deride Industrial Democracy is to ignore all of the above and claim, "If they called it socialist or communist, then that's all it required it for it to be so. Because it helps our narrative in defense of capitalism being an eternal system."
"Credulous drivel like that is how actual authoritarian regimes get started."
Capitalism and class rule are what creates authoritarian regimes, because concentrating so much wealth and control of the resources via money/currency allows those few to make all the decisions and circumvent whatever laws are allegedly put in place to make "freedom" apply to all. We see this done more blatantly than ever today, where we view tech billionaires openly calling the shots beside politicians who are also always billionaires, amidst a Congress filled with billionaires, millionaires, and PMCs (affluent members of the Professional Managerial Class).
If it starts as a class-divided society that is not controlled by workers from top to bottom, then yes, it's going to be authoritarian.
"You differ from the MAGA boobs only in minor detail; you feel an unjustified sense of oppression, and you grasp at your favorite discredited ideology."
My friend, if I cannot afford to pay my property taxes and keep up my home; or afford groceries; or afford to keep my electricity, heat, and water supply on; or even a small little vacation; with the constant worry of whether I'll have some place to live no matter how hard I work, and seeing numerous neighbors in the same situation despite working as many as three jobs plus a side gig delivering for Instacart or DoorDash; and all of us in a city plagued by huge numbers of mentally ill, drug-addicted criminals and drug dealers and gang members all struggling to survive and gain money in the worst way possible, then yes, I feel oppressed... and justifiably so.
And when I get banned or suspended from social media; or de-monetized; or de-banked all for having unpopular opinions about liberals (when the Democrats are in power) or certain billionaires (when the Republicans are in power) or certain foreign countries (when either are in power), and people fear losing their jobs and losing access to their electronic funds for this reason; and foreign students here with a legit green card are getting "disappeared" right out in the open by ICE for these reasons -- yes, I feel we're oppressed, and justifiably so.
And we all feel oppressed by capitalist war-profiteers of both major parties trying to push us towards World War III. And justifiably so.
"Thank heavens you have no hope of forcing this lunacy on others."
If you consider a much better world to be lunacy, then I frankly have serious concerns for those whom the system considers sane. And I too am glad I do not have the ability to force such a system on the working class, because then it would not be a true Industrial Democracy, chosen by the people. Convincing the vast majority of the working class to see this system for what it is -- archaic and regressive due to having moved past its usefulness to the world -- is the goal. And to choose it willingly. That is the only way forward.
Capitalism supported technical progress when it was first established, because it was established at a time when technology was too under-advanced to create an abundance for everyone and more or less eliminate real scarcity. It replaced a previous system, feudalism, that had outgrown its own technically progressive nature but paved the way for capitalism. Capitalism has now served its useful, progressive purpose: making the Industrial Revolution possible. It was never intended to be an eternal system, just like feudalism before it, and ancient chattel slavery before it, etc. It is now a regressive system that can no longer justify its material condition, and thus has now outlived its ethical justifications. We can now provide an abundance for all thinks to modern technology, but the continued existence of capitalism past its time of usefulness is preventing us from doing that and now needlessly impoverishing more and more of us in a land of plenty.
Because money is at the root of our inability to have what we need and to fulfill the reasonable wants of most people despite the post-industrial abundance available to all — unlike pre-industrial eras, where scarcity was real and there was no way around this unfortunate material circumstance for most people — capitalism is indeed the main culprit of these issues. It fuels avarice and ruthless competition instead of allowing the forms of cooperation that can unify individual desires with the greater good instead of having these things in constant opposition. It fuels crime, mistrust, and hatred that stems from wildly disparate access to now-abundant resources. It now needlessly puts a price tag on everything, with an increasing number of people unable to afford even basic necessities while allowing a few to accumulate vast sums, far more than they could ever spend but enough to literally buy governments and make all the rules to benefit themselves.
A “free” economy is not one that results in civil liberties, because that might hurt the wealthiest. We see censorship everywhere. We do not see tolerance in systems where some have more than others, but a lot of hatred borne of brutal competition between people of different races, between the genders, between people who have and do not have, and between people of different ethnic groups. And worst of all, see profiteering for war that is heading us down a catastrophic path.
Hence, I must disagree with you on this. Capitalism is past its time, and it needs to be replaced with a new, more progressive economic system just as it replaced another system before it when it, too, had outlived its progressive usefulness to civilization.
I agree with most of what you wrote, Bravo; however I would have framed your thesis that "WE crave conflict" a little differently. While the WE may include some on the Right, this new "systemic racism" "trans rights" conflict was generated primarily if not totally by the Democrats. What I saw was a Democrat Party that became terrified by the reality of what Obama's election represented, that we had clearly just moved into a new and enlightening era. But the Democrat Party think tank was worried. Their stranglehold of the black vote hinged race baiting and on the idea that racism was everywhere and was always impeding the advancement of blacks at every turn; their stranglehold on the black vote hinged on the representation that only the Democrat Party could save blacks from the evils that white Republicans wanted to visit upon them. Why even Joe Biden had just recently reminded them of that potential reality when, during a speech before the NAACP, he exclaimed, "THEY (the evil Republicans) WANNA PUT Y'ALL BACK IN CHAINS!" Obama's election exposed that this long standing narrative was no longer true, and the Democrat elites became terrified that blacks may begin to flee from the Democrat Party plantation. And thus began the wild deceit that America remained a "systemically racist" country, that the higher rates of blacks shot by police were the product of "systemic" police racism when studies had shown, that when measured against disparate group crime rates, white's were actually shot a higher rates than blacks (Heather McDonald "The War on Cops"), that white people harbored hidden racism and were all implicitly and unconsciously biased and racist. Why even Obama weighed in and proclaimed that racism was "in our (white people) DNA." And in order to sell this deceit, the Democrats and their ubiquitous allies in the media, BLM, and universities, began to intensify their manipulation of white guilt; and whites began to be battered with anti white racist rants from DEI speakers throughout the country. White's were told that they just had to take this racist battering and shut up because they were imbued with "white privilege" and they just had to sit there while they were demeaned and accept that they were all evil members of an "oppressor" group. And this evil, divisive, and horribly destructive strategy worked for well over a decade. Most whites were paralyzed with the very real fear that if they dared to stray from the woke playbook they would be canceled in some horrible ways. Lastly, I don't enjoy conflict and I think that most Americans a quite exhausted by conflict. Unfortunately what I'm seeing right now is the same old same old endless screaming, protesting, blocking streets, demonizing Republicans, demonizing Trump, demonizing Musk, destroying cars, and endless threats, and threats, and more threats; and it's coming from primarily the radical left wing of the Democrat Party which has become the Democrat Party.
