Is "human nature" a barrier to socialism?

[Queercommie Girl]

http://www.socialistparty.net/component/content/article/70-socialism-a-marxism/458-is-human-nature-a-barrier-to-socialism

A good article on Marxism for beginners, written by the Trotskyist CWI.

I especially like its explicit rejection of biological reductionism, which I think every genuine socialist and Marxist should reject.

‎"Human nature" is only a "barrier" to socialism in the biological reductionist social darwinist paradigm. Genuine Marxists need to adopt a dialectical view of "human nature". As Lenin correctly pointed out, humans are not just "social animals". The most crude human engineer is qualitatively above the bee, because the bee can only construct things out of a sense of innate instinct, but humans can think and have self-consciousness. The difference between humanity and animals is not just quantitative, but qualitative.

[Broletariat]

I'm gunna post some copy-pasta from the AFAQ that I like on the subject that excludes all that dialectical stuff.

http://pastebin.com/h76fQ2ZP

[anticap]

First, you (meaning anyone new to these ideas, who might sincerely ask that question) should define "human nature." Then, you should ask the same question of capitalism. I think you'll find that whatever your first answer is, the second will be something like, "Yes; capitalism must be imposed upon people by force; they must be broken like beasts of burden before they'll accept being treated as such; and history bears this out."

[Zanthorus]

As Lenin correctly pointed out, humans are not just "social animals". The most crude human engineer is qualitatively above the bee, because the bee can only construct things out of a sense of innate instinct, but humans can think and have self-consciousness. The difference between humanity and animals is not just quantitative, but qualitative.

Although Lenin may have said that, the original source for it was Marx's description of the labour process in general in chapter seven of the first volume of Das Kapital. And although humans are a particularly unique kind of animal, they are still animals. Views which state otherwise are generally bound up with some form of creationism, since the only way such a thing could possibly be accepted would be through the denial of the evolution of humans from other animals.

Biological determinism is bullshit though, as are all other forms of determinism in fact.

[Queercommie Girl]

Although Lenin may have said that, the original source for it was Marx's description of the labour process in general in chapter seven of the first volume of Das Kapital. And although humans are a particularly unique kind of animal, they are still animals. Views which state otherwise are generally bound up with some form of creationism, since the only way such a thing could possibly be accepted would be through the denial of the evolution of humans from other animals.

Biological determinism is bullshit though, as are all other forms of determinism in fact.

Yes, ultimately humans are still animals. But this is where a dialectical style of thinking becomes useful. Otherwise one is stuck with mechanically either accepting that "humans are totally animals" (social darwinism) or "humans are totally not animals" (creationism).

The truth is that humans are ultimately animals but also qualitatively apart from animals.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm gunna post some copy-pasta from the AFAQ that I like on the subject that excludes all that dialectical stuff.

http://pastebin.com/h76fQ2ZP

Anarchism doesn't follow dialectics. But dialectics is quite central to Marxism-Leninism: (of course, only the correct kind of dialectics, not mystical dialectics)

As Lenin puts it: "They all call themselves Marxists, but their understanding of Marxism is degenerate to the extreme. The determining factor of Marxism, the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism, they have no understanding of at all."

[Zanthorus]

Yes, ultimately humans are still animals. But this is where a dialectical style of thinking becomes useful. Otherwise one is stuck with mechanically either accepting that "humans are totally animals" (social darwinism) or "humans are totally not animals" (creationism).

The truth is that humans are ultimately animals but also qualitatively apart from animals.

No, humans are animals, that is a simple fact which requires no additions or dialectical insertions. Of course we are qualitatively different from other animals, in much the same way that chimpanzee's or spiders are qualitatively different from other animals. Accepting this does not lead to social darwinism or any other kind of biological determinism.

[Tablo]

The nature of human beings is malleable. We are however social animals so cooperation with each other may be a bit more natural.

[Peace on Earth]

Human nature, in the sense of people being greedy and working only for self-gain, is countered by every single good deed someone does for the pure sake of someone else, as well as many communal societies throughout history. It's over-used by capitalists as some mystical phrase that all of humanity adheres to.

