What do we actually know about human nature?

[graffic]

A lot of reactionaries often predictably trot out the favourite argument that human beings, especially men, "naturally" like to compete against one another and that "collectivized decision making" is ineffective and frustrating. I agree with the latter argument to an extent however a question I would like to ask self-identified revolutionaries is that do you believe in a certain "human nature"? Or do you think capitalism distorts human nature, similar idea to what Engels said - "Man's fear of himself is expressed through private property" etc etc

I mean how would you counter a free-market libertarian argument that human's naturally want to compete, to an extent, and that communism is out of tune with real "human nature"? It is a good argument but perhaps it is a difficult concept to understand because of propaganda being instilled from a young age of competing and confronting humans

[Kronos]

We'd need a very precise definition for 'compete' first. Then we would have to figure out how, and why, 'collective decision making' necessary excludes that and vice-versa.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm not of course a "Revolutionary" but I was actually thinking about this the other day as I was driving around--I LOVE competition. I love beating my opponents, I like the stakes to be high and I like opponents that CARE about beating me.

There is nothing I hate more than playing Monopoly and taking all of my opponents houses and hotels and have them laugh about it. That's what's so wonderful about business--everyone takes it seriously.

Human nature IS competition. To wax poetic a bit: you aren't really alive unless you are competing.

[Zanthorus]

Usually I try to avoid the inevitable 'human nature' arguments inherent in any discussion of Radical leftist politics. However when it does come up my answer is usually something along the lines of:

Well I'm no raving post-modernist but I'm not too sure to what extent there actually is a 'human nature'. Most of it seems to be highly subjective and only holding true for a majority at best. Even the most fundamental things you can think of such as 'Humans Eat', 'Humans Breath' are revolted against by human beings (And there are some) who attempt to starve or strangle themselves. Most conceptions of human nature seem to reflect the prejudices of the people putting them forward than anything really empirically grounded. The idea that humans are naturally competitive certainly ignores a lot of the historical evidence showing that humans have a tendency towards co-operation by our nature as social animals (See: Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution). Wether or not this tendency toward co-operation is strong enough to sustain communism or wether it is offset by another tendency towards competition is still very much open to debate.

A common conception of human nature used to attack communism and anarchism is the idea that humans are naturally greedy. According to this view capitalism is the best economic system that takes this material greed into account and is thus the best system, no matter how flawed, for humanities survival. However in my view the greed we see around us is more a result of a fundamental problem with our culture and the result of social pressure to consume rather than anything inherently wrong with humans. If humans are naturally greedy then why do anti-consumerist groups even exist anyhow? Are they aliens? Androids? How do you explain their behaviour? And if we do assume that humans are naturally greedy there are still serious problems with this view. I mean it takes a very narrow definition of greed and confines it to the material realm. People can be greedy for things besides wealth such as security, affection, love etc.

[Havet]

According to Miseans, we can only be sure of one thing:

"Humans Act"

The cool thing about this is that its an axiom! Supposedly you can't disprove it, otherwise you'd be engaging in a human act yourself! muahahaha

[Zanthorus]

According to Miseans, we can only be sure of one thing:

"Humans Act"

The cool thing about this is that its an axiom! Supposedly you can't disprove it, otherwise you'd be engaging in a human act yourself! muahahaha

Well as every primary school kid knows one of the necessary pre-requisites for being a living creature is being able to move or 'act' so yes humans do act. If they didn't they cease being human and become a corpse.

Although the other axioms that Mises builds upon this are just stupid.

[RGacky3]

I LOVE competition. I love beating my opponents, I like the stakes to be high and I like opponents that CARE about beating me.


What does that have to do with Capitalism? Also competition is fun in context, but I guarantee you russian rulette is not something most people would choose to do, and neither should people be forced to do it.


There is nothing I hate more than playing Monopoly and taking all of my opponents houses and hotels and have them laugh about it. That's what's so wonderful about business--everyone takes it seriously.


Thats because your a douchebag.


Human nature IS competition. To wax poetic a bit: you aren't really alive unless you are competing.

Solidarity is also human nature. The fact is you can't show competition is actual human nature, the system encourages it totally, so the fact that people engage in it does'nt say anything about human nature it says something about society.

Was racism human nature 100 years ago? No.


According to Miseans, we can only be sure of one thing:

"Humans Act"

The cool thing about this is that its an axiom! Supposedly you can't disprove it, otherwise you'd be engaging in a human act yourself! muahahaha

Really? Great mental jackoffery, i.e. stroking yourself mentally while accomplishing or actually discovering a damn thing.

[Havet]

Really? Great mental jackoffery, i.e. stroking yourself mentally while accomplishing or actually discovering a damn thing.

Fuck off. I'm trying to joke about Miseans and you people take it seriously just because you've run out of arguments. Seriously...

[Jazzratt]

Fuck off. I'm trying to joke about Miseans and you people take it seriously just because you've run out of arguments. Seriously...

I presumed you were joking about it because it's an example of mental wankery that says nothing about the world? If so what the fuck is your problem with Gacky saying that it is?

