[ses1984]

>The same harsh penalties mentioned above might influence people to declare a higher level of social trust than they actually have.

This 100%.

Political imprisonment and reeducation camps are antithetical to any definition of a high trust society that I would subscribe to.

[eru]

Doesn't matter too much what you subscribe to.

Eg Nazi Germany still benefited from a high-ish level of social trust, despite numerous atrocities.

[ses1984]

That’s actually the example I was thinking of.

You can’t honestly say that a country where citizens inform on each other and put each other in forced labor camps based on rumor is a society where trust is high.

> The Deutscherblick ("German Look") was a tense, habitual glance over the shoulder used by citizens in Nazi-era Germany before speaking about sensitive topics like food rations, Hitler jokes, or the war’s progress

[inglor_cz]

Not just labor camps. People would regularly get beheaded for anti-regime remarks. Nazi justice was keen on capital punishment for relatively minor crimes.

Nazi Germany was full of dedicated informers who would even earn money or other privileges for denouncing someone. It had about as much trust between strangers as Iran under the Revolutionary Guards might have today.

[triceratops]

What's the benefit of social trust when a society can commit such atrocities? The entire point of a society is to care for its members.

[eru]

Be careful not to mix up description and prescription.

[eszed]

Now define "members". It's both possible and common for an in-group to experience a high degree of trust and care, while those outside that group to... Not. From the point of view of the beneficiaries the social contract is working beautifully!

I found Singapore somewhat bracing in how honestly they acknowledge the two tiers (natives + wealthy foreigners vs poor "guest" workers) in their society. The same division functionally exists in many "western" countries, but is broadly ignored. (To be clear, I do not endorse this - and, in fact, think it appalling - but appreciate straightforwardness more than I do obfuscation by empty rhetoric.)

[triceratops]

But that's my point. You can define "society" in any way you like to say there's "high social trust". It's a meaningless, hollow boast.

[eru]

No, it's not. Eg Soviet Russia never had high social trust, no matter how you slice it.

[triceratops]

And it never boasted of having high social trust either.

[miroljub]

It's not like atrocities started with Nazis. Child prostitution, high unemployment, corruption, poverty, moral devastation, drug addiction, injustice, inequality ... all that existed before Nazis so many people ignored the warnings that came with the Nazi party since they were the only ones promising to act.

[ses1984]

Nazi apologia.

[miroljub]

> Nazi apologia.

Care to elaborate, Mr. Godwin?

[ses1984]

“They were the ones promising to act”

Something about this doesn’t sit right with me. I’m not a historian but something tells me not everyone else was a-ok with atrocities that existed before nazis.

Also, again I’m not a historian, but I believe their promise to act was also tied up in blaming others and hate.

“At least they got things done” is very often the seed around which a belief in fascism crystallizes. They don’t deserve any recognition for what they promised or what they accomplished.

This is a thread about my definition of a high trust society.

So far the only argument in support of nazi germany being high trust is that they got shit done.

I don’t see how anyone could argue that imprisoning your own population in forced labor camps based on rumor is something that can happen in a high trust society.

There is no trust in such a society, only fear.

Arguing about this any more is making me feel sick.