Little help on the Human Nature argument

[Drace]

Communism is the idea that you can make a classless society by giving everyone the same relative pay while everyone works for each other. If everyone is given similar pay, they will grow lazy. They will not be motivated to work hard. Most people don't have the devotion you have when it comes to supporting the government.
Even if everyone did do their job, some people will spend money while others save it. The people who spend their money will be poor as those who save their money will become rich. What can you do about that? Force the rich to spend their money?


Just see what the intelligent people here would have to say

[Cymru]

Where does that come from?

[Drace]

Does it matter, an arguments an argument.
Its some guy on another forum.

[Cymru]

I was just looking for a little context. My apologies.

[New Tet]

The 'definition' you provide of communism is a false one.

Communism isn't about 'giving everyone a million dollars equally', but about empowering the people to take, hold and democratically operate the economy in the interest of society and transforming it into a system of production for use and not for sale with a view to profit.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Even if everyone did do their job, some people will spend money while others save it. The people who spend their money will be poor as those who save their money will become rich. What can you do about that? Force the rich to spend their money?What money? :confused:

EDIT: Also, what New Tet said.

[NecroCommie]

Epic fail! Delete this post!

[NecroCommie]

Hell! I don't even support monetary system, let alone equal wages. This guy just spews something he has heard from a friend and he though was cool. I got news for him... It's not.

There will be no use in saving money even in monetary socialism, since you are not allowed to make more money with just owning money. You can buy big expensive products at most, but that's about it. Since you cannot own means of production, and you cannot own shares you cannot gain more money than the other. You can just spend it less.

And again the "equal wages = laziness"... What kind of a moron is this?! If I did everything for money, I would definately not study sciences of natural resources. So clearly money is not that big of an incentive for people.

[Lyev]

Even though that is just a cheap distortion of communism, and if that is a capitalists view of 'communism', do they really think that definition is worse than the current system of capitalism? At least that definition is trying to give everyone equal opportunities rather enslaving people like capitalism does. Plus, what is that bollocks about forcing people to spend money? 'forcing the rich to spend their money?' It's not about what people spend. Why should it be? In a true definition of communism people can, of course, spend what they want. It's not about how people spend; it's about how they're paid.

[RadioRaheem84]

Communism is the idea that you can make a classless society by giving everyone the same relative pay while everyone works for each other. If everyone is given similar pay, they will grow lazy. They will not be motivated to work hard. Most people don't have the devotion you have when it comes to supporting the government.
Even if everyone did do their job, some people will spend money while others save it. The people who spend their money will be poor as those who save their money will become rich. What can you do about that? Force the rich to spend their money?


He's obviously operating on several presuppositions. The first is that money and wages are essential for a society. Second, he probably believes socialism to be an ideology based on nothing but welfare programs and equal pay schemes that leach off a market based economy. Third, he operates on the assumption that people are generally corrupt and will never let equality happen. This last one is vital and is the key for the general misconceptions about socialism. It usually stems from the shoddy reading of the christian notion that people are born corrupt or the libertarian pressuposition that humans are greedy and self-interested ( i.e. a secularized version of the shoddy christian teaching).

[RadioRaheem84]

Actually in a capitalist economy, the working class is forced to spend their money "wisely" in order to survive. If you really look at it, the rich can spend their money as they please and not worry about the consequences. Inheretents can live like the "ghetto crack mothers" they despise all they want and afford to take care of babies, pay for abortions, medications for STDS, and be outright lazy! The only reason why they get a pass is because they stimulate the economy by purchasing things to maintain their lazy lifestyles while the "ghetto people" leach off of society to do so.

In other words, working class people are forced to every day by the flux and flow of the market to dip into their savings, cancel trips to see grandma, afford for only one of their kids to go to school, etc. while the rich can do as they please. Every time there is a dip in the marketplace, the working, poor and middle class have to adjust their lives and are forced to make sacrifices that can help or endanger their families.

Why do capitalists keep insisting that Socialism is about force, when the market drivien economy forces us to adjust our lives to accomodate the wealthy!?

[Drace]

Many well said things guys, thanks

[Drace]

I did a little analysis of the human nature myself. This is what I came up with. Some feedback would be nice. It was just something I rambled on so bits of it might not make sense.

___

The human nature is a brain and nothing more. The actions one takes are only results of reasoning. This is perhaps where the argument arises. That all reasoning is built around things like money and power. I have no doubt that people act in self interest, that is, they act in ways that it benefits them. The argument views greedy things such as power as self interest, while completely ignoring the good deeds of men.
If viewing self interest as anything but having one men ignore his needs and act with the will of anothers men, then human nature is not greedy. That is, unless, we say that a men wants nothing more then his beloved money. This is the core of the counter-argument.
Men's actions are done in favor of what they value, in the direction of whats they believe to be the best. While one will value the act of charity, another will not. The one who does, still is acting in self interest, since he receives pleasure from it. What separates the other is that he does not value such things, and it is not of his interests. These two are both people I tell you. They are made of the same nature, the ability to reason what is the best of things, but they will arrive at different conclusions. Thus, to have people cooperate, we would not have to change their genetic makeup, but their values which they reason upon.


