How do I respond to the age old argument?

[Sleeveless]

I have been hearing this "Communism is against the human nature" argument ever since I started debating with capitalists, and I have been too lazy to research on said subject, so I decided to post this here, just to find links to researches, books, articles etcetera to use against it, as I presume you have also heard this argument.
Wow thats a lot of commas

[Robocommie]

Just what is human nature? People use that argument, but when they do so they make it sound like human nature is something which everyone agrees upon, when in fact it's a very old and unresolved philosophical question.

But more importantly, the human nature argument is irrelevant, because if human beings truly are greedy and selfish by nature, always out for our own private gain at the cost of others, then why should we continue to use a social and economic system that permits or even encourages these traits? Isn't it better to build a social system in which it is the responsibility of society at large to protect each individual from the predations of other individuals, instead of leaving the weak to fend for themselves?

To put it another way, there's a quote from the film Che that I'd like to paraphrase, in which Che is giving an interview about socialism, and a woman asks him about human nature. Che replies that while it is true that if a child receives a toy, he then wants two toys, and if he receives two, he then wants four, that IS human nature. But when this same human nature goes beyond the individual's wants and desires and begins to negatively impact on the needs of others, that is when it is the responsibility of society to intervene.

[Triple A]

And what is human nature ?
Something that you use to support your ideology. Nor philosophers nor doctors know what human nature is.

[LostDesperado]

Human nature seems to be one of those broad subjects one can never truly define. Since all humans are different in mind and body I think that each definition of nature differs. It seems that overall freedom seems to be the one thing most can agree on and I think pure communism advocates nothing but freedom.

[Bronco]

I dont really understand the validity of this argument, there's just no weight behind the idea that human beings are inherently greedy

[hatzel]

It's strange how these people seem to think that capitalism isn't against human nature, if we are to believe that there is such a thing. Considering they, clearly, do believe that human nature exists, then we should address it on those terms, because saying 'hey hey, there's no human nature!' might not really convince them. Anyway...if human nature exists, then surely the fact that there are plenty of people feeling somewhat oppressed under capitalism, calling for more personal liberty and the like, suggests that the system isn't particularly well-suited to human nature...

[Quail]

"Human nature" as most people using that argument seem to understand it is the values of capitalism.

My mother used this argument and said it was "human nature" to be greedy and selfish. If you're brought up in a capitalist society though, the chances are, you will have been indoctrinated into accepting its values, e.g. greed and personal gain at the expense of others.

She then asked why I don't accept those values, since I grew up in a capitalist society. People become anti-capitalists by thinking critically and realising that those values and capitalism as a socio-economic system are bad, and that there is a preferable alternative.

[Leftie]

The human nature argument is a load of rubbish. Human nature isn't a set of guidelines written out which all humans follow. Humans are all different and to suggest that certain traits like greed and selfishness are inherent to all human beings is ridiculous.

[Kamos]

That argument is one of the easiest to refute. Tell them that in the feudal times, human nature was all about nobles and serfs, that's how everything was "meant to be", then point out how human nature slowly but surely changed to accomodate a capitalist system. It is not human nature that determines the society, but vice versa.

(Then you can also point out that the whole "human nature" line is BS anyway.)

[The Idler]

Are We Prisoners of Our Genes? (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/humanpam3.html)

[CommunityBeliever]

Capitalism is against human nature.

Primitive people didn't know how to count or handle money, let alone accumulate resources and be greedy. Today you can be a millionaire, yet for the vast majority of human history people didn't even know what a the number a million was. As such, people were primitive communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism) for far longer monetary systems and capitalism have been around.

So capitalism and the concept it is based upon: money, are against human nature. Money should be abolished (http://jeffreybrauer.blogspot.com/2005/02/we-must-eliminate-money.html) so that people can live as they once did.

[Tenka]

Nothing humans do is against human nature. Capitalism is against human progress in just about every sphere one can think of, though.

[maskerade]

If they use human nature, you can assume that they mean something which is universal to all humans. So find one counter-example, and according to their own logic, their argument fails.

For example: our most basic form of societal organisation is as bands of hunter-gatherers, which are organised along egalitarian lines with no leader. We lived as hunter-gatherers for 90% of human history. Marx called hunter-gatherers primitive communism. Not to mention the plethora of different societal organisations which exist today outside the limitations of this ethnocentric view of human 'nature'.

[ar734]

For hundreds of thousands of years humans lived in primitive, communistic societies with no private property and no capitalism. Greed was unnatural. Then one of the earliest forms of private property developed, slavery. Some human beings became property. As recent as 150 yrs ago there was a free market in human beings in the southern U.S. and for 150 yrs before that in the entire American continent.

If greed is natural then your capitalist friends should welcome a return to old-fashioned slavery and they could buy and sell human beings. What they don't realize is that slavery of human beings has only been converted into wage slavery of human beings. This is the greed which, in my opinion, is unnatural.

[Ocean Book]

Human nature is a matter of psychology. And when understanding any of the core "ology"s it is necessary to understand that the systems above and below them influence them. Psychology must be understood through the lens of both biology and sociology. What behaviors humans commonly express is a product of their social relations as well as their biological processes.

What grinds my gears about this is that no one teaches sociology in High School so everyone has to be introduced to this very basic Sociology 101 argument every time.

[Sir Comradical]

Accept their argument that human nature is naturally greedy and then point out that this is all the more reason to have socialism as it makes no sense to continue a system that rewards people for being greedy. Then you can go ahead and deconstruct the notion that it's human nature to be greedy as you've forced him/her to accept that greed follows logically from the economic base of capitalist social relations.

