#neo-rousseauianism

[philosopherking1887]

Say it with me, kids: human beings are fundamentally a mix of good and evil.*

This has been the case at all times and in all places, as you can see throughout recorded history and oral traditions, which all contain stories of violence and cruelty as well as kindness and generosity. These tendencies occur in different proportions in different individuals. But the world is not divided into a majority of inherently-all-good people and a minority of inherently-all-evil people who could ideally be weeded out, and the worldview that says it is is incredibly dangerous for reasons that should be glaringly obvious.

* Good currently being understood to mean altruistic, cooperative, peaceable, and evil to mean selfish, violent, exploitative. This has not always been the most important value axis in all societies. There have historically been a lot of warrior cultures, in every part of the world.

[philosopherking1887]

Thank fuck someone other than me has finally said this. I'm usually the only one screaming at people to stop falling into the dichotomy of "humans are inherently good" or "humans are inherently bad/evil" -- and usually in response to the current Leftist fashion of insisting that they're inherently good, as a reaction to Calvinist-capitalist-Hobbesian pessimism about human nature or simpleminded readings of Lord of the Flies. I don't usually see people on Tumblr actually taking the La Rochefoucauld line! (That bit of diversity is refreshing in itself, even if it's equally misguided.)

I would, however, like to insist on consistency about that "there is no morality in nature" thing. What we now think of as being "good" is helping everyone and hurting no one (except, perhaps, those who deserve it because they have harmed others), but that has not always been the case. The idea of a universal obligation of altruism is a historically recent, unusual development. What has constituted being "good" in most historical contexts is helping members of Our Community (clan, tribe, city, nation, ethnos) and hurting The Enemy (rival clans, tribes, etc.). The human capacity for violence and cruelty has historically been regarded as essential to the survival of communities, just as much as our capacity for compassion and benevolence -- the two impulses just had to be directed at the right targets. And of course that must be the case: if our capacity for altruism was the only thing that was conducive to our survival as a species, or that communities have valued throughout evolutionary and cultural history, why would we still have the tendencies to violence and cruelty? Wouldn't they have fallen away, or been bred out, so to speak?

That doesn't mean that we should still value both tendencies; maybe it is best for us as a species now -- or conforms to some deeper moral truth (if you're into that kind of thing) -- if we value only the tendency to help others and never the tendency to harm them (except, as rarely as possible, in self-defense, or possibly punishment for prior harm; different versions of the 'morality of compassion' differ in their stance on retributive punishment). But we do need to accept that both tendencies exist. We should not regard those who have uncooperative, selfish, or even violent impulses as dangerous anomalies that can be eliminated once and for all (by guillotining the billionaires, say, or castrating rapists); and we should not assume that these tendencies are only the products of a specific cultural environment and will magically disappear when that corrupt environment is abolished -- usually, in Leftist discourse, white Western modern capitalist culture (and this post does not entirely escape that particular cliché). Yes, of course, socialization and education can encourage one or the other to a greater degree, but humans are not completely blank slates, either, and both original tendencies will be present in the population, and in most individuals, for the foreseeable future (unless we find a way to "breed out" the selfish and/or cruel tendencies -- which I'm assuming no one around here thinks is a morally acceptable goal to have). So if we're going to be serious about imagining what a better, more humane post-capitalist society might look like, it would be in our interests to assume that the "impulse to evil" (to use the traditional Jewish term) will continue to arise in people naturally and decide how to handle that rationally and humanely, instead of assuming that there will be no more bad behavior in our post-capitalist utopia because there will be nothing to corrupt the pure goodness of human nature, and then having no idea what to do when some people inevitably don't cooperate.

Humans pretend to be good in small ways for social clout but underneath where it counts, very definitely all selfish and bad.

