Human Nature

[The Feral Underclass]

Any thoughts? :ph34r:

[chamo]

I will assume, due to the lack of information and elaboration in your first post, that you mean the "argument" government information fed Capitalists use that "greed (or wanting to have more than everbody else) is human nature."

My set up everytime I hear that pitiful phrase is that firstly; it has never been scientifically or accuratley proven. What's more it can be seen that there are plenty of people who are self-giving, work for charities, give away most of their posessions. Such people are the morally higher, those who feel that greed is one of their natural traits are "unhuman".

Secondly, this is also cross-culturally incorrect. The assumption is that most US Americans are greedy, that is the whole ethos of the American Dream. The fact remains that in nearly all other places around The Earth, the feeling of "having better than the Mr. Jones" is incorrect. Moreover, people want to have the same as Mr. Jones, in an effort to keep good social relations and form a long-lasting friendship with their fellow-man.
There are alot of small communities that share all their goods, produce and good fortune. This is not only because it may be essential for their survival, but it is a tradition and an unspoken rule. In the American Dream, there are no bourdries to how humans can exploit each other.

Thirdly, most of man's history has not been in the Capitalist sense. In fact it is about 95% of our history of living with each other that we have lived communally. Stone-age man shared with others, community was essential and we have not evolved past that stage to when we no longer rely on others, and I forsee that we never will.

[Don't Change Your Name]

I believe that you are talking about that stupid thing that the capitalists (in all their versions, including liberals, conservatives and fascists) say to justify their ideology. They say that humans are evil by nature, they are selfish and want to have more than the rest of the people (as chamo mentioned). They also say that humans must fight to survive, which gives them glory and makes them survive against the environment (the basic idea of capitalism, ones die from hunger while others live), and that they fight to reproduce to keep up their species. To survive they must fight against each others (as male animals fight for the females, to give an example), and they must evolute to adapt to the conditions in that they live.

I believe this people is wrong. In first place, not everyone is that selfish. In fact, the people who is that way are usually rich and want to have more than the rest to be accepted by other rich people. When someone works hard all his/her life, and gets a lot of money, and still is caritative and not selfish, he/she's most of the times seen as a very good person and is respected, but others treat them like fools.
We arent evil by nature, or we would all go around killing ourselves to steal ourselves.
We dont need to fight to death for surviving, or we would all be already dead, but we arent. I don't see a good reason that makes the strongest individuals have more rights to survive.
And it seems the people who think that way about human nature forget that we have more conscience than other animals, and we can change such behaviours.
Plus, this people are scared about our political ideals, because they know they can't survive without their champagne and their huge cars, so they say we cant adapt to their system/s to survive (and thus we have to dissapear because we are not strong enough to survive), so they dont have what they need to evolve.
Doing a change in our social behaviours is not only a revolution, it is also a evolution for our specie that guarantees that all the different variations of humans (called by "them" races) survive and keep reproducing, while their selective system tries to let only some of them survive.
When some of them (fascists and racists mostly) say that their race is better, stronger and deserves to survive they are being greedy and selfish because they usually dont care if the rest lives or dies, even if it doesnt affect their survival.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I guess your talking about the pitiful crap that capies spew out as an excuse to have oppression among classes. The greedyness is human nature argument. I just tell them that capitalism too, is a fundamental contradiction to human nature. Why? Because it expects (actually it forces, but capitalists will deny this) the working class to work in function of their opposing class's wealth, while earning only enough to sustain themselves, and much of the time in horrible poverty and decadence. In short, oppression is an insult to humanity which is an outright contradiction to human nature. Sometimes these destructive desires, like those to overpower others socially, must be suppressed.

People who think in such a way that they use "the greed of human nature" to counter communism, have most obviously been brainwashed by the bourgeoisie and are thinking about the welfare of the capitalist class, even if they are members of the working class. The capitalist class will be suppressed and abolished like the worthless bastards that they are!

[redstar2000]

Actually, no one knows what "human nature" is or is not...it's not a scientific concept.

But what I've noticed when individuals raise that objection to communism is that "human nature" is a phrase that is substituted for "their own nature".

Someone says "communism is a great idea but people are too fucked up...it's against human nature"--they are really speaking of themselves.

They're really saying something like "I want to be the next Bill Gates (or Joseph Stalin) and your communist society wouldn't let me do that".

