You're strawmanning my argument. I never said anything about human nature. I said that tribalism, as a psychological principle, is inherent to humanity.

Here is an article which details some studies supporting this concept from a pop-sci website:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-reboot/202307/the-neuroscience-of-tribalism

Also, for somebody apparently on the side of historical evidence you seem to be ignoring the mountains of genocides and racially-based conflicts throughout our species' history.

I'm not saying racism is good. I'm saying that every time we see fascists come to power they have roughly a third of the population that supports them... is that just a coincidence or could there be a reason that the data is the same every time? I posit the reason that the data is the same every time is due, at least in large part, to human psychology.

Besides that, let's take this outside the concept of liberalism and capitalism, as race-based conflicts and genocides have occurred long before the creation of capitalist or liberal systems, which are truly an advent of the modern era.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're strawmanning my argument. I never said anything about human nature. I said that tribalism, as a psychological principle, is inherent to humanity.

"I didn't say anything about Human Nature, I spoke about the Nature of Humanity!" What on Earth?

Also, for somebody apparently on the side of historical evidence you seem to be ignoring the mountains of genocides and racially-based conflicts throughout our species' history.

Not in the slightest have I ignored them. What's considered natural changes alongside Mode of Production.

I'm not saying racism is good. I'm saying that every time we see fascists come to power they have roughly a third of the population that supports them... is that just a coincidence or could there be a reason that the data is the same every time? I posit the reason that the data is the same every time is due, at least in large part, to human psychology.

You would be wrong. Fascism is a result of Class Collaborationism between the Petite Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie against the decline in Capitalism. Due to their class interests, as the Petite Bourgeoisie is proletarianized, it collaborates against the Proletariat as a response to Socialism. Your position is, again, Idealism.

Besides that, let's take this outside the concept of liberalism and capitalism, as race-based conflicts and genocides have occurred long before the creation of capitalist or liberal systems, which are truly an advent of the modern era.

Yes, again, Human Nature changes alongside Mode of Production.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Please provide some form of example or evidence for any of your points rather than fancy sounding words :)

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Weimar Republic saw small business owners and large corporations collaborating against the rising Communist and Socialist movements. It wasn't random or genetic selection, it was specific classes acting in their class interests.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What do you mean by human nature changing with Mode of Production? We have quantitative psychological data for a reason, and many of the fundamentals haven't changed since long before the industrial revolution, with many people still ascribing to classical Greek and Roman philosophies or philosophies first found in the Vedic Texts or Dead Sea Scrolls. Clearly then, if these philosophies are still so valuable to modern man, man's psyche cannot have changed significantly, even over such a vast amount of time and even vaster amounts of lifestyle change. I understand that when there is less competition for resources that people tend to be more generous, but that is always true regardless of the mode of production. A surplus is a surplus is a surplus, but when a large portion of the population becomes poor/impoverished, regardless of the state of the elite, that is when tribalistic tendencies most arise. I often see ideas that the elite somehow controls the narrative, which may very well be true today, but was much less so true in the early-mid 20th century.

What we had in Germany was a portion of the population that was predispositioned towards hatred/tribalism/xenophobia/whatever. These are the people that supported and voted for Hitler. Without them, Hitler doesn't have any chance of coming to power. By and large, these people were not bourgeois nor petit-bourgeois, but proletariat, often poor and uneducated. This is the most vulnerable psychological state to the type of culture war that Hitler waged, just as Trump does now, or Netanyahu. These ideas aren't simply implanted into people, but come as a result of hardships. When people are doing poorly, they are more likely to form small groups and turn on the whole. That is a constant throughout history, as it is generally more sustainable to be in a small group, even if it forgoes other luxuries.

To be sure there is often class collaborationism, but to say that is always how fascism arises is ridiculous. For example, Toussaint and Dessalines would return the freed slaves to forced plantation labor. Plantations the generals (and later king for Dessalines) now owned as a result of the war. Another example would be Modhi in India, where there's no real threat of class consciousness because of the historical prevalence of racism/casteism. Similarly, there's no communist threat to Netanyahu's government currently genociding Gazan Palestinians.

If we're taking a more historical definition of fascism rather than my more casual usage that's fine, but I'm gonna need to brush up on specific examples bc this is not entirely my area of expertise.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago

What do you mean by human nature changing with Mode of Production?

Cultural values, ideas, and what's considered Human Nature change alongside Mode of Production. "Humans are naturally greedy" is wrong, Capitalism expresses that trait.

What we had in Germany was a portion of the population that was predispositioned towards hatred/tribalism/xenophobia/whatever. These are the people that supported and voted for Hitler. Without them, Hitler doesn't have any chance of coming to power. By and large, these people were not bourgeois nor petit-bourgeois, but proletariat, often poor and uneducated. This is the most vulnerable psychological state to the type of culture war that Hitler waged, just as Trump does now, or Netanyahu. These ideas aren't simply implanted into people, but come as a result of hardships. When people are doing poorly, they are more likely to form small groups and turn on the whole. That is a constant throughout history, as it is generally more sustainable to be in a small group, even if it forgoes other luxuries.

By and large the Proletariat supported the Communists and Socialists, while the Petite Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie supported the Nazis.

To be sure there is often class collaborationism, but to say that is always how fascism arises is ridiculous

Far from ridiculous, it's factual. Fascism isn't genetic, and it isn't just an idea thst randomly pops up. Fascism has been studied thoroughly and we know why it exists and where it comes from.

If we're taking a more historical definition of fascism rather than my more casual usage that's fine, but I'm gonna need to brush up on specific examples bc this is not entirely my area of expertise.

I suggest you do. It's even happening in the US right now, Capitalism is crumbling, and as a result small business owners and corporations are aligning along nationalist lines.