I’m in full agreement with all of this post. Mostly because it seems to back my point that it isn’t about ideology, it’s about human nature.
I guess an interesting question to bring us back on topic is: was Ghenghis Khan evil or good?
You can’t disconnect the two.
American conservatism doesn’t, which is why the ideas around it are in no small part centered around limiting the possibility for a Genghis Khan to arise as a byproduct of the political process. It hasn’t resulted in the best leaders at all times, but it certainly hasn’t gotten us any Genghis Khans, Hitlers or Stalins.
Can you imagine what those guys would do with the military power of the United States?
Communism and its cousins, socialism and Marxism, always seem to result in sociopaths attaining enough power to starve millions, ruin economies and deliver abject misery to the very people who so enthusiastically supported the latest person to come along, point out the imperfect and unfair outcomes in the world, and insist that they will deliver social justice. They do this over and over, again and again, on large scales (Stalin, Mao), medium scales (Chavez, Castro) and small scales (Jim Jones). They do this because people support the ideology and the people who espouse it.
They all have the same ingredients baked into their shitty cakes. If we’re to understand how evil comes into the world, we have to recognize the patterns under which evil outcomes take shape.
That’s a tough one, because none of us can remotely relate to his society, culture, religion or upbringing. Stalin and Hitler had experiences much like ours, minus the internet.
I see it as a case of long-running abuse, if I’m to put it in modern terms. It’s not unlike how I view my nephew. His behavior is not good by any means. Lying and stealing is wrong, especially when you’re doing it to your family. I expect more from him, while at the same time realizing that he was raised by his drug addict grandmother who only raised him because she had her act more together than his drug addict parents.
He’s didn’t grow up in conditions that were likely to produce something other than what he has become. Hopefully he turns it around.
2 Likes
I was trying so hard to move it away from this, but i guess we are where we are.
I agree that communism has failed everytime it has been tried because (in my opinion), it fails to recognise human nature. It will never work because; humans.
I don’t think genocides and famine are a uniquely communist thing, they’ve happened throughout history. Plenty of both have happened because of Capitalism, as well as probably every other system of government. The common theme here isn’t communism, it’s humans.
I disagree: socialism seems to be working quite well in many countries around the world. It’s still early days, you may yet be proved right, but as of right now, i believe that liberal socialism has the best track record.
1 Like
Totally agree with all of this. I’m very much on board with Dan Carlins “people everywhere and everywhen are essentially the same, minus upbringing” theory.
1 Like
I hear you, but to what? Some discussion of good and evil that overlooks the worst acts of evil?
Besides, even I like a little bit of socialism in my constitutional republic, but it’s playing with fire.
You’re absolutely correct, and this is exactly why communism and, yes, socialism are fundamentally rotten ideologies. They don’t account for human behavior. They treat people as interchangeable widgets expected to comply with their vision for a better future. Equally troubling are the types of people who seem to latch on to these visions of humanity, always ready to give the murderous tyrants with the right rhetoric the boost they need to assume power in the first place.
Good economies can and should get away with a little bit of socialism, but that fire gets out of control really fast if you’re not careful.
1 Like
Like the Atlantic slave trade? Or the extermination of indigenous people brought on by rampant capitalism? Or shall we only talk about the communist ones?
Totally agree with you. I think i probably like a bit more socialism in my stew to avoid capitalism moving towards feudalism, but i agree there needs to be a balance between the two.
1 Like
In my experience, the rotten part of capitalism, the part that’s also attributable to human behavior, is that as businesses strive to get bigger and richer, they almost always end up exploiting people, resources, or the environment.
2 Likes
That’s why it’s so hard to pin down Genghis Khan’s motivations. He was a product of his time, place and people in a way that is profoundly different than any of our lives. There is nobody alive today who understands what it was like to be raised among steppe nomads, where survival dictated the harsh way of life that we can so casually label as “abusive parenting” today in 2022.
If anything, he was a force of nature. A product of the swirling social, political and cultural weather patterns that were taking place in the storm lands of the Eurasian steppe in the 13th century.
Let’s not forget that the Chinese spent a lot of time building some really famous walls to keep these steppe nomads out. I have no doubt they had their fair share of “BUILD THE WALL” politicians over the millennia, going all the way back to the proto-Mongolic Xiongnu over 1000 years before Genghis Khan.
I’m guessing the people on the Chinese side of the wall were not particularly understanding of the troubled and harsh upbringing of the people coming to kill them and take their stuff.
Sure, as long as you’re ready to talk about how the Atlantic slave trade was corrected out of our system in a rather unique way over 150 years ago with the blood of millions of volunteers.
