........? We've both discussed all sorts of other factors that operate in tandem with whatever our nature may be. Wherever we fall on the range of decency and indecency, however defined.

I agree it's bullshit when people say that, but not because we can't cognizantly discuss human nature. Communism (or what passed for it) failed for all sorts of reasons. When or if democracy (and capitalism) fails it will also have many reasons - human nature among them. It is, after all, in all of our natures to fail. It's something we're capable of, and something we can even expect along predictable lines of duress. Competence is a double edged sword. Plants don't fall for this shit.

(May 2, 2025 at 1:42 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Was Lenin's decision correct because it was correct, or was it correct because he read the moment and decided to act upon the discontent of the time? In other words, was he screwing the people, or were the people empowering him?

Puts another laughable cast upon who:whom, now doesn't it?

It was correct because he read the moment I would say. However I wouldn't say that people were empowering him - it was simply that masses weren't giving a shit and thus provisional government fell. There is this lovely tidbit in Victor Sebestyen Russian Revolution:

Quote:The Bolsheviks won because the Provisional Government under Kerensky was
even more incompetent and divided, and because they didn’t take the Bolsheviks
seriously until it was too late. But mainly it was because most of the people didn’t
care which side won.

[V. Sebestyen, Russian Revolution,p.98-99]

(May 2, 2025 at 1:48 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: ........?  We've both discussed all sorts of other factors that operate in tandem with whatever our nature may be.  Wherever we fall on the range of decency and indecency, however defined.  

I agree it's bullshit when people say that, but not because we can't cognizantly discuss human nature.  Communism (or what passed for it) failed for all sorts of reasons.  When or if democracy (and capitalism) fails it will also have many reasons - human nature among them.  It is, after all, in all of our natures to fail.  It's something we're capable of, and something we can even expect along predictable lines of duress.   Competence is a double edged sword.  Plants don't fall for this shit.

Perhaps we did but you quoted my answers to Alan who seems to blame solely or mostly human nature.

I don't agree at all with human nature being at fault here. For me it's a non factor, an answer that answers nothing (just like god) and allows some to feel smug satisfaction for what they deem to be a correct choice. It's not human nature that makes some vote on trump but confluence of factors - be it education, class belonging, being nationalist or not... It's an attempt to smuggle into a polite discussion thesis about some people being simply better without immediately inviting scorn.

I think it's human nature to act poorly in distress. Trump voters are clearly distressed. Their fears are imaginary, but that's not a problem for fear. Fear and susceptibility to fear is probably a thing that isn't equal among people. Cowardice is, in general, a pejorative term in any language. Brave an honorific. I do think that between two people in an equivalent situation the one who exhibits bravery rather than cowardice has been a better demonstration of human potential.

People running around afraid of their own shadows is how you get the trumps.

(May 2, 2025 at 2:24 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I think it's human nature to act poorly in distress.  Trump voters are clearly distressed.  Their fears are imaginary, but that's not a problem for fear.  Fear and susceptibility to fear is probably a thing that isn't equal among people.  Cowardice is, in general, a pejorative term in any language.  Bravery an honorific.

And again we return to this dastardly human nature which - coincidentally I'm sure - touches only trump voters. This is exactly why I dismiss this human nature crap - it's nothing more than vehicle for feeling better and looking down on others as inherently worse people.

Quote:People running around afraid of their own shadows is how you get the trumps.

I won't deny that fear plays a role. Democrats in my view aren't blameless in this however - as far as I am concerned if a party couldn't find anyone to defeat this imbecile then this party is a failure. trump is like Brezhnev on his last days and yet he still won. I don't know about you but for me this is a sign that his opponent sucked donkey balls to say it delicately.

(May 2, 2025 at 1:51 am)Ivan Denisovich Wrote:

(May 2, 2025 at 1:42 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Was Lenin's decision correct because it was correct, or was it correct because he read the moment and decided to act upon the discontent of the time? In other words, was he screwing the people, or were the people empowering him?

Puts another laughable cast upon who:whom, now doesn't it?