"Do we inherently crave conflict and challenges, even when our lives are going well and we are making progress?"
No. All division is artificial, pushed on us by the "Managerial Elite" that want to stay in control.
- They have been doing this for almost three hundred years.
Remember, even George Washington warned that we cannot have political Parties tear the country apart to win elections, then expect people to work together afterward.
George Washington Warned Against Political Infighting in His Farewell Address
That "Managerial Elite" has always worked in the background, building in control, feeding on society, manipulating society to protect that "Managerial Elite".
Society has moved forward when that "Managerial Elite" had less control, and society slowed to a crawl when they had more control. When society advances quickly, it is followed by a deliberate slowdown by the "Managerial Elite".
- If we could shed that "Managerial Elite" we would have a blossoming of society again.
BTW, That doesn't mean getting rid of "managers", that means getting rid of the "Managerial Elite"; who are not that good as managers, and definitely not "elite". HA!
I think the nature of the internet has a lot to do with it. Everyone is bombarded with everyone's opinions. Their shower thoughts, rants against people or groups that used to be vented privately in real life, the most extreme views are visible and overrepresented. People are crazy and will threaten, dox, SWAT, call employers, etc. And even without any actual harassment or direct interaction, people are likely to feel trapped, abandoned, or both.
On the left there has been an anxiety and preoccupation with controlling strangers' private thoughts, whether by institutional censorship ("We must control our cognitive infrastructure") or grassroots cancel culture ("Is so-and-so REALLY an ally, or a crypto-fascist?").
On the right backlash, there has been a resentment to the idea that there should be any social obligations or standards of decency at all. ("Pimping is the new traditional values! Domestic violence is fine as long as it's anti-woke! Let's throw out some racial slurs or anti-Semitic canards while we're at it!")
There's no easy fix. Viewpoint censorship is not the answer. Censors are notoriously lacking in impulse control and quick to label inconvenient facts as "hate" and "extremism."
Well said. I have many of the same concerns. It's natural to seek justice for past injustice. However, fixing a past injustice (sexism, racism) with the same injustice is crazy.
Do we crave conflict? I think most people don't. Conflict for its own sake is not the primary thing here, IMO. I see two things: the human tendency for tribalism and bigotry, and the cult of the victim. Once people discovered that claiming victimhood elevated one's status, they began to frame everything that way. That, in turn, exacerbated conflict between/among demographic groups: women resentful of men, minorities resentful of whites, and then all the permutations of intersectionality that became a contest about who was most-victimized of all.
Very well said. We cannot underestimate how this "cult of the victim" has factored into this insanity. Vying for status means moving as far away from the bottom of the identity politics totem pole, away from the cis gender white male. White males have been taking a beating for too long. We humans are not collectively responsible for the past evils committed by those we share skin color or gender with. Until white people stop allowing themselves to be manipulated by this guilt, nothing will change.
The incentives in this contemporary culture of intersectionality and blaming the "other" are so perverse. The Good White People™ gain status by differentiating themselves from the "bad" white people, who are "bad" because they are not blaming whites and "white culture" (whatever that is) for outcomes experienced by demographically-defined groups of nonwhites. Robin DiAngelo has made a very good living out of this stereotypical framing: white people have original sin and will therefore never not be racist, but a white person can buy an indulgence by buying her books, paying for her "antiracist" workshops, and becoming self-aware of their irredeemable racist privilege.
The only way out of this is for individuals to evolve spiritually as human beings who overcome the instincts of tribalism, reject victimhood, and make good-faith efforts to interact with all people simply as humans. Stop seeing anyone as "other".
"But the white people can buy an indulgence by buying her books and paying for her "antiracist" workshops, and becoming self aware of their irredeemable racist privilege." Well said but the purchased indulgence won't be the last purchase because even if we "do the work," we can never do enough work to expunge our original sin. Just keep your checkbooks open, you loathsome white fools!
Reading this brought a chill. Why are we so much in opposition rather than in cooperation. It's uncomfortable to think that we humans have some underlying self-destructiveness that seeks conflict.
Opposition caused by revenge: Hatfield and McCoys, Democrats and Republicans. Wars that ironically act as uniters in the face of an outside threat...possibly only to be followed by a civil war that starts a cycle of revenge and struggle that still affects us today. Maybe conflict gives a spark and purpose to our every day boring lives.
And the most potentially destructive is the battle of the sexes, which is going on now. Where did it start or is it in our DNA? Did Adam and Eve have a problem? I'm not religious, so I don't understand what was going on between them.
Conflict seems to exist where there is revenge. Women can be seen as getting revenge against men for having to take a back seat for centuries. But I believe the pendulum swung too far. I know this because I was active in the 1960's National Organization for Women and have watched as the turnabout has gone too far with a cycle of payback.
That's all I can think to say about this terribly complicated topic. Thank you, Monica, for rustling up our brains.
"Organizations that raised millions to combat specific problems don’t dissolve when those problems go away. It’s also undeniable that political parties thrive on conflict."
It is true of the western organizations combat againt communism, then islamism. They did not dissolve after the cold war, they did not dissolve after Afghanistan. They turned on democracies. They need blood to thrive, unless we neuter those vampires.
"Do we genuinely want harmony and understanding between different groups? Or do we derive meaning, purpose, and identity from the struggle itself?"
Ukraine conflict is the best example. Struggling gives purpose and meaning beyond reason. Harmony is in the distance, like a moonshot. Atlantic Union, Continental Union...harmony is in the future. Not in the trenches.
"Learning to find fulfillment in harmony rather than conflict, in bridge-building rather than battling."
Some Asian cultures tried to do this. It is not that simple, for struggle also may generates positive outcomes, creativity not being the least.
I agree that conflict seems to be happening for just conflict.
In the end, I believe it’s the identity of that term “we” that is the source of the issue.
The United States (or more appropriately divided states) is not a “we”. Instead of assuming it needs to being a “we” (eg the great melting pot) maybe it’s time to acknowledge the country does not have to be a “we”.
The federal government should not be the place where cultural issue like abortion, gay rights, trans rights, drug legalization, etc are embedded in law. States and ideally communities are the better places to define cultural differences.
Somehow as a country, people believe the federal government should have their cultural view as law. Reduce the power of the federal government especially the power to tax. Ideally eliminate the 16th amendment.
Stop thinking of the country as some homogeneous “we”. Trump is dissembling the federal government moving power to the states. Democrats seem to be opposed. Why?
it doesn't work so well at the state level, either. Look at Colorado, where the rural parts of the state feel they're being forced to conform to the values set by Denver. Oregon is similar, with the eastern part of the state periodically wanting to join with Idaho because they feel they are not respected or valued by the Portland elites. California is another great example.
