The "Human Nature" Argument

[dmcauliffe09]

Rightists are quick to say that communism and socialism "go against human nature" because humans are naturally greedy, violent, selfish, etc. It seems as though they have no other argument to present (except that "communism killed 167 million people"). In my opinion, humans are indeed naturally all of those things, but due to the fact that we live in society, we are expected to distinguish ourselves from the most primitive of beasts by exhibiting some form of self-control. We are able to change our nature theough the power of reason, which we are so often told to use. We are tought by the rightists to be patriotic and place our nations high atop our list of priorites, which is ironic, because it is the rightists who claim that humans are incapable of establishing communism/socialism because we are unable to not be greedy, selfish, etc. This is obviously just an excuse for them to exert their own greedy capitalist control over us.

My opinion might seem a bit hazy, so I'll try to put it clearer: rightists are so hell bent on patriotism, family, etc., but according to their own philosophies, communism/socialism can't work because people are greedy and selfish by nature, which is a fact that cannot be changed. If this is true, why do they encourage us to put nation before ourselves? Is this not impossible in relation to their ideology?

Thoughts? Ideas?

[ZeroNowhere]

'Nature' is pretty much the new form of 'Divine Will', except secular. As for humans being indeed all of these things... Prove it. Have you got anything to back this up?
As for the human nature being greedy argument, I've never seen it as much other than meaningless sophistry, since it firstly is completely unfounded, and, secondly, perhaps even more importantly, it's about as relevant to socialism as it was to the abolition of chattel slavery, that is, not. Humans are naturally greedy... If you say so, but so what?

[dmcauliffe09]

'Nature' is pretty much the new form of 'Divine Will', except secular. As for humans being indeed all of these things... Prove it. Have you got anything to back this up?
As for the human nature being greedy argument, I've never seen it as much other than meaningless sophistry, since it firstly is completely unfounded, and, secondly, perhaps even more importantly, it's about as relevant to socialism as it was to the abolition of chattel slavery, that is, not. Humans are naturally greedy... If you say so, but so what?
I mean to say that humans are naturally born with self-preservation instincts that include greed, but we are blessed with the power of rational decision. Saying that we are greedy and such is just an excuse for rightists to stop the growth of leftist thought.

[diome]

You make a very good point there!:cool: About the controversy of what rightists say.

I've thought about this myself too. If my anarchist/hippie utopy is a society without rulers, everyone being nice to each other, helping each other out, a society essentially full of good will and love, is that possible at all? I mean a society without rules or rulers isn't possible if people are greedy and selfish.

What I've figured out lately, it's like the coming of metal ages made things worse in human history. Prior to that nobody had any really valuable items. Of course things were valuable because they were useful, but essentially they were stuff almost anyone could make. In the early stone age (mesolithic) people didn't have specific weaponry for war. Of course the societies were rather small too, but basically everyone was just into hunting and gathering. There most probably were murders and other acts of violence too, but it seems there was no real warfare.

The coming of metal ages and more developed societies brought warfare into existance. There started to be specific weaponry for war. Some people started having a lot more valuable items than the rest. Essentially I can't by the way see the point why for instance gold is so highly valued even nowadays. Why is something like that worth waging war? Just because it's shiny and looks nice as jewelry? There's no real use for gold. I can see the point of valuing iron and copper though. But also stone tools and clay kitchenware are pretty efficient.

Some time ago I thought: "Learning everything about horse or dog behavior can take a lifetime. But the understanding of such animals is achievable. Humans are just more complex. One lifetime isn't enough in understanding humans. Everyone says they hate war, and that war is bad and should never happen. But yet war takes place every now and then."

Communists have it right I think, that some people shouldn't be a lot richer or poorer than the others. But in the end, it just didn't work. What I've been told, the fall of communists in Russia and the Baltic countries was due to people in high places figuring private possession would be great. After the system collapsed, they rushed to obtain all valuable possessions. Like big companies.

Especially concerning the Baltic countries this is usually presented as something that came from the public. That the ordinary people got tired of the system and rebelled. That's true too of course. But would they have succeeded, if the rulers hadn't thought it would be nice to be very rich?

[ZeroNowhere]

If my anarchist/hippie utopy is a society without rulers, everyone being nice to each other, helping each other out, a society essentially full of good will and love, is that possible at all? I mean a society without rules or rulers isn't possible if people are greedy and selfish.
Hippie, maybe, but not anarchist. I don't think that any of us commies expect people to suddenly be full of good will and love. As for people being greedy or selfish... Anarchy means 'no ruler', not 'no rules'. And a society without rulers is very possible if people are 'greedy and selfish'.


Communists have it right I think, that some people shouldn't be a lot richer or poorer than the others.
See, when we use the term 'class', we're not referring to whatever bullcrap based on income that the media is peddling nowadays. We use 'class' to refer to relationship to the means of production, so when we say that we want a classless society, we are merely saying to abolish the parasitic capitalist class that gets its wealth through ownership of the means of production, and as a result, the working class would cease to exist as a class as well.


But in the end, it just didn't work.
Let's be precise here. A Leninist revolution in a semi-feudalist state didn't work. This doesn't prove that socialism doesn't work.

