Human Nature and the Limits of Social Change

[NewSocialist]

"Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species."
E. O. Wilson
*Meaning that while ants and other eusocial species appear to live in communist-like societies, they only do so because they are forced to do so from their basic biology, as they lack reproductive independence: worker ants, being sterile, need their ant-queen to survive as a colony and a species and individual ants cannot reproduce without a queen, thus being forced to live in centralised societies. Humans, however, do possess reproductive independence so they can give birth to offspring without the need of a "queen", and in fact humans enjoy their maximum level of Darwinian fitness only when they look after themselves and their families, while finding innovative ways to use the societies they live in for their own benefit.

[Widerstand]

What exactly about "human nature" do they find incompatible with communism? What behaviorisms/instincts/drives are there that would make such a society impossible? And how certain can we be that those are in fact biologically, and not just environmentally caused?

[leftace53]

Well, I know next to nothing about anything biology, however I am under the impression that human nature is malleable. I draw this conclusion mainly from semantics. If human nature were absolute, and if it were true to its name "human nature", then all members of the human race would exhibit characteristics of human nature. However with the mere existence of communists, we cannot accept that the "capitalist" notion of how human nature is coupled with greed, is absolute and all encompassing.

[ZeroNowhere]

I tend to think that it's thoroughly irrelevant, and essentially all of these criticisms are based on a misconception of what socialism is (and a lacking knowledge of history, given that we have lived under communist societies for a large part of our existence). When this comes from 'ex-Marxists', of course, it would be thought-provoking if the 20th Century Marxist movement were not already as famous for not having much to do with Marx (to paraphrase Colletti, it is common knowledge that most Marxists have not read Marx).

[kitsune]

There are tons of studies on human psychology showing that people are naturally egalitarian, cooperative, empathetic, and generous. Children have to be culturally conditioned to accept as normal the inherently unjust disparities of power and privilege.

Sociocultural studies show the same thing. If people live in a social and economic system that rewards greed, selfishness, and disregard, they will be greedy, selfish, and uncaring. If people are living in a social and economic system that rewards compassion, cooperation, and mutual aid, they behave compassionately, cooperatively, and helpfully. The behavior you get depends on the context within which those people exist.

If you only look at the behavior of people existing in a system that rewards greed and selfishness, you will erroneously conclude that people are naturally greedy and selfish. Of course they are, in that system. The system produces the behavior. It's a flawed approach to understanding the behavior of humans; you're only examining that behavior in a specific context.

Many societies have existed with a form of primitive communism, with everyone in the tribe working together for the benefit of all. Historically, it is by far the most common structure. That cooperation and mutual aid is the reason we are a successful species, and we better find our way back to that if we want to continue.

[Dimentio]

There are tons of studies on human psychology showing that people are naturally egalitarian, cooperative, empathetic, and generous. Children have to be culturally conditioned to accept as normal the inherently unjust disparities of power and privilege.

Sociocultural studies show the same thing. If people live in a social and economic system that rewards greed, selfishness, and disregard, they will be greedy, selfish, and uncaring. If people are living in a social and economic system that rewards compassion, cooperation, and mutual aid, they behave compassionately, cooperatively, and helpfully. The behavior you get depends on the context within which those people exist.

If you only look at the behavior of people existing in a system that rewards greed and selfishness, you will erroneously conclude that people are naturally greedy and selfish. Of course they are, in that system. The system produces the behavior. It's a flawed approach to understanding the behavior of humans; you're only examining that behavior in a specific context.

Many societies have existed with a form of primitive communism, with everyone in the tribe working together for the benefit of all. Historically, it is by far the most common structure. That cooperation and mutual aid is the reason we are a successful species, and we better find our way back to that if we want to continue.

Yep, humans have those characteristics, but within small groups of 150 individuals. Larger groups than that, and we start to break up into groups within the larger meta-group. I think that is a heritage of the African plains 20 000 years ago.

[NewSocialist]

What exactly about "human nature" do they find incompatible with communism? What behaviorisms/instincts/drives are there that would make such a society impossible? And how certain can we be that those are in fact biologically, and not just environmentally caused?

Basically, (again, according to sociobiologists) if the economy you endorse doesn't incorporate basic game theory into its mode of production, it will fail.

[kitsune]

Yep, humans have those characteristics, but within small groups of 150 individuals. Larger groups than that, and we start to break up into groups within the larger meta-group. I think that is a heritage of the African plains 20 000 years ago.

Self management is certainly easier in smaller groups. There was commonly inter-group ties and coordination and cooperation in trade and technology sharing, though. That may be the decisive factor in homo sapiens surviving while homo neanderthalensis did not. Their groups were more isolated from one another, while humans groups were in constant social contact.

