Human nature?

[norwegian commie]

The most common arguments against the idea of communism, revolves around this endless argument of the selfish nature of human-beings and that the communist project of sharing, solidarity, being equal (bla, bla, bla: "Insert cliché here") is opposed to human nature.
Most of us answer this argument, non-suprisingly, with some sort of explaination with regards to human beings as a biological creature. I am here not so much requesting an answer to this (ridiculous, in my opinion) standard argument against communism – but an answer to the underlying question: What is human nature? This question has implications for other questions, like the difference between sexes.

[NGNM85]

The most common arguments against the idea of communism, revolves around this endless argument of the selfish nature of human-beings and that the communist project of sharing, solidarity, being equal (bla, bla, bla: "Insert cliché here") is opposed to human nature.
Most of us answer this argument, non-suprisingly, with some sort of explaination with regards to human beings as a biological creature. I am here not so much requesting an answer to this (ridiculous, in my opinion) standard argument against communism – but an answer to the underlying question: What is human nature? This question has implications for other questions, like the difference between sexes.

I don't think human nature can be understood like the melting point of cobalt, we can't draw pecise blueprints or equations. However, we can easily come to some very important, and very profound conclusions. There is definitely a 'human nature', all organisms come with software already loaded. I would say cooperation, sympathy, curiosity, and creativity are essential, fundamental facets of human nature.

[A.R.Amistad]

Human Nature is an idealist myth. Sure, we have certain functions in our bodies that are necessities, but when people use the term "human nature" they should really be saying "human essence." And of course, there is no fixed essence. There is no all encompassing personality that we all fit into. Human beings create their own essence in a unity of ideas and praxis. Ideas are not alien to the material world, they are [products of it and are easily manipulated, changed, etc. I find that the whole "human nature" myth comes from either the mystical Platonic myth of "perfect forms" or the effects of western Christianity, which says we are "born with sin." Its just a sad attempt to justify idealism, metaphysics etc by using pseudo-scientific arguments. If there was a "human nature," it couldn't be summed up in a personality trait (which is simply an idea) it would be the individual labor of the human social individual. People must labor to do things, mentally, physically, etc. So, one could say man's essence is a "social-laboring being." Whether the individual is egotistical or altruistic doesn't really matter. But of course, not even that law is omnipotent, since we have plenty of capitalist who do not labor, and capitalism alienates the worker from the productsw of their labor. So in conclusion, "human nature" is just an idealist myth that has nothing to do with the human mind in nature.

[A.R.Amistad]

There is definitely a 'human nature', all organisms come with software already loaded. I would say cooperation, sympathy, curiosity, and creativity are essential, fundamental facets of human nature.

Ideas are not hardwired into us. That is precisely the problem, ideas are created by the human mind, not "discovered" or "achieved." There are people who don't cooperate, are not sympathetic, have no sympathy, etc. etc. Human Essence is not something that manifests itself in everyone, it is the material process of the mind, and it is nothing like "software."

[mikelepore]

Human nature is not an issue at all with me, because I think the workers can design a new socioeconomic system that will function either way. If people are "lazy and greedy", it will still work. If people are NOT "lazy and greedy", it will still work. But that requires not using the honor system as the main delimiter of individual acts. There have to be checks to keep us honest. If we didn't need those checks, then all we have there is a redundancy.

[A.R.Amistad]

Human nature is not an issue at all with me, because I think the workers can design a new socioeconomic system that will function either way. If people are "lazy and greedy", it will still work. If people are NOT "lazy and greedy", it will still work. But that requires not using the honor system as the main delimiter of individual acts. There have to be checks to keep us honest. If we didn't need those checks, then all we have there is a redundancy.

But of course, the reality is that some people are lazy and greedy, but others are not, so it doesn't hold up. There is no one personality.

[mikelepore]

But of course, the reality is that some people are lazy and greedy, but others are not, so it doesn't hold up. There is no one personality.

How could what I said not hold up, when I said we should seek a system that would function either way?

[A.R.Amistad]

How could what I said not hold up, when I said we should seek a system that would function either way?
I wasnt so much arguing your point. Just saying that when someone says "human nature" we should just laugh :)

[FreeFocus]

Human nature isn't fixed, but I do think that things such as ethical behavior, to an extent, are hardwired (there is evidence for this, not just for humans, but also other apes and other animals. For example, look at Frans de Waal's primate research). It's generally more beneficial to all parties involved (usually intraspecies interaction, but sometimes interspecies interaction too, actually, just much less frequently) to be cooperative in the natural world as opposed to competitive.