It was correct because he read the moment I would say. However I wouldn't say that people were empowering him - it was simply that masses weren't giving a shit and thus provisional government fell. There is this lovely tidbit in Victor Sebestyen Russian Revolution:

Quote:The Bolsheviks won because the Provisional Government under Kerensky was
even more incompetent and divided, and because they didn’t take the Bolsheviks
seriously until it was too late. But mainly it was because most of the people didn’t
care which side won.

[V. Sebestyen, Russian Revolution,p.98-99]

So apathy amongst the populace is in his view a big factor as well in the revolution's success? Not to discount the Kerensky government's being out of touch, but that was a lesser factor? That seems to imply that a shitshow goes to shit not only from malign leadership, but also from the refusal of the people to actually do something.

This is another reason to dimiss such crap that I just don't get. A..in that even if it did, perhaps trumpers really are a great example of a shitty american right now? B..no one suggested as much?

I can tell that you're utterly missing what I'm saying. There's nothing inherent about trumpism. Additionally, if it were inherent...I would be [ii]more[/i] permissive in my understanding of it's moral desert. I think human nature is good. Trumpers are trying their level best to be their worst. Hurt people hurt people.

(May 2, 2025 at 2:35 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: This is another reason to dimiss such crap that I just don't get.  A..in that even if it did, perhaps trumpers really are a great example of a shitty american right now?  B..no one suggested as much?  

I can tell that you're utterly missing what I'm saying.  There's nothing inherent about trumpism.  If it were inherent...I would be more permissive in my understanding of it's moral desert.  I think human nature is good.  Trumpers are trying their level best to be their worst. Hurt people hurt people.

You still return to this bullshit about human nature. I simply disagree with this nazi like crap (or perhaps some weird quasi religious predestination where worthy vote good and damned bad) - people don't vote on fascist because of their nature. If some were insist that they do then next logical step is that some people are inherently worse and some better.

There is a myriad of factors that influence individual decisions, there is propaganda, there is a system that generates grievance that aren't addressed by mainstream politicians (nor they will be addressed by trump but at some point individual might say fuck it at least others will be fucked up alongside me). Yet still this human nature is mentioned despite it total lack of explanatory power.

Nazis were chumps, and predestination is ridiculous. I agree. I think people do vote for fascists because of parts of our human nature, though. We would be hard pressed to explain it's recurring appeal across cultures, geography, and time - otherwise. I do think we can say that some people are more or less decent, however that gets defined. Presumably, you and I share these qualities, and put them to other uses. Or don't see the utility (to say nothing of decency) in fascism to them, as those others do. I'm not the nicest person I know, you're probably not the worst person you know.

Do you expect that hurt people will hurt people, or be more likely to hurt people? Is there a correlation between abuse and abusiveness? Is there a correlation between social change and reactionary violence? The idea that humans might have shared behaviors due to our shared biology and/or common environments is pretty predictive....

(May 2, 2025 at 2:33 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(May 2, 2025 at 1:51 am)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: It was correct because he read the moment I would say. However I wouldn't say that people were empowering him - it was simply that masses weren't giving a shit and thus provisional government fell. There is this lovely tidbit in Victor Sebestyen Russian Revolution:

[V. Sebestyen, Russian Revolution,p.98-99]

So apathy amongst the populace is in his view a big factor as well in the revolution's success? Not to discount the Kerensky government's being out of touch, but that was a lesser factor? That seems to imply that a shitshow goes to shit not only from malign leadership, but also from the refusal of the people to actually do something.

Yes. But to make it more understandable don't think of it as revolution. Bolsheviks were simply a junta that took over not vanguard of masses which is how they liked to portray themselves. At this point Kerensky gov was in shambles but it could be saved if people would give a shit. Again bolshevik forces were relatively small they simply didn't met much resistance because of Kerensky incompetence, war, hunger... Also yes things went to shit because of those two factors (among others) but shitty leadership precedes and causes apathy. In the beginning Kerensky had support and he squandered it; his decision to remain at war for which Russia was simply unprepared was big part of it.

Politicians create shitty conditions and then they're surprised that populace is not willing to bail them. That's the moral here from my pov at least. Of course people aren't entirely blameless but expecting that Russians living under tyranny from times immemorial will fight to safeguard gov that sent their fathers and sons to slaughter against force which promised peace would be naive. Even if bolsheviks promises sounded too good to be true.