One thing that demonstrates the larger context of unity is the outpouring of compassion and aid from all corners of the planet after, for example, the earthquake in Haiti or the Sumatra-Andaman tsunami. People naturally reach out to one another in times of need.

[NewSocialist]

One thing that demonstrates the larger context of unity is the outpouring of compassion and aid from all corners of the planet after, for example, the earthquake in Haiti or the Sumatra-Andaman tsunami. People naturally reach out to one another in times of need.

True, but the question we socialists and communists must address is whether or not we think humanity can display such altruism in the everyday process of production, and then structure our proposals around that basis.

[Kotze]

I suggest you do some reading about how Dunbar arrived at his number since it contains a hefty amount of wild-ass speculation. I agree that society's design should incorporate game theory. This does not imply markets.

[kitsune]

True, but the question we socialists and communists (particularly communists) must address is whether or not we think humanity can display such altruism in the everyday process of production, and then structure our proposals around that basis. If human nature is infinitely malleable, there's no reason why we couldn't achieve a society where people produced according to their abilities and consumed according to their needs within a matter of years, following a revolution. However, if aspects of our human nature prohibit this, we have to figure out how and why they do, and adjust our position accordingly.

This is why the psychological studies that show the naturally cooperative, egalitarian nature of humans are important and encouraging. It seems to indicate that promoting that sort of behavior would, in fact, be easier than repressing it.

Transitioning from a culture of self-centeredness and greed to one that is considerate and cooperative will undoubtedly take a lot of effort, though. Realities on the ground will have to determine which approaches have value and which ones do not. The data on human behavior indicates to me that a better way is definitely possible (and has in fact been demonstrated), otherwise I wouldn't bother trying.

[NewSocialist]

I suggest you do some reading about how Dunbar arrived at his number since it contains a hefty amount of wild-ass speculation. I agree that society's design should incorporate game theory. This does not imply markets.

I know that there is a high degree of speculation in Dunbar's number, for all I know it could just be another example of empty Darwinian storytelling, or it could be a fact. It certainly seems plausible that 150 individuals is cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. However, even if Dunbar is wrong, this doesn't address the problem of the conditional nature of reciprocal altruism.

I agree that game theory doesn't imply a necessity for markets per se. My personal view of the market is that I just happen to think a comprise with the market might be necessary--at least in the preliminary stages of a socialist transformation.

[NewSocialist]

This is why the psychological studies that show the naturally cooperative, egalitarian nature of humans are important and encouraging. It seems to indicate that promoting that sort of behavior would, in fact, be easier than repressing it.

Transitioning from a culture of self-centeredness and greed to one that is considerate and cooperative will undoubtedly take a lot of effort, though. Realities on the ground will have to determine which approaches have value and which ones do not. The data on human behavior indicates to me that a better way is definitely possible (and has in fact been demonstrated), otherwise I wouldn't bother trying.

The unresolved question of human nature leaves many differing scenarios possible.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

True, but the question we socialists and communists (particularly communists) must address is whether or not we think humanity can display such altruism in the everyday process of production, and then structure our proposals around that basis. If human nature is infinitely malleable, there's no reason why we couldn't achieve a society where people produced according to their abilities and consumed according to their needs within a matter of years, following a revolution. However, if aspects of our human nature prohibit this, we have to figure out how and why they do, and adjust our position accordingly.


And there isn't. Just that right now we are being learned that it does't work and those who are in charge will do anything to stop things frome becoming like that.

[NewSocialist]

And there isn't. Just that right now we are being learned that it does't work and those who are in charge will do anything to stop things frome becoming like that.

I don't doubt that the status quo has a vested interest in making communism seem as impractical as possible

[Widerstand]

I don't doubt that the status quo has a vested interest in making communism seem as impractical as possible, but I honestly don't think there is some sort of massive conspiracy in the scientific community, in which every single sociobiologists is in the the pay of bourgeois interests or something.

There doesn't need to be for the effect to be the same. Scientists are just as affected by bias as every other human being. Some hypotheses might simply never come up, or theories may be constructed in such a manner that it it impossible for them to have any other conclusion than what the constructor already believed (eg: capitalism's inevitability).

Also, don't forget that most scientific publications use a peer review process, which make it likely that new findings radically opposing the status quo of thought (capitalism=inevitable/humans=egoistic) won't get much if any recognition.

[NewSocialist]

There doesn't need to be for the effect to be the same. Scientists are just as affected by bias as every other human being. Some hypotheses might simply never come up, or theories may be constructed in such a manner that it it impossible for them to have any other conclusion than what the constructor already believed (eg: capitalism's inevitability).

