What desires are important in politics?

Nobel Prize in Literature Laureate Russell 1950' s acceptance speech-What desire is important in politics?

I chose this topic to give a speech tonight because the current discussion of politics and political theory often lacks attention to psychology. Economic status, demographics, constitutional organization, and other things are easy to show. At the beginning of the Korean War, it was not difficult to find out how many people there were in South Korea and North Korea. If you look through these books, you can easily find out the number of troops and per capita income of both sides. However, if you want to know what Koreans are like, are there any significant differences between the residents of North Korea and South Korea? What kind of life they want, their dissatisfaction, their hopes, their fears; In short, what are their respective motives; Even if you rummaged through these books, it would be in vain. Therefore, you can't know whether the residents in South Korea expect the intervention of the United Nations or prefer the brothers in the North to complete reunification. Similarly, you can't guess whether they will give up their demands for land reform in order to have the right to vote and vote for politicians he has never heard of. These problems are often ignored by people above the temple, thus losing people's hearts. If politics is to become scientific and these things are no longer surprising, then our political considerations must go deep into the fundamental starting point of human behavior. How influential are the inner desires contained in various political slogans? Do they have the same encouraging effect when a person can eat enough or not? If one person votes for you and the other gives you a loaf of bread, how hungry will you be and insist on voting? These problems are rarely considered in depth. However, let's put aside things about North Korea for the time being and think from the perspective of all mankind.

Everyone's behavior is driven by desire. Then some enthusiastic moralists are whimsical, thinking that they can fight against desire by virtue of responsibility and moral principles. I say this is whimsical, not because no one has ever been very responsible, but because the word responsibility means nothing to a person unless he is eager to be responsible. To know what a person will do, we should not only have a general understanding of his material environment, but also know his whole desires and ideas, as well as their advantages and disadvantages.

Some desires, though strong, are usually of little political importance. Most men are eager to get married at some stage in their lives, but usually they can satisfy this desire without taking any political action. Of course, there are some exceptions. Rome's plunder of Sabine women is the best example. The development of northern Australia is seriously hindered, and it also stems from the fact that young men who should have gone to the north to reclaim land do not like to be isolated from women. But these examples are rare. Generally speaking, what men and women do in marriage has little political influence.

Desire with great political influence can be divided into two levels. The first level comes from the basic needs of life, including food, clothing, housing and transportation. When these things become scarce, people will spare no effort to get them in order to survive, even at the expense of violence. Scholars who study early human history show that in four different periods of drought years, a large number of people flowed out of the Arabian Peninsula, which had a far-reaching impact on politics, culture and religion in the surrounding areas. The last migration event in these four times created the rise of Islam. For the same reason, Germanic tribes gradually spread from southern Russia to England and finally to San Francisco. There is no doubt that human demand for food has always been the main reason for major political events.

But a very important detail that distinguishes people from other animals is that people have desires. That desire can be said to be personal and can never be satisfied. Even if he is in heaven, he won't stop. Python will go to sleep after eating, and need to eat again after waking up. However, most humans don't. The Arabs who used to scrimp and save in the past gained great wealth in the Western Roman Empire in some periods, and did not become lazy after settling in an almost luxurious and incredible palace. Hunger is no longer the driving force, and Greek slaves will provide extremely beautiful food with a slight nod. But other desires keep them positive, especially in these four aspects: possession, competition, vanity and love of power.

Possession-I want to possess as much property as possible, a symbol of possession. I think its motivation is a mixture of fear and desire for necessities. I once received two little girls who came from Estonia and escaped from the Great Famine like friends. They live in my house, so naturally they don't worry about eating or drinking. But when they are free, they sneak to a nearby farm to steal potatoes and store them. Rockefeller's childhood experience was very bad. Therefore, he still maintained the habit of thrift as an adult. Similarly, Arab sheikhs still can't forget the desert in their soft and smooth conference rooms in Byzantine, and they still store wealth that can hardly be consumed. However, any psychological analysis of possessiveness cannot but admit that what is mentioned in the previous paragraph is a very big motive, especially for those with great power. As mentioned above, it is one of the infinite motives of human beings. Although you can get a lot, you will always get it.