[collecting-thedots]

ASEAN-China Relationship

The core genesis of the rising Middle Kingdom (China) resided in neither transcendent nor a ripple effect; it was a raison d'etre of Machiavellian metaphysical to conquer fortune by force through implementing of 'virtue.' Parodical yet quavered on the maxim of 'made in China,' leveraging miracles from low-wage laborers abandoning the teaching of Confucianism (Plekhanov, 2017) – proclaimed from the rectitude of David Ricardo. Conspiring further in a notion of purpose for a subtle pugnacious strategy, pondered over the Empire's feebleness and embarked on a somber judgment at the mercy of the sun as the Japanese marched in red and white for the second time at the onset of World War II. Concluding the profound and prolonged ambition of a former calloused potentate Deng Xiaoping's open-door doctrine, a directed derivative to counter the existing war criminal status of Japan – rapidly conceding to an archetypal neo-liberalism industrialization reform progressively withdrawing itself from Tokugawa shogunate approach while maintaining an ethos of an orthodox nationalist sentiment. Further, carved threats from the West showing territorial infringement as an indirect appliance of 'divide and conquer,' mechanism attaining goals sought to suppress, demand decisive conquest of land and glory of the 'enemy' (e.g., USSR and currently Hong Kong), edging over the implicit tit for tat Sino-ASEAN (Association of SouthEast Asian Nation) courting.  

A reflection from History  

Following the growth of China's significant veil of cunningness, though not as expeditious as Japan, the Meiji Restoration reverted to the 1800s, since the first Opium War (1842), leasing Hong Kong to the British (Editors, 2010). Pulsating a baseline of consciousness fed upon Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Nietzsche wrote 'Leviathan' and 'the Will to Power,' – entitled a quintessence of greed that human characteristic is entrenched hereditary withheld high esteem of motion of subjugations (Jones, 2014) – did not acknowledge the customs of a Rousseauian carnation of the state of nature. Begrudge for power, the means of survival is indeed necessary to inflict brutality, ending a trepidation and suffering synonymous with their Emperor hitherto harboring the same sensation of repulsion. In years to come, communism became a known symbol of anguish associated with despotism – in favor of the West vindicated among intellectuals as left-nationalist regiments redacted and interjected homogenous mode of  history manufacturing a unique progeny of China's traditional holistic narrative of national legacy and social dynamics (Wennan, 2013) – averting isolationism was needed, towards latter expansionist – feasible application of Sun Tzu wisdom of the art of subduing the enemy, maneuvered the systematic double-edged sword amicable relationship between Mao Zedong and Richard Nixon preserving the first tier of self-interest hidden in a spiral web of political volition that evokes a blunder on 1971 represented several existing hints of a refurbished economic dominance concealed by the one China policy – to oust and integrate Taiwan (an unsinkable aircraft carrier), induced by the United Nation (U.N.) resolution 2758 (The Learning Network, 2011). Considering the Cold War, China's continuous greed was formed by a shrewd modus operandi form of formidable mandatory interdependency of international trade and 'debt traps.' Its realization of the intended brand of 'an enemy state' rekindles a working sense endowed from a lack of pragmatic and functional cultural dialogue between moieties diminishing barriers created by stigmatization, prejudice, and a quid pro quo racial representation system. Perhaps, indeed, it is in dire exigency of an equilibrium form of soft power within a political agency (e.g., Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)). An achievement of the last few years attached to a potent beguiling diplomacy setting in ASEAN, a position hindered from peace and central to the new conflict (e.g., Philippines.) Coincide with a divergent pragmatic perception of 'altruistic acts,' law-abiding and economical nation-building designs under the mannerism of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) countering this predilection of American imperialist brute force. While ascending another regency of their sphere of influence by subscribing to a signed pompous attitude within Taiwan's (Formosa) periphery.