My view of human nature is that humans create their own nature through their actions. There is no extant objective "human nature", some might claim their is based on the nature they have created around themselves (see, for example Bud's claim about humans being naturally competitive, which is preceded by him telling us that he does competetive things). Previaling societal norms, of course, affect the nature we create through the memes that come from those around us and of course our material conditions. That means that whilst capitalism is strong then bourgeois ideas of competition will become part of what most people make their nature due to the almost total control the bourgeoisie exert. As capitalism decays and more workers become involved in class struggle then acts and "natures" of cooperation will take hold more. Then again I never was much for philosophy so that could all be so much farting into the wind.

[graffic]

I don't think it is human nature to be greedy. I think that is probably consumer capitalism and human in-security. I like Engels thesis that private property and the lust for private profit are a mask of the real self. Capitalism distorts the image of what a real man really is

And I like the idea that it's harder to co-operate, it takes strength and patience. Exploitation and confrontation are signs of weakness and fear In humans i think

[#FF0000]

The only thing that humans have in their nature is to adapt. If human nature was to be greedy, then we'd see this all the way back in the very beginning of society, in hunter-gatherer tribes. And we do, sometimes. Meanwhile, other tribes were very egalitarian. Others were matriarchal. Others were patriarchal.

So, yeah. To say people are naturally greedy is ignoring the fact that most early human groups were, uh, not.

[Havet]

I presumed you were joking about it because it's an example of mental wankery that says nothing about the world? If so what the fuck is your problem with Gacky saying that it is?

My fucking problem is that he thought I was being serious! lol...

[Kronos]

As an example of how broad this argument could be, 'competition', in the sense that we mean sports, is something entirely different than 'competition' as a metaphor we use to describe some economic or social activity.

And the idea would have to be redefined in a real socialist society....since those effects of the competitive nature being expressed economically- as independence, business accomplishment, property value and assests, level of education, whatever, wouldn't be the driving forces in a classless society free of private business. Therefore, if indeed there is some 'kernel', some 'intrinsic' quality to our nature that is the source of the compulsion to compete, it should make itself known in some other way, psychologically....perhaps.

And if this is the case, and society is in generally good condition without those modes of expressions, we would have to make new exceptions to the definition of 'competition' as we previously thought of it.

Ultimately a definitive characteristic of the meaning of 'competition' should be something like: trying to gain something if even at another's loss. In any case of sports, or any other ordinary was we use the term, there is that element to it.

But the term 'loss' would have to be clarified. As mentioned above, in the context of the metaphor of sport, winning is the end.....but the capitalist principles behind the economic definition of 'market competition' are not the same as those in sports. You cannot translate the meaning of 'winning' into a generically similar incident of trying to gain- having property ( 'alienating it from the worker who produced it' is a somewhat vague assertion though ) and/or employing wage workers.

The traditional critical views of some Marxism of the capitalist discourse, such as....the working class is 'exploited'...or estranged from the other class, or as above...alienated from his labor, are a little excessively narrative.

Where is this mysterious 'alienation' and 'exploitation' stuff that Marxists are talking about. How can you 'sell' your labor, by the way? You can sell a riding lawnmower or an old microwave (craigslist is a great place for classifieds), but not your 'labor'. Unless you come up with some clever way to determine the absolute value of a unit of work or commodity, you can't assert that all people are valued according to that measure and standard. That standard is vague.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Very few behaviors are determined by human nature. One thing that is "natural" about human behavior is that we are social animals - we can not develop higher thinking and language without interaction with others (wild children who were abandoned and discovered later usually are never able to function properly in society or read at a normal level). The desire for survival is "human nature" in that we need to eat, sleep, procreate, and yet many people can choose not to do these things - religious people fast food, sex, and sleep all the time.

Human behavior is by and large dependent on material conditions, not genes, chemicals, devils/angels, or magic of some inherent nature. If you are starving and there is only enough food for you, then hording and not shearing (or greed) is perfectly natural. It is just as natural (in history) for people to share with strangers - in fact most older societies were majorly concerned with kindness to wandering strangers: Joseph and Mary in the bible looking for lodging; all those myths about beggars who ask for food or shelter and turn out to be a god or a prince in disguise.

As far as selfishness is "natural" human behavior, selflessness is equally "natural" and probably more common too. Iroquois raided their children communally and had children with multiple partners. When European missionaries asked how they could be sure that the children they were teaching and feeding were actually "theirs" the Iroquois were shocked and asked what kind of society would not care for all children.

This is not to say that other or older cultures are superior or anything - it's just to point out that cooperation and shearing and communal life have been the status-quo for humans much longer than competition for jobs and certainty competition between companies for profits. Conditions before the rise of agriculture and classes and eventually towns and cities meant that our survival depended on banding together and cooperating and sharing as much if not more than things like greed or competition.

[danyboy27]

I'm not of course a "Revolutionary" but I was actually thinking about this the other day as I was driving around--I LOVE competition. I love beating my opponents, I like the stakes to be high and I like opponents that CARE about beating me.

There is nothing I hate more than playing Monopoly and taking all of my opponents houses and hotels and have them laugh about it. That's what's so wonderful about business--everyone takes it seriously.

