I should start by declaring a personal battle to keep the misanthropy of my father at bay, upon the assumption that it might be one of his characteristics which got passed on, despite its questionable usefulness as a survival strategy, genetically speaking. It is easy to see how it might not be useful as a strategy for the species, but keeping the troublesome complexities of social interaction to a minimum might be a good thing for "the selfish gene". Whether or not it is useful to us as a 'social animal' is a more appropriate question, since the degree of our individual sociability probably makes little difference at a genetic level, as long as we are sociable enough to reproduce. So why fight it - I wouldn't be here at all if it was that bad or, with greater insight, I wouldn't be aware of its dangers if it was un-manageable. Misanthropy obviously falls within the realms of psychology and social psychology, evidently creating an obvious socially maladjusted extreme but, more interestingly revealing an endemic human condition. If man were simply a 'social animal', those who invent the systems by which mankind organises itself would surely take into account this 'darker' side?

Marx saw socialism as an evolutionary consequence of capitalism, though at the time of writing history seems to be proving him wrong. The fall of the Iron Curtain, whilst delighting me by its peaceful nature, left an unpleasant taste in my mouth as it seemed a victory for the Thatcher/Reaganites, and seemed to remove any viable opposition to the established fashion for neo-conservative unfettered capitalism. The kids took to the roads in their 'benders' and were 'exstatic' at 'raves', but the only protests were against road building, the only idealism 'green'. It is certainly true that socialism initially caught on in countries which would more accurately be described as feudal rather than capitalist, and certainly countries used to having order imposed and lacking democracy, where the imposition of an ostensibly beneficent system was attractive to the impoverished majority, and more credible in those days than the rather large leap to a democratic system. The fact that, Cuba apart (American sanctions), it did benefit the majority of ordinary people actually dug its own grave as life soon got to a point where it could not compare favorably with the West. Capitalism certainly seems to have evolved out of socialism, and the latter in practice would seem lower down the evolutionary ladder than capitalism. Marx may have had a grasp of economics, but seems to have not really understood humans (to be honest, most economists since the recent global 'credit crunch' would have to admit the same). He and Engels were certainly writing to the intelligencia of the developed nations, driven by the ills of the industrial revolution, but evidently a large enough majority in The West has too much to lose. The exploitation perpetrated by Victorian mill owners against their fellow man they saw as eradicable by creating a system which emphasised co-operation rather than competition, an economics which pre-supposes 'common interest' rather than 'self-interest'. The evidence would seem to suggest that the latter is innate, and the common interest has to be enforced, it would seem with great indelicacy in the former socialist states, leading to the social unrest which ultimately topples governments regardless of system.Somebody more at home with quantum theory recently described human interaction as 'the most complex thing in the known universe' (the same has more recently been said of the human brain), and this may underly the problem with ideologies versus a non-ideological, reactionary system.

What is innate is black and white and all shades of grey in between. That which pushes some of us to extremes may have its root in the same urge to simplify which created mathematics and promoted it until it has toppled religion from the No.1 spot of Things Which (are generally accepted to) Explain Everything. What have 'become innate' are notions of democracy and its underlying foundation of mathematical probability, just as notions of divine right, kings and serfs, 'stations in life' were 'innate' until not so long ago (and curiously in most predictions for the future by Science Fiction writers). When Churchill, for many a shining light of the 'free world' describes democracy as "the best of a lot of bad systems" one begins to get a perspective upon a creed which the Americans voraciously promote and even inflict upon others. One clear illustration of the reason behind Churchill's cynicism is perhaps the election which brought Bush (Jnr) to power, where one or two controversial percentage points gave him the mandate to seriously damage the US economy and its international relations, not to mention thousands of deaths for ignoble cause. There may be a simple, empirical truth behind the fact that just under half of those who care enough to vote is not enough to reign in the excesses of a bad leader - evidently that is not making quite enough people unhappy enough to change things. Social unrest is not good for business and stability is a prime directive of any system, and always has been. Seemingly, in systems other than democratic, social order is maintained through fear of the (secret) police. Democracy is more subtle, with a time limit on power built in, diffusing dissent by making it seem unreasonable and impatient, but still based upon fear - fear of terrorism, crime, unemployment - that life would be worse under any other system.
However, when we are all 'equally powerful' (equality of opportunity) Freud's 'other' is everyone else. Our fears are not focussed upon a common 'enemy' - the tyrant, the secret police, the administration, but rather upon everyone. We cannot sincerely bond with our neighbour since, at the very least he is 'the competition', if not a possible criminal or terrorist. His life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness may very likely conflict with ours, and at least force us to compromise. Democracy, however 'social', does not create such mild paranoia, but rather tends to exacerbate a widespread condition of human nature. The steady devolution of power downwards to individuals means we all now live as kings, or at least dukes or barons - in the sense that we are free to worry about making and keeping our fortune, and our power, as all around us seek to make and keep their particular share of an ultimately finite pool of resources. Capitalist economics promotes the 'shark' theory - businesses which are not expanding are stagnating (stop swimming and you suffocate), so we never have enough. Such 'healthy' competition means my neighbour always has his eye on my stuff, and I on his - like a predator biding his time until a sign of weakness. Stalemate is anathema. Co-existence always includes tension, albeit underlying.

So we are alone, or we feel more alone than we actually are. Human interaction feels like 'the most complex thing in the known universe' - if our lives would be easier if we all just co-operated, why do we choose competition? Misanthropy is less about the tensions of a competitive way of life, and more about why we choose it. It could be regarded as an individual psychosis, but although probably latent in our genes, since it is a general dislike of humanity, in this case 'nurture' is more relevant than 'nature', and the way we construct our societies could alleviate rather than try to use a dark side of being human to oil the wheels of a machine which benefits the few at the expense of the many.

Jon Hatfull

January 2010