Optimal society and human tendencies?

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

In Franz De Wall(a primatologist)'s book The Age Of Empathy he mentions that humans as group animals we are highly cooperative, sensitive to injustice, sometimes war-mongering, but mostly peace loving. He says that a society that ignores these tendencies can't be optimal. He then says we are incentive driven animals focused on status, territory and food security, saying a society that ignores these tendencies also won't be optimal either. He then says that these show we are naturally social and selfish. Is he saying that a mix between socialism ans capitalism is the most optimal? Does anyone have any opinions on this? I'm not sure what to think. It sounds like he is saying that a system such as democratic socialism most fits our biology and anything else goes against it. This basically sounds like the human-nature argument against communism. Which I'm not really sure how to respond to. What are your answers to the human-nature argument? It sounds likes he is using behavioral science which sounds difficult to argue against.

[Tablo]

Food security and territory(a place to call home?) is guaranteed in communism. What does he mean by status? We do not need social hierarchy. Also, what does he mean by "optimal". I'm willing to have a less "optimal" society if it means I am free. Socialism and Capitalism can't mix since they are two contradictory economic structures. Democratic socialism is socialism achieved through parliamentary politics(see what Venezuela is attempting). "Human-nature" is malleable and his argument sounds idiotic. If we run on incentives ten we can always work to improve ourselves and accomplish goals that don't hurt others. If we want to compete we can do so in sports or in other ways that do not harm one another. If we are social then certainly we would in most cases avoid anti-social behaviors like exploitation of our fellow human.

Sorry I didn't organize all this. :P

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

Thanks

[Tablo]

You're welcome. :)

[FreeFocus]

I'll reply more in-depth later because it's pretty damn late, but there are ways to channel competitive drive and attaining glory, honor, accolades, etc, besides doing so in a system, within structures that determine whether people live or die and control their means to provide for themselves.

He's not making a political argument necessarily. There will still be killings in a communist society, there might be some small wars even between communities, who knows. But I think that behavioral science has consistently gone against what capitalists argue human nature is.

[Tablo]

I can't really see wars between communities happening...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I can't really see wars between communities happening...

Really? Take a look at this forum, with it's different tendencies that often quite vehemently disagree with each other. Look at the proliferation of real-world political organisations with their splits and schisms.

Somehow I don't think people will stop arguing just because they're all comfortable. In fact, I would not be surprised if there was more debate and disagreement since almost everyone would have a stake in doing so. In some cases, it's likely that will lead to violence, human failings being as they are.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

The book I'm reading also has this quote:

"By itself this motive doesn't suffice. Perhaps bees or ants-that live in communities in which everyone is closely related and serves the same queen- are willing to work there hearts out for the common good, but humans are not. No matter how much brainwashing we engage in and patriotic songs we sing, we will always think of ourselves before we think of society. If any good has come out of the communist "experiment", it is this clarification of the limits of solidarity."

[Tablo]

Really? Take a look at this forum, with it's different tendencies that often quite vehemently disagree with each other. Look at the proliferation of real-world political organisations with their splits and schisms.

Somehow I don't think people will stop arguing just because they're all comfortable. In fact, I would not be surprised if there was more debate and disagreement since almost everyone would have a stake in doing so. In some cases, it's likely that will lead to violence, human failings being as they are.
I'm sure they would still argue, but Communism is supposed to exist in post-scarcity so there no need to fight over resources. Also, since Communism lacks social hierarchy, if a minority disagrees with the majority they can of their own free will leave the commune. I just do not see what motivation they would have to run out and kill each other.

[FreeFocus]

The book I'm reading also has this quote:

"By itself this motive doesn't suffice. Perhaps bees or ants-that live in communities in which everyone is closely related and serves the same queen- are willing to work there hearts out for the common good, but humans are not. No matter how much brainwashing we engage in and patriotic songs we sing, we will always think of ourselves before we think of society. If any good has come out of the communist "experiment", it is this clarification of the limits of solidarity."

Yeah, he clearly has no level of political consciousness though. He might, at best, be a liberal. He would need to do in-depth critiques of anarchist Catalonia, other libertarian socialist attempts, as well as the authoritarian ones (USSR, China, etc). He's just making the same blanket claim that they all do: "communism was a failure." They don't even understand that communism means a stateless, classless society, not a Stalinist state.

When you think about it, communism is in each individual's interest (except for those in the ruling classes, who are only in those positions by exploiting people): for example, most people would prefer more time to do what they enjoy than working all the time. Spending money and living paycheck to paycheck? That sucks. Paying college tuition? It sucks. Being harassed and/or killed by cops and soldiers? That obviously sucks.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm sure they would still argue, but Communism is supposed to exist in post-scarcity so there no need to fight over resources.

Humans can be irrational enough to fight over things other than resources.


