I'm not sure what the original meaning is supposed to be either.

Still, even taking it the way you say, the quote is false. Poor and weakened societies tend to get lost in vicious cycles, and tend to create damaged people who struggle for the rest of their lives with the effects of the shock - ill, relying on vices, corrupt etc. It takes huge luck and hard work to transition back to a successful, prosperous and healthy society.

Conversely, societies that become wealthy and successful tend to continue that way for a very long time, and they create healthy and ethical people much more readily.

This can be easily seen in recent history by looking at post-USSR states vs Western Europe & the USA. By any measure, people living in Western Europe for example in 1989 were living much easier times than those behind the Iron Curtain. Still, even today, 33 years later, Western Europe is vastly more wealthy, culturally active, healthy, more powerful militarily and in every conceivable way than former Soviet bloc countries - especially the former USSR ones.

One of the most important wounds that hard times leave in a society is an extreme form of screw-you-got-mine individualism. This leads to people who are willing to do anything to succeed and grow above others - especially manifested as corruption and nepotism at every level. When you have lived through times you either take what you can or die of hunger, you can't afford to care for rules or others' well-being (except your own family).

We know statistically that economic depression, warfare, and disease don’t create toughness, resilience, etc. in society. The most economically depressed, war-torn, disease-ravaged countries are not known for being particularly resilient nor are they known for producing particularly wealthy subsequent generations.

The background of the quote is fictional books. In reality, generations that grew in tough times have more issues in general. They drink more, commit more crimes, more violence, have more mental health issues, you name it. Wars dont make people better. They make people desperate, resentful, hateful due to all the suffering and inability to get help.

Notably, WWII was started by generation that went though WWI. Generation after WWI had more terrorist acts. Oh, and war in Ukraine was started by Russia - country that average person is far from living in luxury or economic prosperity.

I'm not sure why you'd insist on an eccentric interpretation of "strong" in the context of this quote. It's a common English word that means, "having the power to move heavy weights or perform other physically demanding tasks" or "able to withstand great force or pressure."

Synonyms include: powerful, muscular, sturdy, robust, tough, rugged, stalwart, hardy.

In ordinary English these terms can be applied to mental as well as physical fortitude.

The meaning here is not opaque.

It's not even an oversimplification, it's axiomatic. We have easy and tough times, and we have people who lead us into easy and tough times. If we define those who lead a nation out of tough times as "strong men," they are necessarily a product of the tough times they lived through, and vice versa. Without saying exactly what kind of person a "strong man" or a "weak man" is, the saying says literally nothing.

> Still, "strong men", the way I read it, means "adamantly striving for the increase of power" (not just military power) rather than "being powerful already".

The problem in that case is that I don't think it is true that these types of strong men tend to create easy times - if anything, they tend to create worse times for everyone around them, unless they are actually already extremely powerful. Warmongering leaders (whether we are discussing economic or open war), especially ones leading currently weak countries, tend to create even worse times for their people. Just look at Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, or, perhaps more arguably, Putin right now.

I've usually seen this quote as a meme applied to military power, usually accompanied by imagery of roman legionnaires or such. As far as I understand, the original quote is coming from a post-apocalyptic novel, so I doubt the context is supposed to be everyday life.

Even so, regardless of other context, the general reality is that wealth and power beget wealth and power. Poor people (or societies) have a much much smaller chance of becoming wealthy than people who start wealthy have of maintaining their wealth.

I would agree that it those extraordinarily few people who manage to ascend the social latter are probably universally very strong people. But there are many times more people who could be considered weak that nevertheless preserve their wealth and status than there are strong people who improve their own. This applies both at an individual level as well as a group and societal level.

I don't necessarily agree even there.

The Viet Cong was a well supplied and well organized army, with significant logistical support from North Vietnam, and would likely had failed miserably if North Vietnam hadn't waited to consolidate its power and accrue supplies (and international support) after the revolution and previous civil war.