Also, don't forget that most scientific publications use a peer review process, which make it likely that new findings radically opposing the status quo of thought (capitalism=inevitable/humans=egoistic) won't get much if any recognition.

I agree that scientists aren't immune from the same cultural biases all of us are subject to have

[Dimentio]

Self management is certainly easier in smaller groups. There was commonly inter-group ties and coordination and cooperation in trade and technology sharing, though. That may be the decisive factor in homo sapiens surviving while homo neanderthalensis did not. Their groups were more isolated from one another, while humans groups were in constant social contact.

One thing that demonstrates the larger context of unity is the outpouring of compassion and aid from all corners of the planet after, for example, the earthquake in Haiti or the Sumatra-Andaman tsunami. People naturally reach out to one another in times of need.

Homo Neanderthalensis have survived. They are our ancestors too.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6888874.ece

http://www.thelocal.se/26512/20100507/

Which could explain why anomalies like this could exist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee0yDlLhzXg

[Apoi_Viitor]

There are tons of studies on human psychology showing that people are naturally egalitarian, cooperative, empathetic, and generous. Children have to be culturally conditioned to accept as normal the inherently unjust disparities of power and privilege.

Sociocultural studies show the same thing. If people live in a social and economic system that rewards greed, selfishness, and disregard, they will be greedy, selfish, and uncaring. If people are living in a social and economic system that rewards compassion, cooperation, and mutual aid, they behave compassionately, cooperatively, and helpfully. The behavior you get depends on the context within which those people exist.

If you only look at the behavior of people existing in a system that rewards greed and selfishness, you will erroneously conclude that people are naturally greedy and selfish. Of course they are, in that system. The system produces the behavior. It's a flawed approach to understanding the behavior of humans; you're only examining that behavior in a specific context.

Many societies have existed with a form of primitive communism, with everyone in the tribe working together for the benefit of all. Historically, it is by far the most common structure. That cooperation and mutual aid is the reason we are a successful species, and we better find our way back to that if we want to continue.

As far as I know, everything you have said is 100% factually correct - I just want to add links/sources to lend support to your claims.

Babies are inherently egalitarian = http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html

As for what you said about Mutual Aid and primitive communism, Peter Kropotkin (as you probably know already) has written very thoroughly on these topics - especially with how they regard to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Also, in regards to what NewSocialist is saying - in his documentary "The Trap", Adam Curtis looks at the development of the scientific community's view that man is naturally "egotistical", driven by self-interest (he does so from a critical perspective - pointing out how the early evidence that led scientists toward this conclusion was flawed or recently disproven).

[NewSocialist]

As far as I know, everything you have said is 100% factually correct - I just want to add links/sources to lend support to your claims.

Babies are inherently egalitarian

I don't think that any serious researcher today would deny our natural tendency towards cooperative behavior, the only question is to what extent can we expect this cooperation to extend.

[robbo203]

A very interesting discussion all round. Just one or two thoughts to throw into the melting pot...

Regarding the point about altruism and Dunbar's number and whether or not this precludes a global anarcho-communist society there are several things I should mention.

If we are talking about such a society (which corresponds to Marx's higher phase of communism) we need to understand what this entails. It means a society in which individuals freely take from the common stores and voluntarily contribute according to their abilities. What in "human nature" might prevents this? Dunbars idea about meaningful social relationships having an upper limit of 150 individuals (pinpoint accuracy would be surious in this case) I dont think constitutes a barrier that some might infer. It it would be better to view these 150 individuals as a seedbed out of which a generalised moral disposition might take root and develop. We are capable of morally identifying with massively larger entities. The nation state, perverse institution of capitalism though it is, engenders sentiments of fierce loyalty and moral attachment amongst millions of workers today

I think the difference between primitive communiusm and modern anarcho-communism is one of scale and, of course, technology as well. Within a future anarcho-communist society I can quite easily envisage different levels of moral identification from global right down to local. A few concepts to throw around in this connection - like Burnetts theory of the "Ecological Transition" and with it, the widening network of spatial interdependecies as well as the idea of "generalised reciprocity". While I believe there will be a degree of decentralisation of production in communism and much less of the kind of "coals to newscatle" phenomena we find in capitalism, there will still be a wealth of globalised interactions in the form of information and material flows. We will still rely on each other not just at the most local level but at higher levels of spatial integration as well.

Recognition of this will be the spur behind moral identification even at the global level - a practical application of Peter Singer's "expanding circle of ethics" if you like. After all in the small face-to-face communities of primitive communism, free riding was punished and altruism (paradoxically) rewarded (praised) precisely because it served the interests of the group to do so. Why could not the same thing happen at higher levels of integration. Why could it not operated in a multi-level fashion in other words?