Sure, some people are sociopaths. Yes, a lot of people are greedy, or difficult to deal with, or just mean. Why, then, should we have a system (capitalism) that amplifies these negative traits? Why have a system that rewards greed and cold hearts?

To say that human nature runs against cooperation, communalism and therefore socialism is just silly. It's a ridiculous argument that they make.

[A.R.Amistad]

I think ethical living is much more beneficial but its not hardwired, because we simply do have people who reject ethics. Also, ethical standards and norms change with society. It just goes to show that we humans, with our developed cerebral cortex, are more able to manipulate our roles as individuals. Also, it is important to take note, as Novack said, that society is not a product of some sort of "human nature" (which doesn't exist) otherwise there would be no distinction between feudalism and capitalism.

[Agnapostate]

Everyone's heard that, but I rarely get specifics outside of the cliched statement. When I do, the anti-socialist conveys to me that he or she believes that socialism/communism is based on a program of equal remuneration regardless of contribution, and I have never come across any advocates who promote such a compensation program.

[A.R.Amistad]

Everyone's heard that, but I rarely get specifics outside of the cliched statement. When I do, the anti-socialist conveys to me that he or she believes that socialism/communism is based on a program of equal remuneration regardless of contribution, and I have never come across any advocates who promote such a compensation program.

Yeah, usually when people critique the idea of "socialism" or "communism" they're talking about the bourgeois welfare state.

[FreeFocus]

I think ethical living is much more beneficial but its not hardwired, because we simply do have people who reject ethics. Also, ethical standards and norms change with society. It just goes to show that we humans, with our developed cerebral cortex, are more able to manipulate our roles as individuals. Also, it is important to take note, as Novack said, that society is not a product of some sort of "human nature" (which doesn't exist) otherwise there would be no distinction between feudalism and capitalism.

People may reject ethics when they talk on the internet (possibly to seem like they're cool for being nihilistic or something), but if they see an innocent person in danger, will they help them? Will they call 911 if they see an innocent person bleeding to death on the street, even though it doesn't benefit them? I think most people are decent enough to do these things. There doesn't need to be a profit motive - we just feel the urge to help a fellow human being. Capitalism can assist in the erosion of ethical concerns, which is part of the reason why it has to go (for me, at least).

[A.R.Amistad]

But wht about the asshole who is putting the innocent person in danger? Isn't he/she rejecting ethics?

[norwegian commie]

Human Nature is an idealist myth. Sure, we have certain functions in our bodies that are necessities, but when people use the term "human nature" they should really be saying "human essence." And of course, there is no fixed essence. There is no all encompassing personality that we all fit into. Human beings create their own essence in a unity of ideas and praxis. Ideas are not alien to the material world, they are [products of it and are easily manipulated, changed, etc. I find that the whole "human nature" myth comes from either the mystical Platonic myth of "perfect forms" or the effects of western Christianity, which says we are "born with sin." Its just a sad attempt to justify idealism, metaphysics etc by using pseudo-scientific arguments. If there was a "human nature," it couldn't be summed up in a personality trait (which is simply an idea) it would be the individual labor of the human social individual. People must labor to do things, mentally, physically, etc. So, one could say man's essence is a "social-laboring being." Whether the individual is egotistical or altruistic doesn't really matter. But of course, not even that law is omnipotent, since we have plenty of capitalist who do not labor, and capitalism alienates the worker from the productsw of their labor. So in conclusion, "human nature" is just an idealist myth that has nothing to do with the human mind in nature.

Now, aren’t you really the idealist here? First you reject the notion of a human nature altogether. Second you identify our essence as: created by humans "in a unity of ideas and praxis". Summa summarium: You reject the notion of a human nature, and then you identify man with its ideas and praxis. But what you forget is that Man is a biological creature, a member of nature. And every materialist must recognize Man as a member of nature. And our physiology is essential in understanding a lot of things – a lot of our behavoiur, and simply our ability to act and think altogether. Point is, you identify man as a social being affected by ideas and praxis. But you neglect the simple fact that man is a member of nature, that man is a biological creature and that our thinking and praxis is conditioned by certain physiological traits. Man is BOTH a social and biological being – and the two is mutually affected. Culture affects biology, and vice versa. We must not, as materialists, neglect the fact that humans are a part of nature (and that society is, in fact, in nature). If not we form a view of man, as some mythical acting rational being, not conditioned by nature and biology, but simply rational, acting etc. But this resembles religious Angles, rather than a Marxist conception of human beings.