Again, though, in many states you end up with metro areas projecting their values and dictating to smaller communities who may not agree with their values. Part of that, I suspect, is tied in with the more modern belief that cities somehow "know better" than other parts of a state. Differences are only celebrated if they occur as part of a larger whole...and even then they have to be the right kind of differences.
The tipping point is often the size of the urban areas. In some Western states the cities simply aren't large enough to cast a long shadow, but in places like Colorado, Oregon, and Washington they certainly are and they aren't afraid to wield that power. There's often a disdain (spoken or not) for the smaller communities in those states (they're all just a bunch of ignorant hicks, after all...or so the urban wisdom goes).
A concept that the Enlightenment world rejected along with religion: “concupiscence”. It’s not merely that we are addicted to conflict, but even without progress towards the next goal, we have a tendency to be vicious to each other. We have not wrestled with our tendency towards sin precisely because we so deeply believe in Rousseau’s benevolent man in the original state of nature.
It definitely is a Psychological frontier worth exploring, and not merely as a nurture only issue, but recognised as something in our nature.
Dostoyevsky from Notes from the Underground:
“Shower on him every blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, give him economic prosperity such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes, and busy himself with the continuation of the species, and even then, out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. "
Fantastic article that gets to the nub of the issue ailing Western culture— addiction to dialogic conflict. It makes us feel busy and important but destroys the internal and external peace we claim to want to experience. It brings to mind the Buddhist concept of ‘the laziness of busyness’ — it’s easier and more gratifying to the ego to endlessly argue than to effect real change.
The assertion that harmony lacks meaning or purpose compared to struggle is questionable. Harmony is arguably the goal of purpose and meaning—to create balance, not something devoid of it. Harmony is not static; it’s a dynamic, ever-shifting equilibrium. The challenge lies in how we approach change. Too often, we fall into the "hammer and nail" problem: a top-down ideology that frames every imbalance as requiring conflict or revolution. This mindset has seeped into education and culture, but the strongest societies don’t function this way. They thrive not through enforced ideologies but through the natural outgrowth of individuals who are harmonious with themselves and others.
In complex societies, creating harmony enables progress in science, art, and understanding. It emerges from hard work, collaboration, and shared goals, enriching the human experience and providing a deeper, more sustainable sense of purpose. When people are balanced and self-aware, they naturally work together without the need for engineered systems or ideological labels like "inclusive." Harmony isn’t something imposed—it’s the natural outcome of individuals who are resilient, empathetic, and connected to their strengths and weaknesses.
On a personal level, harmony fosters self-awareness, balance, and a connection to one’s strengths and weaknesses. The purpose of life itself could be seen as achieving internal harmony and extending it outward—creating balance and accord, not perpetual conflict. When individuals are at peace with themselves, they naturally build relationships and systems that reflect that harmony. It’s not about top-down enforcement or performative ideologies; it’s about the organic, collective effort of people who are aligned with themselves and each other.
The Illusion of Progress
Is what we call progress truly progress? Gays were disadvantaged by transgenderism, as the solution to being gay was framed as being the “wrong sex,” with surgery presented as the answer—echoing the harms of past conversion therapy. Boys and women have also been affected: boys are now the least supported group, often seen as inherently toxic due to their masculinity, while women are denied women-only spaces under accusations of transphobia. These shifts have created new forms of discrimination under the guise of progress.
Progress isn’t being undermined; it’s being course-corrected. The answer to racism and sexism isn’t more racism and sexism. The craving for conflict stems from morality becoming a positional good, tied to the Easterlin Paradox: beyond a certain point, increased wealth doesn’t increase happiness. Instead, people chase relative status—how they compare to others—rather than absolute well-being. Historically, humans competed for territory, then material goods. Now, with material acquisition limited, ideologies have become the new arena for competition. Performative morality fills the void, yet despite Americans having more than most globally, happiness levels remain stagnant.
The Flaws of Progressivism and Performative Morality
The idea that struggle is psychologically compelling because it offers community and moral clarity is muddled. Progressivism lacks an end goal; it champions “change” but struggles to define what that change should be, how to achieve it, or for whom. In practice, it often serves an elite few who virtue-signal while advocating policies like open borders, which harm the economic prospects of others through wage dumping and resource strain. This “liberal feudalism” benefits the Venti-toting cosmopolitans while destabilizing the middle and working classes. The disconnect between proclaimed values and actual outcomes reveals the hollowness of this struggle.
The Pursuit of Positional Goods and Societal Disconnection
The lack of harmony ties to the concept of positional goods. When traditional avenues for achievement are de-emphasized—through forced homogenization or declaring everyone a winner—people turn to other forms of recognition. Biologically, humans are hierarchical mammals; they will always seek to stand out. Performative morality becomes a way to gain status, with elites virtue-signaling their supposed superiority while failing to address real issues.
Many today are drawn to the entertainment of conflict and destruction rather than the complexity of harmony. Young people often lack critical thinking, ethical understanding, and a well-rounded education. Some struggle with basic literacy and numeracy, leaving them unprepared for the modern world. Yet, they have access to tools—smartphones, online platforms—that could help them grow. They must be proactive, take responsibility, and mature. Resilience and resourcefulness are essential, because no one else will save them.
After chasing “fake gold cups,” they’ll see the world for what it is: harsh. If you don’t fight for yourself, you’ll get nothing. This is a coddled generation, raised to believe the state will provide, yet so poorly educated they’re essentially infantilized. If they don’t take charge, they’ll remain trapped—disgruntled, dependent, and disillusioned, adults in name but children in capability.
The Cycle of Pointless Struggle
This lack of preparedness and reliance on external validation creates a broader societal issue: a pointless struggle to break the system, with no idea what to replace it or the skills to do so. Lacking critical thinking, historical knowledge, and the ability to understand other viewpoints, we’re set up for eternal conflict. The struggle for social validation through performative morality becomes addictive, not for its value, but for the fleeting validation it offers. It replaces the satisfaction material goods once provided, as further wealth no longer improves well-being once basic needs are met.
The Venti-toting elites hide their Jaguars on farms, pretending to rough it, while middle-class aspirants, seeing their opportunities shrink, chase the same moral posturing. Meanwhile, policies like open borders, championed by these elites, erode the prospects of those they claim to help. Poor and middle-class kids, in their pursuit of change and validation, end up supporting the very forces undermining their stability. They’re caught in a paradox: their desire for progressive ideals leads them to back policies that destroy their own economic security.
The Need for Harmony
At the end of the day, everyone could benefit from more harmony—but it’s the harder, more meaningful struggle. It requires genuine reflection, both inward and outward, rather than the superficial posturing that often passes for “progressive” thought today. Harmony is not just a goal; it’s the only struggle worth pursuing.