But although possessiveness is the main engine under the capitalist system, it does not mean that it is the biggest driving force to overcome hunger. The motivation for competing with each other goes far beyond this. The history of Muslims has repeatedly shown that the demise of dynasties is often due to the inability of princes with different backgrounds to agree on opinions and the civil war that eventually led to widespread destruction. The same thing happened in modern Europe. When the British government foolishly allowed the German emperor to participate in the naval exercise held in Spitshead, what the German emperor thought was not what we expected, but: I must have a navy as good as my grandmother's. If possessiveness is always stronger than competitiveness, then offshore platforms will be better. But in fact, many people will happily face poverty as long as they can completely eliminate their competitors. This is how the tax hierarchy was born.

Vanity is a powerful motive. People who have had many experiences with children know how persistent and stupid they are and how to say "look at me". "Look at me" is one of the most basic needs in human heart. In Renaissance Italy, one thing can be repeatedly mentioned, that is, when the young prince asked the priest if he had anything to confess before he died, he said, "Yes, at a critical moment in my life, I visited the emperor and the Pope at the same time. I am too obsessed with the peak of my life to see further. I ignored the opportunity to throw them down at the same time. I could have lived forever. There is no record in the history books whether the priest forgave him. One problem with vanity is that it is expanding more and more. It used to be said that a murderer who was allowed to read his trial in a newspaper would be angry if he found that a newspaper reported it in insufficient detail. If he finds that other newspapers report a lot about himself, he will be more angry with those newspapers that seldom report him. So do politicians and writers. Newspaper clippings found that the more prestigious people are, the more difficult they are to satisfy. From a three-year-old child to a monarch who frowned and shook the world, the influence of human vanity on every corner of life cannot be overstated. Humans have even committed such disrespect: they feel that the God they conceive has the same needs and longs for continuous praise.

There is another kind of motivation that has the same influence as the above motives and far exceeds them. I mean, the obsession with power. The obsession with power is a bit like vanity, but they are definitely not the same thing. Vanity needs praise, and it is easy to get praise without power. In the United States, movie stars get the most praise, but they are easily beaten back by members of the "Anti-American Movement Review Committee". They don't get compliments anyway. In Britain, the king can enjoy more praise than the prime minister, but the first hug is more powerful. Many people are more keen on praise than power, but those people have less influence on many things than those who are obsessed with power. 18 14 years, Brooke sighed after visiting Napoleon's palace: He was a complete fool to attack Moscow with all this. For Napoleon, it was certainly not vanity, but when he had to make a choice, he was more eager for power. For Brooke, Napoleon's choice was undoubtedly stupid. Power, like vanity, will never be satisfied. Only omnipotence can make it completely satisfied. Especially like the weakness of those energetic people, the occasional positive effect of infatuation with power does not match its frequency at all. In fact, it is the strongest motivation of those great men.

The fascination with power increases with the experience of power, no matter how big or small it is for the king. In the happy days before 19 14, well-behaved women can get many servants, and their happiness from the power to control housework grows steadily with age. Similarly, under any dictatorship, the owner of power becomes more and more tyrant because of the happy experience gained from power. Because power makes people do things they don't want to do, men who are motivated by their love for power are more inclined to make others suffer than to make others happy. If you tell your boss that you will be absent from the meeting for some reasonable reasons, his love for power will be more satisfied by rejecting you instead of agreeing with you. If you ask for a building permit, the officials concerned will obviously get more pleasure from saying "no" instead of "yes". This is a series of things that make the right to love a dangerous motive.