"Incidentally, if the bourgeoisie is politically, that is, by its state power, “maintaining injustice in property relations”, it is not creating it. The “injustice in property relations” which is determined by the modern division of labour, the modern form of exchange, competition, concentration, etc., by no means arises from the political rule of the bourgeois class, but vice versa, the political rule of the bourgeois class arises from these modern relations of production which bourgeois economists proclaim to be necessary and eternal laws. If therefore the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory will only be temporary, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in the year 1794, as long as in the course of history, in its “movement”, the material conditions have not yet been created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and therefore also the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie. The terror in France could thus by its mighty hammer-blows only serve to spirit away, as it were, the ruins of feudalism from French soil. The timidly considerate bourgeoisie would not have accomplished this task in decades. The bloody action of the people thus only prepared the way for it. In the same way, the overthrow of the absolute monarchy would be merely temporary if the economic conditions for the rule of the bourgeois class had not yet become ripe. Men build a new world for themselves, not from the “treasures of this earth”, as grobian superstition imagines, but from the historical achievements of their declining world. In the course of their development they first have to produce the material conditions of a new society itself, and no exertion of mind or will can free them from this fate."
-Marx

"All revolutions up to the present day have resulted in the displacement of the rule of one class by the rule of another; but all ruling classes up to now have been only small minorities in relation to the ruled mass of the people. One ruling minority was thus overthrown; another minority seized the helm of state in its stead and refashioned the state institutions to suit its own interests. Thus on every occasion a minority group was enabled and called upon to rule by the given degree of economic development; and just for that reason, and only for that reason, it happened that the ruled majority either participated in the revolution for the benefit of the former or else simply acquiesced in it. But if we disregard the concrete content in each case, the common form of all these revolutions was that they were minority revolutions. Even when the majority took part, it did so — whether wittingly or not — only in the service of a minority; but because of this, or even simply because of the passive, unresisting attitude of the majority, this minority acquired the appearance of being the representative of the whole people.

As a rule, after the first great success, the victorious minority split; one half was satisfied with what had been gained, the other wanted to go still further, and put forward new demands, which, partly at least, were also in the real or apparent interest of the great mass of the people. In isolated cases these more radical demands were actually forced through, but often only for the moment; the more moderate party would regain the upper hand, and what had been won most recently would wholly or partly be lost again; the vanquished would then cry treachery or ascribe their defeat to accident. In reality, however, the truth of the matter was usually this: the achievements of the first victory were only safeguarded by the second victory of the more radical party; this having been attained, and, with it, what was necessary for the moment, the radicals and their achievements vanished once more from the stage."
-Engels.


What I've been told, the fall of communists in Russia and the Baltic countries was due to people in high places figuring private possession would be great.
I don't think that even the Stalinists would call the Soviet empire when it fell socialist (aka. communist).


figuring private possession
Eh, we don't give a fuck about possessions (ie. you can still have an mp3 player), but about private property, that is, ownership of the means of production.


metal ages
What is this that stands before me?

[Black Sheep]

Damn those stupid cappies.This argument is being refuted constantly and they throw it around based on their ignorance.

Firsty,humans are not 'selfish by nature'.The only selfish thing is our genes.Natural selection demands them to be 'selfish'.But that does not mean that 'humans act and behave in a selfish way'.

A selfish incentive can give birth to both selfish and altruistic behavior, because both benefit the individual, and in fact and altruistic behavior benefits the individual more.

In fact the ideal pattern is one of the de facto altruism, but with immediate and swift 'revenge', holding a grudge to those who do not return the favor.

So humans are not selfish by nature..They are also altruistic by nature, both are tendencies and strategies developed and passed on from generation to generation.

However, even if we were selfish and vile creatures,that wouldnt be THAT bad.. As Dawkins says, today's knowledge of how life evolves and behaves allows us to rebel against our genes, and free ourselves from their tyranny.

Moving, isn't it? :)

[Rebel_Serigan]

I believe that people are not necesarily selfish or even greedy. What i see human nature as (numan nature as in animal instincts) is that we are focused on what keeps us alive and well before we give a crap about the Joneses or what we should wear today. i can tell you right now that when human nature takes over in a starving society they don't kill eachother so that one or two people can get supper, no, they work together as a unit in order to bring in what is needed. Humans almost never resort to actual human nature unless they have a significant protion of the cerebral cortex damaged or if they have lived alone and untreated long enough, what does this mean> it means that greed for money, possesions, and power are learned behavior. In other words Capitolism has turned this repressed antisocial part of the mind into the forfront by advocating competeing with EVERYONE and telling you that everyone wants what you have. If one truely looks at the animal part of the human mind and nature one would see that working together for a common goal is more important than being the best or the person with the most value. Humans are social creatures like a wolf pack, and a wolf pack is socialist, yes there is a leader but after each kill everyone gets to eat because all of them helped down that buck. The argument of humans being selfish by nature is just simply false. Mass greed and selfishness is something we are brainwashed with every minet of every day in a capitolist society, sure you might get something great from encouraging back stabbing and one-upsmanship but if we all just gave into what we naturaly want to do and work together than we will make something that the one winner could never have managed.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Easy argument to counter. It is a common argument, but I have learned the proper methods to counter it if that's what you're asking about. It pretty much goes back to the time of very early humans. The Neolithic Age to be exact. Humans in these early stages had to rely on each other to survive. The males typically hunted and the females typically gathered fruit. Everything obtained was split among all members of the group. There was no such thing as a class or authority system. This is basically what Communism aims for so it's not an impossible goal. The whole idea of a class system came into existance when people began getting settled permanently in a single area. Populations grew so they felt it was a method to keep these growing populations under control(hence the creation of laws).