The part about increasingly searching for conflict (something that I have a propensity for…it’s how I used to behave on social media…) is an element of Marxist critical theory. I know it’s a part of queer theory. Their (whoever “they” are) worst nightmare is a gay couple living peaceably within a typical community of “normal” people. Of course that’s where I’d want to be too as a gay man. But “they” WANT the conflict. They WANT division.
The obsession with "the struggle" was also a central point of National Socialism. I think one reason these ideologies (no matter which end of the supposed spectrum they inhabit) obsess so much with conflict is their basic tenants are either incredibly fluid or practically nonexistent. If you're busy fighting "the struggle" you don't look very closely at what you're fighting for or against. That same mindset also makes it very easy to shift from one "struggle target" to another without being required to think about the shift.
This is a fantastic post, Monica. It rings true to me, especially this key point you make: “It’s possible that one the most challenging aspect of human progress isn’t fighting against oppression, but learning to live without the meaning and purpose that struggle provides. Learning to find fulfillment in harmony rather than conflict, in bridge-building rather than battling.” Thank you for continuing to add such clarity and insight to what we are all experiencing.
Thanks, Noel. As always, I really appreciate your support!
Thank you for another great post, Monica. This is what I think in response to this:
"Which brings me back to my questions: Do we inherently crave conflict and challenges, even when our lives are going well and we are making progress? As a society, why is it so difficult for us to acknowledge victory and move on to new challenges that don’t undermine the progress we’ve made?
"Maybe there’s something psychologically compelling about struggle. Maybe being part of a movement fighting for change offers community and a sense of moral clarity that can be addictive. Or, as humans, perhaps conflict and challenge provide meaning, purpose, and identity in our lives that harmony doesn’t."
Let us acknowledge one of the major causes of the constant shifts towards division no matter how much social and economic progress is made by marginalized groups: the capitalist system itself. You noted at one point that we should take advantage of these social advances to unite towards correcting the class-based issues that affect all of us, and always have to varying but often significant degrees.
This is something the capitalist class does not want. It *needs* to sow division between different demographics in the working class so that unification on the economic front never happens. The capitalist class are fully class conscious, whereas the working class as a whole is not. This is proven by the fact that it was uber-corporations like BlackRock, State Street, and JP Morgan that created DEI requirements and pushed the "Woke" mentality. It may have found its academic roots in the post-modern writings of Foucault and his ilk many decades ago, but it always was and remains pushed by the most affluent of society.
In short, the capitalist class and their PMCs -- Personal Managerial Class, the affluent "upper middle class" -- are the main purveyors of this. It's very good for keeping different segments of the working class pissed off at each other and embroiled in conflict so we're all at each other's throats instead of angry at the ruling class. And it allows the two wings of the Duopoly to play these differences in social values against each other, engaging in a faux contest that keeps various segments of the working class tethered to the Duopoly, and therefore capitalism.
Secondly, once a marginalized group comes close to achieving equality, and finally achieves a voice in society, many of them will harbor lingering, sometimes intense resentments towards the group that enjoyed nominal privileges within the capitalist system up to that point. So, once they gain something close to equality to the former oppressing group they lash out at them instead of seeking harmony. "This is our chance to punch the people who used to punch us around."
Thirdly, many soldiers cannot give up a war without losing their sense of purpose, as you noted. As a result, a once important and necessary movement devolves into a racket, with new players taking it over and using it in attempts to acquire power and privilege of their own rather than simply ensuring equality. Hence, the move for equality becomes one for "equity" in its stead. And many members of the former oppressing group enter the racket to acquire and secure their own power so they do not get swept under the rug.
Do we need conflict from a psychological standpoint? I think that largely depends on the type of society we live in. In this one, those that rule over us find it a necessity to keep these conflicts among the lower economic classes going on perpetually, lest we turn our ire towards the handful of people with the truly significant amounts of power and privilege.
Thanks very much for highlighting these important points, Christopher. I do think the class element, exacerbated by a bastardization of capitalism, contributes mightily to the division we’re experiencing. When we bicker amongst ourselves, we can’t appreciate our common struggles and challenges.
TL;DR: to cement progress, we should eliminate the very system that has supported the progress made to date.
Blaming this on capitalism another example of activism looking for a villain to hate to justify its own existence.
Look at the most tolerant societies on earth. Hint: they're rich, because they have liberal, democratic, free economies. No other system has worked in the history of the world, except in activists' dreams. Utopian thinking is what's causing all our problems, let's stop celebrating activism for activism's sake. Like chemotherapy, it has uses in small doses, but it makes a terrible diet.
And the ability to create a better society is not a “utopian dream” any more than the technological capacity to fly to the moon, travel from one part of the world to the other in just one to 24 hours, or to produce an abundance for all is since technology advanced to this point. But it is currently impossible for many to afford this since all of this is still commodified past a point when it’s materially necessary to do so. And most of us are finding our ability to afford even our groceries and a place to live to be constantly diminishing while just a few can afford ten mansions that they do not even need.
Creating such a better society is now fully within our grasp technologically, just as flying to the Moon has been for only a short time in human history. This type of system has never been tried before because all nations that are claimed to have actually tried it — like Russia in 1917— did not actually have the technological capacity to do so. Nor did the many Third World nations who claim to have created a “different” system. As a result, they only created a variation of capitalism run by the state, and that is not an Industrial Democracy but rather state capitalism.
Why, sure, if Stalin had the technology, he could have killed WAY more than ten million!
The problem with utopianism isn't that it needs modern technology (which, of course, it would never have been able to develop - how convenient that free societies continued to exist to create the new technologies that you say the utopians needed!). The problem is that utopian thinking doesn't take into account human nature. There's a reason why all the utopian schemes - socialism, communism, fascism - always end up in a blood bath. They are fundamentally flawed.
I doubt, though, that a total body count well above fifty million, and billions others immiserated, could dissuade you from your credulity. After all, if you are unmoved by the unprecedented world-wide enrichment that occured during the last few decades of relatively free trade, why would a few broken eggs bother you?
Stalin wasn't present in 1917 Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. That was all Lenin. He was a student of Marx, but they lacked the technology in what was still largely an agrarian nation to facilitate an Industrial Democracy. An advanced industrial base is required. So, they set up a "vanguard" party to create a form of bureaucratic state capitalism "until" the nation was sufficiently industrialized. And of course, once it was, this authoritarian, class-divided state refused to hand over the reins to the working class. There never would have been a Stalin to follow Lenin if technology had been sufficient to create an actual bottom-to-top run economy controlled by workers rather than by bureaucrats "on their behalf."
First of all, you misuse the term "utopianism". It simply means "planned society" in its actual definition, not a "perfect" society. An Industrial Democracy would not be a "perfect" society, but it would be a *good* society.