I think this should be brought out...in a "gentle" way, of course.

Ask them directly: "What in your own 'human nature' would you like to do that communism wouldn't let you do?"

And you can go from there; chances are that they're "right"--there's something they'd like to do, some form of fucking over other people, that communism wouldn't permit.

You could poke around a little--ask them "why" they wanted to do those things, what they thought they had to gain, what they feared they would lose, etc. And then shift the argument to those issues--why it's rather improbable that they will ever have the chance to be the "next Bill Gates (Joseph Stalin)", etc.

But it's slow work.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Morpheus]

Let us suppose that human nature is such that humans are inherently evil. Then hierarchy should be abolished, because the people on the top will abuse their authority and screw us all over. Let us suppose that human nature is such that humans are inherently good. Then there is no need for hierarchy because people will do the right thing without being coerced into doing so. Either way, we should have anarchy. If people are too evil to rule themselves then they are far too evil to rule others.

Of course, as others have pointed out, this stuff about "human nature" is BS made up to justify the status quo. Given the immense diversity of forms human societies have assumed over the eons it's pretty absurd to postulate that some "human nature" dictates that society always take one particular form. However, I often find that the above is a good quick refutation of the "human nature" arguement, since the alternative arguement(s) take a long time and requires examining lots of different societies.

[Blackberry]

Like some others have mentioned above, "human nature" has long been disregarded as a scientific term, such as "race" is no longer a term used by any scientists.

So to win that argument, you simply state that there is no such thing as human nature.

With the "greed" argument, you simply explain that people are conditioned to become greedy in our present society, and that a simple change of values is all that is required to set up whatever it is that you advocate.

[Blackberry]

http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/a...A2.html#seca215 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/anarchistfaq/secA2.html#seca215)

Here's an alternative viewpoint to what I said above.

[Pete]

We prove our wealth through what we have.

The Haida (of the Queen Charlotte Islands, B.C., Canada) proved their wealth by what they gave away.

Two cultures, one based on greed, the other charity. Which one displays human nature? *drum rolls fade into the distance as no one can win with out more arguements on each side*

[suffianr]

The closest you can perhaps find to the layman's definition of human nature is in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. But that's all theory, of course.

I'd say that the only "real" aspect of human nature is ultimately tied to self-preservation. We ultimately procreate, build social relationships, align ourselves with particular ideologies, indulge in particular habits etc. because of self-preservation.

[kylie]

As Marx wrote, human nature is changeable, it has changed before, and so can change again. I can't remember or seem to find any specific writings of his where he talks of this, i know it was one of his earlier works, on the topic of reality, and its existance only with us. Once i get home i'll be able to though.

[The Feral Underclass]

Thank you comrades :ph34r:

[crazy comie]

i know some one who saes becuse "i humans are evil i am" what a jerk

[Saint-Just]

The classic idea of socialists is that we have an optimistic view of human nature. We view it as generally 'good'. So very simply you can argue it by saying that humans are 'good', it is only a liberals or capitalists who have a pessemistic view of human nature.

That is fairly simple and there is much more to it.

Anyway, another Marxist idea is that human nature had changed, can change and will change in the future. As a result it is irrelevant what human nature is like now. If someone suggests human nature will never change you can base your theory it will on history that of course over time human nature has changes, I do not know if you have the same view as me that society is more pleasant today than it has been previously.

Another view is that there is two components to the nature of the human; one natural and one attributed to society.

The element derived from natural desires is made up some negative feelings such as greed etc. In a society that has some good social qualities you learn feelings such as empathy and kindness etc. These different parts of human nature conflict. One can win out over the other, and over time society has proved successful in making humans a much more positive creature, in socialist society it will do so to a greater extent.

These are not necessarily what I think but ideas I have considered. The actual idea I subscribe to is one I have not mentioned here.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well... if you think about it, it's not really a valid argument at all, is it? For instance, what would you say to someone who told you, "We can't abolish slavery, because human nature dictates that people must be given the chalenge of attaining freedom, and slavery gives them the motivation to free themselves." It's completely illogical, because in actuality slaves obviously can't attain freedom, and neither can members of the proletariat. Does this imply that in communism people will be motivated to work by fear of punishment and physical abuse, as slaves were? Absolutely not!, because in communism the masses will directly profit, as a whole, from their work.