[Rebel_Serigan]

Straight up my man. That is exactly waht I was talking about people worked together long before we some captiolist decieded that in order to fight against a more effective system like socialism they had to say humans we selfish and greedy by nature. PSSSSHA.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Straight up my man.

Correction: Straight up my woman. :)

[Rebel_Serigan]

Oh, my most humble apologies then.

[autotrophic]

I hate it when people say that Human's are naturally greedy and selfish, etc. due to their human nature.

In reality, you can't define human nature according to how Humans act. This is something Sartre talked about alot.
The reason is this: It is true that Humans are greedy, but they also care for others. It is true that humans are selfish, but they are also altruistic (though not in the strictest sense). Humans naturally follow their own self-interest, but this does not mean that they are necessarily greedy or selfish. Many times, helping other's benefits yourself as shown by Kropotkin and many others.

This argument can be applied to other things as well. Humans are inherently greedy, stupid, rational, emotional, or whatever but they are also altruistic, smart, irrational, unemotional etc. They are both sides at once. There are really about 6.5 billion human natures :P

[Trystan]

'Nature' is pretty much the new form of 'Divine Will', except secular. As for humans being indeed all of these things... Prove it. Have you got anything to back this up?
As for the human nature being greedy argument, I've never seen it as much other than meaningless sophistry, since it firstly is completely unfounded, and, secondly, perhaps even more importantly, it's about as relevant to socialism as it was to the abolition of chattel slavery, that is, not. Humans are naturally greedy... If you say so, but so what?

I agree. My philosophy lecturer tells me that many of his students come up with the "human nature" argument re. socialism/communism. It is a widely used excuse with usually no evidence or argument to back it up. As you say - meaningless sophistry.

[dmcauliffe09]

Easy argument to counter. It is a common argument, but I have learned the proper methods to counter it if that's what you're asking about. It pretty much goes back to the time of very early humans. The Neolithic Age to be exact. Humans in these early stages had to rely on each other to survive. The males typically hunted and the females typically gathered fruit. Everything obtained was split among all members of the group. There was no such thing as a class or authority system. This is basically what Communism aims for so it's not an impossible goal. The whole idea of a class system came into existance when people began getting settled permanently in a single area. Populations grew so they felt it was a method to keep these growing populations under control(hence the creation of laws).
Nicely put.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Nicely put.

Surprisingly my bourgeois schooling has helped with something...

[Kassad]

I do get a good laugh out of hearing people try to argue this kind of irrationality. Basically, the argument for 'human nature' is simple. Human nature is just a slanted linguistical way of saying "we don't understand this, so let's call it human nature." That's all it is. When scientists and researchers can't comprehend why a group of humans do something, they call it human nature. The problem is that the argument is a total fabrication, as there is no human nature. There is only human behavior and it has been altered and changed throughout all of recorded history.

The idea that 'greed' and a desire to obtain currency in return for labor is just a basic description of conditioning in the capitalist system. The only way that Christianity continues to obtain followers is because they prey on children from the moment they are born. They are baptized and taught specific dogmas that formulate the impressionable and malleable mind of child in the manner the Christians desire. The entire concept of religion is totally illogical, as it disregards human consciousness and sensibility and places some form of rationality in something that cannot be observed in any manner. Basically, it is blind submission. The Church uses the term 'faith' as a final resort as to why people should believe, when in all truth, faith is just a word for submission. Religion and faith belittle human responsibility by placing everything in the power of a higher being. This advocates submission and allows suppression, and in turn, horrible crimes can be justified in the name of the divine pursuit.

This illogical brainwashing is apparent in the capitalist system as well because people are raised from an early age to reject critical thinking and rationality in school and, instead, to mindlessly memorize facts. Children in school who question what they are being taught, like they should, are ridiculed, but those who accept authority and mimic the phrases, formulas the ideas preached to them are rewarded with good grades and praise.

When a child is born into poverty, oppression and raised in a society of elitism, they are left to no other resort but to manipulate the system like all the others do. Capitalism is all about getting ahead, working up the corporate hierarchy and obtaining monetary clout and wealth. The system raises children and humans beings to believe that the only way to function and obtain society's approval is to trample all others in the pursuit of monetary gain. This is great for those who are advantages, such as those with massive inheritance, wealthy families and the advantage of being in the 'proper' social class, as well as being in the proper group, such as how white people and men have a key advantage in society over minorities and women.

This is not human nature. If anything, this is suppression of human dignity and it is incredibly primitive and disgusting. People are taught to reject assistance from others and to deny collaboration, for it is a dog eat dog world. Unfortunately, when you are raised under an ideological banner, it is incredibly tiresome to reject it and move away from it. That is why class consciousness becomes so hard to obtain because entire systems, societies and governments have been built under the notion that the only way to maintain power is through making sure that the elite are the only ones with a sense of consciousness, realization and rationality. That's why people aren't raised to think. Instead, they are raised to conform and entire societies are taught to reject those who stand out.