And it's not "convenient" or overly so that a truly free stateless, moneyless, and classless society requires advanced technology because an industrialized foundation is important to be materially capable of mass production, with the type of automation that can produce an abundance for all and eliminate scarcity.
No society without technology was truly "free." All had a ruling class that made all the decisions in a top-to-bottom manner, with that small handful of society collecting and enjoying the lion's share of the wealth while the vast majority had to struggle to obtain variously modest to tiny degrees of it. Some, like the USA, had a nominal political democracy, but that gets heavily compromised by those with the most money, since they can bribe politicians who make the decisions on their behalf, so that elections make no difference.
In recent years this billionaire control has become more blatant, as we see with an increasingly impoverished working class, a ruling class that allows some of its handful to acquire a personal fortune of $400 billion, and a very robust censorship regime that can arrest you, de-montetize you, de-bank you, unilaterally declare you a "terrorist," or ban you from social media communication forums for having the wrong opinion about a war, government policies, or certain foreign nations.
This is what happens when you make money all-important and only a few people have enormous amounts of it while the great majority does not -- at a point in history when we can now technologically produce an abundance for all.
The blame for this not "human nature." That's a Social Darwinist excuse and the post-Enlightenment materialist replacement to justify indefinite rule by the few that replaced the old theologically based claims that God had decreed things to be that way. Human nature is *adaptable*, and people behave according to the environment in which they are born into and forced to operate within. And the economic system that forces us to work a certain way and acquire wealth a certain way is what will affect our behavior the most. If the system glorifies and actually requires greed, mistrust, back-stabbing to get ahead, and the idea that "success" is based on who happens to have the most money, then you're going to see some truly bad human behavior. Saying it's simply hard-wired into our biological nature is, again, a pseudo-scientific excuse to rationalize the eternal retention of class-divided, money-based society at a point past its material justification.
As for a system that is fundamentally flawed and resulting in a bloodbath, look at all the despotic class-divided regimes that the U.S. supports across the world. Look at the bloody wars the U.S. is funding and fighting, including the horrific proxy wars against Russia and the genocide and land grabs it's now facilitating alongside and on behalf of Israel in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen, with designs on Iran. War is actually a profit-based racket under capitalism, and the most cataclysmic aspect of its basis on ruthless competition so that a few can have the most -- again, at a point in time when modern productive technology could eliminate scarcity and the need to compete for money and control.
There is already such a huge body count that you mentioned going on around the world thanks to capitalism. The inner city environs that I live in is riddled with crime (I had to invest in an expensive parcel box to keep my packages from being taken by porch pirates), mentally ill homeless people, and drug addicts accosting and shouting at people. My neighbors are good people who are struggling to afford ever-rising property taxes and constantly risk losing their homes, not to mention afford the maintenance to keep them up; to afford a single bag of groceries; to keep their utilities turned on, including their heat during the cold winter season; and none of us can afford even a simple vacation to the next state over.
And in the meantime, those politically active like me get routinely kicked off of social media for the "wrong" (read: unpopular or not billionaire-sanctioned) opinions and risk being de-banked or de-monetized. Substack is thus far a haven for that, but it's still getting expensive to read and follow as many writers as we'd like.
That is not a system I want to live under or see humanity live under for the rest of eternity now that it's no longer necessary from a material standpoint. Socialists like me are not fighting for some other type of class-divided society, like the state capitalism of the former Soviet Union, or the smaller ones in Third World countries. A classless and moneyless society has never been tried, but now is the time that we need to start looking forward instead of holding on to the past and a system that has outlived its progressive usefulness to the world.
"A classless and moneyless society has never been tried, but now is the time that we need to start looking forward..."
It's the old "real communism has never been tried" trope... willfull ignorance.
Credulous drivel like that is how actual authoritarian regimes get started.
You differ from the MAGA boobs only in minor detail; you feel an unjustified sense of oppression, and you grasp at your favorite discredited ideology.
Thank heavens you have no hope of forcing this lunacy on others.
"It's the old "real communism has never been tried" trope... willfull ignorance."
It's not willful ignorance, it's *fact* that is well known -- and clear -- to anyone who has actually read what Marx and Engels described in their works, and what people supporting Classical Marxism, i.e., Industrial Democracy throughout the mid-20th century to the present have been describing -- and what the Soviet Union established in 1917, and what all those small Third World countries who called themselves "socialist" or "communist" created.
It was made *very clear* by Marx and Engels, and very clear by all proponents of Industrial Democracy, that an *advanced industrial base* capable of more or less eliminating material scarcity and providing *an abundance for all* via mass production with advanced automation. And resulted in a system that was run bottom-to-top by all the workers, with none having notable power & privilege over anyone else, does not use or rely on money, and does not have a state with a professional police force & military to enforce the edict of a few.
Did the Soviet Union resemble this? No, it was established in a still largely agrarian nation. When the very class-divided society based on control by bureaucratic vanguardists finally industrialized the nation, the entrenched bureaucratic class refused to turn it over to the people, declaring that this was now "a distant goal" but it still had a "workers state." It continued to have all the common features of a class-divided system: the use of currency and requirement of having it to purchase items, with access to the collectively created wealth severely limited to most citizens; decision-making power by a few operating from top-to-bottom; a very strong centralized state that used police and military power to enforce the decisions of these few.
Those Third World nations to this day lack sufficient resources to provide an abundance to even just the people living within its borders.
The common trope for conservatives to deride Industrial Democracy is to ignore all of the above and claim, "If they called it socialist or communist, then that's all it required it for it to be so. Because it helps our narrative in defense of capitalism being an eternal system."
"Credulous drivel like that is how actual authoritarian regimes get started."
Capitalism and class rule are what creates authoritarian regimes, because concentrating so much wealth and control of the resources via money/currency allows those few to make all the decisions and circumvent whatever laws are allegedly put in place to make "freedom" apply to all. We see this done more blatantly than ever today, where we view tech billionaires openly calling the shots beside politicians who are also always billionaires, amidst a Congress filled with billionaires, millionaires, and PMCs (affluent members of the Professional Managerial Class).
If it starts as a class-divided society that is not controlled by workers from top to bottom, then yes, it's going to be authoritarian.
"You differ from the MAGA boobs only in minor detail; you feel an unjustified sense of oppression, and you grasp at your favorite discredited ideology."
My friend, if I cannot afford to pay my property taxes and keep up my home; or afford groceries; or afford to keep my electricity, heat, and water supply on; or even a small little vacation; with the constant worry of whether I'll have some place to live no matter how hard I work, and seeing numerous neighbors in the same situation despite working as many as three jobs plus a side gig delivering for Instacart or DoorDash; and all of us in a city plagued by huge numbers of mentally ill, drug-addicted criminals and drug dealers and gang members all struggling to survive and gain money in the worst way possible, then yes, I feel oppressed... and justifiably so.