I see no obvious reason why it should not and why human nature should in any way constitute a barrier to anarcho-communism

[gorillafuck]

However with the mere existence of communists, we cannot accept that the "capitalist" notion of how human nature is coupled with greed, is absolute and all encompassing.
This is a terrible argument. That's like saying that because some people believe homophobia is natural, it is true.

[robbo203]

This is a terrible argument. That's like saying that because some people believe homophobia is natural, it is true.


Hmmm. Not quite. Homophobes believing that homophobia is natural doesnt make it true. It merely demonstrates that homophobes and homphobia exist. Saying that communists exist , on the other hand, with a communist outlook and values to match is not saying that communism is "natural"; it is merely a repudiation of the claim that capitalism is natural and that it is unnatural to be a communist, surely? That is clearly not true if there are communists around, if you see what I mean...

[revolution inaction]

I'm a big fan of Kropotkin and Pannekoek, though their work is obviously very old and new research has cast doubt upon some of their views. For example, when reviewing Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Stephen Jay Gould noted, "He [Kropotkin] did commit a common conceptual error in failing to recognize that natural selection is an argument about advantages to individual organisms, however they may struggle. The result of struggle for existence may be cooperation rather than competition, but mutual aid must benefit individual organisms in Darwin’s world of explanation. Kropotkin sometimes speaks of mutual aid as selected for the benefit of entire populations or species – a concept foreign to classic Darwinian logic (where organisms work, albeit unconsciously, for their own benefit in terms of genes passed to future generations)."


evolution is not about individual animals, it is about genes, so if particular genes are beneficial to the group they are more likely to be passed on, even if they cause some of the animal carrying then to die without reproducing.

[NewSocialist]

evolution is not about individual animals, it is about genes, so if particular genes are beneficial to the group they are more likely to be passed on, even if they cause some of the animal carrying then to die without reproducing.

It's about individual organisms trying their best to pass their genes onto subsequent generations

[NewSocialist]

[QUOTE=robbo203;1852510]A very interesting discussion all round. Just one or two thoughts to throw into the melting pot...

Regarding the point about altruism and Dunbar's number and whether or not this precludes a global anarcho-communist society there are several things I should mention.

If we are talking about such a society we need to understand what this entails.

[NewSocialist]

Hmmm. Not quite. Homophobes believing that homophobia is natural doesnt make it true. It merely demonstrates that homophobes and homphobia exist. Saying that communists exist , on the other hand, with a communist outlook and values to match is not saying that communism is "natural"; it is merely a repudiation of the claim that capitalism is natural and that it is unnatural to be a communist, surely? That is clearly not true if there are communists around, if you see what I mean...

True, but bourgeois intellectuals tend to accept that there are people born with a tendency towards having communist views, they just happen to think we're minor exceptions to the rule.

[Meridian]

Why should we believe in, or even have any view of, "human nature"?

People talk as if "human nature" does things to us, even forces us to actions. What does the term mean? Is "human nature" a description of humans, or a collection common qualities in humans? In that case, it does not make sense to say 'it' does things to us, changes our behavior or forces us to actions.

[NewSocialist]

Why should we believe in, or even have any view of, "human nature"?

People talk as if "human nature" does things to us, even forces us to actions. What does the term mean? Is "human nature" a description of humans, or a collection common qualities in humans? In that case, it does not make sense to say 'it' does things to us, changes our behavior or forces us to actions.

True dat

[robbo203]

If we're to accept the sociobiological view of human nature (which, again, I'm very much on the fence about), the problem with the higher phase of communism would be one of motivation. If incentive and disciplinary mechanisms don't exist in production, then there are going to be problems. For example, if "Joe" is a less efficient worker than "James," but still has the same free access to take whatever he wants from the communal store, then James is going to feel taken advantage of and proceed to work as inefficiently as Joe--just to make things fair. .

Well, no, this kind of presupposes the mindset that goes with working for some kind of remuneration or material reward. The whole point is that that wont exist anymore in free access communism. Not only that, the incentive question becomes transformed with free access. You can no longer obtain status and the the esteem and respect of your fellows via the consumption and accumulation of wealth when everyone else has free access to goods as well. So how exactly do you obtain such esteem? Thats right! - through your contribution to society and not what you take out of it. Thats the only available avenue left.