The only way to stop this is total destruction of the system, for this system of manipulation cannot last forever. People must realize that conformity should not be preached. Instead, it should be ridiculed, as opposed to ridiculing those who attempt to be individuals. Unfortunately, a lie told many times eventually becomes the truth and the world is built along these ideological stereotypes. It is even apparent in the earliest stages of education. As usual, capitalism is the disease. Conformity and blind submission are the symptoms, but revolution is the cure.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Exactly, Kassad. As I like to say, it's "Capitalist Nature" rather than "Human Nature". Capitalists rely completely on competition to survive. Their incentive keeping them this way is the fact that they don't want to starve. I see this as ridiculous as millions under the Capitalist system are starving simply because of a "Successful" few. These people have a chance to "succeed" mainly because their parents before them were probably wealthy and got them going.

[diome]

By metal ages I mean copper, bronze and iron age. Don't know if that's a valid English term though.

Neolithic stone age already saw the formation of upper class. That's what I learned from a recent documentary on Ötzi, the austrian/italian ice mummy.

Many excellent points in this conversation!:)

Have any of you read about the chimpanzee research, like Jane Goodall?

[Rebel_Serigan]

As far as I've seen thus far whenever Kassed posts he says everything that needs to be said, damned elequently too. As for the Chimp reseaerch, yes I have read it. Why do you bring it up? The nature of the chimps compared to humans?

[John Lenin]

Rightists ... "go against human nature"


http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/15/l_368e6259917ab4e58239693f355844e4.jpg

[LOLseph Stalin]

Love the picture. ;)

[Rebel_Serigan]

That picture is now my desk-top background. It is just so awesome and true.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Rightists are quick to say that communism and socialism "go against human nature" because humans are naturally greedy, violent, selfish, etc.

So we should allow murder and greed by that argument.

Capitalism goes against human nature too, since humans are naturally charitable, peaceful and altruistic. Both violate human nature to some degree, but then again human nature is quite malleable and why should we exalt the worst of humanity and not the best?

[ZeroNowhere]

Capitalism goes against human nature too, since humans are naturally charitable, peaceful and altruistic.
This is an equally unprovable assertion.

[Louise Michel]

There is a human nature at a basic level ie the level of physical needs such as nourishment, sex and so on. Of course this doesn't suggest that there's a "nature" defining how these needs will be fulfilled and as the original post suggested humans are also conscious and reflective meaning that we adapt our behaviour to varying circumstances.

A lot of the christian right in the USA also see unfettered capitalism as the embodiment of "free will" which of course God has allowed us all :laugh: We can all get out there and build our little businesses and live happily ever after ... until of course the financial system goes into meltdown and all our hard work is reduced to so much dust.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I think this argument just goes right back to the question "what is human nature"? Really, what is it? Nobody can really know for sure, but different philosophers had different ideas in the past.

[benhur]

There's no such thing as human nature. There's only human behavior, which changes in tune with circumstances. Therefore, change circumstances to change human behavior for the better. This is a far better approach than positing an unprovable 'human nature' and justifying capitalism on that basis.

Moreover, this human nature argument cuts both ways. If a cappie points to greed as human nature (thereby justifying capitalism), a communist might well point to compassion and love as our essential nature (and justify communism in the same way).

[mikelepore]

the rightists who claim that humans are incapable of establishing communism/socialism because we are unable to not be greedy, selfish, etc.

I think the answer is that it's enough to be able to define which kinds of institutions shall be made to exist and which won't be made to exist. In order in invest in the stock market, that institution, a stock market, would have to exist, given a certain place to exist, officially recongized as being real, officially used for something. In order for people to buy slaves, that institution, a slave market, would first have to be given a place to exist, that form of property ownership recorded in some town hall. For someone to become the boss, the landlord, the bureaucrat, the king, etc., that social position would first have to exist, and then some person would come along and fill that preexisting role. Pointing to human nature can only address the subject of what kind of person might end up being in the role, assuming that the role already exists for them to move into. We don't need to be concerned about that because our revolution will change the roles, not the people. After the revolutionary change, if someone does desire to be the boss, the exploiter, the emperor, or whatever, and if society has no such office, then their wishes would be frustrated, and we can let them stomp their feet and shake their heads in frustration all they wish. Without giving them the institutional framework to act within, their impulses would not be sufficient conditions for them to become society's problem.

[Louise Michel]

Pointing to human nature can only address the subject of what kind of person might end up being in the role, assuming that the role already exists for them to move into. We don't need to be concerned about that because our revolution will change the roles, not the people. After the revolutionary change, if someone does desire to be the boss, the exploiter, the emperor, or whatever, and if society has no such office, then their wishes would be frustrated, and we can let them stomp their feet and shake their heads in frustration all they wish. Without giving them the institutional framework to act within, their impulses would not be sufficient conditions for them to become society's problem.

I think there's a lot of truth in what you're saying but surely a social revolution will change both the roles and the people. We are not tied to a fixed nature because we are conscious beings. We have to feed ourselves, procreate (not everybody but enough of us), protect ourselves from the elements and disease and so on but the manner in which we organize society to do this is determined by our consciousness. The social revolution will be the start of a transformation in consciousness whereby the majority come to understand that they really can run society for the good of all rather than allowing a greedy minority to enrich themselves.