And when I get banned or suspended from social media; or de-monetized; or de-banked all for having unpopular opinions about liberals (when the Democrats are in power) or certain billionaires (when the Republicans are in power) or certain foreign countries (when either are in power), and people fear losing their jobs and losing access to their electronic funds for this reason; and foreign students here with a legit green card are getting "disappeared" right out in the open by ICE for these reasons -- yes, I feel we're oppressed, and justifiably so.
And we all feel oppressed by capitalist war-profiteers of both major parties trying to push us towards World War III. And justifiably so.
"Thank heavens you have no hope of forcing this lunacy on others."
If you consider a much better world to be lunacy, then I frankly have serious concerns for those whom the system considers sane. And I too am glad I do not have the ability to force such a system on the working class, because then it would not be a true Industrial Democracy, chosen by the people. Convincing the vast majority of the working class to see this system for what it is -- archaic and regressive due to having moved past its usefulness to the world -- is the goal. And to choose it willingly. That is the only way forward.
Capitalism supported technical progress when it was first established, because it was established at a time when technology was too under-advanced to create an abundance for everyone and more or less eliminate real scarcity. It replaced a previous system, feudalism, that had outgrown its own technically progressive nature but paved the way for capitalism. Capitalism has now served its useful, progressive purpose: making the Industrial Revolution possible. It was never intended to be an eternal system, just like feudalism before it, and ancient chattel slavery before it, etc. It is now a regressive system that can no longer justify its material condition, and thus has now outlived its ethical justifications. We can now provide an abundance for all thinks to modern technology, but the continued existence of capitalism past its time of usefulness is preventing us from doing that and now needlessly impoverishing more and more of us in a land of plenty.
Because money is at the root of our inability to have what we need and to fulfill the reasonable wants of most people despite the post-industrial abundance available to all — unlike pre-industrial eras, where scarcity was real and there was no way around this unfortunate material circumstance for most people — capitalism is indeed the main culprit of these issues. It fuels avarice and ruthless competition instead of allowing the forms of cooperation that can unify individual desires with the greater good instead of having these things in constant opposition. It fuels crime, mistrust, and hatred that stems from wildly disparate access to now-abundant resources. It now needlessly puts a price tag on everything, with an increasing number of people unable to afford even basic necessities while allowing a few to accumulate vast sums, far more than they could ever spend but enough to literally buy governments and make all the rules to benefit themselves.
A “free” economy is not one that results in civil liberties, because that might hurt the wealthiest. We see censorship everywhere. We do not see tolerance in systems where some have more than others, but a lot of hatred borne of brutal competition between people of different races, between the genders, between people who have and do not have, and between people of different ethnic groups. And worst of all, see profiteering for war that is heading us down a catastrophic path.
Hence, I must disagree with you on this. Capitalism is past its time, and it needs to be replaced with a new, more progressive economic system just as it replaced another system before it when it, too, had outlived its progressive usefulness to civilization.
I agree with most of what you wrote, Bravo; however I would have framed your thesis that "WE crave conflict" a little differently. While the WE may include some on the Right, this new "systemic racism" "trans rights" conflict was generated primarily if not totally by the Democrats. What I saw was a Democrat Party that became terrified by the reality of what Obama's election represented, that we had clearly just moved into a new and enlightening era. But the Democrat Party think tank was worried. Their stranglehold of the black vote hinged race baiting and on the idea that racism was everywhere and was always impeding the advancement of blacks at every turn; their stranglehold on the black vote hinged on the representation that only the Democrat Party could save blacks from the evils that white Republicans wanted to visit upon them. Why even Joe Biden had just recently reminded them of that potential reality when, during a speech before the NAACP, he exclaimed, "THEY (the evil Republicans) WANNA PUT Y'ALL BACK IN CHAINS!" Obama's election exposed that this long standing narrative was no longer true, and the Democrat elites became terrified that blacks may begin to flee from the Democrat Party plantation. And thus began the wild deceit that America remained a "systemically racist" country, that the higher rates of blacks shot by police were the product of "systemic" police racism when studies had shown, that when measured against disparate group crime rates, white's were actually shot a higher rates than blacks (Heather McDonald "The War on Cops"), that white people harbored hidden racism and were all implicitly and unconsciously biased and racist. Why even Obama weighed in and proclaimed that racism was "in our (white people) DNA." And in order to sell this deceit, the Democrats and their ubiquitous allies in the media, BLM, and universities, began to intensify their manipulation of white guilt; and whites began to be battered with anti white racist rants from DEI speakers throughout the country. White's were told that they just had to take this racist battering and shut up because they were imbued with "white privilege" and they just had to sit there while they were demeaned and accept that they were all evil members of an "oppressor" group. And this evil, divisive, and horribly destructive strategy worked for well over a decade. Most whites were paralyzed with the very real fear that if they dared to stray from the woke playbook they would be canceled in some horrible ways. Lastly, I don't enjoy conflict and I think that most Americans a quite exhausted by conflict. Unfortunately what I'm seeing right now is the same old same old endless screaming, protesting, blocking streets, demonizing Republicans, demonizing Trump, demonizing Musk, destroying cars, and endless threats, and threats, and more threats; and it's coming from primarily the radical left wing of the Democrat Party which has become the Democrat Party.
"Do we inherently crave conflict and challenges, even when our lives are going well and we are making progress?"
No. All division is artificial, pushed on us by the "Managerial Elite" that want to stay in control.
- They have been doing this for almost three hundred years.
Remember, even George Washington warned that we cannot have political Parties tear the country apart to win elections, then expect people to work together afterward.
George Washington Warned Against Political Infighting in His Farewell Address
https://www.history.com/news/george-washington-farewell-address-warnings
That "Managerial Elite" has always worked in the background, building in control, feeding on society, manipulating society to protect that "Managerial Elite".
Society has moved forward when that "Managerial Elite" had less control, and society slowed to a crawl when they had more control. When society advances quickly, it is followed by a deliberate slowdown by the "Managerial Elite".
- If we could shed that "Managerial Elite" we would have a blossoming of society again.
BTW, That doesn't mean getting rid of "managers", that means getting rid of the "Managerial Elite"; who are not that good as managers, and definitely not "elite". HA!
But I digress.
I think the nature of the internet has a lot to do with it. Everyone is bombarded with everyone's opinions. Their shower thoughts, rants against people or groups that used to be vented privately in real life, the most extreme views are visible and overrepresented. People are crazy and will threaten, dox, SWAT, call employers, etc. And even without any actual harassment or direct interaction, people are likely to feel trapped, abandoned, or both.