There are all sorts of others points that can be made in favour of a free access system, not the least of which is that it dispenses with most of the work that is done today in our capitalist money economy, work which produces nothing useful but is nevertheless essential to maintaining and operating the system itself. That means huge numbers of workers released for socially useful production. If anything the demand for socially creative work will outstrip the available supply . The fact that much work is shunned and seen as a burden today is a much more a reflection of the capitalist conditions under which we work than anything intrinsic to work itself. But even under capitalism there is a huge amount of voluntary or unpaid that goes on all the time - and despite capitalism



This sort of reminds me of what happened with some of the early utopian socialist experiments, like Robert Owen's New Harmony commune. Owen gathered together a group of like-minded intellectuals to live in his community and they were told to work the various jobs Owen provided them with, but they nevertheless had free access to the town's communal shop, which Owen would supply with food, clothing, etc. The town ended in catastrophe. No one worked and everyone would raid the town store as soon as supplies came in. This is what ultimately led Owen to support the idea of labor vouchers.

Well perhaps the clue to New Harmony's failure lies in the paternalistic way in which it was set up which you hint at. Free access communismn cannot really be brought about in that way and, in any case, isolated experiments of this nature though valuable are not going to be impervious to the wider context of capitalist influence

[NewSocialist]

Well, no, this kind of presupposes the mindset that goes with working for some kind of remuneration or material reward. The whole point is that that wont exist anymore in free access communism. Not only that, the incentive question becomes transformed with free access. You can no longer obtain status and the the esteem and respect of your fellows via the consumption and accumulation of wealth when everyone else has free access to goods as well. So how exactly do you obtain such esteem? Thats right! - through your contribution to society and not what you take out of it. Thats the only available avenue left.

I see what you're getting at

[robbo203]

I see what you're getting at, and call me pessimistic, but I'm skeptical about humanity suddenly embracing the idea of work determining social status instead of consumption. If consumption no longer determined social status, I think people would select something like beauty and/or personality to determine status before they would choose work--beauty and personality already influence social status as it is. Unlike consumption, which is fun and pleasurable, work generally sucks. Honestly, if I put myself in such a society and I knew that I had free access to goods and services regardless of my job performance or skill level, I wouldn't value getting an education that much, and I would proceed to find the easiest job possible (that is, if I chose to work at all) and not even work that hard at it--this is hardly a refutation of the theory of free access communism, but merely a thought experiment.



Work sucks becuase of the terms and conditions under which we work. In a voluntaristic free access economy these terms and conditions would be totally different to what prevails under capitalism. If what you say was a serious impediment to free access communism people wouldnt do any kind of voluntary work today. But the evidence shows they do and on a massive scale. Even dangerous work like that of lifeboatmen for example. Apart from the status question work can is fulfilling and creative. We need it if we are to develop as human beings. Sometimes people dont think of a serious hobby or interest as work at all but it is still technically work

Regarding status, the point is that status criteria are not just simply selected at random out of thin air; they tend to reflect the kind of society we live and the needs of such a society. For example, in traditional hunter gathereer societies the skills of a hunter attracted the esteem of band members becuase actually the band as a whole benefited from it. You mentioned beauty as a criterion of status. Well actually notions of beauty itself are heavily influenced by the kind of society we live in. THe waif-like catwalk model today would have been regarded as something unattractive a few centuries ago when a more rubenesque form was considered ideal. Why? Read Naomi Woolfs book The Beauty Myth

In a free acess society the needs of such a society will tend to select one's contribution to society as the criterion par excellence for status status determination

[NewSocialist]

Work sucks becuase of the terms and conditions under which we work.

I agree

[robbo203]

I agree, but working several hours a day producing goods or services is never going to be as pleasurable as consumption--even in the few psychologically fulfilling jobs that exist..

Im inclined to think that the distinction between production and consumption - as with the distinction between work and play - will tend to becomes rather blurred in a free access communist society. I recall a few years back reading Alvin Toffler on the "prosumer economy" . He makes this very point. My memory is a bit hazy here but I think he was saying the develoipment of modern computer-based technology was tending to transform the world of work and move us in this direction - at least potentially if not in fact. In any case i disagree with your claim that "producing goods or services is never going to be as pleasurable as consumption". The opposite can sometimes be the case. I find shopping a complete bore and eating my boil-in-the-bag tandoori chicken at best moderately stimulating. Working on my little vegetable patch on the other hand is an intensely satisfying activity.



Yes, but the fields in which people voluntary labor today and the hobbies we enjoy aren't sufficient enough to run a modern economy. Seriously speaking, how many people would voluntarily work in a cubical for hours on end or voluntarily fill potholes in a road? My guess is very few. Perhaps you can blame that on capitalist culture, but I suspect that the old economist "labor is a disutility," while consumption is a utility, line transcends cultural influences, and it will continue to do so unless or until automation renders unattractive jobs obsolete. Nevertheless, I do agree that human beings have an innate desire to labor at something, I just think that if there isn't some level of immediate incentive to work, the economy will stagnate. I'll fully aware that I can very well be wrong on this though...

