Idealism is a dying art

The self I am from two years ago, living in some other four-dimensional matrix of time and space, would read this post with disgust and sadness, but so be it, sometimes we change this way.

I have been thinking a lot about idealism versus realism, which is more functional in the world, which is futile in the end. I used to be so stubbornly an idealist that all of my notions of the world were these constructs like castles in clouds, no ladders to reach them. I wanted world peace, flawless communism, shared spirituality, ubiquitous compassion, environmental consciousness, individual enlightenment, synergistic society, moral entertainment, and the death of the corporation, hierarchical government, and hell. All of those things still sound quite nice to me, but honestly, in this day and age, does it seem realistic, or even remotely plausable, that we are on our way towards world peace, or flawless communism? No. Thus while perhaps the world needs its dreamers to come up with far-fetched ideas so people still have decency and hope, these kinds of dreams are futile and non-functional.

The other extreme, however, is equally detestable, which is the extreme of cynical resignation. So the world sucks, the government is corrupted, the environment is poluted, crime is still high, unemployment rampant, selfishness abounding, poverty common, stratification horrendous etc etc etc. Oh, well, that's the way things are now, and given the realities of the human spirit, honestly what more can we expect? NO. I hate that view. It's so limiting. I don't believe the human spirit can envision qualities it can never possess. Placing that bound on the human spirit only actualizes the bound itself. If you believe that a man does not have it in him to be fundamentally good, you become a man that doesn't have it in him to be fundamentally good.

So idealistic dreamers are useless, and cynical settlers are uselses. That leaves Aristotle's Golden Mean (which really is the most subjective concept ever, but I'll ignore that): people with a sound concept of reality, yet a sincere desire to improve that reality and a firm believe that improvement is possible.

So my opinion about social change has changed. Originally I thought we should always aim high, never make concessions. I viewed everything very deontologically. Now, I see that deontology and utilitarianism are not always harmonious on the real world, and that when they conflict in terms of social structure, it is necessary somtimes to choose utilitarianism, because what is the aim and function of a social structure but to benefit as many people ase possible, even if it isn't by taking a step towards the idyllic utopia?

For instance, the global economy today is largely governed by capitalism. The idealist response to this is to vehemently protest that capitalism by strapping yourself to Wallstreet or something and poof magically everyone suddenly realizes how great communism or at least a more distributed, socialistic wealth would be and immediately changes the system ingrained by thousand of years of practice and fundamental properties of the human nature perhaps endowed by survival of the fittest from the very first. I'm sure that scenario seems highly plausible to you. It is the action I would have advocated a few years ago, being a staunch believer that ever social action had to be consistent with these magical social ideals.
However, the practical yet hopeful response to capitalism is to work within the system and use the characteristics of capitalism to ameleorate social problems and build sustainable constructs that distribute wealth. Examples of this are microcredit and economic sanctions to prevent human rights abuses. As much as I disagree with the capitalistic nature of the global economy, I must admit that it's not going anywhere, but there are still a lot of features of the economy that provide loopholes for change. In a world that is so invested and dependent on this economy, there is always stick and carrot methods for creating change. And microcredit is a very creative way of using the monster that stripped so many of any hope of wealth to actually go back and create some wealth. It seems dirty, in a way. It surely isn't completely morally consistent with economic ideals. But it works.

See, this is my long-winded main point. You can apply this idea to any social structure or problem today. Idealism is necessary for ideas, but only approaches made within the system work. We can't overthrow the system of human nature, and we can't overthrow the system of human government or economy. But we can work within it to mold it. We can change the parameters of its container, and wait to watch it fill the new space. So maybe I have grown up and abandoned my innocent childlike ideas of change. In some ways I really have become the adult that I disliked back then. But this works. And we don't have a lot of time to fix things. There is not time for that perfect world.