[BeerShaman]

Now, aren’t you really the idealist here? First you reject the notion of a human nature altogether. Second you identify our essence as: created by humans "in a unity of ideas and praxis". Summa summarium: You reject the notion of a human nature, and then you identify man with its ideas and praxis. But what you forget is that Man is a biological creature, a member of nature. And every materialist must recognize Man as a member of nature. And our physiology is essential in understanding a lot of things – a lot of our behavoiur, and simply our ability to act and think altogether. Point is, you identify man as a social being affected by ideas and praxis. But you neglect the simple fact that man is a member of nature, that man is a biological creature and that our thinking and praxis is conditioned by certain physiological traits. Man is BOTH a social and biological being – and the two is mutually affected. Culture affects biology, and vice versa. We must not, as materialists, neglect the fact that humans are a part of nature (and that society is, in fact, in nature). If not we form a view of man, as some mythical acting rational being, not conditioned by nature and biology, but simply rational, acting etc. But this resembles religious Angles, rather than a Marxist conception of human beings.

Well, humans are a part of nature and they are natural. However it is another matter influenced by other factors the fact that humans create their consciousness. Being human just puts a variety of forms of abilities and restrictions this consciousness has to follow and cannot surpass. (or else metaphysical? possibly)
Just this. And we no way degrade human the quality of human consciousness and ethics by this argument, because people create their own consciousness so as to face the problems of life.

[A.R.Amistad]

Now, aren’t you really the idealist here? First you reject the notion of a human nature altogether. Second you identify our essence as: created by humans "in a unity of ideas and praxis". Summa summarium: You reject the notion of a human nature, and then you identify man with its ideas and praxis. But what you forget is that Man is a biological creature, a member of nature. And every materialist must recognize Man as a member of nature. And our physiology is essential in understanding a lot of things – a lot of our behavoiur, and simply our ability to act and think altogether. Point is, you identify man as a social being affected by ideas and praxis. But you neglect the simple fact that man is a member of nature, that man is a biological creature and that our thinking and praxis is conditioned by certain physiological traits. Man is BOTH a social and biological being – and the two is mutually affected. Culture affects biology, and vice versa. We must not, as materialists, neglect the fact that humans are a part of nature (and that society is, in fact, in nature). If not we form a view of man, as some mythical acting rational being, not conditioned by nature and biology, but simply rational, acting etc. But this resembles religious Angles, rather than a Marxist conception of human beings.

No you totally don't get what I'm saying. Humans are a part of nature yes, but when people talk about "human nature" they speak as in fatalist terms, as if some outside force (which they call nature, but should really call "god" because thats all that would make sense in that flawed argument) is controlling our very essence. There is no gene or force of nature outside that makes us either "greedy" or "compassionate." "Greed" and "Compassion" are ideas. The rejection of human nature is not the rejection of the human as a part of nature, it is a rejection of a fatalistic view of nature, which is anti humanistic and naturalistic.

[A.R.Amistad]

Well, humans are a part of nature and they are natural. However it is another matter influenced by other factors the fact that humans create their consciousness. Being human just puts a variety of forms of abilities and restrictions this consciousness has to follow and cannot surpass. (or else metaphysical? possibly)
Just this. And we no way degrade human the quality of human consciousness and ethics by this argument, because people create their own consciousness so as to face the problems of life.

Precisely

[A.R.Amistad]

Man is BOTH a social and biological being – and the two is mutually affected. Culture affects biology, and vice versa. We must not, as materialists, neglect the fact that humans are a part of nature (and that society is, in fact, in nature). If not we form a view of man, as some mythical acting rational being, not conditioned by nature and biology, but simply rational, acting etc. But this resembles religious Angles, rather than a Marxist conception of human beings.

The problem here is that this is not what anyone is talking about when they are talking about "human nature." People want science to tell us that we are all X. People want to find evidence in nature that dictates that we are either one personality or the other, and like the Calvinist would say, simply tools of some great force. I am coming precisely from the materialist standpoint that ideas are formulated as a result of material processes of the brain and can be studied. But the material process of the cerebral cortex can develop multiple outcomes of ideas, it doesn't manifest one personality type or one destiny. People who use the mythical term "human nature" are just making post-hoc statements to justify something that is unjust, for example "murder is inevitable because it is a part of human nature." The mental process that drives one to murder another is a process of nature and can be materially studied, but the will to murder doesn't manifest itself in every single individual.

[FreeFocus]

No you totally don't get what I'm saying. Humans are a part of nature yes, but when people talk about "human nature" they speak as in fatalist terms, as if some outside force (which they call nature, but should really call "god" because thats all that would make sense in that flawed argument) is controlling our very essence. There is no gene or force of nature outside that makes us either "greedy" or "compassionate." "Greed" and "Compassion" are ideas. The rejection of human nature is not the rejection of the human as a part of nature, it is a rejection of a fatalistic view of nature, which is anti humanistic and naturalistic.