[crazy comie]

i think you hit the head of the naill there.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

My take on human nature is that humans are social creatures. We can conform and share in a way where we can peacefully live in large groups. If being cut-throat was human nature, I do not know that we could have the cities we have. We might end up killing one another for being so close together if that was the case. If humans will kill each other without authority, we would more or less be like Betas (those aggressive fish that have to be kept isolated from one anothe).

At the same time, I think humans do have some level of greed in our nature. Primitive man may not necessarily get to eat every day. We can observe with certain animals, where even when they have infinite food at their disposal they will eat until obese. Why? Survival instinct. If I can get two days worth of food today, and I might not find any food tomorrow, I will eat as much as I can today. I think this translates into human survival instinct at some level.

Of course, humans do not have to be greedy today. With our scientific advances, no one has to starve anymore. Under capitalism, people do starve because of the hoarding of resources at the top. Humans, under capitalism, are conditioned in a way that reinforces and emphasizes any sense of greed that is in our nature, while not reinforcing our social nature on any macro level.

I think that under communism we can socialize people to minimize the greed impulse and bring out people's best social qualities.

[crazy comie]

true true

[FistFullOfSteel]

if a human get more money than they need they are becoming more and more greedy and then they like cappies and would be a cappie,i think

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I tried this last night and it worked wonderfuly... for a while.
First he argued that communism would restrict the nature of humans which is to excel beyond others. So i asked "So you're saying that Communism is a contradiction to human nature?" He agreed. Then I asked "What exactly is it that you want to do, but communism will not allow you to?" He imediately said that he wanted to own property. I responded that he could own property. Then he said he wanted to make money. Then I said, "It is exploitation to use property to generate personal wealth." He said that it is possible to make money without the use of others, [except of course to purchase your service or product]. I then responded that if you allow people to create personal fortunes through "unexpoitative means" (!!!), then you must also allow people to create personal fortunes through exploitation of others' labour. The conversation veered into how using the labour of others to generate money is not exploaition. We came to teh subject of human nature. I then used my own argument of how "To say that freeing people from wage labour is a contradiction to human nature, is like arguing that (actual) slavery is necessary to give people the incentive to gain personal freedom, but the reality is that it is virtualy impossible for a slave to gain freedom, as it is for a member of the working class to make a personal fortune." He then went on about how slavery is completely different form wage labor or some crap like that. I then said that slavery today (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=17262) is much like wage labor. He then said that slaves today chose to be slaves or something like that. It immediately put me in a state of shock and I ended up fainting and collapsing to the floor.

[New Tolerance]

If human nature exsists, ideology can override it.

The Japanese used to kill themselves than surrender. Not surrendering is nothing but a concept.

now, wouldn't people call "survival" human nature?

[RyeN]

Like Pierre Herbert shows us, Its all around perception.

I think human nature is to survive and go on. Soon the Capitolist Machine that polutes our world will have to stop in order for us to survive. People dont need to fight against one another to surrvive but instead should work together for the common good. Communisum is the ultimate step of human co-operation to meet a common goal of survival.

Capitolism in its need to dominate, uses its powers to supress new thoughs that would threaten what they already have. With the corupt power of the Bougeois our only hope for competition is crushed. There are clear examples of this everywhere. IE Petroleum car vs Electric or hydrogen, Inferior medicine, light bulbs that burn out (hahaha), what operating system are you using? Windows?

In a Socialist world we could use the power and wealth for much better things than holding back societey. Eliminate the sparatic race of people we are and unite. Cure Aids, and Cancer, feed the hungry, Explore outerspace. Imagine our human nature working together as a species to dominate the Universe, thats our common goal. I just dont understand why people are afraid of this.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 04:07 AM
Like Pierre Herbert shows us, Its all around perception.

I think human nature is to survive and go on. Soon the Capitolist Machine that polutes our world will have to stop in order for us to survive. People dont need to fight against one another to surrvive but instead should work together for the common good. Communisum is the ultimate step of human co-operation to meet a common goal of survival.

Capitolism in its need to dominate, uses its powers to supress new thoughs that would threaten what they already have. With the corupt power of the Bougeois our only hope for competition is crushed. There are clear examples of this everywhere. IE Petroleum car vs Electric or hydrogen, Inferior medicine, light bulbs that burn out (hahaha), what operating system are you using? Windows?

