Debunking "Human Nature"

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What are some good sources and arguments to use when debating against someone who believes we have been born with such a restriction?

-Thanks.

[Tenka]

I believe that everything humans have done and will do is in humanity's nature to do, and is therefore human nature -- though that's neither an argument nor does it sound very knowledgeable or articulate.
Ask this person what they think human nature is (the general listlessness and petty greed many of us have as we're toddlers still learning to be social creatures, or some metaphysical construct?). Sorry I'm not so helpful.

[Lucretia]

Many people mistake a degree of self-interest, making sure one's basic needs are met, with the unbridled greed and self-interest characteristic of capitalism. The two definitely need to be disentangled.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In short: history is the best place to get examples. Learning about many of the different ways people have organized themselves can help you point out the diversity of customs and norms and how they are connected to the conditions of those societies.

The quickest way is to do a web search. Most socialist groups, blogs, and journals have FAQs or articles addressing this question on their websites:

International Socialist Review:
(http://www.isreview.org/issues/47/wdss-humnature.shtml)Human Nature? (http://www.isreview.org/issues/47/wdss-humnature.shtml)

Socialist Alternative:
(http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article20.php?id=431)Is Socialism Against Human Nature? — Common Questions and Answers (http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article20.php?id=431)

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

I read an article online a few weeks back by an Italian child psychologist who conducted an experiment into altruism. He claimed his findings supported the idea that human beings are by nature altruistic - babies and young children show an instinct towards fairness and equality - and are socialised into selfish behaviours by advertising, upbringing etc.


Sorry I cant find the link at the moment, but il post it as soon as I do.

[Caj]

There are many different aspects of human nature and many of them are contradictory. For example, both cooperation and competition and altruism and cruelty are aspects of human nature, and yet they contradict each other. Different structures of human societies and economies have satisfied certain aspects of human nature and inevitably neglected others. No human society or economy can satisfy all[I] aspects of human nature for obvious reasons. Capitalism satisfies competition, cruelty, selfishness, greed and many other negative aspects of human nature, while early human communities before the rise of agriculture (what Engels called primitive communism) satisfied things like altruism, cooperation, generosity, and sharing. The evolutionary reason for these early communistic human societies was that they were small, kin-based communities where altruism was a practical method for the propagation of genes (gene-based view of evolution -- see Dawkins' [I]The Selfish Gene for more on this). This altruistic impulse was originally instituted by natural selection for kin-selection. This does not mean, however, that future communist societies not based on close biological kinship are doomed to fail. The altruistic impulse from those times was not a conscious realization of assisting kin, rather it was (and is) an unconscious instinct based on the premise that all other humans with which one will be in contact will tend to be kin. Although this is no longer the case, humans have evolved little since those times of early human communities and have practically transcended evolutionary change altogether, thus this altruistic instinct still exists and probably always will in human beings. Therefore, future communist communities will function according to this natural altruistic impulse (what Kropotkin referred to as the natural disposition towards "mutual aid" -- see Mutual Aid for the biological evidence for this disposition) despite this impulse not originally being engineered by natural selection for this purpose. From this perspective, it seems that communism is really the only socio-economic system truly compatible with evolutionary human nature. Please give me feedback on this argument -- it would be much appreciated. :)

Note: Upon re-reading my post I noticed that my argument appears to shift about halfway through from initially implying that all societal and economic structures are compatible with certain aspects of human nature to stating that only communism is compatible with human nature. However, bear in mind that in the first half of the post I was referring to human nature as a whole, while in the second half I was referring to evolutionary human nature only. They are by no means the same, and the fallacy of equating them is detrimental to any argument regarding human nature.

[Ose]

'Human nature' in terms of instincts and such, as is the case with almost all living organisms, is geared towards self preservation. Under the current capitalist social order, competition and greed are the way to self preservation. In a communist society, the wellbeing of one and of all will be inextricably linked, so mutual aid will supersede this. The behavioural manifestation of this instinct is environmentally and socially determined.

[Caj]

'Human nature' in terms of instincts and such, as is the case with almost all living organisms, is geared towards self preservation.

The consensus among evolutionary biologists today is that natural selection acts fundamentally at the level of the gene. Although there is a tendency for genetic interests to correspond with the interests of self-preservation, they are not always the same interests. Many organisms are willing to sacrifice their own lives for the continuation of their genes. This genetic basis to evolution is why human beings have a natural disposition for mutual aid and altruism.