Greed and compassion are ideas, true - but they describe specific behaviors and attitudes. Genes affect things such as temperament, and I think one can reasonably argue that genes may also affect behaviors that we might describe as "greedy" or "compassionate." Of course, genes aren't deterministic, because the environment plays a great role.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that there is such a thing as "human nature", I just don't think that it can be subject to crude reductionism (i.e. "humans are lazy" or "humans are good" or "humans are selfish" etc.)

[NGNM85]

Ideas are not hardwired into us. That is precisely the problem, ideas are created by the human mind, not "discovered" or "achieved."

That isn't what I meant. I'm not arguing otherwise.


There are people who don't cooperate, are not sympathetic, have no sympathy, etc. etc.

Yeah, but that's almost certainly the result of learned behavior. For example, I think someone might be born with a greater predisposition towards sociopathy, but I don't think anyone is actually born a sociopath.


Human Essence is not something that manifests itself in everyone, it is the material process of the mind, and it is nothing like "software."

Humans, like all creatures have natural instincts and evolved behavior patterns. This is to what I was referring.

[Agnapostate]

Yeah, usually when people critique the idea of "socialism" or "communism" they're talking about the bourgeois welfare state.

Well, rightists consider "socialism" to be government action that steals revenue from the wealthy hard-working producers to subsidize the laziness of the poor consumers. Liberals usually don't understand the distinction made between social welfare programs and other government programs, since they don't see the true pattern of rightist opposition, and think it's inconsistent for them to endorse increased budgetary allocations to military expansion. They don't understand that it's fundamentally a question of rightists' adherence to what they perceive as moral values rather than blanket anti-government action.

[A.R.Amistad]

FreeFocus

Genes affect things such as temperament, and I think one can reasonably argue that genes may also affect behaviors that we might describe as "greedy" or "compassionate."

I'm sorry, no hard feelings, no this is simply not true and its this idea which grinds my gears the most. Its a perversion of popular pseudoscience that genes determine what kind of human being we are. It reminds me of the scene in Star Wars Episode 1 when Qui Gon explains "midicholoirans" or however the'ye spelled. In the Star Wars universe, little life forms or genes in our body comunicate to us via the "Force," but in the real world there is no "The Force," no Jedis, nothing resembling it. Sure, some people have neurological genetic disorders such as mental retardation, autism, etc, but not every autistic person or mentally retrded person acts on their disability in the same way, and it certainly doesn't determine whether they are greedy or compassionate. Ideas dont exist separate from what we create. There is no isolated gene for "greed" or "good," and I think its safe to say that there really arent any natural behaviors that could be reduced down to one. Sorry if I ome across harsh, but it really grinds my gears when people suggest that our personality traits, our "nature" is determined by genes, whihc is simply not how genes function.

[Widerstand]

FreeFocus


I'm sorry, no hard feelings, no this is simply not true and its this idea which grinds my gears the most. Its a perversion of popular pseudoscience that genes determine what kind of human being we are. It reminds me of the scene in Star Wars Episode 1 when Qui Gon explains "midicholoirans" or however the'ye spelled. In the Star Wars universe, little life forms or genes in our body comunicate to us via the "Force," but in the real world there is no "The Force," no Jedis, nothing resembling it. Sure, some people have neurological genetic disorders such as mental retardation, autism, etc, but not every autistic person or mentally retrded person acts on their disability in the same way, and it certainly doesn't determine whether they are greedy or compassionate. Ideas dont exist separate from what we create. There is no isolated gene for "greed" or "good," and I think its safe to say that there really arent any natural behaviors that could be reduced down to one. Sorry if I ome across harsh, but it really grinds my gears when people suggest that our personality traits, our "nature" is determined by genes, whihc is simply not how genes function.

I think you are misreading the post you quoted. You might also want to stop thinking in absolutes. The post you quoted has a very valid point. Differences in genetics, amongst other biological factors, can influence for example our hormone levels, which greatly affect our temperament and ultimately our behavior.

There is also research on genes affecting our most fundamental personality traits. I believe no one here is saying that genes make you this person or that person, but they can influence, say, how aggressive you are. Of course other factors, such as the social environment, do the same.

As far as I can see, no one here, other than you, talked of any such thing as an absolute "human nature" determining our every personality trait, let alone such thing as a predetermined way (which I think you talked about earlier, excuse me if I'm wrong).

