Human Nature

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think human nature is good.  Trumpers are trying their level best to be their worst. Hurt people hurt people.

I just want to pull this apart a little. Why do you think human nature is good when we see so many examples throughout history of humans fucking one another over? I get your point that "hurt people hurt people" -- damaged people do damage, sure. But we also see plenty of instances of the collision of cultures where neither has had opportunity to do harm to either, yet they still go at it hammer and tongs. Just 'cause, apparently.

Who hurt the antisemites who eventually cooked up the ovens? They decided to slaughter European Jewry on the basis of ... what? What about the extermination of native Americans? Were the Europeans "hurt" by anything more than a barrier to expansion? Did aborigines in Austrailia do something wrong to earn a couple of centuries of being shitted on?

I think "hurt feelings" is a facile explanation that doesn't touch upon many older and less-political divides. Tribalism, expansionism, and a bad case of "I want what he's got" seems to be in play too.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

I know this was to thump, but i think it's a great example to establish that we're having a communication problem, not necessarily a disagreement.  Why would it not be reasonable to expect that?  Not in our natures? Not in russians natures, specifically? It sounds, to me, like you're saying politicians set them up to fail in a predictable way, given some fact of human nature.

[Ivan Denisovich]

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.

I disagree, about human nature part that is. Fascism is recent idea barely over hundred years and there is nothing hard in explaining why it got votes. Hitler was already mentioned with his luck about Great Depression. Current crop of fascists get votes for much the same reason - capitalism is failing millions of people and it was failing them for so long that they decided to turn onto other options (though I'm sure there is host of other factors like racism, bigotry, "law and order" crap...). One must also remember that fascists don't present themselves as such and people don't necessarily recognize them or agree with them being called so. Nothing in fascists electoral success (which isn't exactly earth shattering) can't be explained without conjuring specter of human nature. Neoliberalism and damage that it did to the fabric of society easily sufficess - poor might vote fascist because neoliberal policies fucked up their wallets and wealthy might vote fascist because neoliberal policies fucked up their morals.

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....

I don't spend my time on armchair psychology. For me people voting for fascists or other scum (or disregarding voting altogether) is perfectly explainable without cheap shit like human nature.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Politicians create shitty conditions and then they're surprised that populace is not willing to bail them.

Who tolerated those politicians if not the people? Or more to the point, who created them? Who created those conditions if not the people who supported those politicians you castigate? It's not like politicians are bespoke people created out of whole cloth. They come from somewhere. Whence?

I think both you and @The Grand Nudger are a lot closer in perspective than might seem apparent.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I just want to say as well to both of you that I really appreciate this discussion, there's a lot of brain-food in here. I'm headed off to bed. Thanks for the insights.

[Ivan Denisovich]

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.

I know this was to thump, but i think it's a great example to establish that we're having a communication problem, not necessarily a disagreement.  Why would it not be reasonable to expect that?  Not in our natures?  Not in russians natures, specifically?  It sounds, to me, like you're saying politicians set them up to fail in a predictable way, given some fact of human nature.

Naive might have been too soft a word. Expecting Russian to lay their lives for incompetent gov which insisted on wasting their lives in idiotic offensive would be stupid or insane. Kerensky wanted war and bolsheviks offered peace. Perhaps populace more used to self governing than people living under tsar would stick with provisional gov and try to redress it later but how can one expect that people with no experience in politics would do so when it isn't clear if even Cleisthenes would be so far sighted (and gov actually willing to hear people).

Human nature had nothing to do with it. Lack of experience (Russia as non absolute monarchy was few months old) on the other hand had everything to do with it. Also even centuries of experience wouldn't guarantee support to Kerensky nor it is clear that it would be a good option. Yes bolsheviks turned murderous but it's not like they advertised so.

[Ivan Denisovich]

Politicians create shitty conditions and then they're surprised that populace is not willing to bail them.

Who tolerated those politicians if not the people? Or more to the point, who created them? Who created those conditions if not the people who supported those politicians you castigate? It's not like politicians are bespoke people created out of whole cloth. They come from somewhere. Whence?

