Your opinion does not matter, I am not saying this because you are invalid. I am saying this because this is not the thing i wanna talk with you.
“human nature” these two words mean nothing and even more than being meaningless these two words are harmful. What human nature? Are there any scientific proofs that something is “human nature”. It has no logic behind yet it is accepted by you and excepted to accept by the reader.
There is no such thing as human nature. Human nature is when you have two hands. Human nature is not when “if someone gains power the power corrupts the powerholder.” there is a chance that it may not occour. It is not certain. the situation of that “human nature” is not very specified. thats why it has no meaning behind it.
The second i wanna point is that the “human nature” is always used against communism. Communism is not well with human nature. okay, sure. What about capitalism. you are either capitalist or communist. You want either private property exist or not. capitalism harms people so it is not very well with human nature either. Power also corrupts in capitalism. Elon Musk is the dictionary defination of power corrupts.
If power corrupts then under capitalism it also is power corrupts if human nature is not well with communism same goes with capitalism.
It is not just you that say this human nature. It is nothing personal. I really do hate that fallacy.
Re-read my post.
I was not making any human nature claims about Communism, I was making them about what happens around dictatorial power.
WinGirl99@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 days ago
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Two points:
- Methinks you’re fighting a battle against somebody else other than me and the point I was making.
- “Human nature” is just a short way of referring to the complex subject of certain behaviors present in some individuals and how they interact with human group dynamics, similarly to how “Theory of Evolution” is a short way of referring to the complex subject of how genetic traits that provide small advantages with reproductive success consequences can through time and the law of large number spread to alter an entire population or even create new species. In fact both those things are correlated.
Call it whatever you want: you can’t logically deny that some behavioral traits present in some humans cause them to seek or even create positions were they have power over others, structures which they then defend, preserve and extend whilst they extract personal upsides from their positions in it, and that group systems were there is already a single power pole with little or no effective independent oversight are way easier to take over by such people than systems with multiple power poles which keep each other in check.
(In summary people who lust after power will do whatever it takes to keep it going once they get it)
And yeah, this applies just as much to the dictatorships calling themselves “Communist” as it does to “Capitalist” systems - we’ve been seeing in the last 3 or 4 decades in Neoliberal so called “Democracies” Money subverting the supposedly independent Pillars of Democracy (though in some countries, not really: for example in many countries those at the top of the Political Pillar choose who heads the Judicial Pillar) to make itself power above all others, all this driven by individuals with those very behavioral traits I mentioned above, just starting from further behind (having to first undermine multi-polar power systems) that similar people trying to take over autocratic systems were power is already concentrated in a single pole that answers to nobody else.
Are you denying that amongst humans there are people with the behavioral trait of seeking power at any cost? Are you denying once such people get said power they don’t do whatever it takes to keep it going, including preserving the societal and political structures that maintain said situation even whilst telling everybody else “this is only temporary”? Are you denying that it’s easier to capture power in that way in systems where its already concentrated in a single place which is not kept in check by independent entities which can overthrow it?
And I’m not even going it things like groupthink and “yes men” and how such elements in human groups can pervert ever the most honest holders of power.
Battling against the expression “human nature” doesn’t change the fact that these traits exists in many humans and the dynamics of their interaction with human social structures.
WinGirl99@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Nice answer and i do really appreciate your answer thanks for your hard work to write it it.
“Human nature” is just a short way of referring to the complex subject of certain behaviors present in some individuals and how they interact with human group dynamics, similarly to how “Theory of Evolution” is a short way of referring to the complex subject of how genetic traits that provide small advantages with reproductive success consequences can through time and the law of large number spread to alter an entire population or even create new species. In fact both those things are correlated.
Evolution has scientific articles behind it. Do you have scientific articles behind your “human nature” claims. Its science’s job to analyse “nature”. If such phenomena existed there would be articles about it. Please send it.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Yeah, Science does have scientific articles behind what I referred to in a simplified way as “human nature” - the entire domains of Psychology and Sociology deal with that and beyond that, even Behavioral Economics concerns itself with how Humans act though in a more restricted set of conditions.
Then there is History, which concerns itself with how Humans have acted in the past.
In fact “How humans act” seems to be a rather important subject for Humans which gets reflected in how quite a lot of Science being done about it.
Those being such massive domains I, you can find those articles you are clearly so interested in yourself, in places like arXiv.
I suggest you start by looking into Sociopathy, Psychopathy, Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Megalomania from the domain of Psychology.
Have fun!
CannonFodder@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Interesting take. But there is some truth to the notion of ‘human nature’. Humans do act certain ways; we retract from pain, we attempt to solve problems and communicate. Whether it is ‘human nature’ that dictatorship power corrupts people can only be inferred by the examples we have seen. If you can show that a dictatorship didn’t lead to abuse of power in some significant number of cases, then it would be proven false. But there’s the problem - and it’s more of a logical one - no system can make everyone happy and so from at least some perspectives, any political system will be seen as corrupt by some. So we can never have a dictatorship that isn’t considered corrupt. Just like we can’t have a democracy / capitalist society that isn’t considered corrupt by some. All we can do is look at observed general patterns and try to extrapolate. And there aren’t enough examples to do a really convincing statistical analysis. So far it seems that humans in power always abuse that power, so it’s reasonable to conclude that that is a natural human tendency, like continuing to breath when able.
WinGirl99@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Interesting take. But there is some truth to the notion of ‘human nature’. Humans do act certain ways; we retract from pain, we attempt to solve problems and communicate.
Yes but these are psychological behaviours of humans. Psychology as it is name suggest psycho-logia is a scientific branch. One must speak about that “human nature” if they have scientific data. And instantly that would not be human nature at all because scientific researches have titles like “the change of bird population in cyprus in tha last 50 years” and not “bird nature”
> Whether it is ‘human nature’ that dictatorship power corrupts people can only be inferred by the examples we have seen. If you can show that a dictatorship didn’t lead to abuse of power in some significant number of cases, then it would be proven false.
It is a generalization not a fact. You cant build up your argument on a generalization and say that it is “human nature”. As if humans have evolved by a scientifically approved fact that to do that. While i agree on power corrupts i have awareness of that "if we give one person all the power the probability of it will ruin them is very high. Very bold of someone to label something as “natural”.
I am okay with going “statics show that humans are tend to do xyz” I am not okay just saying “human nature”
WinGirl99@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 days ago
oh btw i am an anarchist. Anarchy also is not well with “human nature”. So dont think I am a Marxist-leninist and defending them. I just…
…hate that word.