Of course there will still be ambitious, greedy people but, as you say, there really won't be any way or anywhere for them to act out their desires - because the workers, now conscious of their own power and historical role have so decided.

[LOLseph Stalin]

There's no such thing as human nature. There's only human behavior, which changes in tune with circumstances. Therefore, change circumstances to change human behavior for the better. This is a far better approach than positing an unprovable 'human nature' and justifying capitalism on that basis.

Moreover, this human nature argument cuts both ways. If a cappie points to greed as human nature (thereby justifying capitalism), a communist might well point to compassion and love as our essential nature (and justify communism in the same way).

Well of course. Both sides are always going to say human nature is compatiable with their ideology to justify that it works. Like Conservatives, for example basically think that we will kill each other unless we have authority above us controlling us. They believe by nature humans are evil savages. Us on the other hand obviously believe the opposite. It's quite interesting though. It really gets you wondering who's right about human nature.(hopefully us...)

[Louise Michel]

Like Conservatives, for example basically think that we will kill each other unless we have authority above us controlling us.

Funny, but I've always thought it was the people in authority who organized all the killing :thumbdown: - know what you mean though, they do claim their war crimes are noble acts that stop the spread of "evil" in one form or another.

The truth is though, I believe, the people who can stomach committing atrocities are a small minority who rise to power because the capitalist system needs ruthless murderers like Bush and "peacemaker" Kissinger. A major reason for the failure of the Paris Commune was that the Communards just weren't ruthless or bloodthirsty enough. There's a paradox there of course - can you create a more humane society via a bloody and ruthless social revolution, or can a basically humane social revolutionary movement ever remove a more ruthless capitalist class?

But I suppose that's a different topic. :cool:

[LOLseph Stalin]

Funny, but I've always thought it was the people in authority who organized all the killing http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-argument-t102471/revleft/smilies2/thumbdown.gif - know what you mean though, they do claim their war crimes are noble acts that stop the spread of "evil" in one form or another.

The truth is though, I believe, the people who can stomach committing atrocities are a small minority who rise to power because the capitalist system needs ruthless murderers like Bush and "peacemaker" Kissinger. A major reason for the failure of the Paris Commune was that the Communards just weren't ruthless or bloodthirsty enough. There's a paradox there of course - can you create a more humane society via a bloody and ruthless social revolution, or can a basically humane social revolutionary movement ever remove a more ruthless capitalist class?

But I suppose that's a different topic. http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-argument-t102471/revleft/smilies/001_cool.gif

It's funny because the Capitalists say we're the violent ones, supporting revolution. If you look at it, Capitalists are violent too. They go to war if their "perfect" system is threatened. It's the poor who suffer too when that happens. Iraq seems like a pretty good example. Innocent civilians are dying due to American imperialism. Having monopolies in one country just doesn't seem to be enough so the major Capitalist powers must rely on invading other nations for more resources. The whole Iraq thing isn't even about stopping terrorism anymore. Anyway, if you're interested here's an article about imperialism: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

[magicSpoons]

I think the rightist justification of capitalism, that we are violent selfish and greedy stems from false interpretations of Darwinian "survival of the fittest" whereby one wo/man is in constant struggle to survive against both nature and other wo/men. But this foolish notion has not even considered the fact that humans are social and the most intelligent of animals and we have acheived this not through competition with each other, but rather co-operating with each other against the other forces of nature. (I'm totally ripping from Malatesta and Kropotkin here) We would not be at our level now if we had in constant competition with each other simply because we would have been too busy trying to survive, (gathering food, water, mates) to develop our intellect.

Only by mass co-operation has the human being achieved such heights by making survival a 'sideline' issue, thus giving us the opportunity to develop intelligence, culture, even our complex emotions.

Capitalism which pitches every man in competition with every other man, threatens to drive us back to the animal state by making survival (ie. earning a wage) the most important issue again, and driving down our progressive intellect and culture. Thus man can not be free in capitalism because he doesn't make progress, just capital.

[Iowa656]

There are several lines of attack on this argument. These are only brief explanations, I'm in the process of writing an essay on in. It will be on my blog (see signature) in a few days.

1. Define Human Nature. Can you prove it exists?

2. Presuming that Human nature exists then what exactly does it mean? What is a natural behaviour? Don't all people behave differently? Does it apply to modern society?

3.Hypothetically presuming again that "natural" behaviours can be labelled, then why is it that those behaviours should be allowed? For example, paedophiles claim they are "naturally" attracted to children, so should it be allowed? Same with murder, rape, theft, all natural, so why not legalise them?

4. What part of of communism EXACTLY is against "human nature"? Here's some common claims;
a) Communism is for "sharing". - Surely sharing is more natural then greed? What's natural about watching other starve while you get obese? Having excess serves no functional purpose.
b) Humans only "work" if there's an economic incentive. Why do you do chores then? There's no money in that. Why do lottery winners go back to work?
c) Helping those in need is "unnatural" - ignoring them is "natural then", so why not mob rule, rule of the strongest in society?