Yet I think you would agree that science, especially psychology and sociobiology, has found certain behavioral traits to be present in most humans (and other animals), such as the fear of pain, the release of happiness inducing hormones if we do an act of solidarity/altruism, etc. I would call such findings to be revealing about some basic human nature, or human essence if you prefer to call it that way. Again, this human nature I talk about is nothing precise or set in stone, let's just call it a sort of "common ground" of human behavior, emotion and thought.

[A.R.Amistad]

I think you are misreading the post you quoted. You might also want to stop thinking in absolutes. The post you quoted has a very valid point. Differences in genetics, amongst other biological factors, can influence for example our hormone levels, which greatly affect our temperament and ultimately our behavior.

There is also research on genes affecting our most fundamental personality traits. I believe no one here is saying that genes make you this person or that person, but they can influence, say, how aggressive you are. Of course other factors, such as the social environment, do the same.

As far as I can see, no one here, other than you, talked of any such thing as an absolute "human nature" determining our every personality trait, let alone such thing as a predetermined way (which I think you talked about earlier, excuse me if I'm wrong).

Yet I think you would agree that science, especially psychology and sociobiology, has found certain behavioral traits to be present in most humans (and other animals), such as the fear of pain, the release of happiness inducing hormones if we do an act of solidarity/altruism, etc. I would call such findings to be revealing about some basic human nature, or human essence if you prefer to call it that way. Again, this human nature I talk about is nothing precise or set in stone, let's just call it a sort of "common ground" of human behavior, emotion and thought.

Fair enough. And this might be a semantics war, but basically whenever the words "Human Nature" are used they are never used to really and scientifically explain human behavior. They are almost always used as post-hoc justifications for bad things humans do. For example, "war is inevitable always because it is human nature to fight to be better." "Class inequality will always exist because it is human nature to be greedy." People try to apply certain personalities of individuals to an entre species to justify something. It has gotten to be so common of a copout that "human nature" has not become anything real studied by biologists or even philosophers (who more accuratley study human behavior.) Its almost exclusivley a copout used in debate to discredit anothers idea as impossible, but is based on nothing real. It also assumes that living things with a conciousness are like earthquakes and hurricanes (who happen in nature without thought behind them) and discredits living agency. I concede that gnes can affect our behavior, but I don't think classed societies came about because of hormone levels.

[libertarian socialist]

I think, though it is unfortunate greed envy and all that others 'sins' are hardwired into human beings on some level in the same way they are hardwired into all successful life on the planet. Though just because we as human beings are predisposed to that way of thinking does not mean these predispositions cannot be overridden. The children of capitalist is told just as often to share there toys as those of socialist. Though ingrained into the human psychology this does not mean these conditions cannot be suppressed. The best case scenario is that in a politically left moving society these traits will become less and less useful and by some processes of natural selection be lost almost entirely. Though it is important to note that the same guiding hand of natural selection that gave us traits like greed and envy, also gave us empathy and the ability to cooperate and these traits are far more important to making us human than greed and envy.

[anticap]

One of the most wide-spread popular maxims is, "human nature cannot be changed." No one can say whether this is true or not without first defining "human nature." But as used it is certainly false. When Mr. A utters the maxim, with an air of portentous and conclusive wisdom, what he means is that all men everywhere will always continue to behave as they do in his own home town. A little anthropology will dispel this belief.

--Bertrand Russell, An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish

Michael Albert addresses this subject in this video on market abolition (http://www.zcommunications.org/michael-albert-on-market-abolition-by-site-administrator), from 8:36-14:31.

And here's a couple more that might be worth passing along:

UrZ9OGlNKbQ

Jd0mB4qVh7Y

[BLACKPLATES]

The most common arguments against the idea of communism, revolves around this endless argument of the selfish nature of human-beings and that the communist project of sharing, solidarity, being equal (bla, bla, bla: "Insert cliché here") is opposed to human nature.
Most of us answer this argument, non-suprisingly, with some sort of explaination with regards to human beings as a biological creature. I am here not so much requesting an answer to this (ridiculous, in my opinion) standard argument against communism – but an answer to the underlying question: What is human nature? This question has implications for other questions, like the difference between sexes.
In the United States the formation of our political system was said to be based on this "principle" a relic from the 18th century enlightenment. That kind of talk is common in the US from "political scientists" who go on disseminating it as a truism without any evidence or knowledge of psychology, anthropology or sometimes even history at all.The best way to get rid of that from an argument is to ask the arguer to cite some credible research on universal human "nature". Of course there isnt any. no one has studied and observed all of humanity. its like talking about God.

