Recently I watched yet another misleading video about power that claimed that people prefer villains to good guys. While there were some accurate statements, most of it was misleading and downright wrong. Here I will explain why.
I will begin with the biggest lie. The video claimed that Nietzschean slave morality is somehow connected with modern liberal democracy. That is incorrect. Slave morality is creation of Christianity. Christianity preaches sacrifice and selflessness. It's in Christianity Jesus "died for our sins". There are also many saints and martyrs who died or suffered for their faith.
The only reason these Christian slave moral values are connected to democracy is that most liberal democracies are Christian countries. That puts these values in high regard in many democratic societies. Fundamentally however Christian values are not democratic values.
In many ways Christian values are opposite of democratic ones. Christianity values suffering and preaches acceptance of one's circumstances, while democracy instead allows you to change these circumstances by voting out government that caused you suffering. Democratic values is rejection of sheepishness of Christianity and taking control into one's own hands.
Now the second lie. Video claimed that people liked autocrats. They cited Napoleon and Mussolini as examples. They however blissfully overlooked the fact that for every Napoleon there are several dozens of Lukashenkas, Amins, Mubaraks and Pinochets whom people cannot wait to get rid of.
Every Lukashenka out there possibly sees himself as next Napoleon but often ends up just another Mubarak. They have to hide from "love" their people behind bodyguards and army of riot policemen, or people will "lovingly" strangle all life out of them with their bare hands.
Because of that it's more appropriate to see people like Napoleon or Hitler as exceptions rather than rule. In fact, of all traits of master morality, its competence and vision that get each of these leaders to their stardom. Lack of competence was reason for eventual downfall of Mussolini.
However, what exactly makes these few successes stories stand out from the crowd of jokes such as Idi Amin. How to make name for oneself and enter the history books and someone great.
In Napoleon's case it was clearly competence. Put it simply Napoleon knew how to win wars, and he won them a lot. He was competent in administration too, Napoleonic code, created in his time is still basis for most Statute books in Civil Law jurisdictions. Other reforms that were made during his time also stood test of time. It was during Napoleon's time that out of chaos of Frech Revolution finally emerged new better France.
Compare that to incompetence of Louis XVI who could do nothing when his people starved, chaos and fear during Robespierre's Commitee of Public Safety, corruption scandals and personal enrichment during Directory and then cynical power grab for purely personal benefit during Charles X and it's not too hard to see why Napoleon looks very good next to any of the alternatives.
Yes, Napoleon also dismantled democracy, abolished elections and declared himself emperor. However, these things are not what people love him for, they love him for many other good things he has done.
Nowadays Hitler and Nazis are associated with pure unabashed evil. That is because history is written by winners and US together with USSR repainted Hitler into insane homicidal racist devil incarnate.
That was not the case in 1933 in Germany when he came to power. Back then Hitler was seen as alternative to politicians who failed to pull Germany out of Great Depression. When in power Hitler actually managed to pull Germany out of Great Depression. Under Hitler quality of life improved, roads were built, well-paying jobs became available for all who needed them. Economy wise Hitler was German FDR and Germans loved him for that. Compare that to constant cuts to wages and mass firings under Hitler's predecessors and it's no surprise why adoring crowds welcomed him anywhere he went.
Here again people love Hitler not because he did Holocaust or started war, but because he made their lives better. Here again competence wins the day.
Some more moral people might want to say it's no excuse for genocide, but people are ultimately selfish and vote and support for what benefits them personally. Hitler did benefited Germans of the 30s even if modern Germans has to apologise for his actions.
Hitler's distorted memory is not the only example. For example, Yeltsin back in early 90s was very energetic and decisive. He looked very strong and competent next to often helpless and inept Gorbachev. Yet history remembers Yeltsin as incompetent drunkard because Russian patriots hate him a lot and distort the facts about him. On the other hand, American fans of Gorbachev like to portray him as modern Prometheus and father of Russian democracy. A guy with a staff from LoD intro has more confidence and ability than Gorbi.
It's the same with the one, whom some call modern Hitler, Trump. Sure, Trump has many flaws, but he has good points too. At the same time lot of bad things about him is simply not true and made up by people who hate him. It's hard to find anything good about Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris, he won against. Arguing that Trump is unacceptable is pointless, you have to offer a better alternative or walk.
So, what do people vote for. It's not a matter of master or slave morality. In fact, only heavily moralistic people base their vote on morals. Most vote for self-interest. Rich vote to reduce tax, poor to tax the rich. Employers for more power over employees, employees for more protection from power of employers. Landlords for more control over tenants and their properties, tenants for protection from landlords. Car owners for cheaper petrol, people without cars for more public transport, bicycle owners for more bicycle paths and so on.
Left was popular when their programs were giving money to the majority. Everyone who qualified for a handout was supporting it, no matter if some die hard rightists were saying there is no free sandwich. When left became woke and decided to limit help to black, elderly and women, they lost those who do not fall into either of these groups.
It's the same in dictatorial countries. Ability to extort bribes and misuse public funds via procurement tenders may be good for bureaucrats, but bad for ordinary citizens. Autocrats like Yanukovych and Shevardnadze fall not because of Soros, but simply because citizens see that quality of life is better with EU style democracy and want to bring it into their lives as well. The EU promise them this quality of life and more if they join the EU. Bureaucrats and police on the other hand cling to the autocrats like Lukashenka and Putin in order to keep their Mercedes Maybach and Maldives vacays, paid by misused public funds.
When people protest in post-Soviet states that it's not because they think stealing is wrong in principle, its only because money stolen was meant to pay for the new lifts and full Euro renovation in their apartments and they want bureaucrats to pay this back in full and finally fix the lifts like in Europe. However, paying for all these lifts will mean less money for Maldives vacays so bureaucrats opt for riot police instead.
This dynamic of struggle between citizens and bureaucracy will continue for as long as these demographic groups continue to exist and live in the same country. That is why I said in my other article that Russia should just divest Moscow and other western areas into separate countries and move capital to somewhere in Yekaterinburg. That way they will no longer have to deal with all these citizens who need their lifts and renovations paid for.
People vote and support people and policies that benefit them personally. They will ditch moral if there is something in it for them but will not support villains because they are villains.
No comments:
Post a Comment