5. Isn't the most natural society of Primitive man, those before all technological advances? If so then communism is the ONLY natural option. Humans are social "animals", so an individual society is the most "unnatural" one that can exist.

That should stop people in their tracks.

[brigadista]

the human nature rationalisation is a lazy method of stopping debate about solutions and alternatives

[LOLseph Stalin]

the human nature rationalisation is a lazy method of stopping debate about solutions and alternatives


If you mean that from the perspective of Capitalists, then yes. They use that because they don't want to admit that their system is flawed. They say that it's human nature to be greedy to make the bourgeoisie look like their actions against the working class are perfectly fine.

[brigadista]

If you mean that from the perspective of Capitalists, then yes. They use that because they don't want to admit that their system is flawed. They say that it's human nature to be greedy to make the bourgeoisie look like their actions against the working class are perfectly fine.

who else is lazy except capitalists!!!:)

[LOLseph Stalin]

who else is lazy except capitalists!!!http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-argument-p1376170/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

I don't know. Me? At least my friends say so...

[Kassad]

I'm really disappointed to see some revolutionary socialists asserting that there is even a minute amount of human nature that exists in the human psyche. The desire for food and shelter, as well as the requirement of human sexual action to continue the existence and evolution of the species are necessities. They are not things we crave because of base instincts, for they are things we require. Anything else is subject to debate, as 'human nature' assumes that every human reverts to this instinct; this primitive action or ideology. That's absurd, for there is no consensus on human action. There never has been and there never will be, thus the argument is a total fallacy.

The 'human nature' argument is something that socialists have nothing in common with. If anything, it is capitalist bile that is consistently used as a refutation of socialism and Marxism. It's totally contradictory, though, as their system doesn't advocate 'human nature' as they say it. In fact, it advocates exploitation, destruction and an inhumane nature. The argument of human nature is only used to refute society's potential for cooperation, but in essence, it is the action of totally forsaking science, logic and reason. When you claim that a human performs an action because of human nature, you concede that it isn't possible to comprehend scientifically why that human performed that action.

It's disgusting because we as humans are consistently required to use logic and science in every day situations. Otherwise, technological and social development will come to a complete stop. Instead of reverting to simplistic and surreal ideologies about human action, we should see these 'primitive actions' as things that require further study, analysis and observation. We should not forsake our fundamental responsibility as humans to analyze and understand.

In all honesty, it's a total submission of responsibility. It reminds me distinctly of some people's choice to submit to theocratic oppression and religious tyranny, which is a total decomposition of the mind and the action of forsaking human responsibility. This blind submission is promoted through the argument for human nature, which comes as no surprise when reactionaries and religious hypocrites use the argument consistently.

After proper observation, we realize that submission, lack of responsibility and the transfer of human dignity into the hands of a ruling elite is inherent in the capitalist system. In truth, it is the epitome of the capitalist system for all those in it to submit to the bourgeoisie class; totally and unconditionally, much like the religious forsake themselves before a deity. Thus, capitalism is the total lack of responsibility and horrible crimes can be justified by stating that tyranny and hegemonic destruction are 'human nature.'

[LOLseph Stalin]

Good post. You made some very good points about how Reactionaries use the "Human nature" argument simply to refute against Socialism. As i've mentioned in an earlier post, we can't even know for sure what "human nature" actually is as everybody has very different ideas. And yes, workers under Capitalism are always going to resort to religion. It's really the only "escape" they have from the cruelities of Capitalism yet it being used against them, keeping them in submission. It's sad.

[ZeroNowhere]

who else is lazy except capitalists!!!:)
Me.


In all honesty, it's a total submission of responsibility. It reminds me distinctly of some people's choice to submit to theocratic oppression and religious tyranny, which is a total decomposition of the mind and the action of forsaking human responsibility. This blind submission is promoted through the argument for human nature, which comes as no surprise when reactionaries and religious hypocrites use the argument consistently.
'Human nature' is basically the new, secular version of the 'divine right' idea from back in feudalist times. It's always nice to have a holy spirit guarding your power.

[Cumannach]

If there's no human nature, what exactly is the Human Genome project about?

There is a human nature, but capitalism is not human nature.

If there was no human nature, workers could be molded like putty into willing happy wage slaves, and there would be no struggle between workers and capital. Thus there would be no future socialist revolution. In fact it is human nature to reject exploitation and to love justice. This doesn't mean everybody is naturally just, but that in general, most people are.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Human nature exists as far as this: we're genetically inclined to try to stay alive, and reproduce. Thats's natural selection - beyond this there is nothing fundamental to us.

Therefore, whatever economic system we find ourselves in, we're likely to try to behave in a way that that system rewards, because economic reward will help us stay alive and reproduce. In a capitalist system, then, the best reward we can get is to become a capitalist, to compete and fight and try to hold everyone else down to push ourselves up. That's how it works. In a socialist system this reward of cut-throat self interest isn't there, so that phenomenon will go.

As far as I can see, every society that has ever existed has defended itself as the natural way of doing things - hunter gatherers, slaves, feudal, capitalist, hermit, socialist. None of it's right - our only nature is staying alive and reproduction, and conformity to whatever system we are in usually means our greatest chance at that.