[Meridian]

Right now there is a similar thread about this concept of "human nature" and sociobiology in the Science forum. But in my opinion "human nature" has nothing to do with science, so it should be discussed here.


One of the most wide-spread popular maxims is, "human nature cannot be changed." No one can say whether this is true or not without first defining "human nature." But as used it is certainly false. When Mr. A utters the maxim, with an air of portentous and conclusive wisdom, what he means is that all men everywhere will always continue to behave as they do in his own home town. A little anthropology will dispel this belief. --Bertrand Russell
Indeed, good quote.

[Kiev Communard]

"Human nature" doesn't exist, while human behaviour, constantly changing and adapting to different circumstances, defunitely does. It was the changing material circumstances that allowed the rise of the class societies. After these circumstances change away, the class society will follow the lead of bronze instruments and chariots.

[Tor_Hershman]

More than likely, this could be the base of Jefferson’s ‘a little revolution now and again [Whatever he wrote] and constant revolution, it is that if you form a society of likeminded beings...when they reproduce...the offspring ain't gonna be, en masse, similarly cerebrally inclined inregards to the founders thoughts.

Methinks this is due to DNA needing/wantin’ [Just plain 'doing' for sure] to cover EVERYTHING it can, simply to insure its continued functioning, by diffussing.

Moi thinks I sum this best in me wee musical video parody
“Hey! Hey! We’re The Humans.”
The vid doesn’t cover ALL of us, but most, from my observations.
OH, BTW I should’ve used the word “Distressed” rather than “Suppressed;” methinks moi should’ve thunk somewhat more adroitly over the word following “Sex”– perhaps others as well.

Oh, BTW, again – See Jesus pulling Stalin’s finger.

Moi's a nebie here sooooo ya gotz to copy & paste the partial YouTube URL

youtube.com/watch?v=2LubuSAgB5s

Stay on groovin' safrai,
:eek: Tor Hershman :eek:

[Thirsty Crow]

Greed and compassion are ideas, true - but they describe specific behaviors and attitudes. Genes affect things such as temperament, and I think one can reasonably argue that genes may also affect behaviors that we might describe as "greedy" or "compassionate." Of course, genes aren't deterministic, because the environment plays a great role.

Has contemporary genetics managed to isolate a specific gene responsible for "greediness" or "selfishness"?

[L.A.P.]

I love the hypocrisy of the right-wing on this whole human nature argument, the same right-wingers who will say it is human nature to be greedy therefore it should be allowed are the same right-wingers who will complain about openness about sex which anyone could say well sex is natural but they will reply "well we're not animals we're sophisticated people and all this openness about sexuality is disgusting". The difference is that sex and greed may be natural but sex is not a harmful attribute of human beings and greed is.

[Agnapostate]

Honestly, rightists are so moronically dogmatic that the hardest evidence will not budge them an inch. This thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29054-Obama-admin-halts-prosecution-of-USS-Cole-bomber) is an example; in response to the usual idiotic sentiment that Barack Obama is a "socialist," I referenced several threads here and some quotes from socialist leaders to reinforce the fact that he most certainly is not, and that turned into a debate on socialist remuneration that I won, to no avail.

[MellowViper]

They argue that the nastiness in human nature prevents egalitarianism, but they contradict their selves when they argue that the good nature in charitable donations from capitalists is enough for staving off extreme poverty without government intervention.

[MellowViper]

Human nature is heavily dependent on culturally accepted values and norms, which can radically differ from place to place and time period to time period. There's tribes in Tahiti that didn't understand that sex lead to pregnancy, or they just didn't care. It wasn't a concern. All the women and men would just have orgies within the group, and the children that resulted were considered the collective responsibility of all the men. This was actually very common in the hunter gatherer days and very radical from what we view as normal in modern society.

[RedScareTactic]

To say that there is an inherent "human nature" is a pretty bold claim. For the most part, it is completely relative, arbitrary, and in some cases, genetics might have something to do with it. Either way, the brain capacity of humans wouldn't sustain a consistent modus operandi to apply "human nature" to. Especially when it is constantly taking in information and evolving. In other words, it's obvious that some people completely change their ideals in contrast with the commonly assumed notion that humans are naturally greedy and selfish. Take this forum for example. :cool:

[the youth dialectic]

An argument often used to shoot down the hopes of creating a better world is the argument of 'Human Nature':

"that human nature is fundamentally inspired by greed, and that a society of equality is thus impossible due to the contradictory strivings of individuals against the common good."

Proof of the correctness of this argument relies on an understanding of what human nature is.

Human nature is our perception of and interaction with reality. This is more correctly called consciousness.