These politicians weren't chosen in elections. They couldn't have been with Russia being under thrall of tsar. One hardly can blame populace not used to self governing which characterizes modern world to act like they should be used to this. And even then not supporting Kerensky gov (that is gov responsible for disastrous so called Kerensky offensive and for staying in unpopular war) can hardly be deemed blameworthy without foreknowledge.

Apart from this specific case people do bear responsibility but politicians lie and there is not much that can be done after casting a vote. It's like situation in Poland now - among other things victorious coalition promised access to abortion. Bill that would provide barest minimum didn't even passed the Sejm (some say that president would have vetoed it. He would but that would hardly be a blame of anyone but him) but bill that suspend constitution (and which most certainly wasn't promised seeing as current gov was against mistreatment of migrants when it was in opposition) did pass. Now main coalition candidate is falling in the polls and of course politicians wonder why. Certainly not because they fucked up and did not provided things they promised. Having said that Poles are to blame for falling for right winger empty promises but still greater onus lies on those who deceive rather than on those who are deceived. It would be 60/40 or 55/45 of blame share though as at some point populace should fucking learn that liars don't suddenly stop lying.

I think both you and @The Grand Nudger are a lot closer in perspective than might seem apparent.

I disagree. We are worlds apart I think and similarities are superficial whereas differences are definitive (human nature as something or nothing).

[Alan V]

Humans possess a very wide range of possible behaviors in our toolbox, and we call up different responses depending on the different situations we face.

Many of those behaviors were developed during our evolutionary history, and may no longer be applicable to most modern situations.

Nevertheless, demagogues in positions of authority who routinely lie to people can push some of us into behaviors that under ordinary situations we would reject.

Such demagogues typically want more and more power due to their own specific mental health issues, so they don't mind lying to get it.

This is why democracies can be so fragile, and why factual honesty is so important to maintaining them.

So I do not inhabit a worldview in which everything, no matter what, can be blamed on politicians. As Thump said above, voters are also to blame for their own naivety and dishonesty.

Human nature is therefore another important aspect of our present problems with climate change, immigration, our economy, and our political structure.

[Ivan Denisovich]

Humans possess a very wide range of possible behaviors in their toolbox, and they call up different responses depending on the different situations they face.

Many of those behaviors were developed during their evolutionary history, and may no longer be applicable to most modern situations.

Nevertheless, demagogues in positions of authority who routinely lie to people can push some of them into behaviors that under ordinary situations they would reject.

Such demagogues typically want more and more power due to their own specific mental health issues, so they don't mind lying to get it.

This is why democracies can be so fragile, and why factual honesty is so important to maintaining them.

So I do not inhabit a worldview in which everything, no matter what, can be blamed on politicians.  As Thump said above, voters are also to blame for their own naivety and dishonesty.

Politicians who aren't demagogues (that is politicians who don't champion cause of common men) lie too. It's not a fault specific to type of politicians that you don't like. Also lies aren't needed to push people to do things they wouldn't otherwise. Truth suffices too.

Nice armchair psychology - demagogues (yes, yes I get that nowadays this word is nothing more than slur but come on, it has other meaning too) want more power cause they're crazy. Politicians that you approve off meanwhile do not want more power, nor they lie to get it I suppose.

And democracy is fragile because of those dastardly demagogues, certainly not because politicians are fellating big business, don't give a shit about working class or live in ivory towers without smidge of knowledge about real people lives and their struggles. Of course truth is important but perhaps fragility of democracy could have far more causes or things like wealth inequality don't matter before the might of villainous demagogues?

You seem to inhabit worldview where bad politicians (or rather those which you deem bad) lie because of their mental issues to get more power and thus make democracy fragile. Calling it simplistic and one sided would be a compliment.

[Alan V]

I consider cynicism about politicians and democracy to be partly to blame for the political rise of a demagogue in the U.S.

The cult-like adulation of an authority figure is one of those atavisms I was referring to.

So people need to do their homework, not just adopt one posture or another.