But there are other satisfactory aspects. I think the pursuit of knowledge also stems from the obsession with power, and all the progress of science and technology also stems from this. The same is true in politics. A reformer can be as obsessed with power as a tyrant. Opposing the obsession with power is one of people's motives, and it is completely wrong. Whether you will be guided by this kind of motivation into beneficial or harmful behavior depends on the social system and your personal ability. If your ability is theoretical or technical, you will contribute to knowledge or technology. Usually, your behavior is beneficial to society. If you are a politician, you may be driven by a fascination with power, but usually this motivation is manifested in: for some reason, you want to see the existing situation change according to your personal preference. A great general, such as Alkki Buades (who betrayed his camp three times and died at the hands of the Persian governor), doesn't care which side to fight, but most generals prefer to fight for their country. In other words, there are other motives besides the obsession with power. Politicians may change their camps at any time to ensure that they belong to the majority, but most politicians will take one side and suppress their obsession with power. The almost pure love for power exists in all kinds of people. One of them is a military adventurer, and the best example is Napoleon. I don't think Napoleon had any ideological preference for Corsica and France, but if he became the emperor of Corsica, he wouldn't be as great as he is now, even though he had to pretend to be French. However, these people are not the best examples. Because they also got great vanity satisfaction. The purest kind of people who are obsessed with power belong to those behind the scenes-those who hide behind the throne and never appear in public. It is enough for them to comfort themselves that those puppets don't even know who is directing them! From 1890 to 1906, the baron Holstein, who controlled the foreign policy of the German Empire, showed his fascination with power to the fullest. He lives in a slum and has never appeared in society. He has never met the emperor, except once when he insisted on seeing him. He refused all invitations to court activities because he said he didn't have a court dress. He has mastered all kinds of secrets that can blackmail court ministers and relatives and friends of the emperor. He used these as threats, not to gain wealth, fame or any other obvious benefits, but only to force everyone to adopt his foreign policy. In the east, among eunuchs, such figures are not uncommon.

Now let's talk about some other motives, which are not as important as we thought before, but they are still quite important. The first is the love of excitement. The superiority of human beings over animals lies in their tolerance for boredom. Although I have thought about it many times, observing the apes in the zoo shows that they also have these emotional buds that are not willing to be boring. Escape from boredom is almost an influential wish of all human beings. When white people first came into contact with savage primitive tribes, they gave them almost all the benefits, from the gospels to pumpkin pie. Nevertheless, we may still feel sorry, because most barbarians are indifferent when accepting those things. Among those gifts, what they really value is intoxicating wine, which can make them hallucinate for the first time in their lives, even for a short time, and think that living is better than dying. When Indians are still in an uncivilized state, they smoke their own small pipes, which will not be as calm as we are, but will be extremely carnival. When they are too excited, they will fall into a coma. When nicotine can't excite them, a "patriotic" speaker will encourage them to attack neighboring tribes, which can give them the enjoyment we can get in ordinary horse racing (according to our temperament). For civilized people, just like for early Indian tribes, I think it is mainly because of the love of excitement that civilians can clap their hands and cheer when the war suddenly breaks out; This passion is very much like a football match, although its result is sometimes a little more serious.

What is the root cause of human love for excitement? It is difficult to determine completely. I tend to think that it is because our spiritual nature is to adapt to the stage when men mainly make a living by hunting. When a man is busy with primitive and backward weapons and expectations for dinner, he rounds up a deer all day. At sunset, he proudly dragged his prey back to the cave and lay down tired. At the same time, his wife began to organize and cook food. His body is exhausted and his bones are sore. The smell of cooking filled all the places he could realize. Finally, after supper, he fell asleep deeply. In such a life, he has neither time nor energy to be bored. But when he entered the farming period and let his wife do all the heavy work in the field, he had time to think about the vanity of life and invent myths and philosophical systems. Dream of living the life he will pursue in the temple forever. Our spiritual quality is suitable for heavy physical labor. When I was young, I used to hike 25 miles every day during the holidays. When night comes, I don't need anything to relieve boredom, because the happiness of sitting down can completely satisfy me. But modern promotion cannot be guided by these principles of physical efforts. A lot of work is done sitting. And most manual labor only uses certain muscles. When people in London gathered in Trafalgar Square and applauded loudly for the government's decision to let them die, if they had walked 25 miles that day, they would not have done so. It is impossible to cure belligerence. If human beings want to survive-perhaps something people don't like outside the war-they must find a stable and harmless outlet to vent our excess energy, which can guide us to pursue excitement.