-Alex

[magicSpoons]

Human nature exists as far as this: we're genetically inclined to try to stay alive, and reproduce. Thats's natural selection - beyond this there is nothing fundamental to us.

I would agree with most of your post. But would add that the human mind and intellect have developed on the fundamentals in the best way for the survival of the species, and for us humans that would be behaving as a social animal - I don't think anyone could deny that.

So I would partly disagree with what you say about all the different societal systems, as some of them inhibit the natural social interaction that we share, mainly capitalism, through various methods - be they brute force or more subtle brain-washing. So I think one could actually argue that the system that gives the maximum freedom of social interaction (anachist-communism:thumbup1:), and therefore the greatest potental for survival of the entire species.

[Old Man Diogenes]

I do get a good laugh out of hearing people try to argue this kind of irrationality. Basically, the argument for 'human nature' is simple. Human nature is just a slanted linguistical way of saying "we don't understand this, so let's call it human nature." That's all it is. When scientists and researchers can't comprehend why a group of humans do something, they call it human nature. The problem is that the argument is a total fabrication, as there is no human nature. There is only human behavior and it has been altered and changed throughout all of recorded history.

The idea that 'greed' and a desire to obtain currency in return for labor is just a basic description of conditioning in the capitalist system. The only way that Christianity continues to obtain followers is because they prey on children from the moment they are born. They are baptized and taught specific dogmas that formulate the impressionable and malleable mind of child in the manner the Christians desire. The entire concept of religion is totally illogical, as it disregards human consciousness and sensibility and places some form of rationality in something that cannot be observed in any manner. Basically, it is blind submission. The Church uses the term 'faith' as a final resort as to why people should believe, when in all truth, faith is just a word for submission. Religion and faith belittle human responsibility by placing everything in the power of a higher being. This advocates submission and allows suppression, and in turn, horrible crimes can be justified in the name of the divine pursuit.

This illogical brainwashing is apparent in the capitalist system as well because people are raised from an early age to reject critical thinking and rationality in school and, instead, to mindlessly memorize facts. Children in school who question what they are being taught, like they should, are ridiculed, but those who accept authority and mimic the phrases, formulas the ideas preached to them are rewarded with good grades and praise.

When a child is born into poverty, oppression and raised in a society of elitism, they are left to no other resort but to manipulate the system like all the others do. Capitalism is all about getting ahead, working up the corporate hierarchy and obtaining monetary clout and wealth. The system raises children and humans beings to believe that the only way to function and obtain society's approval is to trample all others in the pursuit of monetary gain. This is great for those who are advantages, such as those with massive inheritance, wealthy families and the advantage of being in the 'proper' social class, as well as being in the proper group, such as how white people and men have a key advantage in society over minorities and women.

This is not human nature. If anything, this is suppression of human dignity and it is incredibly primitive and disgusting. People are taught to reject assistance from others and to deny collaboration, for it is a dog eat dog world. Unfortunately, when you are raised under an ideological banner, it is incredibly tiresome to reject it and move away from it. That is why class consciousness becomes so hard to obtain because entire systems, societies and governments have been built under the notion that the only way to maintain power is through making sure that the elite are the only ones with a sense of consciousness, realization and rationality. That's why people aren't raised to think. Instead, they are raised to conform and entire societies are taught to reject those who stand out.

The only way to stop this is total destruction of the system, for this system of manipulation cannot last forever. People must realize that conformity should not be preached. Instead, it should be ridiculed, as opposed to ridiculing those who attempt to be individuals. Unfortunately, a lie told many times eventually becomes the truth and the world is built along these ideological stereotypes. It is even apparent in the earliest stages of education. As usual, capitalism is the disease. Conformity and blind submission are the symptoms, but revolution is the cure.

Amazingly profound, I love it.

[hugh20]

Surely socialism and relying on the group are human nature and capitalism distorts human nature. To be successful whilst others starve?
Also, first post on these forums btw.:lol:

[LOLseph Stalin]

Surely socialism and relying on the group are human nature and capitalism distorts human nature. To be successful whilst others starve?
Also, first post on these forums btw.http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-argument-p1392019/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Exactly.

And congrats on the first post. :)

[Forward Union]

Humans are self interested.

But pretty much all biological science today affirms that humans naturally cooperate and form structures based on reciprocal altruism to fulfil their self-centered needs.

Altruism is a mythical construct, and humans are selfish, but this does not contradict communism. If anything it exposes a flaw in capitalism. If people want to satisfy themselves, then surely workers overthrowing the capitalists and distributing their wealth is naturally justified?

[Blackscare]

Taken from a post I made in another thread, though I think it fits here:

My main problem with the capitalist "incentive" argument is that it assumes that no one on this planet has passions beyond making money. It completely dehumanizes people (or probably reflects the morally bankrupt, hollow personalities of those that argue this line of thought), and it's an awfully cynical world view.


Perhaps you can only be motivated to do things if there's some sort of carrot dangled in front of your face, but we're not all unthinking pack animals.

Your argument assumes that doctors only help people for money, but surely there are easier and less pressurized ways of making money, right? People's lives hang in the balance, are you saying that these people are in their line of work because of profit motive rather than a passion for helping people?