In a Socialist world we could use the power and wealth for much better things than holding back societey. Eliminate the sparatic race of people we are and unite. Cure Aids, and Cancer, feed the hungry, Explore outerspace. Imagine our human nature working together as a species to dominate the Universe, thats our common goal. I just dont understand why people are afraid of this.
Too true...

Especially the part about capitalism's role in environmental degradation. Ultimately, we have to end the capitalist system to save the Earth from becoming uninhabitable. I wonder how much longer we can live as we are before we drive ourselves to extinction...

At the risk of sounding melodramatic:

SAVE THE EARTH, SAVE THE HUMAN RACE-- BECOME A COMMUNIST (or ANARCHIST, if you prefer)!

[Xvall]

I've argued about this many times. I'm not going to write another essay, so I'll just give you a few points. You may also wish to search for any threads on human nature that I may have posted here. I believe I posted one on the ISF as well.

1) I do not believe that 'Human Nature' exists. Anyone arguing with you on the basis of 'Human Nature' had better define it quite clearly before engaging in some sort of debate.

2) The Nature of most species, in any case, is to survive. You need simply explain to them that your beliefs (Which I assume are socialistic or communistic) are designed to ensure the survival of all members of the community.

3) They may, however, argue that Human Nature is 'independent', that human nature consists of everyone wandering around on their own and doing as they please. (Were this true, we would not be here today.) Point out to them that such a nature is non-existant. Tell them that if it did exist, we would abolish it.

That's all I will say for now. Stay tuned.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 24 2003, 07:24 PM
2) The Nature of most species, in any case, is to survive. You need simply explain to them that your beliefs (Which I assume are socialistic or communistic) are designed to ensure the survival of all members of the community.
Exactly...

Also, human beings are clearly social animals. Thus, cooperation between humans is in our nature as it will keep us alive--mutual support of sorts.

[Wolfie]

Well hit them with some philosophy if they just retort
A french philosopher named Althusser, in his essay Ideology and the State Ideological Apparatus, says that we adapt to the dominant ideology of the society we are born into, for the most part; their will always be the ones who stray away from the dominant ideology. for example, if one is born into a religious family, it is likely that they will adapt and observe the dominant ideology within the dominant ideology of their family. from this, you can see how people become "capitalist in nature" in society because of their being born into a capitalist system. therefore, it is safe to assume, that if one were to be born into a communal society where selfishness is non existent, that they would, most likely, not be selfish.
Its also common sense if you think about it,

Any way some unintelligent pseudo wants me out so ill leave before im detected.

[sc4r]

When you evaluate what a cats nature is you do it by observing the cat. You dont pontificate about what it 'really' is.

Ans surpise surpirise you find that the cat behaves differently depending upon its compamy and surroundings.

I guess you could say it has many natures. or that its nature is to modify its nature according to circumstances.

The more advanced the creatures mind is the more you tend to observe this flexibility.

Amaxingly our cappie friends do like to proclaim that they have an almost totally fixed nature. I'd say that this combined with the previous point is completely believable :)

but you do not. Nor do most people. You have no 'nature' in the sense they are using it. Humans above all are adaptable learning animals. they learn their behaviours just as much as they learn anything else. Some learn well, some badly.

You will be more central to you than anyone else or anything else is. You will know what your own behaiours mean better than anyone else. You will be more concerned with your own wellbeing than with others or they are with yours. But this does not mean that you cannot do the arithmetic and work out that you cant have everything and that co-operating is the best route to personal achievement and even learn to take pride in seeing that co-operation as a personal achievement and source of satisfaction in its own right.

And if you can ever get a cappie with their very simple minds to see that I'll be surprised. Don worry about it, think of them as fierce but stupid dinosaurs.

[Silent Eye]

I disagree with the majority, I feel that, although human nature can possibly be changed, as of now, humans are and have been inherently "evil." We have a subconcious desire to see violence, to see others suffer. For example, when there is a car accident on the highway, what happens? A traffic jam. This would not be nearly as big a deal as it would be if each car simply kept droving in the single(or however many lanes are open after the accident) lane. However, people stop and look. Everyone has a desire somewhere, they might not even know it, to see that mangled arm sticking out of the burning metal, or a dead body covered in a bag a few feet from a smashed car. Look at most sports, hockey, american style football, and you'll see violence as a prominent piece of everything. The slasher movies make millions simply out of human's love of gore and cruelty. No greater examples exist than Gladiator matches in Rome, and medieval public executions( using the likes of the breaking wheels or burning at the stake). On top of this, humans in general are NOT satisfied with being "as good" as Mr. Jones. They want to outdo him so they can feel above him. They enjoy being singled out for special attention, whether in the community or not. In many cases, even negative attention is worth the effort, as there have been plenty of cases of murder just for recognition.