In the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, the taliban received ample support from the USA, including training, arms and logistics; again, they would have very likely failed in the absence of this support. In the NATO invasion of Afghanistan, the taliban quickly lost the military war, but ultimately retained their cultural advantage; the regime that the USA tried to install was simply unpopular, and instantly folded the moment it stopped being propped up. Either way, the last few decades of war have not led to some flourishing of Afghanistan as the theory predicts: it remains poor and by all likelihood will remain poor for the forseeable future, as all other war zones do.

Also, in both cases, the advantage of fighting in their own territory was a significant part of what ultimately defeated their opponents.

"Weakness" is a matter of dimensionalities and nuance and isn't a binary state of any sort. For example, many men with horrible self esteem issues make up for their inferiority complexes through exercise and then project onto those that those who don't work out must be like their former selves. Being able to withstand bullies including from social media pressures and peer groups is a double edged sword - there's a fine line between being completely obtuse or bigoted and having a backbone about one's principles.

We can perhaps use more descriptive or objective terms such as resilience and still find differences and subtleties. Are military veterans with several tours of duty that are going through PTSD "less resilient" than the civilian population? Are people that are bullied for their sexual orientation or their country of origin for decades resilient, as well? The way I see it we're all vulnerable somehow and find different means to try to protect ourselves mentally and physically, most of the time not very productive nor efficacious due to our own self deficiencies in the first place.

As such, to me the "weak" are those that cannot join coalitions of others readily and find ways to contribute in some manner or refuse. We are social animals and have survived for better or worse through making up for our own individual deficits with the strengths of others. As such the anti-social (doesn't matter what the political orientation is BTW) are the weak in society, and in that respect I think we can both agree that there is a trend toward weakness globally at least among economically developed societies.

>Everyone needs a safe space, needs the government to take care of them and provide them with things

This take has been in circulation by shallow-minded regressives for about 20+ years. It's getting moldy.

> the 20s were all about partying and buying stuff of on credit and watching the market boom

World war 1 ended in 1918. The 20s were literally created by tough times. Notably, in Germany, they were tough too.

> Then we get the depression and WWII which required men to become strong and fight which lead to the post war boom.

WWII was started by men who fought in WWI. Nazi leadership, including Hitler, were former soldiers for whom WWI experience was formative. These men were followed by younger men raised to be strong - German nazi were big on masculinity and big on being strong. Collectively all those tough men committed genocide.

> We're entering a tough time with famine and such, and people who decide to get strong and face the challenge are the ones who will do well and provide the next round of good times

That famine is created by politicians who pride themselves and being stronger then weak west. That famine did not just randomly happened. It was created by men who grew up in USSR, worked for secret service and then seen whole their world crumble in 1990.

There are no safe spaces in Russia or Chechnya. Instead you get beaten for being gay (Russia) or tortured and killed (Chechnya).

> At least that's what the grand narrative on social media is.

The grand narrative is not reality, though.

We're building more and better stuff than at any time in history.

Including the "strong stuff", if you're into that, think of military stuff.

Our problems are a lot more complex than in the past, and we're working on them.

It's just not glamorous or in the news daily.

But the United States was so strong in WW2 because it was isolated from the war - the initial hit it took to bring it into the war didn't affect its production capacity. It was able to turn itself into a giant war machine because it wasn't a tough time for North America - it had been spared the destruction of WW1. Sure society came together and sacrificed for those few years, but it was so insulated from the actual conflict it had people arguing to be isolationist.

WWII was a time of plenty for the USA (well, for the civilian population). At the very end of the war, the USA controlled more than half of all the money in the world. There has never been a time in history when a single country was as wealthy as the USA was at the end of WWII compared to its contemporaries *. And yes - all that huge wealth and power led to the USA growing ever more wealthy (in absolute terms) and ever more powerful. So no, this quote doesn't apply to the USA after WWII.

The UK after WWII, or in fact France and Western Germany, are better examples, though I think that the huge amounts of money that the USA decided to pour into them through the Marshall Plan were much more responsible for that then "strong men" forged in the war were.

* The USSR had just lost 20 million people - about 10% of its population. Germany, Poland, the UK, Austria and other European countries had been bombed into oblivion, as was Japan. Most of Africa was still recovering from European colonialism, as was India and most of SE Asia. China was still in the midst of its civil war, and had suffered some heavy losses because of Japan.