And inventors are a personality type of their very own, they are people who delight in the act of creating something new. True, maybe the instances of people building novel contraptions for opening wine bottles, etc, may fall off, but who needs another inane product for an infomercial? Those aren't real inventors, at least not of the actually valuable type like Tesla (who, incidentally, was ruthlessly fucked over by Edison in the name of capitalist competition. Who knows what other innovations Tesla would have created had he not been stolen from and ruined by Edison, the model capitalist?).

Scientists typically love the act of discovery, the creation of new theories and such. Do scientists get paid as much as stock traders? No they don't, yet their work is infinitely more technical and difficult than what stock traders do.

And what about free/open source computer programmers? These are people that contribute to free software projects for the love of programing and the feeling of creation that follows. They often are never even known individually by the users of their projects, so we can see that ego and recognition also plays not part in the motivation of many people. They also firmly believe in the value of their work and open source/free software in general, without any economic incentive that you talk about these people continue to make high quality, useful software for the good of every user. And this is no fringe movement, you probably have free/open source software on your computer right now. So much for profit motive being the only motivator, eh?


People aren't blank blocks of clay (well maybe you and other people who think like you are) that just mold themselves into whatever niche stands to make them the most money. Each person has different passions and interests, some are artists, others inventors, etc. The money making aspect to most people, when you break it down, is secondary. The most useful jobs are not the ones that are paid the most, even the salary of a doctor or physicist is nothing compared to a CEO of some company. Are they any less useful? You seem to think that we support those that don't want to work, but that is in fact the opposite of our position. We want to restore the dignity of useful classes of people and end the exploitation being perpetrated by the LEAST useful group, corporate paper pushers. By restoring comfortability and dignity to the most productive and useful classes of people we aim to free people from wage slavery and allow them to pursue their own passions, leading to a more intellectual and artistic society. We live in a time when a narrow set of interests are economically rewarded, and where few of those that actually have potential are able to realize it because of material circumstances.

Of course, for some people, the collecting of wealth is the passion that drives them. This is not a good trait, but unfortunately we live in a system that rewards that particular passion more than any other. Those that are the richest aren't better or more 'successful' people, they are people who's personality type is best suited to the values promoted by the current system.

If I had to guess I'd say you worked in some oppressive desk job, kissing major ass with your bosses in an effort to become one of them and have minions of your own. This is in no way admirable, you are motivated by the desire for wealth pure and simple, this is clear in your posts. You, sir, are the true parasite, because in a truly fair society where each man's equal share is expected you would have no incentive, but as I have shown you are not indicative of all of humanity. You are a member of a sick, morally bankrupt class that can't be bothered with genuinely useful work if it doesn't lead to the collection of wealth (or rather, MORE wealth than others, I think it would be less appealing to you without the feeling of superiority). You apply, wrongly, you're reasoning to the thought processes of others. Sure, there are people in every profession motivated by the desire for material wealth, but outside of the corporate paper pusher class, this is by no means the rule. It's also an attitude that is conditioned into people from the time they are very little, because we live in a society where success or value of individuals is determined by the amount of money they are able to amass.

[Blackscare]

Continued:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../images/icons/icon1.gif
And for the record, I'm a libertarian communist. I don't like the idea of some government telling me what to do or how to do it any more than you, I believe in free association and mutual aid. So stop implying that a communist society would have to be some Orwellian nightmare where the NKVD are hiding behind every corner, because it's just another of the many capitalist strawmen. It has no basis in reality, mostly because communism has never really been tried on a large scale. References to the USSR or Mao's China just show your complete lack of understanding of the various leftist movements, we aren't some monolithic group of people that all identify with previous socialist states or believe they were a success. The leftist movement is an ever evolving, self-perfecting movement, in contrast to the stagnant ideology and defense of the status quo characterized by right-wing movements.

************************************************** ******

Also, do you think that a person who is inclined to pursue a technical profession would somehow decide to become an iron worker if he wasn't payed? I know many college educated people who admit fully that they would make lousy carpenters or mechanics, and aren't interested in such a line of work. I, for one, plan on going into education, hopefully as a professor one day after I've done my share of active political work and all. I want to do it because I love academia, it's the only profession I'd go into. Money does not factor into it, if I could make more as a farmer I still wouldn't personally be interested in that.


Why is that career path more celebrated? Farmers, workers, and professors all serve a purpose in society, yet when someone decides that they aren't interested in a college oriented job they are considered failures in this society? For some reason it's ok to admit that I would rather work in academia than with my hands but when people honestly say that they'd rather learn a trade than go into college, they are looked down upon.


That's because this system does not reward the hardest workers, or the most useful jobs. It rewards those with marketable skills, this is the only reason college based jobs are more respected in this system. Someone who works with his hands requires less extensive schooling than a doctor, and therefore the labor pool is much larger and the pay one can expect much less. Never mind that both are useful professions, there are less of one so it is higher paying. Does this make sense outside of a system based on profit motive? No, the moment you look at the situation objectively you can see that it is ridiculous.

*************************************************


It may not all apply to what this thread is about, but in general it argues against the idea that communism somehow defies human nature.

[NecroCommie]

My usual response to the human nature argument:

If humans are greedy and selfish by nature, then either I am not a human, or your statement is false. This way the rightists are forced to choose whether I am "above them", or they are wrong. Simple aint it?