[Blackscare]

I said this recently in another thread, I find it hard to believe that there is even such a thing as an immutable human nature. There is only human behavior, and such behavior can vary drastically between different epochs or individual situations.


Change the conditions that a person exists within, change the person.

[Zanthorus]

Change the conditions that a person exists within, change the person.

The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.

[Blackscare]

Obviously it is an ongoing process. They way I see it, the working class of the present works to change the parameters of the world they were brought up in. Obviously, aside from being enlightened politically to their historical place in the world, they are still pretty much products of the world they came from. The great noble effort of the first generation or so of revolutionary workers is to change the world so that the next generation has better formative experiences.

When carrying out revolution it is important to remember that we are not working with the people we envision as being the products of a more just society. We are dealing with people who want to transcend the system they came from. This transitional generation is very important.

[Revy]

If "human nature" is a barrier to socialism then we might as well give up now. The only correct answer would be No, it is not a barrier to socialism. Being a revolutionary rests on the idea that socialism is inevitable.

[28350]

No.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Although Lenin may have said that, the original source for it was Marx's description of the labour process in general in chapter seven of the first volume of Das Kapital. And although humans are a particularly unique kind of animal, they are still animals. Views which state otherwise are generally bound up with some form of creationism, since the only way such a thing could possibly be accepted would be through the denial of the evolution of humans from other animals.

Biological determinism is bullshit though, as are all other forms of determinism in fact.

How can one support or oppose the argument that, although humans aren't inherently greedy (just self-interested), they're inherently violent? Zizek argues this aspect of "human nature" in his book on violence, and I was in a similar position well before he wrote his book - and still am.

[A.R.Amistad]

I have explained many, many times on here how "human nature" is really just an idealist myth produced either by essentialist idealism or mechanical materialism (which is really another form of idealism and metaphysics, hence Lenin called it "metaphysical materialism). Now, I have been accused of denying that humans are a part of nature, but it is because humans are a part of nature that I deny any "human nature." Humans have natural behaviors, reactions, needs, capacities etc., but "human nature" has become such a hackneyed term that it "human nature" doesn't even mean human behavior anymore. Its really just an attempt to reduce all human behavior and action to some little word like "greed" or "lust" or something along those lines.

Marx uses the term "human nature," but he's not using it in a reductionist manner, and I think human behavior would be better, and human behavior is conditioned.

The problem with human nature is that humans are not separate from nature. It is impossible for humans to do anything unnatural. If we could levitate on our own, that would be unnatural, and would make sense to say "one cannot float in the air on their own because it is against human nature." true, it is unnatural, and therefore impossible, for humans to levitate on their own. But "human nature" attributes certain ideas and actions to human capabilities as "natural," and that which doesn't fit that defintion is unnatural.

So, someone who says "human nature is essentially greedy." Unless they just like to be contradictory or are in denial, people do do non-greedy acts. One would put forward a piece of evidence where humans were not greedy. But according to whoever said humans are greedy, these acts would be "unnatural" to humans. Here is where the mysticism comes in, and I think it has a lot to do with the influence of Western religions, particularly Christianity. To the "greedy human nature" idealist, to do something good, or non-greedy, pone must channel some supernatural force, since what they are doing is "unnatural."

Whatever personalities, actions or behaviors a human exhibits, greedy or altruistic, lazy or hard working, it is all natural behavior.

I also hear lots of capitalists of the Ayn Rand type saying that capitalism is the system that embraces our "animal nature and instinct." That means people have been living "unnaturally" for thousands upon thousands of years, and we have only been "natural" for between 400-200 years so far. Like I said, humans are incapable of preforming an unnatural act. Even manipulating nature by building a dam on a river is a natural and material act. People living in a feudal society are living just as naturally as people living in a primitive communal society.

A better term for "human nature" would be 'human behavior,' which is undoubtedly conditioned and conditioned largely by the society people live in. Marx wrote extensively on 'human nature" but he wrote it as a materialist, and in a non-mechanical way. he studied how humans behaved, he didn't try to reduce human actions to one idea, and thats what I like about his study.

