Iran's Presidential Elections

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

If that's true, it follows that most people throughout history have lived in misery and under tyranny of various sorts because that is their nature. I'm too much of an optimist to believe that.

No need to be optimistic or pessimistic. I wrote my honours thesis on this topic, but I'll be succint. I would argue that the Greeks understood human nature better than we moderns, look at Aristotle's comparison of political regimes.

What are the two defining principles of authoritarian tyranny and liberal democracy? I would say that tyranny ultimately depends upon humanity's desire for hierarchical stability. A medieval regime is not as explicity tyrannical from the peasant's perspective. Feudalism, though often cruel, almost guaranteed protection. People on the bottom were exploited, but did have a protector in their king.

Liberal democracy depends upon the notion of reciprocality which is certainly ingrained within our own predilection of self-interest. By surrendering control of force to the state, while constraining it with constitutional documents and democratic reprisal, we create a balancing act of sorts between citizen and citizen; citizen and state.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

No need to be optimistic or pessimistic. I wrote my honours thesis on this topic, but I'll be succint. I would argue that the Greeks understood human nature better than we moderns, look at Aristotle's comparison of political regimes.

What are the two defining principles of authoritarian tyranny and liberal democracy? I would say that tyranny ultimately depends upon humanity's desire for hierarchical stability. A medieval regime is not as explicity tyrannical from the peasant's perspective. Feudalism, though often cruel, almost guaranteed protection. People on the bottom were exploited, but did have a protector in their king.

Liberal democracy depends upon the notion of reciprocality which is certainly ingrained within our own predilection of self-interest. By surrendering control of force to the state, while constraining it with constitutional documents and democratic reprisal, we create a balancing act of sorts between citizen and citizen; citizen and state.

That's an interesting idea--but it does depend on the notion that polity is an emergent property of human nature, which is an idea that I consider by definition baseless (note that this doesn't make it untrue--it just lacks any compelling evidence). It may well be consistent with Aristotle, but that doesn't change the fact that it's predicated on a basic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy--in essence, the reasoning goes like this:
1. There is such a thing as 'human nature' which can successfully predict what an individual person needs from a social grouping.
2. Most of these groupings are, generally, X (let's say authoritarian, because it's more consistent with the historical record)
3. Therefore, X is a product of human nature/subconscious desires/a particular organizing principle.

Put that way, I hope the flaw is immediately evident: how do we know that the polities that arise don't do so in spite of what people want from their social groupings? How do we know that there isn't some other cause that we can't account for with 1.?

As for me, I'd say that not only is the formula above illogical, but I'm skeptical of its premises. Specifically, I'm skeptical that there is such a thing as "human nature" in the way that we're talking about it. I really do think that the presumption in 1. was Marx's fundamental empirical error--the notion that the "material needs" of the individual could function as the basic organizing principle behind social action. In fact, in the above formula, you could modify the terms to plug in both the ideas of Marx and those of Fukuyama, demonstrating that both are predicated on some pretty specious logic.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's an interesting idea--but it does depend on the notion that polity is an emergent property of human nature, which is an idea that I consider by definition baseless (note that this doesn't make it untrue--it just lacks any compelling evidence). It may well be consistent with Aristotle, but that doesn't change the fact that it's predicated on a basic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy--in essence, the reasoning goes like this:
1. There is such a thing as 'human nature' which can successfully predict what an individual person needs from a social grouping.
2. Most of these groupings are, generally, X (let's say authoritarian, because it's more consistent with the historical record)
3. Therefore, X is a product of human nature/subconscious desires/a particular organizing principle.

Put that way, I hope the flaw is immediately evident: how do we know that the polities that arise don't do so in spite of what people want from their social groupings? How do we know that there isn't some other cause that we can't account for with 1.?

As for me, I'd say that not only is the formula above illogical, but I'm skeptical of its premises. Specifically, I'm skeptical that there is such a thing as "human nature" in the way that we're talking about it. I really do think that the presumption in 1. was Marx's fundamental empirical error--the notion that the "material needs" of the individual could function as the basic organizing principle behind social action. In fact, in the above formula, you could modify the terms to plug in both the ideas of Marx and those of Fukuyama, demonstrating that both are predicated on some pretty specious logic.

Isn't the tendency to create polities merely a function of applying ethics to a society? I don't think that society is anything but an emerging property of human nature. We are beings who lose all meaning if removed from our social surroundings, but that doesn't mean we are open to relative interpretations of human nature.

I'm not being reductionist by making a claim for human nature, merely stating that although complex, there are universal standards we can talk about. That said, I understand culture provides a meaningful dialogic to my open claims supported by an evolutionary biological, or somewhat objectivist foundation.