However, human nature can be changed. The mentality in the modern world encourages this kind of wanting to out do all others, and it was the same 5,000 years ago, and it will remain the same unless something is done to break the cycle. Socialism provides people with a drastically different mindset than that of people living in a capitalist state.

[Xvall]

Oh, also:

If the person arguing with you is a Christian or follows the Bible, their argument is immediately void. After all, according to the Bible, man was created in God's image. This would mean that since they see God as rightous, good, and merciful, they should feel the same way about human nature.

[Regicidal Insomniac]

The argument of human nature is a true red herring.

"Human nature" is a product of human enviroment. Once one is altered, the other invariably reverts as well.

There have been no comprehensive studies to prove the attitude of human nature, if such a thing exists, but one thing we can be sure of is that it is a malleable thing.

[Silent Eye]

Exactly my point! The human environment has been one too encourage ruthless competition and violence, change the environment, and human nature adapts.

[Wolfie]

So laziness would be astronomical for the period of evolution to 'communism'?

[ComradeRobertRiley]

I agree that society has conditioned people to be greedy. People can be conditioned to be fair and to want equality, just takes time.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I actually did type a little paragraph or two up about Human Nature after doing some reading on it...

I'd like to start with every Capitalist apologist's favorite lil' argument- THE GREAT BIG ARGUMENT OF TEH EBIL HUMAN NACHURE!!!!!!!!!1111111111

First off there is something majorly wrong with this- it is a very metaphysical argument. By this argument, the bourgeoisie and their apologists suggest that there is some "magical force" and "inherent nature" that runs through every single human being that makes them magically greedy and evil and baby-killin' monsters. It give credit to a higher power (God/The Supreme Being/The Power of the Universe) and to a system of idealistic metaphysics, all of which have been proven (by objective reality and by logic) to not exist at all! [See Anti-Dühring and The Dialectics of Nature by Friedrich Engels, and A Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right by Karl Marx]

Furthermore, Marx pointed out that the view that human nature dooms Socialism to failure merely reflects the production relations of Capitalism (and the society built around it), and not some never-changing "force" within human beings throughout history. Bourgeois economists assume that production relations of Capitalism are somehow eternal (and dialectical materialism proves this wrong), or in any case that they are the pinnacle of evolution for human relations, and that any changes in society can only be made in bourgeois ways. But historical materialism (dialectical materialism) proves that not only these production relations but the ideas built around them- like the "unchangeability of human nature"- are in fact historically limited, are only the product of this particular stage in development, and will be surpassed by the further advance of history. Social relations, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism teaches us, change with social conditions.

Engels explained why there have been certain characteristics to human society and to attitudes of people: this is all part of the fact that up until now there has not been a basis to eliminate scarcity and the struggle for individual existence. (Greed is a survival technique, and only when it is needed to survive- and you DO need it to survive in a fucked-up, dog-eat-dog system like this- is it implemented...) But now, Engels said, this basis has been established. Now, not only is exploitative Capitalism unneccessary, but the persistence of it is an actual and direct hindrance to the further liberation of productive forces (i.e. the proletariat). NOW a social revolution is possible- and urgently demanded- to move humanity beyond all that and to a new stage of human history. [See Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels]

For more information on this, read Phony Communism is Dead... Long Live Real Communism! by Bob Avakian or Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 14 2003, 05:55 PM
Any thoughts? :ph34r:
Primitive man attributed the movements of bodies to their being
possessed by demons.

Later, as man developed, "demons" were largely replaced by
personified indwelling agents, such as "jubilance" etc.

Later these explanations became more sophistcated - for
instance, the rock was said to move because it had "impetus".

And later the notion of indwelling agents which cause things
to move etc was abandonded, for obvious reasons.

Yet it still exists in psychology - in the form of "human
nature", "attitudes", "personality", "sense of purpose",
"will to power", etc.

Psychology & philosophy have been so delayed developmentally
because, unlike physics and biology, these indwelling agents
have not been done away with.

