(debunking) human nature.. one more time

[punisa]

I have a feeling that this topic has been chewed over and over again, but let me join in with a couple of questions/statements in need of debunking.
(I have yet another debate to win and I seriously need your help)

1. people are generally greedy and like to claim stuff as their own.
2. people like to identify themselves as "better" compared to their acquaintances, be it the amount of possession, intellect or social status.
3. without awards many would loose motivation to work.
4. without surveillance/supervision many would turn to be slackers and try to work as little as possible, thus creating a steep fall in productivity
5. people would hate to live in a world where (for example) they live in the same size apartment as others.
6. people all over the socialist world (mainly Eastern Europe) revolted and screamed for capitalism in order to possess the "cool stuff" the westerners have.
7. people are competitive and occasionally work collectively solely because they think it will in some way benefit them individually.
8. it's against human nature and would be devastating if they had to share their possessions with others.
9. People ARE aware that capitalism does not provide same opportunities for all, but still they hold the system as the best one - simply because "we all get a shot at fortune"


That's from the top of my head, mostly from a person I debated yesterday.
If you can comment on any of these, I would really appreciate.
Also, if we can find any reliable source that would debunk these claims, please attach it.

[Tifosi]

1. people are generally greedy and like to claim stuff as their own.

Only because it is the norm and everyone doe's it. People that say greed is human nature are talking out their arse. People in the middle ages had to be greedy to stay alive. When people are treated like shit they will do all they can to life, living is human nature. If your dieing slowy of hunger your not going to give food to other people. This has contiuned down the years to today but with we don't need like DVD players, TV's etc.


people would hate to live in a world where (for example) they live in the same size apartment as others.

Well for a start how big is this house? What is in the house? And who are you living with?

I've heard that one before, people that use that argument never stop to think about what the house will be like. Them seem to think it will be a terrable step backwards to when everyone had a one room house with 15 children which is complete balls.

Nobody can tell the future but when the community and not the capitalist is building homes and giving them to people I think people will make them to fit the needs of the people they are being built for. I don't want to should like a
Primmo but look at tribes in the Amazon, they don't build homes from profit,
they build them for the person that will stay in that house. It's human before profit.

Also, if your community built your home I think you would love it more, and help out in the community more.


3. without awards many would loose motivation to
work.

You only get out what you put in. The award would be having a good place to life in. Without capitalism you could have more of a say where you work and you could move from job to job when you want to. Other people would be working to help you just like you are working to help others, that would motivate me:thumbup1:

and how bad would it feel if the whole community wanted you out, that would be a pretty horrable feeling. I'm sure word would get round that you are lazy and it might be hard to get into another community, if that isn't motivation I don't know what is.

[punisa]

Well for a start how big is this house? What is in the house? And who are you living with?

I've heard that one before, people that use that argument never stop to think about what the house will be like. Them seem to think it will be a terrable step backwards to when everyone had a one room house with 15 children which is complete balls.

Pretty good answers Caithness, thank you.

I believe the housing should be modest, but with every need included.
But even if this was a case, when pro-human-nature people talk about it, they argue that people have a tendency to live in a larger/better homes then others.
I think this is horse-shit argument, considering that housing is the number one problem in so many parts of the world (including the west).

[Belisarius]

6: the people in eastern europe didn't revolt in order to have "cool stuff", but they wanted freedom of speech, of travelling, etc.. The reintroduction of capitalism in eastern europe was aimed against oppression, violence and exploitation, not for coca cola. as a matter of fact, many east-germans were rather sceptical about all new imported stuff from the west.

3 and 4: if one is passionate about what one's job, surveillance or reward wouldn't matter. for example, the day before yesterday i was reciting goethe to one of my friends while another friend was hitting me with a plastic bottle in order to stop me. I didn't gain anything (on the contrary), nor was i obliged to do it. I just like that poem very much (Goethe- Ueber allen Gipfeln)

8. If he is able to share food with his parents, or his friends, then why not with the rest of society?

9. this is a contradiction. first he says "not everyone has opportunities", and then "everyone gets a shot". You have an opportunity or you don't, that's it. by the way, i can't see how all those africans who are starving are getting any shot at success.

All your opponents theses seem to indicate that a persons value equals his possessions, which is exactly what he was raised to think in a capitalist consumer society.

[A.R.Amistad]

All I have to say is this: existence precedes essence. There is no human "nature," only a human condition. Belief in "human nature" is actually quite mystical when you look at it. People are solely responsible for creating their own meaning, no nature is going to guide them on that.

