Debate with friend over greed/human nature

[Questionable]

Hello all! As you can see, I'm new here, but I've been studying communism and reading the forum for a while. So far, I've read:

Karl Marx - Wage Labour and Capital, The Communist Manifesto, and The German Ideology, along with The Principles of Communism, although I think that was mostly Engels.

Lenin - The State and Revolution, parts of Imperialism, and some biographical stuff about Marx.

Along with various sources from leftist websites and some minor authors.

Anyway, me and my friend got into a debate about communism that I had trouble with. She was arguing that once the final stage of communism sat in, where the means of production were public-owned and there was only free association, people would still be too lazy or incapable to learn certain advanced skills (Such as electronics), and the people who could do that would either only produce enough for themselves, leaving the rest of the world without their creations, or they would form a monopoly on the skills they possess and start charging people, basically backpedaling to capitalism.

I told her about the historical materialist theory that human nature was defined by its environment, and if our technology was advanced enough and free of private ownership, there would be no reason for people to hoard things, nor would it possible since if someone didn't want to share their creations, people could just make their own. But most importantly, if our society was arranged in the communist fashion, people wouldn't be as greedy as they are now, and they would be happy to help their fellow man.

However, my friend still wasn't quite convinced. She just kept saying that humanity's nature is to pursue its own self-interest, and a communist society would fall apart because everyone would just produce the bare minimum for themselves, and all the people who didn't know how to produce certain things or didn't care to know would just be out of luck.

I really didn't know enough about the final stage of communism to counter her, so can anyone here enlighten me? What's stopping humans from behaving like my friend claimed and just forming a type of monopoly on production?

Thanks for any insightful answers!

[Lanky Wanker]

basically backpedaling to capitalism

People seem to think that communism will just magically appear, meaning that people will have to make it work when they don't want to. Communism will be brought about by the workers, and will therefore be maintained by the workers. Sorry to avoid the question, but "people are naturally productive and need something to do" just feels like one of those cheesy, overused, dirty commie lines because this question has been answered so many times already. I'm pretty sure all of these questions have been answered in the High School Commie's Guide (http://www.revleft.com/vb/high-school-commie-t22370/index.html).

EDIT: I can't find any posts particularly focused on the motivation theory in that thread, but it still has a fair amount of useful stuff in it to look at. It would be good if we could sticky something regarding motivation without wages in particular, as it does get asked a lot in the learning section.

[Firebrand]

Basically people would do these highly skilled jobs because they enjoy them. Fundamentally the highly skilled jobs tend to be the ones that people enjoy, a bigger problem would be in making sure that the monotonous low skilled jobs get done, fortunately most of these low skilled jobs could probably be mechanised.

Think about it, most doctors, software programmers, scientists etc went into their fields because they had an interest, even under capitalism they chose to do these jobs primarily because they wanted to, not because they wanted the money. Comparatively these people are not paid particularly highly when you consider how much work and education goes into becomeing lets say a surgeon. And then they are expected to work pretty hard when they get their job. Yes they are well paid, but not so much so that it is the most lucrative job they could go for in terms of money earned against work put in. Therefore even under capitalism it can be seen that people are motivated to do these highly skilled jobs for reasons other than money.

[runequester]

However, my friend still wasn't quite convinced. She just kept saying that humanity's nature is to pursue its own self-interest, and a communist society would fall apart because everyone would just produce the bare minimum for themselves, and all the people who didn't know how to produce certain things or didn't care to know would just be out of luck.

I assume from this statement that she agrees that every organised religion is wrong then? Given that self-interest is against virtually any scripture, save the most perverted "prosperity gospel".

I'd point to the existence of things like Linux, charity work, the fact that western societies did enact things like health insurance or that the soviets did put people in space.
People do things for non-selfish reasons every single day. All that needs to happen is to empower them to make that happen, and help heal them from the sickness they suffer from today.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Look at the 90+% of human history that we lived in egalitarian, hunter-gatherer societies.

If we were 'naturally greedy' as so many people try to claim, this would not have been possible.

They still exist, even. I read a National Geographic article in 2010 on the Hadza people of Tanzania. Here's some info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadza_people

How does the 'against human nature' argument account for this?

[ckaihatsu]

She was arguing that once the final stage of communism sat in, where the means of production were public-owned and there was only free association, people would still be too lazy or incapable to learn certain advanced skills (Such as electronics), and the people who could do that would either only produce enough for themselves, leaving the rest of the world without their creations, or they would form a monopoly on the skills they possess and start charging people, basically backpedaling to capitalism.




I really didn't know enough about the final stage of communism to counter her, so can anyone here enlighten me? What's stopping humans from behaving like my friend claimed and just forming a type of monopoly on production?


The thing that comes immediately to mind is, "What's to stop people from stocking vending machines *themselves* -- ?"

By this I mean that most "complicated" processes of fabrication and distribution are just elaborate supply chains, from many sources, that all converge to produce the final product.

Currently most of these varied processes are proprietary and so carry a certain aura of mystery to them since they're not part of the everyday mass popular culture. I'll even go so far as to say that this mystique comprises a significant part of a product's perceived value.

One thing incredible about this past decade is that the average person is starting to get some privileged insight into previously restricted-access areas of infrastructure and asset management, through the openness of the free software movement -- Linux, primarily. Certainly not everyone's a software engineer, and I'm not around programming myself, either, but today's average laptop user can now download a fully functional operating system and customize it from a selection of tens of thousands of additional software titles, all free of charge.