The Challenges for ASEAN  

At present, close to at most a faux pas explosive quasi-war (ought to come) expressing other subjects of concern abide by the South China Sea – a fragment of a grim and capricious future rooted by propaganda. Both hegemonies who are passionate about a recognition of their 'legitimate aim' towards a joint' alliance' were reminded of each other's military posture departing to the frontlines while continuing on a constant prime foreign visitation here in the region. Reading the novelty of bulletins to some degree restrained – allure cynicism as U.S.' hawkish imperialist' implored for securing America's back door, adding fuel to the fire of retaliation of harangues by the Chinese. Meanwhile, ASEAN – outraged by U.S-China folly for dominance yet yielding to a discerned ideological allegiance, a mere pawn for various meanings' (Khoman, 1992). The supplemental narrative detailed at this moment cascading down by once a regional annexation – today impend direct malpractice of the inscribed Code of Conduct (CoC), putting afresh pernicious pressure on the definitive Westphalian sovereignty – through acquiescent political elections, under previous anachronistic cortege of communist brigades followed, soon led several militia groups into guerilla warfare – rapidly a contingency installment of a protracted pro-west coalition while upholding 'Asian values.' Together with the massive Chinese diaspora seeking a permissible abode of mercy from exogenous (e.g., Japanese Occupation) and endogenous oppressions (e.g., Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Square massacre), which one might label them as a 'perpetual foreigner' vis-a-vis to an apostate of their pledging loyalty of implacable hatred to another. Settled upon an integrated and predominant collective location (e.g., Chinatown), cornered by an adjoining section of prolonged hate crimes.

 Ruminate and relive of the repressed – succumbed to unrest slaughter – surrounded by many rational actors believing a maximum utility distribution of justice, amalgamates a thrust of perquisite favorability for a predominant neutrality which only furnish venues for capital ventures of foreign investments, especially for an outlook of export-driven and import-dependent as well as portion of state-led arrangements. (Jones, 2012) Fixating on prior U.S. robust economic frameworks which brought a striving South East Asia (SEA) galvanizing several members as 'second-tier Tiger economies,' while an appeal to communism (e.g., including China-ASEAN comprehensive Strategic Partnership. (CSP)) could denigrate reputation and questioning its protracted relevancy (Jones, 2012), defaming and disjoining of eastern markets by year-on-year plights, vindicating at-present from prominent plagues (e.g., COVID-19), China's Lehman-style debt crisis and 'DiDi chungxing' incessant probe. Dreading over a distinct reparative loop of the expedited rise of nationalist malevolence – an encumbrance for upper echelons as a part of a sweeping appeal for a political familiarity of the virtuous 'invisible hand.' Finding little or no credence in religion binding on a renowned 'hell,' "reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." (Dante et al., 2001). Lust after self-preservation, an inference to a frivolous balderdash of an equivocal ostentatious and impotent communique while maintaining a de facto still clandestine coupling with the perpetrators – feasting upon marginalized coteries under either a republic of a communist stratocracy or a pseudo-democracy. 

A more recent display of provocation on the conventical barbaric behavior – abstaining from any moral rationalism and conscience – looming over Indonesia and Myanmar, the abhor was reciprocated and resented on the Chinese and militia-style vanguards as old foe beneath an obituary of 'Mayard' – pig hogs to be slaughter in May, (Ancestry, 2013) or a lament massacre in February. Harvesting from economic inequality and high inflation rates, a sequel for a condition of ruination diverged from the complex network of trade with intended or inadvertent economic issues as such fundamental nature is a "ubiquitous mass power of destruction" (e.g., Asian Financial Crisis 1997-1998) alluding to Henry Kissinger within his magnum opus nonfiction literacy on China. Punctured into a litany of chaotic and anarchic shifts registered in an insurrection determined from the course of History, sighting forth this animosity towards the traditional social structure – a façade emulates an 'impromptu' omnipresent plunge of polities. (Jones, 2012) 

The Opportunities 

Exposed to the Chinese advocacy of Western pretexts conveying the reminiscent of the poignant milieu of the Holocaust, an adversary to totalitarianism and brutality, believing an entente of humanist and democracy, a moral paragon nurturing the chorus of a sympathetic Christian man where  humanity is not a defeat but a tool of deliverance from evil – indeed worthy of one's praise (which they are not.) As instances of enmity occur domestically bounding with Jim Crow's rule of law and far-reaching proxy wars sequencing on the bipolar foundation throughout the Cold War (e.g., Vietnam War) – submerged a wolf in sheep's clothing inclusive of double standards shaded upon political grand standings juxtaposition to the pariah states of the East (e.g., Russia, China, Cambodia,) Excogitate from an old and new tidal wave of the geopolitical crusade, moreover, albeit proven effete in a confrontational fashion of interregional conflict management. An extended dedication, coinage of five SEA countries ordained by the 'Bangkok Declaration' (1967) for the common objective for ASEAN's best interest is to pivot itself in a ripen solidarity and neutrality, intent upon to continue on that ambition, seem requisite on restoring Thailand's derived allegorical eloquence paean on an embed cumbersome coalesce of 'flexible engagement.' 