Human nature IS competition. To wax poetic a bit: you aren't really alive unless you are competing.

actually science show otherwise:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427341.100-fair-play-monkeys-share-our-sense-of-injustice.html

but of course if you believe in creationism...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16562ZGNuoM

[mikelepore]

that "collectivized decision making" is ineffective and frustrating

Perhaps we might find that collectivized decision-making has its faults and limitations, but we already know certain facts about the past and present state of delegating the industrial management task.

Let's first identify the worst case: that management will only be delegated to our representatives, while we don't bother with daily collective participation. The feasibility of such a system can be checked easily. Since, under capitalism, we already have a system in which stockholders elect an industry's managers, and it doesn't require any technical knowledge to elect them, then we could alternatively have a system in which the workers in each industry, who have familiarity with the production process, elect its managers. It would be a mere bookkeeping formula to have that workers' election of the managers tabulated according to one-person one-vote, in the absense of any such thing as a varying number of shares. It would be a mere matter of the choice of words, when writing the organization's charter, to give those managers a job description that doesn't include any mention of declaring profits. Therefore, worst case, at one possible extreme, that might be the extent to which decision-making can be collectivized -- each industry becoming a representative democracy, with some indirectness in carrying out the majority will. Even so, such a new system would be considerably better than the industrial dictatorship that we suffer under today.

At the other possible extreme, the best case, collective decision making might be vibrant, a form of daily self-expression and fulfillment for the participants.

So that is roughly the range of the benefit that we can expect from the classless society that we intend to build. It might be vastly superior to capitalism; however, in the event that we are being over-optimistic, it might turn out to be only considerably superior to capitalism.

If that which is vastly superior, and confers a thousand benefits, is out of reach, then we can be happy to take that which is only considerably superior, and confers only a hundred benefits.

Either way, the choice to enact such a change to a worker-administered classless society is as clear as it could possibly be. The choice is what they call a no-brainer.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I think the only thing we 'naturally' try to do is prosper, in accordance with our biology - we want to stay alive and reproduce. There's no point denying that, it's self-evidently true.

So then we have some options available to us for how we go about that. It seems to me we've had a few different shots at it. We can gang up, and force the losing gang(s) to do lots of work for us to help us prosper - slavery. We can invent elaborate systems for who is allowed to prosper and to what degree, and justify these positions with mystical ideologies - feudalism. We can all fight each other on hopefully equal terms to see who prospers - free market capitalism. We can fight each other with boxing gloves on - social democracy.

Or we can stop fighting.

-Alex

[ZeroNowhere]

we want to stay alive and reproduceI'm fairly sure some homosexuals may disagree.

[Jimmie Higgins]

we want to stay alive and reproduce I'm fairly sure some homosexuals may disagree.To paraphrase Sean Penn as Harvey Milk: "But god, how we keep trying!"

[Drace]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../images/icons/icon1.gif 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. When viewed analytically, it seems rather silly that loving wealth is hard coded into our brains.
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 whether 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 completely 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 business is another hobby, but is large enough to have a control of others lives. Once ones hobby becomes a business men, it can be compared to a willing basketball player. Always practicing aang practicing. This is greed. The satisfaction of being better. But remember a business men's life has an impact over others lives. So imagine us as re ball that a business 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.
Business is just another hobby. Thus, its not crime against humanity to eliminate it since many exist. It is not a violation of human rights and an opposition to the human nature.

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 as evil monsters who only care about wealth.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/misc/progress.gif http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/edit.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../editpost.php?do=editpost&p=1532616) http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1532616) http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/multiquote_off.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1532616) http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/quickreply.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1532616) http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/misc/blog/blogpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../blog_post.php?do=newblog&p=1532616) http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/post_thanks.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../post_thanks.php?do=post_thanks_add&p=1532616&securitytoken=1258265262-65ec021f084b9321da4148fdb99386d9f392f210)

[FSL]

I'm not of course a "Revolutionary" but I was actually thinking about this the other day as I was driving around--I LOVE competition. I love beating my opponents, I like the stakes to be high and I like opponents that CARE about beating me.

There is nothing I hate more than playing Monopoly and taking all of my opponents houses and hotels and have them laugh about it. That's what's so wonderful about business--everyone takes it seriously.

Human nature IS competition. To wax poetic a bit: you aren't really alive unless you are competing.


Do you think the Pharaohs were also playing monopoly, taking each other's hotels and having a blast? No?



Now try to understand why.

[Kronos]

I like to divide Nietzsche's concept of the 'will to power' into three basic stages. The first is the raw, organic and physical nature of a thing and its tendency to resist decomposition, termination, or subordination.

Although I can't explain this in any other manner than such metaphor, the idea can be grossly summarized in observing phenomena in nature that endure through time. The will to power is simply expressed in the power of nature to organize into things that change relatively slowly. This consistency is the first instance of the will power.

The second case is the organized, intelligible, meditated and intended scheme in things, beyond the elementary organic and physical expressions of the will to power.

Here is where a schematic 'competition' can be conceived of. At this level there is an intelligent, language using animal that expresses the will to power in an atmosphere of sophisticated material relations. The will to power is manifested in this animal's drive to attain conditions which he has been taught to accept as naturally desired. Some of the things desired are results of a social constructivism and therefore are contingent to the human animal in a particular circumstance at a particular time.