In my opinion, you commit an even greater fault by claiming:
1) Human nature cannot be determined, essentially arguing that we are tabula rasa and mere cultural creations. That is, as a critical theorist would say, societies create the bodies that we need. Marx actually makes a very good point here, but like much of Marx, his acute observations only take one so far. Material prerequesites must determine some aspect of a polity. 2) I wasn't justifying authortarians based on the fact that x>y, merely stating there was most likely an environmental need that had a human response, given the times, technological restraints, religious beliefs etc... I do think culture is important too, and if I am going to look at the Greeks, I have to acknowledge the notion of The Regime which goes much deeper than mere materialism.
3) Surely there aspects of human nature in everything, otherwise how do we create socio-political edifices?

That said, environment is important, but even that implicitly acknowledges a human component in social outcomes. Our nature was determined through natural selection, which is a relationship between an organism's genes and its environment.

I think Marx and Fukuyama both make the fatal mistake of literalizing Hegalian notions of history. If you accept that human polity-building is an ongoing process, with no historicist notion of progress, than I would say no, Marx and Fukuyama do not fit in this formula at all. All Aristotle was saying is that while the conversant process of the polis is varied, it is ultimately a human function.

[HOZ]

Sorry to interrupt the intellectual discussion...

8 British Embassy Staffers arrested

Iranian media earlier reported that eight local staff at the mission had been detained for their "considerable role" in post-election riots.
UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband called the arrests "harassment" and dismissed the allegations as baseless.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Sorry to interrupt the intellectual discussion...

8 British Embassy Staffers arrested

Iranian media earlier reported that eight local staff at the mission had been detained for their "considerable role" in post-election riots.
UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband called the arrests "harassment" and dismissed the allegations as baseless.

Wow, the Brits need to grow some balls.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Isn't the tendency to create polities merely a function of applying ethics to a society? I don't think that society is anything but an emerging property of human nature. We are beings who lose all meaning if removed from our social surroundings, but that doesn't mean we are open to relative interpretations of human nature.

I'm not being reductionist by making a claim for human nature, merely stating that although complex, there are universal standards we can talk about. That said, I understand culture provides a meaningful dialogic to my open claims supported by an evolutionary biological, or somewhat objectivist foundation.

In my opinion, you commit an even greater fault by claiming:
1) Human nature cannot be determined, essentially arguing that we are tabula rasa and mere cultural creations. That is, as a critical theorist would say, societies create the bodies that we need. Marx actually makes a very good point here, but like much of Marx, his acute observations only take one so far. Material prerequesites must determine some aspect of a polity. 2) I wasn't justifying authortarians based on the fact that x>y, merely stating there was most likely an environmental need that had a human response, given the times, technological restraints, religious beliefs etc... I do think culture is important too, and if I am going to look at the Greeks, I have to acknowledge the notion of The Regime which goes much deeper than mere materialism.
3) Surely there aspects of human nature in everything, otherwise how do we create socio-political edifices?

That said, environment is important, but even that implicitly acknowledges a human component in social outcomes. Our nature was determined through natural selection, which is a relationship between an organism's genes and its environment.

I think Marx and Fukuyama both make the fatal mistake of literalizing Hegalian notions of history. If you accept that human polity-building is an ongoing process, with no historicist notion of progress, than I would say no, Marx and Fukuyama do not fit in this formula at all. All Aristotle was saying is that while the conversant process of the polis is varied, it is ultimately a human function.

Good post--and I accept your clarification on the human nature question.

I would contend that the options are not a singular human nature vs. tabula rasa, but I sort of suspect that would be putting words in your mouth. Maybe a better point of contention would be to say that as (nominally) a "critical theorist"--albeit one with a very limited scope--my approach to the problem of history has been to trace the manner in which the social is a contested site between the collective and the subject, and to look at the ways that this is manifested through something we might tentatively term "culture."

In the end, such an analysis has to link up with the material realities of the present (or of culture's "present" anyway)--otherwise "critical theory" generates only the emptiest of orthodoxies--and though we're politically different, I suspect that on that point we agree.

I think your description of the errors of Marx and Fukuyama is fantastic--I would never have thought to link neo-conservatism to Hegel, but now that you point it out it seems crystal-clear. In that sense, what Fukuyama shares with Marx is not (or not merely) the tendency to over-generalize about human nature and desires, but a vision of history as teleological/apocalyptic and predicated in the end on the dialectic.

Also, we're both huge nerds. I hope you realize that.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Wow, the Brits need to grow some balls.

I think the world community does too. The only antidote to repression like this in a country where most of the influential forces in the world community have no diplomatic presence is to shine the light of day on the actions of the regime that is attempting to protect their own power.

Every time we waste our attention on trivial matters, (read Michael Jackson, Mark Sanford, Jon & Kate plus 8), we do Iran a disservice by averting our eyes from their regime. I don't want to be alarmist, or preachy--but I think it's our duty to stay tuned into this situation to the extent that we can. Hopefully we can bear witness to a revolution and a new, liberalized regime in Iran--but if not, we must bear witness to the brutal suppression of dissent in the interests of power.