On the left there has been an anxiety and preoccupation with controlling strangers' private thoughts, whether by institutional censorship ("We must control our cognitive infrastructure") or grassroots cancel culture ("Is so-and-so REALLY an ally, or a crypto-fascist?").
On the right backlash, there has been a resentment to the idea that there should be any social obligations or standards of decency at all. ("Pimping is the new traditional values! Domestic violence is fine as long as it's anti-woke! Let's throw out some racial slurs or anti-Semitic canards while we're at it!")
There's no easy fix. Viewpoint censorship is not the answer. Censors are notoriously lacking in impulse control and quick to label inconvenient facts as "hate" and "extremism."
Well said. I have many of the same concerns. It's natural to seek justice for past injustice. However, fixing a past injustice (sexism, racism) with the same injustice is crazy.
Do we crave conflict? I think most people don't. Conflict for its own sake is not the primary thing here, IMO. I see two things: the human tendency for tribalism and bigotry, and the cult of the victim. Once people discovered that claiming victimhood elevated one's status, they began to frame everything that way. That, in turn, exacerbated conflict between/among demographic groups: women resentful of men, minorities resentful of whites, and then all the permutations of intersectionality that became a contest about who was most-victimized of all.
Very well said. We cannot underestimate how this "cult of the victim" has factored into this insanity. Vying for status means moving as far away from the bottom of the identity politics totem pole, away from the cis gender white male. White males have been taking a beating for too long. We humans are not collectively responsible for the past evils committed by those we share skin color or gender with. Until white people stop allowing themselves to be manipulated by this guilt, nothing will change.
The incentives in this contemporary culture of intersectionality and blaming the "other" are so perverse. The Good White People™ gain status by differentiating themselves from the "bad" white people, who are "bad" because they are not blaming whites and "white culture" (whatever that is) for outcomes experienced by demographically-defined groups of nonwhites. Robin DiAngelo has made a very good living out of this stereotypical framing: white people have original sin and will therefore never not be racist, but a white person can buy an indulgence by buying her books, paying for her "antiracist" workshops, and becoming self-aware of their irredeemable racist privilege.
The only way out of this is for individuals to evolve spiritually as human beings who overcome the instincts of tribalism, reject victimhood, and make good-faith efforts to interact with all people simply as humans. Stop seeing anyone as "other".
"But the white people can buy an indulgence by buying her books and paying for her "antiracist" workshops, and becoming self aware of their irredeemable racist privilege." Well said but the purchased indulgence won't be the last purchase because even if we "do the work," we can never do enough work to expunge our original sin. Just keep your checkbooks open, you loathsome white fools!
Reading this brought a chill. Why are we so much in opposition rather than in cooperation. It's uncomfortable to think that we humans have some underlying self-destructiveness that seeks conflict.
Opposition caused by revenge: Hatfield and McCoys, Democrats and Republicans. Wars that ironically act as uniters in the face of an outside threat...possibly only to be followed by a civil war that starts a cycle of revenge and struggle that still affects us today. Maybe conflict gives a spark and purpose to our every day boring lives.
And the most potentially destructive is the battle of the sexes, which is going on now. Where did it start or is it in our DNA? Did Adam and Eve have a problem? I'm not religious, so I don't understand what was going on between them.
Conflict seems to exist where there is revenge. Women can be seen as getting revenge against men for having to take a back seat for centuries. But I believe the pendulum swung too far. I know this because I was active in the 1960's National Organization for Women and have watched as the turnabout has gone too far with a cycle of payback.
That's all I can think to say about this terribly complicated topic. Thank you, Monica, for rustling up our brains.
Spot on, Monica, once again!
"Organizations that raised millions to combat specific problems don’t dissolve when those problems go away. It’s also undeniable that political parties thrive on conflict."
It is true of the western organizations combat againt communism, then islamism. They did not dissolve after the cold war, they did not dissolve after Afghanistan. They turned on democracies. They need blood to thrive, unless we neuter those vampires.
"Do we genuinely want harmony and understanding between different groups? Or do we derive meaning, purpose, and identity from the struggle itself?"
Ukraine conflict is the best example. Struggling gives purpose and meaning beyond reason. Harmony is in the distance, like a moonshot. Atlantic Union, Continental Union...harmony is in the future. Not in the trenches.
"Learning to find fulfillment in harmony rather than conflict, in bridge-building rather than battling."
Some Asian cultures tried to do this. It is not that simple, for struggle also may generates positive outcomes, creativity not being the least.
I agree that conflict seems to be happening for just conflict.
In the end, I believe it’s the identity of that term “we” that is the source of the issue.
The United States (or more appropriately divided states) is not a “we”. Instead of assuming it needs to being a “we” (eg the great melting pot) maybe it’s time to acknowledge the country does not have to be a “we”.
The federal government should not be the place where cultural issue like abortion, gay rights, trans rights, drug legalization, etc are embedded in law. States and ideally communities are the better places to define cultural differences.
Somehow as a country, people believe the federal government should have their cultural view as law. Reduce the power of the federal government especially the power to tax. Ideally eliminate the 16th amendment.
Stop thinking of the country as some homogeneous “we”. Trump is dissembling the federal government moving power to the states. Democrats seem to be opposed. Why?
it doesn't work so well at the state level, either. Look at Colorado, where the rural parts of the state feel they're being forced to conform to the values set by Denver. Oregon is similar, with the eastern part of the state periodically wanting to join with Idaho because they feel they are not respected or valued by the Portland elites. California is another great example.
Agreed, better to sort that out at the state level. As I said, ideally communities.
Again, though, in many states you end up with metro areas projecting their values and dictating to smaller communities who may not agree with their values. Part of that, I suspect, is tied in with the more modern belief that cities somehow "know better" than other parts of a state. Differences are only celebrated if they occur as part of a larger whole...and even then they have to be the right kind of differences.
The tipping point is often the size of the urban areas. In some Western states the cities simply aren't large enough to cast a long shadow, but in places like Colorado, Oregon, and Washington they certainly are and they aren't afraid to wield that power. There's often a disdain (spoken or not) for the smaller communities in those states (they're all just a bunch of ignorant hicks, after all...or so the urban wisdom goes).
How many people have quoted Dostoyevsky already?
A concept that the Enlightenment world rejected along with religion: “concupiscence”. It’s not merely that we are addicted to conflict, but even without progress towards the next goal, we have a tendency to be vicious to each other. We have not wrestled with our tendency towards sin precisely because we so deeply believe in Rousseau’s benevolent man in the original state of nature.
It definitely is a Psychological frontier worth exploring, and not merely as a nurture only issue, but recognised as something in our nature.