Also, since Communism lacks social hierarchy, if a minority disagrees with the majority they can of their own free will leave the commune. I just do not see what motivation they would have to run out and kill each other.

What if a commune does something another considers wrong, and won't listen to reason?

[Tablo]

Humans can be irrational enough to fight over things other than resources.



What if a commune does something another considers wrong, and won't listen to reason?
Well, as long as one commune does not impose itself upon another I don't see the problem.

Then again I do think a war between animal liberationists and rational thinking human beings is inevitable, so you are probably right. :lol:

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

Well, as long as one commune does not impose itself upon another I don't see the problem.

Then again I do think a war between animal liberationists and rational thinking human beings is inevitable, so you are probably right. :lol:
Its not rational to care about animals?

[Tablo]

Its not rational to care about animals?
Not exactly, but to see them as equal to humans or deserving of not being consumed by humans is kinda odd to me.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

Not exactly, but to see them as equal to humans or deserving of not being consumed by humans is kinda odd to me.
You think its odd that animals that can feel fear and pain shouldnt be hurt when they dont have to? You think its odd to want to not cause uneccesary suffering to sentient beings? Could you explain your reasoning? I dont think I've heard your opinion on the subject before.

[Tablo]

You think its odd that animals that can feel fear and pain shouldnt be hurt when they dont have to? You think its odd to want to not cause uneccesary suffering? Could you explain your reasoning? I dont think I've heard your opinion on the subject before.
I feel that I could not care less about animals. I care about humans and that is it. I guess it might make me a speciest, but I think we all are. I have no problems with eating animals and have no desire to stop. I oppose factory farming only because it has detrimental effects on the food that are bad for consumption. I have no problem if other people love animals and don't want them to be hurt or anything, but I don't care about animals.

This makes me sound like kind of an asshole. xP

[FreeFocus]

I'm not going to derail this thread because I just spent like a week and a half debating this in Sciences and Environment, but in a communist society, with the domination of man over man eliminated, people will look at other forms of hierarchy as it relates to humans and non-humans. I think that the attitude that humans are the supreme rulers of the universe, who can abuse animals and the environment on a whim, is a toxic one, and the violence that goes on in factory farms has ramifications in relationships between humans. I'm not a vegan (I love meat, actually), but I don't support factory farming at all, and at the very least, in a communist society, I would want it to be significantly downsized and reformed. I think people using force to make sure of this in a communist society would be justified (sabotaging equipment, blocking the factory, etc). Some people will argue for abolishing it, which I sympathize with. I can imagine a truly technologically and ethically advanced society discouraging meat-eating. I recently read Making A Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights by Bob Torres (he's a social anarchist). I disagree with some of what he says, but he made me reassess my analysis and what I think a communist society should look like. I would urge you to at least read that book and explore the ideas presented, Tsukae.

[Tablo]

I will check it out. I might even learn something from it. :)

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I also recommend Bob Torres Making A Killing: The Political Economy Of Animal Rights. I thought it was very interesting. You should definitely read it Tsukae:).

[Tablo]

I'm looking for it, but it is hard finding a free pdf of it online. :/

[ckaihatsu]

In Franz De Wall(a primatologist)'s book The Age Of Empathy he mentions that humans as group animals we are highly cooperative, sensitive to injustice, sometimes war-mongering, but mostly peace loving. He says that a society that ignores these tendencies can't be optimal. He then says we are incentive driven animals focused on status, territory and food security, saying a society that ignores these tendencies also won't be optimal either. He then says that these show we are naturally social and selfish. Is he saying that a mix between socialism ans capitalism is the most optimal? Does anyone have any opinions on this? I'm not sure what to think. It sounds like he is saying that a system such as democratic socialism most fits our biology and anything else goes against it. This basically sounds like the human-nature argument against communism. Which I'm not really sure how to respond to. What are your answers to the human-nature argument? It sounds likes he is using behavioral science which sounds difficult to argue against.


Besides this already-mentioned, valid point...





Socialism and Capitalism can't mix since they are two contradictory economic structures.


...I'll say that this topic straddles two domains, that of biology and that of society. There's nothing *wrong* with that, of course, as long as we can differentiate along the way and not get muddled between them.

The reason why one might be given pause in tackling this kind of topic is because the biological-determinism-type arguments can be readily "proved" with empirical data -- those who argue from a biological point of view have loads of data to show off and they'll make their 'human nature' argument off of that.

The fallacy, of course, is that we are *not* strictly biological creatures -- we are *socialized individuals* and that "layer" of societal dynamism and determination cannot be carelessly and wantonly ignored.

Topics like this one that span over natural (biological) and personal (social) domains are helped by an approach that can put the sub-topics / issues into a *generic*, yet acceptable, framework, or system of abstraction. I've become a fan of complexity theory for this reason since it uncovers empirical dynamics that are common to many, various fields -- some portion of it may be applicable as a starting point for specific discussions such as this one....