[the Left™]

Human nature is impossible to define outside of material conditions( in our case capitalist society) and should be refuted as such. When people make a claim about human nature being greedy tell them to set up a "control case" of human nature, they cant.

[Ose]

The consensus among evolutionary biologists today is that natural selection acts fundamentally at the level of the gene. Although there is a tendency for genetic interests to correspond with the interests of self-preservation, they are not always the same interests.
That's why I said almost all. The exception that I had in mind was species for which self preservation and the continuation of the species conflict. For humans at least, the two tend to go hand in hand. In any case, this doesn't really affect the point I was making, which is that what some people call human nature is largely a result of social conditions.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The Selfish Gene By Dawkins=bullshit...I do not believe human selfishness is placed in a gene.

[Caj]

Under the current capitalist social order, competition and greed are the way to self preservation.

This argument doesn't work, though, because evolution doesn't have to do with self-preservation. It has to do with reproduction. If there was a correlation between the accumulation of wealth and reproduction your argument would work. However, there is an inverse correlation. This means that from an evolutionary standpoint, the incentive should not be to accumulate wealth in a capitalist system.


The Selfish Gene By Dawkins=bullshit...I do not believe human selfishness is placed in a gene.

You obviously haven't read it. The book is not on human selfishness, it is on genetic selfishness which ultimately leads to human altruism. Don't you think it is a little dogmatic of you to reject legitimate scientific theories without an argument simply to adhere to your beliefs? If science does show communism to be contrary to human nature (I don't think it has) then it is best to accept it and move on.

[Q]

A blogpost I made a while back regarding the "human nature" argument (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1654).

[DaringMehring]

The best argument to my mind is just showing how human societies have different through time and in different places.

But I also like to use this one:

Me: So, human nature is unchangingly and inherently individualistic and against cooperative social organization. Where is this human nature located, and how is it passed from generation to generation?

Them: (something about God or the soul -- end of convo, more likely--) In genes dummy.

Me: Don't genes change over time, by mutation and selection?

Them: Yes.

Me: So human nature changes over time as well?

Them: (feeling trapped) Not really.

Me: In fact we know that genes change directionally based on the selective environment. So, if a social environment rewards greedyness, that will promote more greedy genes. What you're saying then, since you want capitalism, is you want human nature to be greedy and individualistic.

Them: Uh, no.

Me: We should have social organization in line with what our values are.

Obviously, that argument already plays their game to an unacceptable degree by pretending genes are primary over or comparable to culture in influencing behavior. Nonetheless its a fun one to run out because you accept their (flawed) premise then still smack them around.

[mykittyhasaboner]

"Human nature" is an idealist concept. These means that one posits that humanity has an inherent nature, completely disregarding the real social conditions and norms which form the basis for human production, activity, opinion, culture, etc....their "nature". This argument is often put forward in the following forms:

"Communism could never "work" because of human nature."

"People will always be greedy, and care about themselves first."

"Capitalism "works" because it supports human nature."

This is all demonstrably false. It is the real and complex social relations of society which determine what anyone's "nature" is. Meaning, if a society, like capitalist society, encourages exploitation, economic competition, economic inequality, poverty and the like-- then things like human greed, selfishness, crime, violence, etc are inevitable and eventually become the norm.

A society which does not encourage such negative social relations would be far different, and thus the attitudes, opinions, and overall consciousness of humans would be different as a result. i see this as the simplest way of debuking "human nature".

[Dimitri Molotov]

I love when they use the human nature argument. It is very easy for my to counter I think. I tell them human nature is any kind of emotion that is natural to humans, ex. Greed. But generosity is also natural to humans, and I think anyone who says their own human nature is stopping them from achieving Communism is using it as a lazy excuse to not do the work needed to achieve it. They want to get out of it without admitting they are just lazy. I think they don't want to say they just don't want to work for Communism by saying Communism just can't work for them. I say honestly if there was a group of people, such as my other communist comrades, who are willing to put forth the effort for a Communist society and be caring and giving enough, surely others could if they wanted to. But I don't believe everyone will, so that is why I do not believe in absolute world wide Communism, or forcing people to participate who don't want to.