The cardinal expression of the will to power in modern man, civilized or not, is in the desire to have stuff. Property in some way....the authority to determine the use and fate of something in the world. This, since the dawn of the intelligent animal, man, is a denominator in human nature....the rest of his expressions of a competitive nature are constructed and contextual, not essential.

In extremely complex economic relations, where billions of people have to work and buy what they own in a market, the question comes to mind- how much work is worth how much stuff.

The competitive nature is expressed here as a motivation to preserve one's effort and energy.....to have as much as possible with the least amount of effort. Labor is the thing that is avoided before all else.

In a context where people are conflicting because they are receiving the same amount of compensation for their effort/work, but do not produce the same quality or volume of work in the same time, is supposed to be worked out by the free market 'self-adjusting' to manage this problem.

Sometimes it works- when workers get a new job that pays more, and sometimes it doesn't- when wages are going down universally in some sector of the industry. (I'm experiencing this now in residential construction)

Now the competitive nature in man is going to have to be expressed in this kind of system.....where the majority of his competitive nature will be exercised in his business relations, his ergonomic circumstances.

The third and final socioeconomic expression of the will to power is Capitalism. It is itself the natural expression of man's economic desires in a setting that is civil and diplomatic. The 'market' is then a simulation of a competition.

A competitive wage socialist system seems to accommodate both the desire to have property, and work as little as necessary to get as much as possible.

Without such a competitive wage system in a state owned industry...where there is a predetermined value to your labor effort and a predetermined wage limit...the general productive output of a specific industry might suffer from a loss of production incentive in the labor force.

There must always be a consequence for lower productive output, so that incentive is there, so that the market can continue to expand.

If ever the productive output of some industry decreased steadily over time, and no other factors are involved in influencing this, we could infer that individual workers are not happy and working with less effort.

We know, ipso facto (I don't know if that is an appropriate phrase....but I think it looks cool) that production incentive would absolutely increase if a raise in productive output was followed by a raise in wages.

How could a socialist system regulate and maintain a system that acted like a free market, with a competitive job industry.

How could it simulate a consumer demand market. What would influence the state board to give a worker a raise if his industry is not in high demand.

An issue for socialism to resolve; the self regulating attribute to the free market, which is very progressive (no communist can argue against this fact), but which, hitherto, has never been successfully duplicated in a state run economy....only in a mixed economy to some extent.

What do you do when entire industries that employ hundreds of thousands of people happen to be industries that are suffering from an increasing decline in market demand.

The free market, because of its endless business opportunity for individual business owners to start their own business and compete with other capitalists in every possible industry....assures that the possibility is always there in some industry to produce more of something for less costs. This is like a default incentive....and it helps to stimulate industry...even failing ones.

How could you simulate this feature in a controlled economy.

Anyway, my musings aside, most of the philosophical discussion about 'human nature' is probably either subtly confused or not elaborate enough.

I think the most obvious point that should be made is that a private property system can exist where there is also no private business.

One issue controlled economy is faced with is the problem of producing the same stimulating power a private business market can create. It would also have a problem with generating the semiotic stimulus in the consumer discourse. Consider that a great degree of motivating power to buy is produced in the advertisement semiotics....which would not exist where companies were not competing with other companies over the supremacy of their product.

In this event, you have consumers who are not influenced...not seduced to buy excessively....they could not be moved to buy in a world where there were no convincing cream of wheat commercials on TV.

[Havet]

I like to divide Nietzsche's concept of the 'will to power' into three basic stages. The first is the raw, organic and physical nature of a thing and its tendency to resist decomposition, termination, or subordination.

Although I can't explain this in any other manner than such metaphor, the idea can be grossly summarized in observing phenomena in nature that endure through time. The will to power is simply expressed in the power of nature to organize into things that change relatively slowly. This consistency is the first instance of the will power.

The second case is the organized, intelligible, meditated and intended scheme in things, beyond the elementary organic and physical expressions of the will to power.

Here is where a schematic 'competition' can be conceived of. At this level there is an intelligent, language using animal that expresses the will to power in an atmosphere of sophisticated material relations. The will to power is manifested in this animal's drive to attain conditions which he has been taught to accept as naturally desired. Some of the things desired are results of a social constructivism and therefore are contingent to the human animal in a particular circumstance at a particular time.

The cardinal expression of the will to power in modern man, civilized or not, is in the desire to have stuff. Property in some way....the authority to determine the use and fate of something in the world. This, since the dawn of the intelligent animal, man, is a denominator in human nature....the rest of his expressions of a competitive nature are constructed and contextual, not essential.

In extremely complex economic relations, where billions of people have to work and buy what they own in a market, the question comes to mind- how much work is worth how much stuff.

The competitive nature is expressed here as a motivation to preserve one's effort and energy.....to have as much as possible with the least amount of effort. Labor is the thing that is avoided before all else.

In a context where people are conflicting because they are receiving the same amount of compensation for their effort/work, but do not produce the same quality or volume of work in the same time, is supposed to be worked out by the free market 'self-adjusting' to manage this problem.

Sometimes it works- when workers get a new job that pays more, and sometimes it doesn't- when wages are going down universally in some sector of the industry. (I'm experiencing this now in residential construction)

Now the competitive nature in man is going to have to be expressed in this kind of system.....where the majority of his competitive nature will be exercised in his business relations, his ergonomic circumstances.