This is something that moralists and social reformers rarely consider. Social reformers think they have more important things to consider. On the other hand, moralists greatly exaggerate the seriousness of everything used to divert people's desire for excitement. Nevertheless, in their view, seriousness is about evil seriousness, such as dance halls, cinemas and time jazz. If we believe that what we hear leads to hell, then we'd better spend all our time sitting at home and reflecting on our sins. I find that I can't completely agree with those serious people who say these warnings. There are many kinds of demons. Some are used to deceive young people, and some are used to deceive elderly serious people. If it is the devil who lures young people to enjoy happiness, is it possible that the same devil did it? And condemnation is not a kind of excitement allocated to the elderly? And condemnation can't be like opium, it must be constantly increased to produce the desired effect, right? There is no need to worry about all this. Starting from the evil cinema, it gradually led to the condemnation of the opposing parties, Italians, black people in southern Europe, Asian immigrants, in short, everyone except us. And this is exactly a reprehensible thing that exists widely and leads to war. I've never heard of a war over a ballroom.

The seriousness of excitement lies in its various forms of destructiveness. Excitement is devastating for people who are addicted to alcohol or gambling and have no self-control. When it brings large-scale violence, it is also destructive. Especially when it leads to war, it is extremely destructive. This demand is so strong that if there is no ready-made harmless venting method, it is likely to lead people to adopt harmful venting methods. At present, there are so many harmless ways to vent in sports and many in politics, provided that those activities are carried out within the framework of the Constitution. But this is far from enough, especially the exciting political activities, which often lead to a lot of injuries.

Human city life is so boring. If there is no change, we must provide some harmless ways to vent our impulses-our distant ancestors only need to hunt to satisfy that impulse. In Australia, there are fewer people and more rabbits. I have seen many people kill thousands of rabbits with primitive skills to satisfy their primitive impulses. But in London or new york, where there are many people and few rabbits, there must be other ways to please everyone. I think every bigger place should have artificial waterfalls, and then people can slide down in fragile boats. There should also be a swimming pool full of fierce sharks. Anyone who is found to support preventive war should be thrown into the swimming pool and punished with these clever monsters for two hours every day.

Translator's Note: Russell has made outstanding contributions in promoting the historical process of western liberalization and diversification in the 20th century. Known as the greatest philosopher and sociologist in the 20th century, this article is his speech when/kloc-0 was awarded to Nobel Prize in Literature in 950. Let's see what unique views this liberal BOSS has on the prosperity and secular desires of human society.

Introduce Russell briefly.

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872- 1970) is an English philosopher, logician, essayist and social critic, who is widely known for his achievements in philosophy of mathematics and analytical philosophy. He has made great achievements in defending logic (thinking that mathematics comes from logic in a very important sense) and logical atomism. Together with Moore, he is regarded as the founder of analytical philosophy. He is considered as one of the two most important logicians in the 20th century.

During his long life, Russell not only made outstanding contributions in logic and philosophy, but also exerted great influence in a wide range of fields such as education, history, politics and religious studies. In addition, his extensive exposition of science and humanitarianism has influenced generations. During his controversial life (dismissed by Trinity College of Cambridge University and City College of new york), Russell was awarded the Medal of Virtue in 1949 and Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950. Until his death at the age of 97, he still actively participated in anti-war and anti-nuclear war protests, and he was a conspicuous public figure.