If we learned anything from Rwanda, it's that tyrants are emboldened by the feeling that no-one in the world cares what they do.

[transplant99]

I think the world community does too. The only antidote to repression like this in a country where most of the influential forces in the world community have no diplomatic presence is to shine the light of day on the actions of the regime that is attempting to protect their own power.

Would you not think that a majority of the world doesn't already know this? And HAS known this for about 30 years now? This is hardly new stuff for that regime...its only the recent "election" and subsequent demonstartions that has made it front page news.

Same thing that went on in Iraq under Hussein for decades. But no one ever seems to want to do anything about it that really matters.

More UN sanctions!!!!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Would you not think that a majority of the world doesn't already know this? And HAS known this for about 30 years now? This is hardly new stuff for that regime...its only the recent "election" and subsequent demonstartions that has made it front page news.

Same thing that went on in Iraq under Hussein for decades. But no one ever seems to want to do anything about it that really matters.

More UN sanctions!!!!

Both Iran and Iraq are weird examples because relative to other Islamic nations their people are relatively secular. They're in one sense not comparable, because they're ethnically quite different (Iranians are Persians, not Arabs) but there is a conflict between moderates and hardliners going on that's hard to imagine in a nation like, say, Saudi Arabia.

I don't think what's happening now is exactly like what's happened before--because I think now there is a much bigger opportunity for Iran to eventually be welcomed back into the world community. Consider that the last time there was a revolution, it was to depose an authoritarian who was supported by the West--and so it was done by hard-liners and advocates of an Islamist state, and it brought about a repressive theocracy that made very little sense given that the population is relatively cosmopolitan.

We have something a little different now--in that the people in the streets are moderates, much friendlier (in relative terms) to the West and to democratic ideals generally. It's senseless for us to pretend not to "pick sides" here--because we ethically must pick sides, if we genuinely believe that liberalization and a more fully democratic Iran would be a good thing.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think the world community does too. The only antidote to repression like this in a country where most of the influential forces in the world community have no diplomatic presence is to shine the light of day on the actions of the regime that is attempting to protect their own power.

Every time we waste our attention on trivial matters, (read Michael Jackson, Mark Sanford, Jon & Kate plus 8), we do Iran a disservice by averting our eyes from their regime. I don't want to be alarmist, or preachy--but I think it's our duty to stay tuned into this situation to the extent that we can. Hopefully we can bear witness to a revolution and a new, liberalized regime in Iran--but if not, we must bear witness to the brutal suppression of dissent in the interests of power.

If we learned anything from Rwanda, it's that tyrants are emboldened by the feeling that no-one in the world cares what they do.

I think we're fooling ourselves if we think that any diplomatic pressure is going to cause a change in Iran's stance against these protests. The Western powers have zero influence on Iran, neither do the Arabian powers. In fact the only powers that do have any stroke with Iran are the Chinese or the Russians, and they don't have effective stroke.

You also have to remember that most of the senior clerics and members of government in Iran lived through and took part in the revolution that put this theocracy in place, so they know that this has to be crushed quickly and effectively.

The world can't do anything about Iran unless they're willing to publicly support the protesters.

The UN has no stroke with Iran, and sanctions don't matter because they don't effect the government, they're more then likely going to affect the average person.

Iran's government has shown that the rule of law is what they define, they've shown that they don't care about international power. All they care about is holding their power.

Look for an increase in the use of force against the protesters, and in a couple of weeks look for the so called leaders and convenient enemies of the state to be given gaudy show trials and then publicly shot or hung or however they like to execute people over there. Look for other protesters to mysteriously vanish only to die in some basement of the dungeon.

We have no influence, no power and no market to effect.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think we're fooling ourselves if we think that any diplomatic pressure is going to cause a change in Iran's stance against these protests. The Western powers have zero influence on Iran, neither do the Arabian powers. In fact the only powers that do have any stroke with Iran are the Chinese or the Russians, and they don't have effective stroke.

You also have to remember that most of the senior clerics and members of government in Iran lived through and took part in the revolution that put this theocracy in place, so they know that this has to be crushed quickly and effectively.

The world can't do anything about Iran unless they're willing to publicly support the protesters.

The UN has no stroke with Iran, and sanctions don't matter because they don't effect the government, they're more then likely going to affect the average person.

Iran's government has shown that the rule of law is what they define, they've shown that they don't care about international power. All they care about is holding their power.

Look for an increase in the use of force against the protesters, and in a couple of weeks look for the so called leaders and convenient enemies of the state to be given gaudy show trials and then publicly shot or hung or however they like to execute people over there. Look for other protesters to mysteriously vanish only to die in some basement of the dungeon.

We have no influence, no power and no market to effect.

Public Hangins