Albeit fearing withal a 'crucial battle' for a legitimate successor tempted by nationalist insurgency, now an 'earnest' critical juncture – a deliberate necessity for proximate institutional developments, mold to merge with the pertinent complex and profound free trade economy linkage. Subsequently, it bestows an egalitarian dissemination of states' net profit closing margins of multidimensional disparities. Subordinate to an aphorism of 'Brains before brawns,' – patterns of globalization encompass the intrinsic Keynesian principles of trade relations, intensifyingthe multipolar cohabitation especially presided over the U.S.–China liaison reconsider the severity of conflict escalation. However, condemn with morbid irony for such a cult of 'The Great Illusion,' to be assigned in this modern times as Norman Angell himself ruminates at a time of previous deviance performance submissive to the Great War, aiming the discourse to dispirit the Germans then continuous pursue of naval dominance which is felled. Nonetheless, receptive apropos to Angell's thesis – fostering 'good-faith' collective consciousness, featured upon the tenacious Indo-Pacific an affiliation with pro-rata economic distributions of multilateral trading expedient (Tong, 2000). As the first benign objective of the free-trade commitment between China-ASEAN focused on a zeal for higher qualities and competitive commodities, expenditures encompass a leeway to a sanguine future of affordable and sustainable living. 

Open to traversable dominion agreed among a settlement of powers attached to an ipso facto capitalist essential of the factor of productions that allow determining an after that 'gilded age' flow through other interchangeable long-term stakes; science (e.g., health and agricultural), cybernetic technologies, cybersecurity infrastructures, green-energy, and innovations. A bedrock for hope and socio-economic recovery from other egregious calamities committed from a cardinal sin and the withal unfolded perplexity of these last two-and-a-half year COVID-19 pandemic leaving a strain macroeconomic (global supply chain) and microeconomic (household) disturbance, a primary corollary of the 'vagaries of international politics' (Khoman, 1992).  

Conclusion 

In summary, a connotation of the SEA geopolitical and economic landscape refers to the volatile metamorphosis of global politics. The premeditated reform of China's grand strategy has tackled domestic and international affairs, flirting with Indo-Pacific states. Specifically, SEA has brought a nostalgic precaution for Americans while a new haughty lane of expansionism for China – contemplated from History. Further, abiding by a dissonance of U.S-China relations within the South China Sea, continue to evaluate the costs and benefits for ASEAN that demands greater solidarity and neutrality to maintain regional stability and prosperity, which might evitable possible scenarios for any repeated human rights violations under the circumstances of an armed conflict. 

Bibliography 

Ancestry. (2013). Mayard Family History. Oxford University Press. https://www.ancestry.com/name origin?surname=mayard#:~:text=Mayard%20Name%20Meaning,- 

French%3A%3A%20variant&text=nickname%20derived%20from%20Old%20Occitan,be%20slaughte red%20in%20May)'. 

Angell, N. (1911). The great illusion: A study of the relation of military power in nations to their  economic and social advantage. Toronto: McClelland and Goodchild.  

Buszynski, L. (1992). Southeast Asia in the Post-Cold War Era: Regionalism and Security. Asian  Survey, 32(9), 830–847. https://doi.org/10.2307/2645074 

Dante Alighieri & Ciardi, J. (2001). The inferno. Signet Classic.  

Editors, History.com (2010). British agrees to return Hong Kong to China. A & E Television Networks.  https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/britain-agrees-to-return-hong-kong-to-china 

Escribà-Folch, A., Böhmelt, T., & Pilster, U. (2020). Authoritarian regimes and civil–military relations:  Explaining counterbalancing in autocracies. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 37(5), 559– 579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894219836285 

Jones, L. (2012). ASEAN after the Cold War: Capital, Crisis, Conflict. In: ASEAN, Sovereignty and  Intervention in Southeast Asia. Critical Studies of the Asia Pacific Series. Palgrave Macmillan,  London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230356276_6 

Jones, O. (2014). Grotesque Inequality is not a natural part of being human. The Guardian.  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/24/grotesque-inequality-greed-human-nature capitalism 

Khoman, T. (1992). Asean conception and evolution. Reprinted from the ASEAN reader. Institute of  Southeast Asian Studies. https://asean.org/about-asean/the-founding-of-asean/asean-conception-and evolution-by-thanat-khoman/ 

Kissinger, H. (2012). On China. Penguin Books.  