The third and final socioeconomic expression of the will to power is Capitalism. It is itself the natural expression of man's economic desires in a setting that is civil and diplomatic. The 'market' is then a simulation of a competition.

A competitive wage socialist system seems to accommodate both the desire to have property, and work as little as necessary to get as much as possible.

Without such a competitive wage system in a state owned industry...where there is a predetermined value to your labor effort and a predetermined wage limit...the general productive output of a specific industry might suffer from a loss of production incentive in the labor force.

There must always be a consequence for lower productive output, so that incentive is there, so that the market can continue to expand.

If ever the productive output of some industry decreased steadily over time, and no other factors are involved in influencing this, we could infer that individual workers are not happy and working with less effort.

We know, ipso facto (I don't know if that is an appropriate phrase....but I think it looks cool) that production incentive would absolutely increase if a raise in productive output was followed by a raise in wages.

How could a socialist system regulate and maintain a system that acted like a free market, with a competitive job industry.

How could it simulate a consumer demand market. What would influence the state board to give a worker a raise if his industry is not in high demand.

An issue for socialism to resolve; the self regulating attribute to the free market, which is very progressive (no communist can argue against this fact), but which, hitherto, has never been successfully duplicated in a state run economy....only in a mixed economy to some extent.

What do you do when entire industries that employ hundreds of thousands of people happen to be industries that are suffering from an increasing decline in market demand.

The free market, because of its endless business opportunity for individual business owners to start their own business and compete with other capitalists in every possible industry....assures that the possibility is always there in some industry to produce more of something for less costs. This is like a default incentive....and it helps to stimulate industry...even failing ones.

How could you simulate this feature in a controlled economy.

Anyway, my musings aside, most of the philosophical discussion about 'human nature' is probably either subtly confused or not elaborate enough.

I think the most obvious point that should be made is that a private property system can exist where there is also no private business.

One issue controlled economy is faced with is the problem of producing the same stimulating power a private business market can create. It would also have a problem with generating the semiotic stimulus in the consumer discourse. Consider that a great degree of motivating power to buy is produced in the advertisement semiotics....which would not exist where companies were not competing with other companies over the supremacy of their product.

In this event, you have consumers who are not influenced...not seduced to buy excessively....they could not be moved to buy in a world where there were no convincing cream of wheat commercials on TV.

spoiler brackets say hi, Kronos

[Kronos]

The consumer discourse would take a drastic, minimalist turn and the simulacrum would devolve....taking with it one dimension of modern man's aesthetic awareness...dumbing him down, dulling his imagination.

I'm not sure you people understand how cataclysmic, how disastrous, how terrifying this would be if it ever happened.

We must avoid this at all costs, comrades. I have no idea how...or even if anything I 've just said makes any sense whatsoever.

[Bud Struggle]

In this event, you have consumers who are not influenced...not seduced to buy excessively....they could not be moved to buy in a world where there were no convincing cream of wheat commercials on TV.

Well consumerism then IS a part of human nature. And I think it's pretty obvious--if you neighbor has a Jaguar--then you want a Jaguar and if you neighbor isn't lucky enough to have a Jaguar then advertising will gladly "supply" you with a very sexy neighbor on your TV or billboard that will make you want a Jaguar.

FWIW: that's the real key to the success of Capitalism. It's not about the money--it's NEVER about the money, it's about what you can buy with the money. Capitalism not only can give you all sorts of consumer goods that you can afford--it can give you all sorts of consumer goods that you can't afford with easy credit--you may be a worker that has to pay for that Jaguar for the next 20 years--but you could have it any time you want if you are seduced enough to sign those 20 years away.

Oddly, for all Communism materialism and "godlessness" it is vastly more moral than Capitalism with its consumerism and Born Again Christians.

[RGacky3]

Well consumerism then IS a part of human nature. And I think it's pretty obvious--if you neighbor has a Jaguar--then you want a Jaguar and if you neighbor isn't lucky enough to have a Jaguar then advertising will gladly "supply" you with a very sexy neighbor on your TV or billboard that will make you want a Jaguar.

FWIW: that's the real key to the success of Capitalism. It's not about the money--it's NEVER about the money, it's about what you can buy with the money. Capitalism not only can give you all sorts of consumer goods that you can afford--it can give you all sorts of consumer goods that you can't afford with easy credit--you may be a worker that has to pay for that Jaguar for the next 20 years--but you could have it any time you want if you are seduced enough to sign those 20 years away.

Oddly, for all Communism materialism and "godlessness" it is vastly more moral than Capitalism with its consumerism and Born Again Christians.

You just proved yourself wrong, advertising, and other media outputs, spend lots and lots and lots of money to promote consumerism, a lot of time and effort goes into it, and even so, most people are not as consumerist as the capitalists want.

[Bud Struggle]

You just proved yourself wrong, advertising, and other media outputs, spend lots and lots and lots of money to promote consumerism, a lot of time and effort goes into it, and even so, most people are not as consumerist as the capitalists want.

No one EVER is as consumerist as the Capitalists want--but Capitalists keep trying. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a natural tendancy to be consumerist and Capitalism has tied into it very nicely.