Skinner, who is regarded as the most influential psychologist since
Freud, said it quite well in his book Beyond Freedom and
Dignity (a must-read, in my opinion):

"Unable to understand how or why the person we see behaves
as he does, we attribute his behaviour to a person we
cannot see, whose behaviour we cannot explain either, but
about whom we are not inclined to ask questions. . . . The
function of the inner man is to provide an explanation
which will not be explained in turn."

Thus we try to explain behaviour by appealing to the
unobservable, by appealing to this invisible thing called
"personality" - but do not explain personality.

Just as Christian primitives try to explain the universe
by appealing to the God idea - without explaining God Himself-
so we try to explain human behaviour by appealing to
personality, but do not explain personality. The inner man
- that is, personality - serves to explain that which we
cannot explain. Like God, the existence of this "inner man"
depends on our ignorance. Like God, he disappears as we
continue to become less ignorant.

"Inner man initiates, creates, originates, is the centre
from which behaviour eminates. He remains devine as he was
with the Greeks. . . . He is miraculous. . . ."

I posted this elsewhere, but since it got no replies....

[Soviet power supreme]

Human Nature, How do we win this argument?

I doesn't matter if we win.Capitalists don't give a shit if we win this argument.They don't give a shit if we prove scientifical that human nature isn't greedy.They just make other excuses that capitalism is the best.

[crazy comie]

the capies never acknoledge when i win arguments against them

[RedAnarchist]

bump

[crazy comie]

what do you mean by bump do you mean the same

[DEPAVER]

The human nature argument is often posited to allegedly demonstrate that
an anarchist society is impossible, due to some perceived inherent human
nature that prevents cooperative behavior.

This is much the same as quoting scripture to buttress a pre-conceived
position. One can dredge up any particular human behavior, call it human
nature, and use it to support any position.

In fact, there is no all-encompassing human nature that is adhered to by
all humans, not even by all societies. Human behavior varies across a wide
spectrum through time and space. One of the first things taught in
introductory anthropology courses is cultural relativism, the fact that
human behavior cannot be judged using cultural criteria from outside the
culture.

The society we observe today exhibits human behavior resulting from the
characteristics of the society we observe today. Were we to observe a
different society, with different cultural characteristics, we would observe
different behaviors. There is no inherent "human nature" that causes
specific human behaviors.

Therefore, we cannot say that humans are "too greedy, selfish,
apathetic...<insert adjective here>" for anarchy to work. We cannot
anticipate the behavior of individuals in a decentralized,
anti-authoritarian, cooperative society by observing human behavior in a
centralized, authoritarian, competitive society.

[Zanzibar]

Capitalism is no more naturual then communism. Both are economic systems crreated from the ideas of man.

At any rate primitive hunting and gathering societies were communist. These were in fact the only type of society on this planet for a long time.

To say communism is unnatural is to deny the past and truth.

[crazy comie]

Indeed. also the cappies never give any evidence for there arguments other then the ussr collapsed and there is a greedy world.

[redfront]

If we consume that human nature exist (just to make those cappies happy), then it can easily be rejected by the fact that we are actually smarter than the human nature.
our idealogy is based on co-oporation and anti-greedyness, we are superior because we dont put ourself in first priority.
The different between cappies and commies is that, we are more than just monkeys&#33;

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 01:37 PM
If we consume that human nature exist (just to make those cappies happy), then it can easily be rejected by the fact that we are actually smarter than the human nature.
our idealogy is based on co-oporation and anti-greedyness, we are superior because we dont put ourself in first priority.
The different between cappies and commies is that, we are more than just monkeys&#33;
That&#39;s truth&#33; In fact even if human nature would exist, it would control things on an authoritarian dictatorship way. The fact that we are here discussing this prove that it isn&#39;t so powerful if it exists.

[Faceless]

A few important notes for those who espouse the "human nature" arguement:

> In feudal society usury (demanding "interest" upon a loan) was illegal.

> In feudal society employment was restrained to the guild to prevent exploitation (but also the expansion of industry).

> The above were resisted violently when changed with the dawn of bougeoise society.

> Before "written" history we lived in a primitive Communist society because it was a necessary social condition for survival of the species.

> Capitalism has existed for but a few centuries.

> The very act of revolution is an expression of the fact that the people want Communism (ie it is in their nature)

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 12:36 AM
Let us suppose that human nature is such that humans are inherently evil. Then hierarchy should be abolished, because the people on the top will abuse their authority and screw us all over.