The thing is you have to look at the overall picture. There are many many factors that come into play here when considering the viability of a free access voluntaristc society. One is just what work will we actually need to do in such a society. Most of the occupations that we engage in today will simply disappear in a moneyless economy so there will be a far bigger labour supply to do the work that is socially useful and necessary. This means there will be more to share the work burden so that on average we are probably talking about a 20 hour week, if that. Thats no sweat at all and a great bargain (if you think in terms of labour as a disutily) for a comfortable and secure existence. Plus, of course ,we will not be tied to one particular job. We can do a little bit here and a little bit there. We can experimanet with different kinds of jobs all of which will reduce the boredom factor and make labour far less of a disutilty than you imagine. There will also be far greater scope to automate work that might be deemed unpleasant or indeed to move in the opposite direction towards a more labour intensive craft based approach.

You say who would want to fill potholes or work in a cubicle for hours on end. Well, as far as the latter is concerned ,that rather depends on what you do in the cubicle doesnt it? You wouldnt be trying to flog car insurance to some stranger on the other end of the phone but you might be engaged in an interesting research project via the internet though you would not have to do it for hours on end anyway if you did not want to. You would just as much or as little as you wanted. Then there's filling potholes. Well, guess what - Im actually a labourer myself and do a fair bit of this sort of stuff and general landscaping and I just love it! Never never assume that because you dont like a particular job, others dont . Variety is the spice of life and its a good thing too.

At the end of the day if there are certain goods and services for which there is a demand in communism and nobody comes forward to volunteer to do the work then obviously we will have to go without such things. People might complain but to what end? Everybody will know the rules of the game, so to speak, and if you feel sufficiently concerned about this then what is to stop you from voluntarily contributing this work? You can hardly blame others if you yourself are not bothered to do the work. So by a reductio ad absurdum approach this problem would resolve itself.



True, but those hunting skills were essential to ensure that the tribe would be able to survive, which would explain why people valued the individuals who were skilled at hunting so much. However, when you're voluntarily working at a shoe factory in a theoretical free access communist society, for example, the acclaim you could personally receive from your co-workers, or society at large, will at best be minimal (especially when compared with hunters in tribal societies) and most likely won't be adequate enough to ensure you work efficiently, or even choose to work at all. This is obviously just speculation, of course. I'm sure that non-material incentives can work, I just don't think this particular type you bring up is sufficient....


Yes but to bring up the reductio as absurdum argument again - if nobody was producing shoes and people were compelled to go around shoeless then I suggest , working in a shoe factory might indeed come to be seen as something rather important in saociety. Shoe workers will then come to be much more highly acclaimed than would normally be the case. The fact that shoe workers may not receive much acclaim now may be simply due to the fact that the supply of shoes is dependable to the extent that we even take it for granted.

I agree though that status as a non-material incentive is not suifficient in itself to ensure that whatever necessary work that to be done is done in a free access communist society. The point is though that we dont have to rely on a status system alone. There are many other factors which we can draw upon some of which I have touched on already.

Personally speaking i see a free access communism as a "moral economy" par excellance ], being based on a system of generalised reciprocity. The recognition that we all depend on each other makes for a sense of moral obligation toweards one another in a way that is impossible to realise in a class-based competitve capitalist society which tends instead to promote an egoistic outlook . The sense of moral obligation that will pervade a communist society will not simply mean we will be disinclined to take more than we need (which would be pointless anyway since no status could derive from the consumption of goods that are freely available to all). It will mean also that we will inclined to value the needs of others far more and that that in itself will constitute an important source of motivation to work

[gorillafuck]

Hmmm. Not quite. Homophobes believing that homophobia is natural doesnt make it true. It merely demonstrates that homophobes and homphobia exist. Saying that communists exist , on the other hand, with a communist outlook and values to match is not saying that communism is "natural"; it is merely a repudiation of the claim that capitalism is natural and that it is unnatural to be a communist, surely? That is clearly not true if there are communists around, if you see what I mean...
Saying that since communists believe human nature isn't naturally greedy it isn't, doesn't make any sense. There was nothing about it being unnatural to be a communist.

[NewSocialist]

Personally speaking i see a free access communism as a "moral economy" par excellance ], being based on a system of generalised reciprocity. The recognition that we all depend on each other makes for a sense of moral obligation toweards one another in a way that is impossible to realise in a class-based competitve capitalist society which tends instead to promote an egoistic outlook . The sense of moral obligation that will pervade a communist society will not simply mean we will be disinclined to take more than we need (which would be pointless anyway since no status could derive from the consumption of goods that are freely available to all). It will mean also that we will inclined to value the needs of others far more and that that in itself will constitute an important source of motivation to work

You bring up a lot of good points

[Uppercut]

What people describe as "natural order" of society changes throughout the course of history. There was once a time where the general public accepted the idea that if women were allowed to have a job outside of the house, society and the family would fall apart and chaos would reign. Obviously this lacks any evidence of logical or scientific reasoning other, but it used to be an accepted dogma.