But what is consciousness? Where do Ideas come from? Where do Religions come from? Why do peoples morals change over time? Let us investigate the evolution of consciousness alongside the development of human civilization. We will see stages emerge in the evolution of consciousness: each stage represents a form, whose elements are the answers men give to explain natural phenomenon. Let us now proceed to investigate consciousness from its humble beginnings, existing in the minds of our primitive ancestors who emerged approximately 100,000 years ago...



I

We are a highly evolved Ape with an upright stance and specialized hands used for manipulating nature to our advantage. It is our ability to manipulate nature which allows us to understand nature.

As our ability to manipulate nature improves - as our technology advances - our understanding of nature becomes more accurate and profound.

In our pre-history, we were only able to use wood, bones, fire, stones, etc. which means that our technology as well as our understanding of nature was very limited. All forces in nature; the weather, the sea, the flooding of rivers, the migration of herds, the seasons etc. were beyond our control and understanding.

Since the behaviour of forces in nature could not be explained, humans thought that forces behaved in there own particular way because they wanted to behave in that way, and it was thus believed that forces in nature were controlled by spirits who had minds of their own.

A description of the stage in the evolution of consciousness, belonging to the humans of our pre-history, can be summarized as Spiritualism.



II

With the development of agriculture and the taming of wild animals, humans began to settle in communities where technology was then able to develop at a new rapidity.

As humans began to control nature, they started to realize the connections between forces of nature: In the water cycle, water passes into and out of many forms. Cloud becomes rain, rain becomes snow, snow melts into rivers which flow into the sea, water then evaporates and forms clouds. Neither of these parts controls itself, each one of these parts is just playing its position in the unfolding of a process. The individual spirits with minds of their own thus become obsolete as the connections between forces in nature are discovered.

In this case, sprits for rivers and spirits for clouds would become obsolete, and a spirit for the water cycle would be created to replace them.

Man's consciousness becomes more and more profound and accurate as the total number of understood relationships in nature increases.



III

With the development of technology, communities began to produce more than was needed to support all of their inhabitants. This led to the emergence of a section of the society who did not have to work, and lived off the labour of others. This minority then used their privileged position to further exploit the majority who supported them.

Before a surplus of means of subsistence (food, shelter, etc.) was produced, it was impossible for people to exploit one another, for how could someone survive, producing for another, being exploited by another, if all they could obtain by their labour was enough to feed themselves? This is why humans originally lived together in harmony in classless society. Maori society before European contact is an example of a classless society.

Classless society developed into class society, where sections of the population - elements within society- became opposed to one another.

In class society, those who were enslaved would understand that they suffered because of the actions of other humans, but it was beyond their understanding as to why other people behaved in this way toward them.

Just like forces of nature which weren't understood were turned into spirits, the forces of society - human motives, which were not understood, were turned into sprits. All human behaviours such as greed, envy and love had a spirit attached to them. The Gods of Ancient Greek mythology are representatives of these types of spirits.



IV

All spirits eventually mutually exclude themselves, in the face of developing technology, and become one at a certain stage in the evolution of consciousness. This stage is represented by the religion of Christianity.

The form of this consciousness is made up of three major elements, which were answers men gave to explain natural phenomenon, the first being The Father, The next being the Holy Spirit and the third the Son: Jesus Christ.

By this time, technology was so advanced that man had instinctively realized that all forces in nature were somehow connected and this is why he didn't need to give each of them separate minds of their own. All he needed to explain reality was a sprit that created reality. God the Father is this spirit; he was called the creator of the universe who made everything the way it is. God the Father is also the creator of all humans. It was believed that God made us in his image, so his being is the reason behind all of mankind's emotions and actions and thus social behaviour and relationships. He is all the Greek Spirits rolled into one faceless abstraction of man. God the Father is finally the unconscious dream that man will one day become the all powerful lord of the universe and also thus be able to determine his own destiny.

The Holy Spirit is another element of the Christian consciousness. We can, from our study thus far of the evolution of consciousness, recognize that man at this stage was unaware of what his consciousness was. He believed that he knew the truth about the world thus demonstrating his lack of knowledge of the concept of consciousness. However, he was aware that consciousness was something. Inevitably, he turned it into a spirit, to be sure, a sprit that he didn't understand. The immortal soul is the spirit of a man's consciousness; the Holy Spirit is the spirit of consciousness in general.

The last element of the Christian consciousness is Jesus. Under the oppression of the Roman slave empire, life had become so unfair for some that the poor and the slaves began to believe in a factor that balanced things out. They believed that they, who suffered in life, would ascend to paradise in the afterlife, and that those who lived in luxury at their expense, would perish in hell.