This is also an important work by Engels on the evolution of consciousness by Engels:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm

[A.R.Amistad]

Being a revolutionary rests on the idea that socialism is inevitable.

Um, then why be a revolutionary?

[A.R.Amistad]

As Lenin correctly pointed out, humans are not just "social animals". The most crude human engineer is qualitatively above the bee, because the bee can only construct things out of a sense of innate instinct, but humans can think and have self-consciousness. The difference between humanity and animals is not just quantitative, but qualitative.

I can agree with this to a point. Humans do have certain qualities that make us quantitatively different from other animals, but we are animals nonetheless. I think this is what Lenin meant. Humans are animals, but are qualitatively different from other species like wolves or lions. This is because one hears many "human nature" idealists reiterating that "since humans are animals, they are no different than Lions and have the same aggressive nature as all animals." Well, humans are animals, but qualitatively different too from other species.

The bee reference Lenin makes, and where he makes the distinction between Humans and other species is from this by Marx in Capital:

Marx

A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm

[~Spectre]

Someone seriously needs to put up the Rosa signal in this thread.

[Red Commissar]

An interesting article. It seems to be structured in a form to refute common misconceptions or arguments against socialism.

This part is specifically about Human Nature and it's spot on for the most part.



There is a difference between selfishness and self-interest. There is absolutely no doubt that human beings look out for their self-interests, and the struggle for socialism is completely in line with this tendency. Socialists fight to achieve a living minimum wage for all, for free national healthcare, free public education through college, affordable housing for all, and other programs that would dramatically raise the standard of living for the vast majority.

As the history of the trade union movement has shown, working people have the most power to improve our lives when we work collectively instead of desperately trying to succeed as individuals in a system rigged against us.

Ironically, it is the same pro-capitalist ideologues who preach that people are too "greedy" for socialism who then turn around to demand workers "tighten their belts for the common good"� whenever they want to lower our wages, lay us off, or cut our social programs.

But self-interest is not the only thing that guides us. Take a look at the amount of people doing volunteer work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 65 million Americans volunteered in some way in 2005.

After Hurricane Katrina, individuals around the country donated $4.25 billion to help the victims, whereas corporations donated a pitiful $400 million (Charity Navigator, 8/8/06). These figures show the enormous sacrifice and solidarity working people are capable of.

....

The ruling class would have us believe that capitalism or class society is the inevitable result of human nature. While biology determines certain aspects of our behavior, human nature is not a permanent, unchanging thing that magically fell from the sky. How we act, and how we relate to the world and each other, develops in response to the changing material conditions of society and our relationship to the natural world.

For millions of years, people lived in egalitarian, nomadic hunter-and-gatherer societies. Food, shelter, and the necessities of survival were equally shared throughout society. Only after the agricultural revolution, when nomadic tribes settled down to cultivate crops, did a surplus of wealth develop that allowed a ruling class to arise for the first time in history.

Various ruling classes since then have claimed that it was "human nature"� for one person to own another as a slave, or for there to be a divine king appointed by God to rule over everyone else. Today people would rightly dismiss this as utter nonsense!

Really those who believe in an immutable human nature are either too far into religious beliefs or some form of transcendentalism (in the American sense).

[Taikand]

Social experiments and observations have shown that we're actually made to be sociable and empathic beings, but society stiffles these feeling, so the secondary emotions like greed and such become dominant.
Please look at this:
The empathic civilisation (talks about human nature): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g
What motivates us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

[Die Neue Zeit]

Again, what about violence?

[Thirsty Crow]

Again, what about violence?
What about it?
You stated that you believe that man, as a species, is inherently violent. I don't see the importance of this claim since the instinct for self-preservation in some cases necessitates violent acts. So man has to be capable, inherently, to commit these violent acts, in self defense.

And I don't see a problem with this.
How exactly does this idea relate to the possibility of a different society, that is, communism?