Machiavelli, N., & Bull, G. (2003). The Prince. Penguin Classics. 

Plekhanov, D. (2017). Is China’s Era of Cheap Labor Really Over?. The Diplomat.  https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/is-chinas-era-of-cheap-labor-really-over/

Suvannaphakdy, S. (2022). U.S-China Rivalry in Regional Economic Cooperation: Opportunities and  Challenges for ASEAN. Fulcrum. https://fulcrum.sg/u-s-china-rivalry-in-regional-economic cooperation-opportunities-and-challenges-for-asean/ 

The Learning Network. (2011). People’s Republic of China In, Taiwan Out at. UN. The New York  Times. https://archive.nytimes.com/learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/oct-25-1971-peoples republic-of-china-in-taiwan-out-at-un/ 

Tong, Goh Chok. (2000). ASEAN- US Relations: Challenge. https://asiasociety.org/asean-us-relations challenges 

Tzu, S. (2009). The art of war. Penguin.  

Wennan, L. (2013). Reflections on Chinese revolutionary history and its contemporary legacy  introduction. Journal of Modern Chinese History. Volume 7. Issue 2: Chinese Revolutions in the  Twentieth Century. 240-241.  

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/17535654.2013.854947?scroll=top&needAccess=tru e

[baeddel]

In the late sixties, educators in more than thirty German cities and towns began establishing experimental day-care centers, where children were encouraged to be naked and to explore one another’s bodies. “There is no question that they were trying (in a desperate sort of neo-Rousseauian authoritarian antiauthoritarianism) to remake German/human nature,” Herzog writes.

New York Times (csa warning in link)

[alexshantz]

Ultra-Leftism and the Dark Enlightenment

Ultra is a word of Latin origin which means “on the far side of, beyond.” Ultra-leftism is a political current aimed at transcending or “going beyond” or “getting to the other side” of conventional leftist values, such as equality and anti-capitalism, within the emerging Dark Enlightenment. Neo-reactionary proponents of the Dark Enlightenment reject some Enlightenment principles (often conventionally associated with the left) such as democracy and a progressive view of history. They embrace some features from the Dark Ages such a reinstatement of natural aristocracy and monarchy. Ultra-leftism is a characterized by egalitarianism, radical democracy, pro-globalism, anti-universalism, anti-hierarchy, and non-linear/cylical conception of history. It is a Rousseauian resurrection of egalitarian rage against the intolerable material conditions and structural inequalities under late capitalism. Ultra-leftism is the terrific and total imposition of the general will onto the forces of neo-reaction; for they left us no other option as they gutted liberal democracy.

[philosopherking1887]

Another rant about Neo-Rousseauianism on the Left

Why do people in the online Left have to set up this false dichotomy between “people are inherently evil” (i.e., selfish, competitive, aggressive) and “people are inherently good” (i.e., altruistic, cooperative, caring -- since those are the meanings we all tend to assume these days)? Showing examples of people being altruistic, or evidence that ancient humans cared for the vulnerable in their communities, doesn’t prove that that is the pure, sole essence of human nature; it shows that that’s part of human nature.

Human beings everywhere, in all cultures and time periods, have always shown a mix of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ behavior. Both tendencies exist in all groups; (almost) all individuals have both tendencies within them. Why is it so difficult to draw the inference that both are equally natural, and neither is a mere imposition of the artificial conditions of civilization (or capitalism, or Western colonialism, or whatever)? Then you won’t be ~shocked~ when people sometimes are selfish and violent, sometimes for no good reason -- i.e., when it’s not somehow determined by their social situation (or they’ve been “corrupted by society,” in more overtly Rousseauian terms).