The Garden of Eden, which is part of the mythology of Christianity, is a memory of the classless society of ancient man. The factor of Jesus reconciles man with this perfection on a higher level in the kingdom of Heaven. In the consciousness of Christianity, Jesus was a man. Jesus is the unconscious dream that men of the future would one day be able to reconcile mankind with perfection.

The consciousness of Christianity was originally specifically the consciousness of the poor. Its morality taught the poor to care for one another amidst their common suffering, and to condemn the rich for their acts of sin.In the same way that man discovers relationships between forces in nature, he also becomes aware of relationships between different members of his community. Consciousness in general is the reflection of the relationships that exist in the universe. Moral consciousness (morality) in particular is the reflection of the relationships that exist between people. Morality is specific to the observer.



V

The next stage of society to be considered is today's society: the age of capitalism. The consciousness of capitalism assumes that everybody can chose between a set of morals to live their life by, make sensible choices and reap the material rewards. It is believed that everybody has a mind of their own, free from being determined by spirits, or Gods, or the commandments of Moses, free for our selves to determine.

But consciousness is the reflection of the relationships that exist in the universe. The relationship between a person and society is not freely chosen. You can either be a capitalist who owns immense wealth, or a worker who owns practically nothing. The relationship between a person and the rest of society is completely determined by which role they were born into, and this role was handed to the present by the forces of history (class struggle - read dialectics article above) which are beyond our control. If you live as a worker, then your relationship with society is wage-slavery. Your personal reflection of this may make you hate it – and that would be your consciousness. The capitalist has a different relationship with society, he is the overlord, his reflection of this relationship makes him very happy, and his consciousness makes him force the government into increasing the GST. The Capitalists genuinely believe that it is good to hurt the majority of the people for their exclusive rights to extreme riches.

The idea that people chose their morals and their own consciousness is a remnant of primitive spiritualism: When forces in nature had not been connected with the forces that determine them, they were given minds of their own - consciousness is given a mind of its own under capitalism.



VI

The theory of human nature presumes to say that since humans are naturally greedy, we live in a greedy society. Rather than actually explaining the origin of ideas, ideas are conveniently presumed to have been there before they could even be thought, then imprinted on our brains at birth, determining the nature of all human's and all of our social relationships, which are also regarded as 'natural'.



Consciousness evolves - every stage in its line of development, alongside the development of society, represents the sum total of the perceptions of reality interacting together amidst a class war. The development of society is caused by the struggle between the classes, the relationships between classes change over time as some classes rise to prominence, and others fall.

Individuals within each class will have their own particular relationship with the other classes and thus a perception of reality and morality specific to their social being. The consciousness of the ruling class, in any given period, will be the most influential, and its prejudices will be taken for granted as truth for long periods of time.

But prejudices, which are personal reflections of social relationships, do not last forever, for the class struggle will eventually cause social relationships to break.Although the ruling class of today wish to believe that it is our opinions that determine society, the prejudiced opinions of the oppressors do not cause the world to stand still!



The theory of 'human nature' is a useful lie used by the capitalists to demoralise the working class by dampening their aspirations for Communism.



The idea that human nature is fundamentally inspired by greed, is the specific morality of the capitalist class, who are fundamentally inspired by greed.The idea that a society of equality is impossible due to the contradictory strivings of individuals against the

common good, is the prejudice of the capitalists class, whose individual strivings for profits are leading to the common ruin of society and to the destruction of the environment.



Class society is but one stage in the development of human culture. Communism will arrive in our lifetime if we fight for it. Man will become free from class divisions and will thus become his own master, free to become really human, without having his personality determined by class relationships. I wonder what we will become. It has been dreamt of for centuries in the concept of God, but truly, it is beyond the limits of imagination.We will be able to see this dream come to life in the personalities of the children who grow up under Communism. All we have to do to see this, is become like Jesus and fight against all injustice for perfection.



June 14th



Summary of the Evolution of Consciousness

Dialectics applied to the concept of Consciousness gives us these observations.

i. Consciousness is the reflection of the relationships that exist in the universe

ii. The overall consciousness of an epoch represents the total knowledge of understood relationships.

iii. Moral consciousness is the reflection of the relationships that exist between people

iv. Social relationships are determined by the relationship between roles in production

v. The overall moral consciousness of an epoch represents the sum of, and unity of the opposing reflections of social relationships. For long periods, the most dominant reflection is the one belonging to the ruling class of the epoch. In periods of revolution, the consciousness of society changes as the oppressed class becomes aware of its ability to reconstruct the social relationship that enslaves it.