I use that argument alot. If human nature is innately bad [which it is not] then why leave the power in the hands of the few?

The contention that human nature is naturally &#39;evil&#39; is simply a pathetic attempt to justify existing inequalities.

[crazy comie]

The real problem is they don&#39;t except it if we win and the audience of an argument would still except what they say.

[leon_Trotsky]

I think humans don&#39;t have a nature like animals. Humans created their own nauture. For me, human nature can change, it depends on the society and the education. We are initiated wery early to the concept of competition. That&#39;s why we have this nature. I think that humans who where living millions year ago didn&#39;t have the same nature of modern humans

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:34 PM
I think humans don&#39;t have a nature like animals. Humans created their own nauture. For me, human nature can change, it depends on the society and the education. We are initiated wery early to the concept of competition. That&#39;s why we have this nature. I think that humans who where living millions year ago didn&#39;t have the same nature of modern humans
That isn&#39;t true we do have a nature but alot is affected by nurture.

[God of Imperia]

We are influenced by our nature and by our environment, but we also change our environment so we change our nature ... Our nature also changes by time because of natural evolution ... I don&#39;t think we will ever be able to conquer our own, but we can defenitly make the best of it&#33;

[elijahcraig]

Actually, no one knows what "human nature" is or is not...it&#39;s not a scientific concept.


That is false. Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics virtually SET UP the idea of human nature as concrete. Pinker has elaborated.

The idea of Human Nature as capitalist is idiotic. It is a myth. Pure and simple. Distributed by those in power to justify their oppression and greed.


Like some others have mentioned above, "human nature" has long been disregarded as a scientific term, such as "race" is no longer a term used by any scientists.

Race and human nature are two different things which are very different in interpretation. Human nature has no race. Race is a social construct.

[elijahcraig]

I think humans don&#39;t have a nature like animals. Humans created their own nauture.

Very true. But that has no correlation to the fact that human nature exists. Human nature can be interpreted in different ways, but it is a fact.


For me, human nature can change, it depends on the society and the education.

Society and education arise because of human nature, not the other way around. The prospects of what human nature can do are limitless. Human nature is not to be selfish, etc.


We are initiated wery early to the concept of competition. That&#39;s why we have this nature. I think that humans who where living millions year ago didn&#39;t have the same nature of modern humans

Chomsky talks about this in “Language and Responsibility”. By “this” I mean the rebellion of some against the idea of human nature because it has been used to justify class oppression. I suggest you take a read of that book.

[peaccenicked]

Human nature is the study of philosophy reducing human nature to greed and selfishness is to crudify philosophy if not life itself.
As Oscar wilde says " We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars"
The childishness of the ruling ideology is truly in the gutter and not going anywhere but into horror apon horror. Socialism is about releasing human nature as it stands from the cesspool of imperialist society.

[Dune Dx]

not really that connected but its against human nature to kill other humans. Investigations have shown that only 2% of the infantry troops in armies actually fight - the 98% arnt cowards their running out the trenches getting ammo and medicine for other troops but wont actually fight - the 2% that do scientists believe are phyco,s.

They do this test showing you food or naked women (only if your a man Im sure they will change it for your sexuality) which should incite the gather instinct in your mind and then pics of people cut up or wounded which should make you jump - the people that can kill should only have the gather charateristics.

This is why modern armies are trained to see and destroy targets and supress these anti kill instincts but the after effects when soldiers see what they have dont can be terrible lots of Falklands troops either have nightmares everynight or have commited suicide.

Also one scientist found a gun from the american civil war that had been loaded all the way up the barrel - so this guy was standing on the front line just loading his gun but not killing anyone.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 30 2004, 02:44 PM
not really that connected but its against human nature to kill other humans. Investigations have shown that only 2% of the infantry troops in armies actually fight - the 98% arnt cowards their running out the trenches getting ammo and medicine for other troops but wont actually fight - the 2% that do scientists believe are phyco,s.

They do this test showing you food or naked women (only if your a man Im sure they will change it for your sexuality) which should incite the gather instinct in your mind and then pics of people cut up or wounded which should make you jump - the people that can kill should only have the gather charateristics.

This is why modern armies are trained to see and destroy targets and supress these anti kill instincts but the after effects when soldiers see what they have dont can be terrible lots of Falklands troops either have nightmares everynight or have commited suicide.