Why does this bother me so much? It all comes back to what my professor in a history seminar on the French Revolution said about how Rousseau’s philosophy led to the Terror, which I didn’t fully understand at the time, but which has come to make more and more sense as I spend time in Leftist spaces on the internet. Rousseau claimed that human beings are naturally good, but living in society, particularly in corrupt social structures that makes some people dependent on others, corrupts their natural inclinations to sympathy and leads to envy and the desire to dominate others. If we can just institute perfect social structures, then, everyone would return to their naturally innocent, benevolent state. (Rousseau’s own views are a little more complicated, but this is more or less how the Jacobins read it.)

But what happens when people continue to show selfishness and the desire to dominate within a social structure that has been (in theory) perfected? What’s wrong with them? Ideally, they can be ‘reeducated’; but if they persist in not being appropriately good-natured, they must be dangerous anomalies, and there’s no choice but to extirpate them from society, to purify it. This was what happened during the Terror, when people appeared to the Jacobins to be working against the good of the people (as they understood it): they must still be corrupted remnants of the old society, unsuited to have a place in the new.

Left Anarchism rests on the Rousseauian assumption that if you just leave people to their own devices, they will all be benevolent and prosocial; that what actually makes people bad is the existence of laws and institutions, and if no one has institutional power, then no one will harm or wrong anyone else. But we have zero evidence that this is true, and it honestly just seems like a perverse interpretation of human history. Under lawless as under lawful conditions, people still show a mix of benevolent, self-interested, and malicious impulses and behaviors.

The idea that humans are or should be naturally good, not naturally a mix of good and evil, encourages the idea that people should be punished not just for breaking explicit laws, but for behaving immorally (or even just having those inclinations), because it shows that they are somehow intrinsically wrong or corrupted, a dangerous deviation from wholesome human nature. And the only mechanism available to sanction anti-social or ‘immoral’ behavior in a society without laws and institutions is vigilante or ad hoc mob violence. Who decides what’s deserving of punishment? Who decides what the punishment is? Anyone and everyone. It has the potential to collapse into a kind of totalitarianism, where everyone has to fear their neighbors -- but now they have no clear way of knowing what will incur punishment. (And frankly, we already see this kind of thing in microcosm in the self-cannibalism and purity politics of online spaces dominated by certain strains of Leftist ideology and social justice rhetoric.)

A system of laws is preferable to anarchism for exactly the same reason that it’s preferable to authoritarianism and client-based systems of affiliation and loyalty (feudalism and its smaller-scale variants): it minimizes arbitrariness. Generally speaking, people have a way of knowing what they can do and what they’ll be punished for; they’re not subject to the whims of individual rulers or vigilantes. Most people will follow the laws because they want to be cooperative, or just because everyone else is doing it. But some people need the threat of predictable sanction so that their self-interest will guide them to behave in ways that are beneficial to the community. The rule of law rests on the assumption that people are a mix of altruistic and selfish, cooperative and opportunistic. Ideally, institutions moderate the ability of opportunistic individuals to wield power arbitrarily. They are built to harness a combination of the altruism and self-interest, the generosity and ambition of individuals to work for the good of the whole society.

And if the laws and institutions aren’t working for the benefit of the whole society? You change them; you don’t tear them all down on the assumption that the mere existence of institutions is what causes oppression and injustice, and that an egalitarian utopia will materialize as soon as all the Bad People (the billionaires, or the cishet white men or whatever) are guillotined (or eaten, or shot into the sun). There’s not a single class that can be identified and pruned out as the source of all evil in society. There will still be selfish, opportunistic, competitive, violent tendencies within people after the ones currently in power have been executed; you can’t rely on Fundamentally Good Human Nature to reassert itself in the absence of those Few Bad Apples.

