Is man's inhumanity to man avoidable? Is moral sensitivity of people sufficient to protect world societies from mass murderers? Probably not. What else is essential? Elimination of extreme poverty and injustice. How can this be accomplished? Many sociologists have asked this question. Karl Marx was one of them. He believed that the "proletarian dictatorship" was the answer. I suspect that the 20th century will be named after this kind of dictatorship. The idea was tried in many countries and failed. It did not create justice; it replaced old tyrants with more brutal tyrants. Lenin, Stalin and Mao are well-known examples. Is man's inhumanity to man avoidable? Perhaps not, perhaps it should be accepted as part of human nature. If this is so then episodes of mass murder can be compared with other calamities, like epidemics, earthquakes and wars. But scientific understanding of epidemics has often resulted in great improvements. Likewise, constructing less vulnerable buildings, or avoiding certain locations, can minimize consequences of earthquakes. We do not accept natural disasters passively; we do everything possible to prevent them, or at least to reduce their undesirable consequences. Why should man's inhumanity to man be accepted as unavoidable? Humanity is also part of nature. Most people want justice and deplore suffering. Shouldn't this be the basis for working toward elimination of man-made calamities? Are mass killings avoidable? Hitler's holocaust was based on racism; Stalin's and Mao's slaughters were based on the concept of class struggle. Can we say that these two ideologies of intolerance are responsible for mass killings? Or should the tragedies be attributed to the evil nature of leaders? The two tyrants were not alone; it is impossible to kill millions without favorable social conditions. Can such conditions be identified? Can they be eliminated? How can this be done? I am not sure how to answer such questions. But I believe that all occurrences of mass genocide should be analyzed and exposed, not hidden or forgotten. Mass murder occurs when brutal and sadistic criminals, to be found in every society, are promoted to positions of dominance, when propaganda is used to dehumanize the targeted population and when children are inoculated with intolerance and hatred. It occurs when victims ("inferior races" or "class enemies") are excluded from the norms of morality, when ideological totalitarianism is imposed and when freedom is suspended. Fear and violence, the preconditions of genocide, are likely to be found in societies with large numbers of thieves and informants. Stalin and Hitler were fanatical leaders inspired by a gang mentality and by the concept of "historic mission." They believed that intolerance and large-scale brutality were necessary ingredients of social order. Each of them was also supported by the “cult of personality.” Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) The 70th anniversary of the German attack on the Soviet Union was on June 21. On that occasion I visited many Russian websites. What a surprise to find that both communists and anticommunists glorify Stalin in today's Russia. Communists remember him as a great Marxist ideologist, as Lenin's partner, as a leader responsible for collectivization of agriculture, for rapid industrialization, and for merciless destruction of traitors, especially within the communist party and the military, in the late 1930's. Briefly, they glorify him as the leader of the Soviet proletarian dictatorship, and as a military genius responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism. The anticommunists also claim that Stalin was responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism. But they totally ignore his communist ideology, and the brutality he used to impose obedience. Logically, the attitude toward Stalinism should divide communists and anticommunists. But in reality it seems to unite them. How can this be explained? And this is not the only puzzle. As some of you probably remember, I wrote a memoir about life in the Soviet Union during the first year of the war. It can be seen at http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/dedenievo.html Thinking about the approaching 70th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War--that is how Russians refer to their experience during WWII--I sent the above link to perhaps as many as 20 editors of Russian newspapers, giving them permission to translate and publish my memoir. Not a single one responded. How can this be explained? Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) My profile==> http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/my_profile.html .
One man's mass murder is another's glorious struggle. To the German people, the conquering of Eastern Europe was thrilling, cause for celebration. To the occupied, it was the worst thing that ever happened to them. The relationship of the allies to Stalin was certainly problematic, but we have to acknowledge that we probably would not have won the war without Russia, who suffered the most in terms of casualties of all allied forces. For some philosophers, it is thought that is responsible for all our problems. The motive of improving things can be considered the original sin. Without thought, without ideology, few people except for those born psychopaths would enjoy murder.
Zhukov won WWII for the Russians not Stalin. And that's only cause he was in China(Manchuria) when the Purge happened. One of the few good officers to survive it.
He seems to have been quite the murderer as well, ordering that returning soldiers and families of soldiers captured by the Germans should be shot. Later on he also staged a nuclear bomb test within 8 miles of soldiers doing war games, presumably in order to study the effects of a nuclear blast on a battlefield. (wikipedia)
Sorry, but that's a tremendous amount of words expended that actually shifts the blame away from the TRUE cause, a basic human characteristic that many seem unable (or refuse) to control: selfishness and greed. Seriously - that's what is at the root of ALL the problems. But it's such a simple thing that high-mined people like the OP choose to completely ignore. They would rather be heard for their many useless words. :shrug: (Which is yet another basic human characteristic - the excessive need for attention and a HUGE dose of self-importance.) Ugh!!!:bugeye:
Perhaps comparable on one level -- but not on the level of pragmatic prevention. For the problem of terrorists and other criminals, there is still the forensic procedure of profiling in order to try to prevent as much as possible.
Yes, this protective measure is useful. But is it sufficient? Probably not. How to eliminate, or considerably reduce, motivation for killing? Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) My profile==> http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/my_profile.html .
And, if I may just close the circle, selfishness and greed are not problems. They are just a negative way to characterize the valuable traits of self-preservation and ambition.
I think many are presuming that war and death are always abhorrent, and serve absolutely no purpose to societal growth or even evolution. Without a competitive struggle over limited resources we'd still be green blobs floating in the ocean, feeding on sunlight. Reality isn't always palatable. By the way, "selfishness and greed" are terms used to morally justify taking resources without accepting responsibility for the actions. You don't need to feel guilty about fighting for survival, just as the "selfish and greedy" don't need to feel ashamed if they've placed themselves in a better position to survive than yourself.
Most species ritualize much of their competitiveness within their own species, so as to not kill each other. And much of it's about who gets to do it with who. We do it for real in wars. I'm not on board with Social Darwinism, as I think we're much better off co-operating than being enemies of everyone. But then again I hate competing. If I win, I feel ashamed to have shown up others whom I know and like. If I lose I feel like a failure. That means, to my mind, if I'm in a competition, there is no positive outcome. You would think... In Jared Diamond's Collapse he examined the Rwandan genocide, and observed that the family agricultural plots had been subdivided to the point of people barely being able to get enough to eat. Overpopulation as a motive for genocide? Maybe. Maybe it really is just that nasty when you get desperate people. Maybe we should try to eliminate the structural reasons desperate people occur.
I think part of the problem is that there seems to be no clear and definitive way to talk about this wihout ending up in absurdities. Selfishness and greed are good - up to some point. Cooperation is good - up to some point. If one it too cooperative, one will be defeated. If one is too selfish and greedy, one will be defeated. If one it not cooperative enough, one will be defeated. If one is not selfish and greedy enough, one will be defeated.