For Communism to succeed--you have to supply something that people want that is even more appealing than all the trinkets and baubles, and gadgets, and entertainment, and sex, and pleasure that magazines, and TV and movies have to offer.

I don't have a clue what that could be, though.

[RGacky3]

But that doesn't mean that there isn't a natural tendancy to be consumerist and Capitalism has tied into it very nicely.


If consumerism was a natural tendancy there would'nt be a need for huge amounts of propeganda, you don't need it to get people to have sex do you? The fact is that dispite the huge amount of propeghanda, people are still not that consumerist, which infact shows the opposite.

Using your analysis, one could claim that Germans are natural anti-semites.


For Communism to succeed--you have to supply something that people want that is even more appealing than all the trinkets and baubles, and gadgets, and entertainment, and sex, and pleasure that magazines, and TV and movies have to offer.

I don't have a clue what that could be, though.

What does that have to do with Capitalism or communism? Entertainment? or Trinkets?

[Bud Struggle]

If consumerism was a natural tendancy there would'nt be a need for huge amounts of propeganda, you don't need it to get people to have sex do you? The fact is that dispite the huge amount of propeghanda, people are still not that consumerist, which infact shows the opposite. People eat, yet you still see ads for restaurants, people buy cres but millions of ads for cars, etc. how many people had tube TVs and threw them away for flat screen HD's?

People are consumerist. People would rather have a BMW than "solidarity" any day.



What does that have to do with Capitalism or communism? Entertainment? or Trinkets? Consumerist culture is distinctly Capitalist. As long as people have the trinkets and entertainment--there will be no Revolution. Why do you think all the "Communist uprisings" are taking place in Nepal and the jungles of Mexico and the Phillipines?

[Plagueround]

Well consumerism then IS a part of human nature. And I think it's pretty obvious--if you neighbor has a Jaguar--then you want a Jaguar and if you neighbor isn't lucky enough to have a Jaguar then advertising will gladly "supply" you with a very sexy neighbor on your TV or billboard that will make you want a Jaguar.


Surely you're smart enough to see this as subjective phenomena and not an inherent value. It may play on certain aspects of human psychology and may have done so long enough in certain areas to make it appear inherent, but you're lacking evidence beyond that. If you're wondering what it is that they've played off of, I would venture a guess and say it's the desire to improve one's lot in life, something that strikes me as an aspect of survivalist instinct and not something engineered like a consumerist mindset. The effort to turn this desire into consumerism (which occurred mostly toward the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th) by convincing people that their life wouldn't improve unless they always had the biggest and best, and thus constantly consuming even when they truly didn't need it, is something that is well documented and was blatantly admitted by the people doing it.



For Communism to succeed--you have to supply something that people want that is even more appealing than all the trinkets and baubles, and gadgets, and entertainment, and sex, and pleasure that magazines, and TV and movies have to offer.

I don't have a clue what that could be, though.

I imagine with such a distinctly consumerist culture it would have to be the promise that it could deliver all that to more people more efficiently than a system that won't give it to you unless you've got the money. Everything, even freedom is a commodity under capitalism and that is simultaneously one of it's greatest strengths and most terrible weaknesses.

[Bud Struggle]

Surely you're smart enough to see this as subjective phenomena and not an inherent value. It may play on certain aspects of human psychology and may have done so long enough in certain areas to make it appear inherent, but you're lacking evidence beyond that.

You're right, I don't have vast amounts of substantive proof--but as I type this it seems to me that this is exactly the way that the world works right now. Capitalism has hit on something and it's playing that something to the hilt.

The thing is that there are very few alternatives--maybe only one that can stand up to this phenomanon. The only thing I can see that is actually standing up to Capitalism is Radical Islam.

[Plagueround]

You're right, I don't have vast amounts of substantive proof--but as I type this it seems to me that this is exactly the way that the world works right now. Capitalism has hit on something and it's playing that something to the hilt.

I agree with you, although I tend to think that people are starting to look for something new again. They are slowly realizing that capitalism is not providing for their material, mental, or even spiritual needs. It may or may not be in our lifetime and they may not even be looking toward communism as the answer like the people here are hoping, but I think capitalism has hit it's peak and is on it's way out.


The thing is that there are very few alternatives--maybe only one that can stand up to this phenomanon. The only thing I can see that is actually standing up to Capitalism is Radical Islam.

I think radical Islam will fall short. It will probably provide a nice boogeyman for a few years down the road, but I don't see people turning to it in big enough numbers to take global capitalism on.

[mykittyhasaboner]

The only thing I can see that is actually standing up to Capitalism is Radical Islam.
"Radical Islam" is not a class force capable of opposing capitalism, even in your warped "East vs West" outlook. First and foremost, "Radical Islam" is probably more divided and restricted than the socialist worker's movement, and defining the politics of "Radical Islam" as some kind of centralized political force is misleading and would give the implication of ignorance on your part. Also, "Radical Islam" many times has cooperated with the imperialist powers of the "West" (namely the US); so this assertion kind of falls short, as Plaugeround says. Second, Islamism is a political tendency that cannot be divorced from capitalism and the reactionary role it plays in the struggle against capitalism. Shining examples would be the Taliban, or Saudi Arabia.