Autonomy and connectivity

Autonomy is the need for an individual to maintain themselves and determine their own actions. An autonomous individual will operate without being unduly controlled by external influences. It has a separate identity, distinct from the environment in which it finds itself. An autonomous organism is able to maintain its boundary, or boundaries itself, taking in the energy it needs to survive and repel anything that might be a threat to its existence.

We cannot survive by just being autonomous. We do not live separately from the environment about us. All our actions occur within an environment and we are defined by it. We need such things as food, air, warmth, and companionship to maintain ourselves. Our connectedness to our environment and our relationships with others are therefore crucial to our lives. Our connectivity is just as important as our autonomy.

Just as order and chaos form a pair of dancing partners, so does autonomy and connectivity. We need both. We must be separate and individual and yet at the same time connected and linked into our world. Each of us has conflicting and competing individual desires in a constant battle to maintain the dynamic balance between autonomy and connectivity in our lives. It is a bit like a tightrope walker who cannot just find the balance point and walk. Sometimes the pole dips a little more to one side or the other and the walker must constantly restore the balance. The tightrope walker’s dynamic control over the pole enables them to walk safely along the rope.

http://complexity.orconhosting.net.nz/autonomy.html


The overall *problem* with the content you're addressing -- besides the mish-mash of biological and social factors -- is that it's not really covering any specific *topic*, much less an *issue*, as much as it's exploring very general, vague *themes*. Academia is full of this kind of stuff wherein someone learned can cover a lot of ground in broad strokes, and have it backed up by very good sources, but all without really being pinned down to any concrete perspective or position on any of it. It's more like a guided tour through some landscape rather than stopping to take a stand somewhere, with some definite perspective -- as we're more used to doing as *political* people.

(And, from a political standpoint, this kind of treatment can be irritating because while it *touches on* political themes it doesn't flesh out a full set of arguments, or reasoning, for its political assertions. This lack of rigor and flitting approach, in addition to the political content itself, is what brings us to describe such treatments as being liberal on the political spectrum. The following excerpt, from the same Complexity Theory website, is another example of this.)





Power Law Distributions

[...]

Communism had the truly noble intention of creating an equal society. Unfortunately it never worked. By forcing equality, when human diversity naturally creates inequality, problems emerged. Almost always, the dreamed of equality was taken over by a tyrannical leader taking autocratic control. Do power law distributions have an influence pulling the dynamics back to inequality? Do power laws have the ability to change events in order to maintain their structure like a complex adaptive system?
This would suggest that the more we develop our market driven world economy to be more diverse and provide freedom in terms of opportunity, the gap between rich and poor will just continue to increase. Does it also suggest that as we work to reduce poverty, crime, and inequality, power law dynamics will be working to restore inequality.

http://complexity.orconhosting.net.nz/powerlaw.html





The book I'm reading also has this quote:

"By itself this motive doesn't suffice. Perhaps bees or ants-that live in communities in which everyone is closely related and serves the same queen- are willing to work there hearts out for the common good, but humans are not. No matter how much brainwashing we engage in and patriotic songs we sing, we will always think of ourselves before we think of society. If any good has come out of the communist "experiment", it is this clarification of the limits of solidarity."


This, again, is a blithe slipping from the soundness of empirical biology over to the human social-political domain, attempting to make authoritative assertions over the latter based on the former. It's an all-too-easy mixture that slops themes from both domains together without even attempting to address political matters in its own domain -- it's a biological determinism kind of assertion.





What if a commune does something another considers wrong, and won't listen to reason?


This argument is more like what we're used to dealing with in the domain of politics. It implies, and places us, in the domain of societal politics wherein we're *active* protagonists within some larger social structure(s). The result of such a formulation is that we then have to make *aggregated*, or *collective*, decisions in the context of *higher* levels of social organization -- levels that may butt up against the *existing* socio-political order, as with communes in the present day.

(In NoXion's formulation here the context is post-capitalism, and the argument is a valid one.)

[ckaihatsu]

The fallacy, of course, is that we are *not* strictly biological creatures -- we are *socialized individuals* and that "layer" of societal dynamism and determination cannot be carelessly and wantonly ignored.




[In] the domain of societal politics [...] we're *active* protagonists within some larger social structure(s). The result of such a formulation is that we then have to make *aggregated*, or *collective*, decisions in the context of *higher* levels of social organization -- levels that may butt up against the *existing* socio-political order, as with communes in the present day.


Just wanted to add this diagram illustration -- it simply arranges various societal "levels" according to their *scale*, or relative breadth of impact, on social functioning....


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://postimage.org/image/34mjeutk4/