[RNL]

A few points about the notion that humans are 'naturally greedy' and 'naturally selfish':

1) The propositions make no sense. When we say that a person is 'greedy', we mean that they want more than they should have, or than is rightfully theirs. When we say a person is 'selfish', we mean that they are excessively concerned with themselves, that they lack an appropriate concern for others. These are value judgements, and as such they are socially constructed. There is no sense in which people can be 'naturally greedy' or 'naturally selfish'. It makes no more sense than claiming that people are 'naturally rude' or 'naturally funny' or 'naturally jerks'.

(Now, if you were to claim that humans are naturally self-interested, then that's more reasonable. We are social animals, but we are also self-interested. The important thing to note here is that this is in no sense an obstacle to the struggle for socialism: it is clearly in the self-interest of the world's poor to oppose the system that makes them poor.)

This--that the proposition is literally nonsense--should be sufficient, but, if not:

2) Even if it did make sense, and were true, it would still not constitute a coherent apology for capitalism, since a characteristic's 'naturalness' does not imply its social desirability. Even if people were demonstrably 'naturally greedy', it does not follow that society should encourage and facilitate the indulgence of that greed, any more than people's 'natural lustfulness' implies the need to legalize rape, or their 'natural aggressiveness' does the need to legalize assault and murder, or become cheerleaders for war.

3) Even if it did make sense, and were true, and we assumed this implied the need to structure society in a way that was conducive to the indulgence of this 'natural greed', it would still not constitute a coherent apology for capitalism. Because if this was the case, you might just as logically argue for the legalization of theft as for the retention of private property; that is, you might just as well argue for the violation of property rights as for their protection. So, even if we bend over backwards to accommodate the proposition--assuming that it makes sense when it doesn't, assuming that it's true when it can't be, assuming that it implies certain social imperatives when it doesn't--even going to such lengths to entertain the idea, it is still incoherent.

On the notion of 'human nature' in general, check out Guy Robinson's book Philosophy and Mystification. You can find a digital copy of that through Google (not sure what the rules are here about posting copyrighted ebooks).

[Lanky Wanker]

there's no such real thing as human nature, especially where money is involved. greed is what people mean when they say communism is against "human nature", that people are "naturally" greedy and want to be above their peers. it's not part of human nature to work in as a janitor and get shit pay, so if you get what I mean then the argument doesn't make much sense.

[Maximum Marxist]

(Now, if you were to claim that humans are naturally self-interested, then that's more reasonable. We are social animals, but we are also self-interested. The important thing to note here is that this is in no sense an obstacle to the struggle for socialism: it is clearly in the self-interest of the world's poor to oppose the system that makes them poor.)
.

I can already imagine people claiming there is no difference between self interest and greed. How would you seperate the two?

While were on the subject this is something my mom brought up in a debate, is that worker A is a hard worker and worker B is lazy and doesn't do as much work. Is it fair that worker B is paid as much as worker A and how would communism deal with this. Didn't really have a good counter-arguement.

[Oswy]

I have been hearing this "Communism is against the human nature" argument ever since I started debating with capitalists, and I have been too lazy to research on said subject, so I decided to post this here, just to find links to researches, books, articles etcetera to use against it, as I presume you have also heard this argument.
Wow thats a lot of commas

To the extent that there is such a thing as 'human nature' it exhibits itself according to the context humans find themselves living within. Are humans 'naturally' greedy? No more than they are 'naturally' sharing. If, however, we live in a society which rewards, indeed demands, that we be greedy rather than sharing, then we'll see more of the former and less of the latter. Put an animal in a cage and it will behave like an animal in a cage, capitalism is, for most of us, just such a cage.

[RNL]

I can already imagine people claiming there is no difference between self interest and greed. How would you seperate the two?
I did separate them. Greed is wanting more than you should have or more than is rightfully yours. It's a character trait possessed by some that we generally consider to be negative. It's a moral term, we can't possibly be 'naturally greedy'. It's a cultural notion, it's bound up with notions of fairness and justice and so on. Yes, all behaviour that we descibe as 'greedy' is self-interested, but there are infinite examples of self-interested behaviour that we don't consider 'greedy'. Eating healthily, or not driving drunk, for instance (or also, in fact, the exact opposites of those things - we may be more interested in the good taste of unhealthy food, or the relative convenience of driving home after drinking). Anyone who claims 'self-interest' and 'greed' are interchangable concepts is simply wrong.

We can't fail to be naturally self-interested, but we're not exclusively self-interested. It's an extreme minority who don't consider the interests of other people, to varying degrees. But our natural self-interest has no adverse implications for the struggle for socialism anyway, because socialism is in the self-interest of most of the world's people.

[mikelepore]

I have been hearing this "Communism is against the human nature" argument ever since I started debating with capitalists, and I have been too lazy to research on said subject, so I decided to post this here, just to find links to researches, books, articles etcetera to use against it, as I presume you have also heard this argument.
Wow thats a lot of commas

I tell them to be specific. If the town library can be operated nonprofit, why can't a mine, mill or factory be operated nonprofit? They will not be able to come up with a single reason why not. If stockholders can elect a board of directors, why can't the workers elect a board of directors? They will not be able to come up with a single reason why not.

[Impulse97]

I tell them to be specific. If the town library can be operated nonprofit, why can't a mine, mill or factory be operated nonprofit? They will not be able to come up with a single reason why not. If stockholders can elect a board of directors, why can't the workers elect a board of directors? They will not be able to come up with a single reason why not.


Perhaps, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of them responding with something, valid or not. You just gotta be prepared in case they do have a comeback no matter how bad and then pwn them again. Even if you can easily counter that argument, you would lose some of the momentum gained by bringing that up in the first place if you have to stumble for a second, because you weren't expecting a response.