[Bud Struggle]

"Radical Islam" is not a class force capable of opposing capitalism, even in your warped "East vs West" outlook. First and foremost, "Radical Islam" is probably more divided and restricted than the socialist worker's movement, and defining the politics of "Radical Islam" as some kind of centralized political force is misleading and would give the implication of ignorance on your part. Also, "Radical Islam" many times has cooperated with the imperialist powers of the "West" (namely the US); so this assertion kind of falls short, as Plaugeround says. Second, Islamism is a political tendency that cannot be divorced from capitalism and the reactionary role it plays in the struggle against capitalism. Shining examples would be the Taliban, or Saudi Arabia.

You completely misunderstand Radical Islam. It is a class system--a Feudal class system. It wants an absolute Theocracy under an absolute Caliphate. If it achieves what it intends it will be a complete political force. It cooperates with Capitalism but it isn't Capitalism. But for that matter "Communists" have also cooperated with Capitalism (China being the best example) so that's not an impediment to anything.

What Radical Islam intends is brining the world back before Capitalism to the good old days of a Medieval ruler and absolute subservience to a Book and a God. And for what it's worth they certainly have more traction that Communism does at this particular time. Now personally I don't believe they will succeed either, but the present time they are doing a petty good job of capturing the hearts and minds of the very third world people that have been enslaved by Capitalism for so long.

Feudalism is just as much an alternative to Capitalism as is Communism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

A lot of capitalists will use the "greed is human nature" argument when confronted with socialism.

Well, that's false. Greed is a result of the struggle to maintain a steady life. It is hard to do so, and so greed seeps in when you see millionaires and how easy they have it, not having to struggle pay cheque to pay cheque.

Greed is a result of capitalism -- which triggers survival instincts, not human nature.

I have no doubt that someone who knows that if they take this week off from work, that they will still be able to meet their needs, that they need only work one job (or not at all if they so choose) to survive, that their family will not have to struggle or go through poverty would have no notion of greed.

[mykittyhasaboner]

You completely misunderstand Radical Islam.
Really?:rolleyes::lol:


It is a class system--a Feudal class system.
While Islamism has its root in feudal society, there is no way you can call "radical Islam" a feudalism system because its an ideological construct.


It wants an absolute Theocracy under an absolute Caliphate. If it achieves what it intends it will be a complete political force.
Except there is no way this can be accomplished because feudalism has been abolished, and private capital has penetrated all of the "Islamic world".



It cooperates with Capitalism but it isn't Capitalism.
"It"? What is "it"? Islamist governments don't "cooperate with capitalism", because they are capitalists.



But for that matter "Communists" have also cooperated with Capitalism (China being the best example) so that's not an impediment to anything.
Way to strawman. The point of me saying that Islamic governments have cooperated with and essentially been in the pocket of imperialism was too point out that they aren't "taking on captialism" like you so foolishly claimed.


What Radical Islam intends is brining the world back before Capitalism to the good old days of a Medieval ruler and absolute subservience to a Book and a God.
http://www.lynseyaddario.com/content/photos/saudiwomen23.jpg




And for what it's worth they certainly have more traction that Communism does at this particular time.
"More traction?" What does that even mean?


Now personally I don't believe they will succeed either, but the present time they are doing a petty good job of capturing the hearts and minds of the very third world people that have been enslaved by Capitalism for so long.
Stop watching cnn or fox news, or which ever crap you watch. To think you would have actually learned something by posting here for all this time.


Feudalism is just as much an alternative to Capitalism as is Communism.
No it isn't. Go read a history book.

[Bud Struggle]

While Islamism has its root in feudal society, there is no way you can call "radical Islam" a feudalism system because its an ideological construct. Well for that matter Communism has been a ideological construct up to now--you certainly can't say that anything that hasgone on in the world so far has actually been "Communism."



Except there is no way this can be accomplished because feudalism has been abolished, and private capital has penetrated all of the "Islamic world". You could say EXACTLY the same thing about Communism since the Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago. And private capital is what the formerly Maoist China is all about these days.


"It"? What is "it"? Islamist governments don't "cooperate with capitalism", because they are capitalists. Well yea, EVERYTHING'S Capitalist now--but the RI's WANT Feudalism to emerge. That's their purpose.

Oh and here's the Kentucky Fried Chicken in Hanoi:

http://noodlepie.typepad.com/blog/images/kfc-front.jpg

Everybody cooperates with Capitalism. Do you want pics of the Wal-Mart in China, too?


"More traction?" What does that even mean? They are creating more of an interest in world affairs than Communists.


Stop watching cnn or fox news, or which ever crap you watch. To think you would have actually learned something by posting here for all this time. Oh, I'm listening to what's going on--I just don't think it's all going to play out as easily as some people around here might think.



No it isn't. Go read a history book. :)

[mykittyhasaboner]

Well for that matter Communism has been a ideological construct up to now--you certainly can't say that anything that hasgone on in the world so far has actually been "Communism."

Except nobody said communism has ever existed, and we are not even talking about communism.


