Human Nature

[Technocrat]

Why do so many marxists oppose the very idea of a "human nature?"

Especially considering that the picture of human nature developing from the social sciences would tend to support communism?

I know in the past that "human nature" has been used to defend reactionary ideas, but today, "human nature" as understood by the social sciences is pretty well opposed to capitalism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Why do so many marxists oppose the very idea of a "human nature?"

Especially considering that the picture of human nature developing from the social sciences would tend to support communism?

I know in the past that "human nature" has been used to defend reactionary ideas, but today, "human nature" as understood by the social sciences is pretty well opposed to capitalism.

Well, as a Marxist-Leninist, I still oppose, overall, the concept of human nature on many subjects. For the most part, genes play out as a predisposition, rather than a predetermination. This isn't to say that genes can't be a predetermination, but only that, for the most part, this isn't the case. I'll support human nature in some cases, such as sexual orientation, but for other cases, the overall drive of thoughts and actions are due to environmental conditioning. Genes play in as a means of either protecting or exposing the brain towards said environmental conditioning.

[Technocrat]

Well, as a Marxist-Leninist, I still oppose, overall, the concept of human nature on many subjects. For the most part, genes play out as a predisposition, rather than a predetermination. This isn't to say that genes can't be a predetermination, but only that, for the most part, this isn't the case. I'll support human nature in some cases, such as sexual orientation, but for other cases, the overall drive of thoughts and actions are due to environmental conditioning. Genes play in as a means of either protecting or exposing the brain towards said environmental conditioning.

All true and I don't disagree.

Capitalist economics contains several assumptions about human nature - assumptions which are accepted a priori. The rest of capitalist theory follows from these assumptions. If these assumptions can be shown to be false, then capitalist economics and capitalist theory is also false. Among the many assumptions that the social sciences have long discredited is the idea of "rational man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus)" - an idea central to capitalism. So, the assumptions about human nature which capitalism depends on can be demonstrated to be false using the social sciences. That's why I argue that "human nature" actually supports the left/socialism/communism, and I find it strange that marxists are so averse to the idea. I suspect that the left's rejection of "human nature in general" has to do with an ideological belief in "free will," conceived in a way that makes it incompatible with "human nature." However, this isn't the only way in which free will/determinism can be conceived: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

[smk]

I still believe human nature is extremely plastic. Humans adapt to societal pressures. Before capitalism and feudalism, to survive, one needed to work together and be unselfish. Today, under capitalism, when all of one's wealth can be taken from them at any moment, it makes sense to hoard resources and be selfish. In addition, culturally, this is what people have been taught to do. If we lived in a society which embraced socialism, children would learn the ethics of socialism.
For other examples, look at feral children (children who have no normal human contact until they are fully developed, think Wolf Boy). They have no social nature (what most social scientists insist is human nature) and they have little to no ability to learn language (the skill many say separates humans from animals). They had no use for these traits when they were living in the wild, fending for themselves. They were shaped by their environment.
After a few generations in a world where people get their share materials by giving their share of work, communism will be "human nature."

However, I recently read "Time, Love, Memory". It describes Seymour Benzer's discoveries relating genetics to behavior. It is pretty well established that our psyche is partly determined the moment we are conceived. However, in the book it does descibe how environment can override genetics. It's a great book if you want to delve into this topic more.

[¿Que?]

The concept of human nature, no matter how defined, is limiting, and I suppose that is why many on the left are opposed to it. I think according to Marx and Marxism in general, human nature is supposed to be fluid and dynamic, changing according to the circumstances that comprise the mode of production. This is the basis of materialism: First that human beings are social beings, contrary to the "every man is an island" thesis, and second, that that very being is predicated on the way in which labor is organized.

You may very well argue that if it changes, then we are not exactly talking about human nature, rather we are referring only to social organization or some such thing. My counter to that would be that change (or the ability to do so) is fundamental to human nature as I conceive of it. The nature of humans is to have no natural, static, unchanging state. It is to be sure, a contradiction, but then, what we have is simply a dialectical one, for as humans, we are capable of stasis as well as change, and it is through praxis that we realize any meaningful social condition.

We can even frame the argument semantically, and go beyond simple genetic predisposition by arguing that should humans evolve into another species, we would still be humans. Clearly, I am making a semantic argument by saying that to refer to our species as humans (or human beings) is not equivalent as referring to the species homo Sapien.

Thus, as you can see, there are ways to argue that, even at the level of genetics, the idea of human nature is a false premise, regardless of your conclusions.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The concept of human nature, no matter how defined, is limiting, and I suppose that is why many on the left are opposed to it. I think according to Marx and Marxism in general, human nature is supposed to be fluid and dynamic, changing according to the circumstances that comprise the mode of production. This is the basis of materialism: First that human beings are social beings, contrary to the "every man is an island" thesis, and second, that that very being is predicated on the way in which labor is organized.

You may very well argue that if it changes, then we are not exactly talking about human nature, rather we are referring only to social organization or some such thing. My counter to that would be that change (or the ability to do so) is fundamental to human nature as I conceive of it. The nature of humans is to have no natural, static, unchanging state. It is to be sure, a contradiction, but then, what we have is simply a dialectical one, for as humans, we are capable of stasis as well as change, and it is through praxis that we realize any meaningful social condition.

We can even frame the argument semantically, and go beyond simple genetic predisposition by arguing that should humans evolve into another species, we would still be humans. Clearly, I am making a semantic argument by saying that to refer to our species as humans (or human beings) is not equivalent as referring to the species homo Sapien.

Thus, as you can see, there are ways to argue that, even at the level of genetics, the idea of human nature is a false premise, regardless of your conclusions.

So are you stating that homosexuality has changed over time, given the genetic basis behind it (this including every sexual orientation)?

[¿Que?]

So are you stating that homosexuality has changed over time, given the genetic basis behind it (this including every sexual orientation)?
Homosexuality is a social phenomenon, first and foremost. It's very basis is semantics, because we often hear, for example, about men who engage in homosexual activity, but do not define themselves as such. So first of all, there is the social dimension, insofar as language is social as opposed to innate. When we get to the genetic level, we are talking strictly about something which works in different ways with relation to language as words themselves do, words like homosexuality, for example. In this sense, what you have is an ontology, which, in effect is a useless concept, unless you are some sort of realist, and I think that takes a lot of faith. Point being, there is the social construction, in the form of language, and then there's the ontology, which is unreachable.

EDIT: To be more specific, I would have to say that since the word homosexuality is a human invention (and so is the word nature for that matter), you have phrases such as "homosexuality is unnatural" which to me seem very ridiculous on all levels. Because even empirically, which is to say, as ontological as may be possible, you have homosexual activity in a variety of contexts and dimensions. In other words, to say that homosexuality has remained the same, is like asking if change has changed.

[Technocrat]

Thus, as you can see, there are ways to argue that, even at the level of genetics, the idea of human nature is a false premise, regardless of your conclusions.Yes, one can make sophistical arguments for anything.

[¿Que?]

I don't know, from what I understand, it relies on the disctinction between epistemic and ontological objectivity/subjectivity. But is ontological objectivity even possible? Empirical observations, if I understand correctly, are only epistemically objective...

[Lucretia]

On this issue, I would still recommend Norm Geras's Marx & Human Nature (http://www.amazon.com/Marx-Human-Nature-Norman-Geras/dp/0860910660)