Dostoyevsky from Notes from the Underground:
“Shower on him every blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, give him economic prosperity such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes, and busy himself with the continuation of the species, and even then, out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. "
Fantastic article that gets to the nub of the issue ailing Western culture— addiction to dialogic conflict. It makes us feel busy and important but destroys the internal and external peace we claim to want to experience. It brings to mind the Buddhist concept of ‘the laziness of busyness’ — it’s easier and more gratifying to the ego to endlessly argue than to effect real change.
Thanks — really appreciate your feedback, Michele.
Phenomenally well-written piece. Enjoyed every bit of it.
Harmony as Meaning and Purpose
The assertion that harmony lacks meaning or purpose compared to struggle is questionable. Harmony is arguably the goal of purpose and meaning—to create balance, not something devoid of it. Harmony is not static; it’s a dynamic, ever-shifting equilibrium. The challenge lies in how we approach change. Too often, we fall into the "hammer and nail" problem: a top-down ideology that frames every imbalance as requiring conflict or revolution. This mindset has seeped into education and culture, but the strongest societies don’t function this way. They thrive not through enforced ideologies but through the natural outgrowth of individuals who are harmonious with themselves and others.
In complex societies, creating harmony enables progress in science, art, and understanding. It emerges from hard work, collaboration, and shared goals, enriching the human experience and providing a deeper, more sustainable sense of purpose. When people are balanced and self-aware, they naturally work together without the need for engineered systems or ideological labels like "inclusive." Harmony isn’t something imposed—it’s the natural outcome of individuals who are resilient, empathetic, and connected to their strengths and weaknesses.
On a personal level, harmony fosters self-awareness, balance, and a connection to one’s strengths and weaknesses. The purpose of life itself could be seen as achieving internal harmony and extending it outward—creating balance and accord, not perpetual conflict. When individuals are at peace with themselves, they naturally build relationships and systems that reflect that harmony. It’s not about top-down enforcement or performative ideologies; it’s about the organic, collective effort of people who are aligned with themselves and each other.
The Illusion of Progress
Is what we call progress truly progress? Gays were disadvantaged by transgenderism, as the solution to being gay was framed as being the “wrong sex,” with surgery presented as the answer—echoing the harms of past conversion therapy. Boys and women have also been affected: boys are now the least supported group, often seen as inherently toxic due to their masculinity, while women are denied women-only spaces under accusations of transphobia. These shifts have created new forms of discrimination under the guise of progress.
Progress isn’t being undermined; it’s being course-corrected. The answer to racism and sexism isn’t more racism and sexism. The craving for conflict stems from morality becoming a positional good, tied to the Easterlin Paradox: beyond a certain point, increased wealth doesn’t increase happiness. Instead, people chase relative status—how they compare to others—rather than absolute well-being. Historically, humans competed for territory, then material goods. Now, with material acquisition limited, ideologies have become the new arena for competition. Performative morality fills the void, yet despite Americans having more than most globally, happiness levels remain stagnant.
The Flaws of Progressivism and Performative Morality
The idea that struggle is psychologically compelling because it offers community and moral clarity is muddled. Progressivism lacks an end goal; it champions “change” but struggles to define what that change should be, how to achieve it, or for whom. In practice, it often serves an elite few who virtue-signal while advocating policies like open borders, which harm the economic prospects of others through wage dumping and resource strain. This “liberal feudalism” benefits the Venti-toting cosmopolitans while destabilizing the middle and working classes. The disconnect between proclaimed values and actual outcomes reveals the hollowness of this struggle.
The Pursuit of Positional Goods and Societal Disconnection
The lack of harmony ties to the concept of positional goods. When traditional avenues for achievement are de-emphasized—through forced homogenization or declaring everyone a winner—people turn to other forms of recognition. Biologically, humans are hierarchical mammals; they will always seek to stand out. Performative morality becomes a way to gain status, with elites virtue-signaling their supposed superiority while failing to address real issues.
Many today are drawn to the entertainment of conflict and destruction rather than the complexity of harmony. Young people often lack critical thinking, ethical understanding, and a well-rounded education. Some struggle with basic literacy and numeracy, leaving them unprepared for the modern world. Yet, they have access to tools—smartphones, online platforms—that could help them grow. They must be proactive, take responsibility, and mature. Resilience and resourcefulness are essential, because no one else will save them.
After chasing “fake gold cups,” they’ll see the world for what it is: harsh. If you don’t fight for yourself, you’ll get nothing. This is a coddled generation, raised to believe the state will provide, yet so poorly educated they’re essentially infantilized. If they don’t take charge, they’ll remain trapped—disgruntled, dependent, and disillusioned, adults in name but children in capability.
The Cycle of Pointless Struggle
This lack of preparedness and reliance on external validation creates a broader societal issue: a pointless struggle to break the system, with no idea what to replace it or the skills to do so. Lacking critical thinking, historical knowledge, and the ability to understand other viewpoints, we’re set up for eternal conflict. The struggle for social validation through performative morality becomes addictive, not for its value, but for the fleeting validation it offers. It replaces the satisfaction material goods once provided, as further wealth no longer improves well-being once basic needs are met.
The Venti-toting elites hide their Jaguars on farms, pretending to rough it, while middle-class aspirants, seeing their opportunities shrink, chase the same moral posturing. Meanwhile, policies like open borders, championed by these elites, erode the prospects of those they claim to help. Poor and middle-class kids, in their pursuit of change and validation, end up supporting the very forces undermining their stability. They’re caught in a paradox: their desire for progressive ideals leads them to back policies that destroy their own economic security.
The Need for Harmony
At the end of the day, everyone could benefit from more harmony—but it’s the harder, more meaningful struggle. It requires genuine reflection, both inward and outward, rather than the superficial posturing that often passes for “progressive” thought today. Harmony is not just a goal; it’s the only struggle worth pursuing.
What a beautifully explained post. Thank you.
Thank you, Eddie.
The part about increasingly searching for conflict (something that I have a propensity for…it’s how I used to behave on social media…) is an element of Marxist critical theory. I know it’s a part of queer theory. Their (whoever “they” are) worst nightmare is a gay couple living peaceably within a typical community of “normal” people. Of course that’s where I’d want to be too as a gay man. But “they” WANT the conflict. They WANT division.
The obsession with "the struggle" was also a central point of National Socialism. I think one reason these ideologies (no matter which end of the supposed spectrum they inhabit) obsess so much with conflict is their basic tenants are either incredibly fluid or practically nonexistent. If you're busy fighting "the struggle" you don't look very closely at what you're fighting for or against. That same mindset also makes it very easy to shift from one "struggle target" to another without being required to think about the shift.