[RebelDog]

We really know very little about human nature to be sure about anything but in my opinion we can say humans react to the situations they find themselves in. For example if you live in a era of famine, war, poverty etc then it is best for the individual and maybe even the species to react in a selfish manner in order you and your kin best survive the situation. Clearly one could argue there is a reverse to this and situations of social production, cooperation, socialism etc will give different outcomes of human behaviour. We can simplify things and argue that in the capitalist epoch we are going to find greed, exploitation and violence between humans over resources. We can make this generalisation for all class-society. If we abolish the economic instituions and institutions of power that produce the negative outcomes and replace them with institutions that are socially contolled, self-managed, participatory and operate to service the needs of the entire population, then we can summise that human behaviour as a result will be drastically different than what we see now or have seen in the past. Being determines conciousness. If you live in a society where there is no class rule, you can fully particiapate in the decision making that effects your life, work and community, then you are going to be a happier individual and far less likely to (if it would even be possible) to be greedy. Forinstance, if we abolish markets and distribute socially by need, then there would be no basis by which to accumulate things you don't need, or indeed any outlet to sell them. If you are the CEO of a corporation you are constrained to act in a manner which is not positive for society. You are acting for those who hold economic power. It is your job to externalise as much of your costs as possible and that means reducing labour costs, making people redundant, polluting the environment, contributing less taxes etc. A corporation is an example of how an economic institution exists to have negative outcomes for the wider population. It exists to make profit for its shareholders and if the CEO wanted to reverse some of the negative effects he/she would not last long. So we must change how our economy is organised to provide us with better outcomes for society, and thus change society.

The human nature debate will go on and on for years to come. But I think it is clear that if we destroy the means by which property or power gives one unfair remuneration and replace them with institutions which give positive outcomes for all actors, then we destroy the basis by which anyone can gain an economic or power advantage at cost to others. For me, that is key to this debate. We are not attempting to change human nature, we are attempting to negate the need for negative anti-social behaviour and give positive, cooperative social behaviour a plain to flourish.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Animal instincts were required for evolution and i think there is something in us left over from those times but its seems quite obvious that greed is actively encouraged by capitalism. When people talk about human nature i think they mean our evolutionary animal instincts. We are so far removed from our animal instincts now that not only is the argument lazy, it's utterly irrelevant.

[Invincible Summer]

I have a feeling that this topic has been chewed over and over again, but let me join in with a couple of questions/statements in need of debunking.
(I have yet another debate to win and I seriously need your help)

1. people are generally greedy and like to claim stuff as their own.

I think this is only true within scarcity situations. For example, if you had 1 TV, you wouldn't want to lend it out to everyone to use. But, if for some reason you had 50 TVs, you wouldn't care if others borrowed the other ones, you might even give them out for free.



2. people like to identify themselves as "better" compared to their acquaintances, be it the amount of possession, intellect or social status.

Most of the things mentioned are only the result of consumerism, and I don't think it can be applied to most people. Additionally, social status is generally correlated to possessions, although it depends on what social group you're looking at (intellect might be for academics, for example).

AFAIK, the scientific and academic community isn't full of people trying to best each other. There may be some friendly rivalries, but I don't think there's anything cutthroat going on. This is just based on what I know from my father (a physics researcher) and my professors that have talked about it.

If this debate about human nature is to argue that communism is against human nature, I don't see how the amount of possessions or whatever is a valid point, since communists aren't against people having possessions... we're (generally) not primmos.


3. without awards many would loose motivation to work.

I assume that "awards" refers to financial awards. Lots of very important work is done in the medical and scientific fields, and I'm sure that the paycheque is only a small incentive for these people. Most people who go through all those years of schooling and intellectual toiling through ungodly hours obviously love what they do, and are passionate about it. I don't think they are really thinking about the paycheque.

Similarly, lots of people I know like going to work when there is a strong camaraderie at the workplace. This is another example of a non-material "award" - the acknowledgment and appreciation of your work and whatnot by your fellow workers.

Within a society organized around production (communism), the "awards" would be people acknowledging your work, and your work directly contributing to society, much like the scientists and medical researchers I mentioned earlier. When you can see the direct (hopefully positive) consequences of your work, I would think the monetary award is out of mind.


4. without surveillance/supervision many would turn to be slackers and try to work as little as possible, thus creating a steep fall in productivity

Again, with a society organized around production where products are made to directly benefit society (and not just made to be sold as commodities with a vast surplus that will just be thrown away if they're not sold), people who slack will just get societal pressure to stop. Your peers are your supervisors.

For example, a band has a keyboardist that slack off by not always showing up for practice, playing half-assed, etc. The band's sound suffers. The rest of the guys aren't just going to go "Oh well, we suck now." They're going to pressure the keyboardist to do better or kick him out.