Also one scientist found a gun from the american civil war that had been loaded all the way up the barrel - so this guy was standing on the front line just loading his gun but not killing anyone.
That is intresting it is an example of how there is human nature but it can be alterd by the nature of society.l

[elijahcraig]

Human nature is the study of philosophy reducing human nature to greed and selfishness is to crudify philosophy if not life itself.
As Oscar wilde says " We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars"
The childishness of the ruling ideology is truly in the gutter and not going anywhere but into horror apon horror. Socialism is about releasing human nature as it stands from the cesspool of imperialist society.

This is not necessarily true. Human nature is absolute. What racists, etc. do with it is not its fault.


not really that connected but its against human nature to kill other humans. Investigations have shown that only 2% of the infantry troops in armies actually fight - the 98% arnt cowards their running out the trenches getting ammo and medicine for other troops but wont actually fight - the 2% that do scientists believe are phyco,s.

What “investigations”? And what “scientists”? Proof should be documented for this.


That is intresting it is an example of how there is human nature but it can be alterd by the nature of society.l


Human nature does not involve whether or not to kill or be killed. Human nature is a set of genetic traits separating it from other animal species.

Language is an instinct in human nature.. So is the fact that we have arms instead of wings.

[ComradeRed]

but isn&#39;t nature, by definition, an adaptation to an environment?(yes)
and are we not adapted to the system which we are currently using? (yes)
what system are we currently using? (capitalism)
So are we not adapted to capitalism, which means that human nature has adapted to capitalism? Which means that it is human nature ONLY IN CAPITALISM? (well, gooly, I reckon so comradered)
I thought so :redstar2000:

[elijahcraig]

but isn&#39;t nature, by definition, an adaptation to an environment?(yes)[
and are we not adapted to the system which we are currently using? (yes)
what system are we currently using? (capitalism)
So are we not adapted to capitalism, which means that human nature has adapted to capitalism? Which means that it is human nature ONLY IN CAPITALISM? (well, gooly, I reckon so comradered)
I thought so


Capitalism has nothing to do with Human nature’s existence. Capitalism has merely resulted in the ruling class handing out “myths” about what Human nature consists of. For example: That it is good to gain personal wealth at the cost of others. This is not a part of Human Nature. This is an idealized myth propagated by those in power to serve their interests.

As I’ve said before, go and read “Language and Responsibility” and you will see Chomsky refute the exact kind of empiricism you are attempting to use.

[ComradeRed]

That is exactly my sentimentes&#33; I often thought the sames thing too&#33; Capitalism helps only the rich, just as government helps only the ruling class; "coincidentally" they are the same class in the U&#036;.

[God of Imperia]

But history shows lots of examples of people who wanted more power and more money, even before capitalism came

[Dune Dx]

um sry I have no proof for my post i got my infomation off a tv programme called the truth about killing it was really good

[elijahcraig]

But history shows lots of examples of people who wanted more power and more money, even before capitalism came


And?

People want anything that will help them out to succeed in society. In Socialist society, what you need to succeed is to drop the “play for money” attitude.

[Raisa]

<<People want anything that will help them out to succeed in society. In Socialist society, what you need to succeed is to drop the “play for money” attitude.>>

True. I think that the reason we are still here is because obviously we are very adaptive creatures. Thats our nature , adapting. We fell into capitalism and became very adapted. But to confuse being greedy with our miraculous adaptive nature.....nah..

[dark fairy]

there&#39;s so much to say that before i get into the nitty gritty i&#39;ll sort out my thoughts... :unsure:

[El Che]

When they give you the &#39;human nature&#39; line simply reply: prove it. Its nothing but subjective BS. What is right is right.

[peaccenicked]

One of the problems in the ideolgical struggle is motivation. Some people are interested in finding the truth to some cost to themselves. It is not always easy to give up old ideas. Others are simply blind patriots who fit capitalist ideology into their own identity.
This is not an abstract problem and is directly related to the level of class struggle.
The marginalisation of the socialist camp leaves it quantively rather than qualitatively weak, this in turn bolsters capitalist ideology.
In the midst of sharp battles the struggle tends to leave academic or subjective questions in the background and puts the problem of social justice on the agenda in tangible terms.

[crazy comie]

I think the simple answear is you can&#39;t define human nature.