You think there shouldn’t be billionaires? Great, I agree on that. But the solution is not to execute the people who are currently billionaires because they made all their money by exploiting people and they were immorally hoarding all their wealth instead of giving it away to people who are starving. You know what that sounds like to me? The revolutionaries beheading Louis XVI not because he broke any identifiable laws, but because “no one reigns innocently.” You can’t execute people for being immoral. You make laws so that people who are inclined to behave immorally can’t do massive harm to others without incurring predictable penalties. You rewrite the tax code so that it’s impossible for anyone to become a billionaire without breaking the law. You change employment laws so that employers can’t exploit their workers in the ways that were necessary for the owners to become billionaires. If the billionaires broke existing laws to amass their wealth, make sure they’re prosecuted “to the full extent of the law,” as they say. But the sentence for committing financial crimes, tax fraud, employment violations, etc. is unlikely to be the death penalty. Can you prove that bad working conditions caused deaths? Great, maybe you can get ‘em on negligent homicide. But there’s no sane, rational, sustainable system that can license summary executions for people who caused a lot of harm by doing bad things that were legal, or didn’t carry the death penalty, at the time they did them.

[philosopherking1887]

I couldn't just reblog a nice video of people saving a cat because OP had to use it to make the kind of neo-Rousseauian claim about the inherent goodness of human nature that is annoyingly common in the online Left.

It's not an either/or, people. Look at the fucking historical record. It's both/and.

[philosopherking1887]

I just learned that Nietzsche might have been the first to connect Rousseau’s faith in the inherent goodness of human nature to the violence of the Terror during the French Revolution, and I am SHOOK. I first heard that analysis from the professor of a history seminar on the French Revolution that I took in my first year of college, and I don’t think he cited Nietzsche. I thought the history prof must have gotten the analysis from an earlier 19th-century thinker (Burke or Constant, maybe), but I’ve been looking into their views and their blame for Rousseau doesn’t seem to have anything to do with his views on innate human goodness.

I’ve been coming back to that idea more and more as I’ve observed the rise of what I’ve been calling “neo-Rousseauianism” on the political Left, and I’m concerned about its political implications. My skepticism and wariness of the idea is very much in harmony with the aspects of my worldview that are inspired by or derived from Nietzsche, but I didn’t know that Nietzsche actually said anything about it directly in relation to Rousseau.

[philosopherking1887]

LOL, someone blocked me for suggesting that selfishness and altruism are both basic components of human nature, and that selfishness wasn’t invented by capitalism. This confirms me in my hypothesis that many people on the far Left are ideologically committed to a neo-Rousseauian worldview according to which human nature is fundamentally good, meaning altruistic and cooperative, and that people only behave in selfish and competitive ways because they’ve been corrupted away from their true nature by capitalist society. To which I would want to ask: where did capitalism come from? Aliens?

I say that they are “ideologically committed” to this view of human nature because their desired political aim -- socialist anarchism -- is only viable if they are correct, and once capitalism has been eliminated no one will try to break the social rules or free-ride. Or if they do (because those old capitalist habits might be hard to break!), they can be successfully reeducated. Except maybe for the profoundly evil ruling classes, who must be guillotined, because they are the source of all evil in society. Does any of this sound familiar?

You can’t literally blame Rousseau for the Terror, because he probably didn’t expect that his ideas would be taken as gospel by any governing regime, but there’s a reason that historians point to the Jacobins’ espousal of Rousseau’s philosophy as an important causal factor. The reason is this: if you think human nature is basically good, but certain people persist in acting badly (i.e., selfishly), you’re committed to thinking that these people are either reparably corrupted, and hence amenable to reeducation, or irreparably corrupted, or somehow not quite human. In the latter two cases, you have no choice but to eliminate them to keep them from corrupting anyone else.

Most systems of laws depend on the assumption that human beings are mostly cooperative, but sometimes they aren’t. Norms will be followed most of the time because people are cooperative and inclined to want to do their part in keeping the community running smoothly; but for people who aren’t motivated that way, there’s the threat of sanction. I fully acknowledge that capitalist culture has been damaging because it emphasizes the selfish aspect of human nature, rewards approved kinds of selfishness, and regards other kinds of antisocial behavior as inevitable and only manageable through increasingly harsh punishment. (Well, there are a lot of factors in that latter, including Christianity’s “human beings are inherently sinful” attitude.) My warning is that failing to see selfishness as equally a part of human nature, failing to expect and account for the moral grayness of human nature, can lead to horrific regimes of oppression.