how much do you trust 'the system'?

In one Bruce Willis movie- die hard 4 I suspect- a wimpy hacker who is 'against the system' is told off by Mr Straight Guy Bruce that 'there is no system- only people'- and as the hacker's actions against the system are manifestly hurting ordinary people we cannot but agree.

The Unabomber was against the system and ended up killing and maiming people. Though in the book Harvard and the Unabomber we discover that the bomber's murderous impulses preceded his ideology. He was looking for a cause to 'justify' what he really wanted to do- kill folk. I have met soldiers who joined up because it was one place you could kill someone without being arrested. That's one benefit of being inside the system...

But Bruce Willis apart, the system does exist in as much as group thinking can take control of an individual and get that individual to do things they probably wouldn't do otherwise. The group- nation, family, company can project a personality that suits its aims very well. And that 'persoanality' like a natty readmade suit on a hanger, is just waiting for some sucker to put it on.

Just as an actor can 'get' a character from wearing one key garment- a hat or special boots- so, too, can the group communicate how to act through a few elements of the personality on offer. Have you ever wondered why people believe clusters of the same things? Because these notions are simply parts of the off the peg personality they have taken up.

Of course they could also have experienced things which lead them to certain beliefs- but if they refuse to accept it is because of the early experience that they believe X, and that their belief is entirely logical etc, then they are in the grip of a group belief projected through them. The group feeds off us as a parasite feeds off a host.

Is this all bad? By no means. The system helps us get what we want very efficiently. But every now and then it oversteps the mark. We start living the lives the system wants rather than what we want. One example is the way rent and bills now account for half of salaries in parts of the UK and many other developed nations. Incomes of course have not risen accordingly. So instead of being able to live quite comfortably on a couple of days work a week we now need a full time job. Or else you start living in a different way, away from the big cities. So you start moving away from the norm, leaving the system.

And what if schools, instead of imparting positive notions and real knowledge start pedaling information that is false? It's a subtle thing- if it wasn't we'd all be in agreement about it. Some kids are survivor types- they can transit any kind of school system- or none- and still get somewhere where they want to be. But other children are more sensitive to environment. A school that feeds a negative self image will do them no good. Of course it isn't the school in a vacuum, it is the lifestyle and kids that go with it. Parents must make an effort to add to whatever the school is doing - that is one plan - but my own experience during periods of homeschooling versus periods of government schooling and private schooling is that the traditional model of the parents 'knowing best' has more or less broken down with regard to Government schooling, is still there to some limited extent with private schooling (you are forking out hard cash after all) and is strongest when children are home schooled. Though I was far less efficient as a conventional teacher than the government school teachers (some of whom were superb) the fact that we were now an autonomous unit with Mum and Dad in charge made for much more harmonious living. Bizarrely the buried premise of the state is that your parents are in some way 'the enemy' and not to be really trusted. I once took my son into A&E in a hospital in the United Kingdom and the doctor assumed a conspiratorial matey manner with my son before asking him if I was really his father. Perhaps his experience had taught him to be suspicious- but a structure which permits and encourages this suspicion cannot be said to be on the side of parents - it is the system making a home for itself at the expense of family life.

Spinoza famously wrote that all things desire to persist in themselves and groups are no different. The state, or its looser existence- the system, must get bigger and stronger or weaker and less influential. It should be viewed as a livingh organism in its own right. And that is fine when the system is decentralised, when the state is small, but the internet has added impetus to the increasing centralisation of life. This means the number of 'winners' in the system is ever decreasing. If you look at bullfighting, formula one, novel writing and hollywood movies you'll see a pattern- the top ten are multimillion pound generators- everyone else is more or less an amateur. Uber is the new pattern for turning a former profession into an affiliation of amateurs making pocket money while the organisers create a new corporation- a new system.

Every hunter gatherer can be a winner (in the pre-agricultural phase). From pre-colonial accounts the quantity of game in the wilderness was vast, far more than today. Though I am not advocating a return, even if it were possible, to the hunter gatherer lifestyle, the fact is for most of human history mankind were hunter gatherer/forest gardeners and not farmers or industrial workers and certainly not call centre operatives.

Being a 'winner' is not simply self-help hyperbole. It means having competence and significance in life. It means having a life that seems meaningful and purposive. And any way you cut it, the larger the organising entity of life the harder it is to find meaning and purpose. Big systems need cogs- either consumer cogs or worker cogs.

During lockdown we have seen how large supermarkets and Amazon can pretty much keep a country going- people who work in these industries will be rewarded and work harder (maybe even subconciously) to replicate the condiitons of lockdown- this is how any system 'grows'. It lives 'through' its key players, who allow themeslves to be taken over by the systems ambitions.

Now, when you are a 'survivor type' none of the above makes much difference. You'll get to the top, or at least a micro summit that feels pretty good, whatever the system is. The system is very very slow moving - like swimming through seaweed infested sea, and if you're a strong swimmer it won't make much difference. But not everyone is a strong swimmer...

Finding one part of 'the syetem' you agree with- say a certain charity, environmental group, business or leisure activity and then focusing on that while ignoring the negative sides of the system may be the best way to approach these matters. It takes a lot of energy to 'fight' the system and go against things with years of momentum behind them. Crime is one way to fight the system and that certainly doesn't pay. Another is to join the protest industry- but that package includes maintaining and fueling an angry mindset. So either you ride some minor wave of the system or find a way to run a parallel existence- offgrid or alternative in the widest sense- without incurring the slow motion wrath of the system.

So, to return to the initial question, how much do you trust the system? Maybe the way to think about the system is to imagine it as surfing a series of waves breaking on a tricky beach. You might find a big wave to ride but then you can see it breaks on the rocks. Other waves peter out and set you tumbling long before you reach the safety of the sand. As you get closer you might see it makes sense to ride a series of smaller wvaes going in your direction. So I guess the answer is: decide on your destination and then use existing mainstream ways to reach it while you can and use alternative methods when they don't work. So only trust the system within a limited and defined destination in mind. But for more general things such as providing meaning and purpose to life- forget it.