5. people would hate to live in a world where (for example) they live in the same size apartment as others.
Would they really? I don't really understand the basis for this. What if the apartment was 1500 sq ft, with very decent amenities? I don't think people own houses to compete with others, unless you're on Real Housewives of Orange County or something.



6. people all over the socialist world (mainly Eastern Europe) revolted and screamed for capitalism in order to possess the "cool stuff" the westerners have.

I don't think they were really screaming for capitalism as much as less restrictive policies. The lack of "cool stuff" can be attributed to economic difficulties that usually happen when everyone is anti-Communist except for your bloc of nations.


7. people are competitive and occasionally work collectively solely because they think it will in some way benefit them individually.
Funny - don't capitalists and their apologists say that competition will eventually benefit the collective/society?

And also, even if people do participate in collective work because they may benefit from it personally, I don't really see a problem with that. Everyone benefits, including yourself. Isn't that the point? :confused:


8. it's against human nature and would be devastating if they had to share their possessions with others.

This is the oldest, stupidest accusation against communism ever. It would only be "devastating" if the person sharing the communal syringe had HIV or something, but there would be no communal syringe so yeah.

And if it's against "human nature" (whatever that is) then are people who share things with friends just batshit insane?




9. People ARE aware that capitalism does not provide same opportunities for all, but still they hold the system as the best one - simply because "we all get a shot at fortune"


That statement contradicts itself - it admits capitalism fails some people, but says that everyone gets a "shot at the fortune?" :lol:

I think that this is statement is (very sadly enough) partially true. We all know people who say "communism is good on paper," and this statement is probably what they feel... "Oh well, I guess at least some people have a chance at getting rich."

The problem is that communism isn't about riches as much as social welfare. It's about providing, not drowning people in gold.

[bobroberts]

1-2. Reducing human nature down to "people are greedy" is ridiculous. People are all sorts of things depending on the situations they find themselves in. Research evolutionary psychology if you want the best insight into human nature. What matters is if that behavior is destructive or constructive towards a better future for both the individual and society at large. Human nature contains all sorts of horrible aspects that once helped our bloodlines spread throughout the world before we even knew what humanity was, but which we can clearly demonstrate are destructive and counter-productive in the modern age.

3. When children are rewarded for good behavior, they have a tendency to stop being good when they believe they have nothing to gain from behaving well, rather than just behaving well for it's own sake. People will stop doing shitty jobs without reward, but will continue to pursue productive activity they enjoy for it's own sake. Often people find that by doing something they enjoy to earn a living, they stop enjoying that activity. We should strive to eliminate or reduce the time people spend on horrible jobs, and let people be free to pursue that which they find fulfilling, rather than condemning a certain percentage of the population to lives degrading wage slavery because we are too lazy to imagine anything better.

4. People will slack off when they have nothing to gain by working. If they derive no personal fulfillment from work, and stand to gain little in reward, then yes they will slack off without supervision because they are clearly exploited. More power to them.

5. Who the hell wants the same size apartment for everybody? What we want is for everyone to be housed under humane conditions.

6. People don't want to be oppressed, regardless of the political stance of the oppressor.

7. If you are part of a group, and work to benefit that group, then as a member of that group you stand to gain as an individual. That's the whole point. We stand to gain as individuals by improving the conditions of our society. The problem comes when you act to benefit yourself at the expense of everyone else.

8. There is a difference between private property and personal property. That there is confusion between the two is a result of ignorance reinforced by propaganda.

9. Just like a casino. Play by the house rules and you get a chance at a jackpot, but in the long run you lose. Only those who own the house and make the rules are guaranteed a fortune.

[mikelepore]

3. without awards many would loose motivation to work.
4. without surveillance/supervision many would turn to be slackers and try to work as little as possible, thus creating a steep fall in productivity.


I call these kinds of statements "objections to form." In other words, a critic often opposes socialism needlessly, because the authentic content of what they are doing is making a note about the form that they believe socialism would need to take so that it will be workable. Those who believe that socialism would need rewards and supervision for it to be workable should therefore support a form of socialism that has rewards and supervision. It's an invalid reason for them to oppose ALL forms of socialism.

To borrow Michael Albert's metaphor, if someone were to invent a cure for cancer you wouldn't reject it because you don't like the shape of the bottle. Instead, take it, and also fix the bottle.

[A.R.Amistad]

All of this talk about "human nature" surely shows us that there is no such thing. Instincts=/= human nature. Humans overcome instincts far more than they succumb to it. Ask me about "the gangrene story" for a good example.