When do you expect the Han might take up arms in defense of their Uighur comrades? 2030?
This is also a fire that can get out of control, which is why government is important to have.
1 Like
But you can.
The will of a person and their actions is the impetus by which a philosophy manifests.
If the person is evil, the manifestation of a philosophy will reflect that.
2 Likes
I’m not sure how “ready” i need to be. That feels like a Totalitarianism vs. Democracy thing rather than a Capitalism vs. Communism thing. Unless you’re suggesting that communism requires totalitarianism to operate on a large scale, in which case i’m in total agreement. That doesn’t change the fact that capitalism directly caused the atlantic slave trade, among many other things. Do you feel that the fact that it stopped eventually mitigates the fact that it happened? Because that feels like a big can of worms to open.
Communism requires a very powerful government in order to operate. Theoretically, that government could have a representative character, but at best it would just be the tyranny of the majority. Limiting the power of the government, even when it is operating under the authority of majority rule, is far more important to a free society than representative government. I think we would find it much more comfortable to live under a government with very limited power wielded by an unelected autocrat than a government with absolute power wielded by the majority.
And that is the problem with Communism. The government has to have incredible power for it to work.
Of course, the above statements about an unelected autocrat with limited power are theoretical. In practice, serious thought would have to go into determining how to actually enforce limits on the power of an unelected autocrat. Similarly, a very powerful government will generally tend to concentrating power into the hands of a few who would then make the representative character of the government vestigial.
2 Likes
Sorry, I didn’t put it in very good terms.
The constitutional framework laid down by our slave-owning founders is what allowed for slavery to be corrected out of our system. This wasn’t a door left open by accident. This constitutional framework is, generally-speaking, the type of government that conservatives support. That doesn’t mean that conservatives and especially Republicans are beyond reproach or somehow bereft of normal human shortcomings.
It just means we’ve always been on the winning side of ideas and history, because the basic notions of good and evil haven’t really shifted all that much in the last few centuries. Not here in the USA, at least. Americans willingly fought a war to end slavery, won, and it’s been understood to be a national mark of shame since.
I see that as a very positive outcome of a well thought-out political framework and a healthy society centered around freely helping one another. That’s always been the secret advantage of the USA. We’ve been able to freely choose who we offer help to for our own reasons, and having surplus time and resources to do it.
The Chinese Communist Party is an evil political organization, fundamentally different in motives, values, and ideas about government’s role and level of authority compared to nearly any government in the west.
If you don’t believe me, ask a Uighur Muslim.
Nobody said the thread needs to be strictly apolitical, the suggestion was simply made to not spend the entire time focusing on berating one side of the political spectrum. It’s tiresome, and I’m pretty sure you know that this topic wasn’t started for the sake of railing against one side or the other. PLENTY of other threads exist on here that are precisely that ad nauseum. Just be a little more creative, my man. I think this thread has a lot of potential, I’d like to see that realized.
2 Likes
Fair enough.
I’m open to berating both sides, by the way, if someone can find the example of modern conservative policies or values leading to mass murder that we can dive into.
I’m also ready to move on to a less political discussion of good and evil, and especially weird things (which is why I brought up Jim Jones!). What can of worms should we open up in the good and evil thread next?
1 Like
How about serial killers!?!
Everybody has a favorite serial killer. Lets examine which of the classic deadly sins drove their compulsion to kill.
Unlike the open pit of politics, the depraved depths of the Cave of Serial Killer Stories remain unknown to me. I get uncomfortable when I read about this stuff because some of my exes were REALLY into these stories, and I have lingering concerns about their long-term plans.
So…
They really liked serial killers And you.
And You’re worried about Them?
Kidding, of course. The only real wierdo we’ve had on here was that Klipmet dude. He seemed to really be a couple of clicks off kilter.
3 Likes
No that was a really great dig I was struggling to come up with a good reply to. You got me, I seem to be quite similar to Dexter, only uglier, smarter, and without the murderous impulses and saltwater fishing boat.
That was a nice boat. Not too fancy, but great for his purposes.
Just like mine. The vinyl floors are easily hosed off, no matter what sort of fish we might catch that day.
I see no need to go into further details of what happens on my boat. Let’s stay on-topic, shall we?
When it comes to serial killers, who may or may not have boats like mine, are they all evil, end-of-story?
H.H. Holmes qualifies as evil in my book even if all of his unproven claims of evil deeds happened to be false, simply for the act of making the claims. Just a piece of human trash whose circumstances need not be contemplated deeply before he is discarded to everyone’s benefit.
For an example of a religious cult that took shape without any real political organization beyond the personal level, how about The Family?
Good, Evil or somewhere in between?
I say evil.
2 Likes