You could say EXACTLY the same thing about Communism since the Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago.
First, didn't you say that communism was an ideological construct because it hasn't existed? So how can "communism" have been abolished? Lol, about the Berlin Wall, you certainly have a way of putting the most latent yet obvious antagonistic bias on everything you say.


And private capital is what the formerly Maoist China is all about these days.

Wow. You can't go one post without flipping the discussion back to China or the Soviet Union or anything. You make it look like your cornered and you don't have any other kind of argument. Let me help you with this: we aren't talking about China, we aren't comparing Islamism to socialism or communism. Get a grip.

Well yea, EVERYTHING'S Capitalist now--but the RI's WANT Feudalism to emerge. That's their purpose.
Feudalism can't "emerge" It's gone. History. You have no idea what your talking about.


Oh and here's the Kentucky Fried Chicken in Hanoi:

http://noodlepie.typepad.com/blog/images/kfc-front.jpg
Wow your pathetic.


Everybody cooperates with Capitalism. Do you want pics of the Wal-Mart in China, too?
No! I don't want to talk about fucking china! Seriously your so insecure about your own claims and arguments that you can't stick to them, you have to constantly flip it back towards criticizing socialism or whatever the fuck your talking about.


They are creating more of an interest in world affairs than Communists.
This is an opinion. Have fun with it.


Oh, I'm listening to what's going on--I just don't think it's all going to play out as easily as some people around here might think.
:laugh: This is rich coming from you.



:)
No seriously, you could use a good reading list on history. Your sorely lacking in knowledge on the subject.

[Bud Struggle]

Except nobody said communism has ever existed, and we are not even talking about communism. I agree Communism hasn't ever existed.



First, didn't you say that communism was an ideological construct because it hasn't existed? So how can "communism" have been abolished? Lol, about the Berlin Wall, you certainly have a way of putting the most latent yet obvious antagonistic bias on everything you say. But that ideology seems to have disappeared--or at least faded in the last 20 years.

[qote]Wow. You can't go one post without flipping the discussion back to China or the Soviet Union or anything. You make it look like your cornered and you don't have any other kind of argument. Let me help you with this: we aren't talking about China, we aren't comparing Islamism to socialism or communism. Get a grip. [/quote] And you keep making Communism into some la-la land of the future that's just "gotta happen" because Marx said so.


Feudalism can't "emerge" It's gone. History. You have no idea what your talking about. Nope--anything can happen. There's no laws that say what the future will be. If one doesn't believe in the Marxist Tarot cards--the future is quite open.



Wow your pathetic. I was just pointing out who won the Vietnam War. :D



No! I don't want to talk about fucking china! Seriously your so insecure about your own claims and arguments that you can't stick to them, you have to constantly flip it back towards criticizing socialism or whatever the fuck your talking about. Seriously, China and the SU are what Communism look like when its tried in the real world. The Capitalism we have is what Capitalism looks like in the real world. What you want to talk about is speculative ideology. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose--but that puts you on the same level as the Radical Moslems struggling for their Caliphate...

[mykittyhasaboner]

I agree Communism hasn't ever existed.
It's not something you can agree or disagree with, it's a simple fact.



But that ideology seems to have disappeared--or at least faded in the last 20 years.Congratulations for noticing. What do you want a medal?


And you keep making Communism into some la-la land of the future that's just "gotta happen" because Marx said so. I haven't spoken to you about communism at all recently. All I talked about was how "radical Islam" isn't "taking on capitalism". You just keep pretending like I'm discussing about communism.


Nope--anything can happen. There's no laws that say what the future will be. If one doesn't believe in the Marxist Tarot cards--the future is quite open.Is this supposed to be an explanation on how feudalism can "re-emerge"? It's awful to say the least.



I was just pointing out who won the Vietnam War. :DWhich is, either way, totally irrelevant to the discussion. :D



Seriously, China and the SU are what Communism look like when its tried in the real world. No, it is socialism tried in the real world. Nobody ever claimed that China and the Soviet Union were in the communist stage of development. You clearly have no idea what your talking about and continue insinuating that I'm willing to discuss this, when the original intent of my reply to you has nothing to do with China or the Soviet Union (well almost the Soviet Union in the case of Afghanistan).


The Capitalism we have is what Capitalism looks like in the real world.
OK?


What you want to talk about is speculative ideology.Uh, no... Again, I have absolutely no idea what your talking about.


Nothing wrong with that, I suppose--but that puts you on the same level as the Radical Moslems struggling for their Caliphate...Oh boy, you truly have your head up your ass.

[Robert]

I guess I do, too, Boner. Seriously, what is the problem with pointing out the triumph of KFC's business model in Hanoi? It says nothing to you at all?

Look, the corporation's home office, the Vietnamese government, and the private franchisee (if there is one -- what do you think, Bud?) all had to agree that it would be able to sell chicken to willling buyers. As good as home cooked Vietnamese style chicken is, there is something about KFC that appeals to the Vietnamese consumer and induces him to pay KFC more for a bucket of spicy wings than what they would spend by cooking it at home. Otherwise the store would just fold up.

I invariably see the consumer left completely out of these leftist analyses.

p.s. You ought to see the kids line up for McDonalds and KFC in Shanghai.

[La Comédie Noire]

Capitalists don't like competition and work together to avoid it as much as possible. Its a fact.