The same goes with same sex marriage. There was always the "slippery slope" argument that people would start trying to mate with animals, inanimate objects, etc. (which people have been doing for a much longer time than most people think). "Human nature" and "natural order" are whatever those in command of the current social order and those are are under it determine it to be.

[NewSocialist]

What people describe as "natural order" of society changes throughout the course of history. There was once a time where the general public accepted the idea that if women were allowed to have a job outside of the house, society and the family would fall apart and chaos would reign. Obviously this lacks any evidence of logical or scientific reasoning other, but it used to be an accepted dogma.

The same goes with same sex marriage. There was always the "slippery slope" argument that people would start trying to mate with animals, inanimate objects, etc. (which people have been doing for a much longer time than most people think). "Human nature" and "natural order" are whatever those in command of the current social order and those are are under it determine it to be.

We're talking about scientific materialist theories of human nature, not conservativism

[gorillafuck]

Work sucks becuase of the terms and conditions under which we work.
I am obviously a socialist (else what would I be doing here), but just for the record I would definitely not want to work at my job even if it was democratically run by the workers. My job working at a call center, basically calling people to do surveys and having no answer 85% of the time and having hang ups on 80% of the pickups, is easily the most boring part of my day. It would still suck tremendously if it was worker managed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am obviously a socialist (else what would I be doing here), but just for the record I would definitely not want to work at my job even if it was democratically run by the workers. My job working at a call center, basically calling people to do surveys and having no answer 85% of the time and having hang ups on 80% of the pickups, is easily the most boring part of my day. It would still suck tremendously if it was worker managed.

I imagine that people under a communist society would have a completely different attitude to surveys, which would be undertaken for good reasons and not as another way of generating money.

If even that fails to make the job more pleasant, I don't see why we couldn't just have a machine do it - all are asked the same questions, and the machine could easily record responses.

[Meridian]

I agree with everything you've written, only it's an straw man argument of what sociobiologists mean by "human nature," which is what we've been discussing. We're talking about scientific materialist theories of human nature, not conservative cultural constructs.
I disagree. "Human nature" is a term carried over by philosophers' conceptions of "the true nature of things", inherent qualities, etc. There is nothing materialist about this term, it is metaphysical. Using language, the qualities of things are sought beyond their specific or subjective 'representation'. However, language is a tool of communication, which makes it a nonsensical pursuit.

Now, you may say that by "human nature" it is meant something similar to "qualities humans have from birth", or "common elements among humans". But these descriptions have a different meaning, they are observations of how the world happens to be. Using them would clarify, and disallow large portions of the language sociobiologists help themselves to (such as "it goes against human nature").

[Technocrat]

I see nothing in the "higher stage" of communism that is incompatible with human nature. It's true that many Marxists are ignorant of or hostile to sociobiology, which is unfortunate because as I see it, sociobiology would only support communism.

So long as everyone is contributing the same amount of effort to production, there is no problem with allowing everyone free access to production. It's a matter of organization how you get everyone to contribute the same amount of effort.

[Technocrat]

I see what you're getting at, and call me pessimistic, but I'm skeptical about humanity suddenly embracing the idea of work determining social status instead of consumption. If consumption no longer determined social status, I think people would select something like beauty and/or personality to determine status before they would choose work--beauty and personality already influence social status as it is. Unlike consumption, which is fun and pleasurable, work generally sucks. Honestly, if I put myself in such a society and I knew that I had free access to goods and services regardless of my job performance or skill level, I wouldn't value getting an education that much, and I would proceed to find the easiest job possible (that is, if I chose to work at all) and not even work that hard at it--this is hardly a refutation of the theory of free access communism, but merely a thought experiment.

What if all jobs were equally difficult?

"Balanced job complexes" would solve the problem you are referring to.

[Technocrat]

Regarding Dunbar's number: I don't think this is an upper limit on community size, but it could be useful in determining an ideal size for workplaces, since it is in the workplace that peer accountability would keep corruption in check. The workplace would be a "community" of sorts that policed itself for corruption and free riders.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So long as everyone is contributing the same amount of effort to production, there is no problem with allowing everyone free access to production. It's a matter of organization how you get everyone to contribute the same amount of effort.

The problem is, how is effort to be determined, and how do you compare different kinds of work, effort-wise?

[Technocrat]

The problem is, how is effort to be determined, and how do you compare different kinds of work, effort-wise?