I have come to understand that the answer to whther we are born greedy or not is not a simple matter of yes or no.
Men are self interested. In simple terms, we do not give ourselves into slaves. Our interactions are done in a form of trade. Things must be fair. Respect for respect, labour for labour. This is a simple nature of us which enables us to exist as civilized humans.
However, to say that we are born with lust for more is a completly another thing. For one, selfishness to this extent interferes with the human emotion guilt.
I would say the reason of this very nature is to regulate this "trade". For those who do not feel guilt, do not understand their doings.
A buisnessman is the ultimate example. His job is exploitation. This is how he makes his profit. Now for a buisness owner, his life is a game in which the objective is to beat the competitor. His buisness is his hobby. When he wins big, his happy, when he loses, his sad. His reactions to the buisness are the same as of ours to a sport. A buisnessman does not think of his riches. Sure, at the enterance he is excited to enter a new world. As he adjusts, his happiness is of always. When he wins, only numbers change, if its significant enough, it causes his happiness because he has done well.
Its no lust for wealth. If so, why does a buisness men have millions in the bank he does not use? His actions are comparable to us with our hobbies. Do we call it greed that allows us to continue playing a sport to enchance our skills?
A buisness is another hobby, but is large enough to have a control of others lives. Once ones hobby becomes a buisness men, it can be compared to a willing basketball player. Always practicing aang practicing. This is greed. The statisfaction of being better. But remeber a buisness men's life has an impact over others lives. So imagine us as re ball that a buisness owns and hits the ground in every attempt of becoming better. Their tactics of profit. In a negative matter I'd say, thus it can be eliminated.
Buisness is just another hobby. Thus, its not crime against humanity to eliminate it since many exist. Its rather a system which exploits men's fair esuring system of self interest into monsters.
Moreover on the "we are born with lust" propaganda. Its clearly evident in our lives that this is not the case. What is there to explain, just look at your own life. Most never picture ourselves

[Nwoye]

The fact is, our notions of human nature are founded in observations of very vague patterns of human behavior. However, we have no way of understanding the correct causal relationship between one's human nature and the material conditions and influences surrounding their mental development - to put it simply, whether we have capitalism because people are greedy, or whether people are greedy because we have capitalism.

[New Tet]

Even though that is just a cheap distortion of communism, and if that is a capitalists view of 'communism', do they really think that definition is worse than the current system of capitalism? At least that definition is trying to give everyone equal opportunities rather enslaving people like capitalism does. Plus, what is that bollocks about forcing people to spend money? 'forcing the rich to spend their money?' It's not about what people spend. Why should it be? In a true definition of communism people can, of course, spend what they want. It's not about how people spend; it's about how they're paid.

Exactly! Marx taught us that the primary injustice in society does not take place at the point of consumption (although it happens there too, btw), but at the point of production. Abolish that injustice first and all else follows...

[New Tet]

[...]
The human nature is a brain and nothing more. The actions one takes are only results of reasoning.

I think that most actions people take are not based on reasoning but on irrational impulses.



This is perhaps where the argument arises. That all reasoning is built around things like money and power. I have no doubt that people act in self interest, that is, they act in ways that it benefits them. The argument views greedy things such as power as self interest, while completely ignoring the good deeds of men.


And I would argue that money and power are irrational and contradictory motivations that hinder and destroy "the good deeds of men". In fact, it has been shown quite convincingly (see "The Corporation" (http://www.thecorporation.com/)) that they are part of the corporate pathology of capitalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa3wyaEe9vE
[...]

[RebelDog]

I agree with the above, it is about how we remunerate and also organise the work in society. Capitalism fundementally rewards power. If you work at the bottom of a corporate hierarchy then you are remunerated the lowest, if you own large stock in the corporation or have a powerful position then you recieve far greater reward simply because of your power. Contribution does not come in to the equation. Simply having the power of ownership means that even if one produces nothing of worth to society one still is rewarded greatly. The bigger the actor in the market the bigger the reward and the greater the ability to 'externalise' costs. Market transactions are about transferring as much cost as possible on to others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Big fish in capitalism survive better by forcing these costs on to their workforce, the local community, society, the environment, the third world etc. That is how profit is attained. So capitalism, or class society in general, is a situation whereupon power is the key factor in deciding where the social product ends up. The market is not the only factor. Corporations depending on their size/power can gain huge state subsidy through tax exemption, actual direct subsidy or technological advancement paid for by the state and handed to private companies etc.

If we have an economic system that rewards power then we should never be surprised by the negative effects that such a system produces. It is obvious to the materialist that it is the economic institutions we have dictate the shape of society and how humans react and behave. If we want a better society worthwhile to all its participents and one that has positive outcomes then we must chnge the economic institutions that currently exist and replace them with ones that are there to produce for society's needs not for individual private gain and the remuneration of power. The producers must have control of their factories, the community must have control of their communities. This is not only just, it is highly desirable because of the positive outcomes it will produce for society.

If we agree that rewarding power is a ridiculous way to remunerate then we agree that we have to replace the institutions that do just that and that is the only way. The corporations, the market, the state, all have to be swept away and replaced with producer self-management, participatory planning, community control etc. We should have horizontal institutions that promote and encourage positive outcomes for society not ones owned and controlled by elite individuals. Capitalists argue that their system is the manifestation of human nature. Social anarchists and commmunists see the human behavior and the class system as the product of the economic system.

We should never expect people to react positively or engage in something they have no say, power or control over and the mass of the population do not have this. Conversely, give people the power over their lives at work, in the community and in their own lives then we would see the change this has on 'human nature' and society as a whole. The destruction and replacement of the economic institutions that reward greed and power is the key to the whole 'human nature' debate. Self-management and paticipatory planning are not just alternatives to private power and corporate pillage, they are highly desirable alternatives with highly positive outcomes for the individual who particiapates and society as a whole.