If we have a steady-state economy we know in advance what % of the population needs to be engaged in a particular line of work.

Some jobs can be classified as being "higher" in responsibility than other jobs. This is determined in a straightforward and indisputable way: if a person who performs job A could also perform job B, but the person performing job B could only perform job B, then job A is higher in responsibility. So, we would say that job A also requires more "effort" than job B.

This doesn't mean that jobs A and B would be performed by distinct individuals, it means that the work roles themselves are objectively ranked according to the amount of effort involved so that "balanced job complexes" can be created. Solving the free rider problem is thus a matter of administration.

I'd like to add to the above that studies have shown that non-material motivators, such as knowing that one's efforts contribute to something meaningful, are more effective than material rewards. Material rewards can actually stifle non-material motivators. People will actually take a pay cut if it means their job is more satisfying in other ways, like having more meaning to the individual.

[∞]

This guy is a wanker...I believe it was Freud who said our mutual relations are based on societal implications. He said Marx didn't go far enough with class-conflict, claiming that it exists with Father-and-son and so on.

[Amphictyonis]

"Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species."
E. O. Wilson
*Meaning that while ants and other eusocial species appear to live in communist-like societies, they only do so because they are forced to do so from their basic biology, as they lack reproductive independence: worker ants, being sterile, need their ant-queen to survive as a colony and a species and individual ants cannot reproduce without a queen, thus being forced to live in centralised societies. Humans, however, do possess reproductive independence so they can give birth to offspring without the need of a "queen", and in fact humans enjoy their maximum level of Darwinian fitness only when they look after themselves and their families, while finding innovative ways to use the societies they live in for their own benefit.



You must have received the memo? Human nature is individualism and individualism can only be expressed by buying tuck loads of plastic gadgets and multi colored T-shirts under capitalism.


Our freedom ENDS at having the choice to buy a bunch of shit a capitalist decides to make for us. Only idiots can't see this. Only idiots think socialism is about hive mind. It's about democracy- not living in this bourgeois plutocracy we have now but actual human choice.

You think you're free under capitalism? You think almost every aspect of your life isn't controlled by the private sector? When to wake up, when to piss, when to go home, when to sleep, when to 'vacation' (if you're lucky enough to be able to afford it) what to do at work (which usually consists of teh same mind numbing task under the division of labor) and yes the capitalists tell you what to wear. Who do you think sets fashion 'trends' if not their sick magazines and Media outlets?

You don't even have control of your own mind and you don't even know it. The reason you don't see a society based in altruism is because the ruling class has crafted our very reality from the top down. False consciousness in part means everything is told from the bourgeois perspective. Our culture is a capitalist culture through and through. This means the predominant history is told by the working class, our roles in society are determined by the ruling class...very human nature itself is told to us by the ruling class.


I suggest you stop reading this-

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/wilkinson-050201.html

and start reading this-

http://www.calresco.org/texts/mutaid.htm

Sorry if I sound rude but I've only heard this lame argument from capitalists so...If you're not a capitalist then sorry :) I'll be willing to discuss this without being so snotty :)

Social Darwinism is bullshit so is "human nature".

[Amphictyonis]

Scarcity is what creates the need for competition not human nature. This economic system which is dependent on false scarcity and competition creates "human nature" human nature has not created this sick system. You should also read Marx, specifically his work surrounding primitive accumulation and historical materialism. Also ponder what scarcity does in any situation. Take heroin addicts. They're at each others throats, back stabbing, stealing and lying to get what they need. If heroin were freely available do you think they would lie cheat and steal to attain it? You can look at material sustenance in the same way. It's teh economic system of false scarcity which creates this dog eat dog mentality.

Primitive accumulation was facilitated at the end of a bloody sword- people didn't get together and ask to be dominated and it wasn't the 'strong' who did the dominating it was the most vile, the most manipulative element of mankind. Private property was forced on mankind by the decedents of shitbags who controlled the surplus agriculture early civilization. Private property and the economic systems it has created (slavery/feudalism/capitalism) is no more human nature than shitting in a persons face. In fact, thats essentially what capitalism is. A huge terd in the face of humanity. It's turned us all into "heroin addicts" and our fix is material sustenance. Under capitalism we're all in competition and we'll lie cheat and steal our way to "success". Hierarchical society is not human nature. Helotism is not human nature.

[MellowViper]

I don't like those arguments about socialism being incompatible with the selfishness of human nature, because I ultimately view socialism as everyone equally looking out for their own self interests. If in capitalism, self interest works for the CEO, why couldn't it work for farmers and factory workers too? Why couldn't the people on the bottom use their leverage, as capital does all the friggin time, to get as much as they reasonably can out of the deal, like partial ownership of the means of their own production?