I'm using this example, obviously, as an analogy for how the *whole world's* production could be, extended through into *all* material processes. Offhand I'd say that if the know-how for producing machines like computers and vending machines could become non-proprietary -- and since the software for the same is already public-domain -- then any concerns about re-monopolization would effectively be moot. The genie would already be out of the bottle, as the saying goes.

Any arguments about 'laziness' or 'demotivation' are essentially pessimistic in an idealistic way -- the glass-half-empty can be countered by pointing out that the glass is also half-full, in that people are always going to be interested in doing things that interest them while not always being so strictly concerned with who else might benefit from those efforts, especially in a society that has already been politically focused enough to dump capitalism with a worldwide revolution.

[Oswy]

...She just kept saying that humanity's nature is to pursue its own self-interest, and a communist society would fall apart because everyone would just produce the bare minimum for themselves, and all the people who didn't know how to produce certain things or didn't care to know would just be out of luck...

The first thing to be suspicious of is an argument that appeals to 'human nature' as 'self-interested' or 'selfish'. It's reasonable to suggest that humans have an instinct for self preservation above that of others and maybe even an instinct for the prioritisation of the welfare of themselves and their immediate family above everyone else, but we shouldn't allow this scalar orientation to be turned into an assertion that all is selfishness. Firstly, humans have actually evolved as social animals and as far as we are thus 'programmed' we're programmed to pursue our needs in the context of mutual support and sociability. Beyond that we've evolved big brains which make us very adaptable and able to adjust our behaviours to fit the demands of our physical and social environment. This last point is part of what makes generalised or stereotyped claims about 'human nature' moot; put us in a kind of society which rewards selfishness and we're more likely to behave selfishly; put us in a kind of society which rewards mutual support and we're more likely to be mutually supportive.

This is a pretty good little essay on the subject: A Marxist Perspective on Human Nature (at The Red Phoenix website). (http://theredphoenixapl.org/2010/07/21/a-marxist-perspective-on-human-nature/)

[Revolution starts with U]

Socialism doesn't expect you to give up your individuality for the sake of the "greater good" (which is and always has been political code word for "make me more powerful."). What it does is recognize that 99% of the people's "self interest" is in a classless, stateless society where their labor is not exploited for the private benefit of an elite few.

It's capitalism that tells you your self-interest (assuming you're not the genius you think you are) is in prostrating yourself for some dick in a top hat. And the capitalist theoretician was probably wearing a bow-tie!

[el_chavista]

Is it true that monkeys baboons have lookouts to warn the flock and that these monkeys lookouts are capable of sacrificing themselves facing the attack of a leopard or other predator?

The only thing I'm sure of is that even self-preservation doesn't keep humans from helping one another when facing a great danger.

[Questionable]

Okay, so I continued debating with my friends, using all the points you guys provided, but it just wasn't working out. No one was budging, and eventually our passions got in the way, so we all unanimously agreed to just quit debating. I still believe in historical materialism, but my friend still says that, since humans are too greedy, only a mixed-market capitalist society could ever work.

However, my inability to convince anyone of human nature being malleable has got me thinking about other ways to convince people of the effectiveness of socialism/communism without even bringing up common goodness. I feel like the argument of "Humans are too greedy for communism" is way too over-simplified, but I'm not sure how to articulate it.

So, assuming humans really do have a natural tendency towards greed, is there any way communist society could still work?

[Revolution starts with U]

Okay, so I continued debating with my friends, using all the points you guys provided, but it just wasn't working out. No one was budging, and eventually our passions got in the way, so we all unanimously agreed to just quit debating. I still believe in historical materialism, but my friend still says that, since humans are too greedy, only a mixed-market capitalist society could ever work.

However, my inability to convince anyone of human nature being malleable has got me thinking about other ways to convince people of the effectiveness of socialism/communism without even bringing up common goodness. I feel like the argument of "Humans are too greedy for communism" is way too over-simplified, but I'm not sure how to articulate it.

So, assuming humans really do have a natural tendency towards greed, is there any way communist society could still work?

This


Socialism doesn't expect you to give up your individuality for the sake of the "greater good" (which is and always has been political code word for "make me more powerful."). What it does is recognize that 99% of the people's "self interest" is in a classless, stateless society where their labor is not exploited for the private benefit of an elite few.

It's capitalism that tells you your self-interest (assuming you're not the genius you think you are) is in prostrating yourself for some dick in a top hat. And the capitalist theoretician was probably wearing a bow-tie!

[Lanky Wanker]

So, assuming humans really do have a natural tendency towards greed, is there any way communist society could still work?

Going along with their greed argument to argue against them from another angle won't actually do you any favours. It's like arguing with a homophobe on the premise that homosexuality isn't natural, and instead saying "so what if it isn't?" Honestly, just give up. You'll often think you're getting somewhere with someone, but soon realise they don't understand the basis of their own argument.

[ckaihatsu]

The first thing to be suspicious of is an argument that appeals to 'human nature' as 'self-interested' or 'selfish'.





I feel like the argument of "Humans are too greedy for communism" is way too over-simplified, but I'm not sure how to articulate it.

So, assuming humans really do have a natural tendency towards greed, is there any way communist society could still work?


We're throwing around generalizations about a generalization of "human character", and then attempting to make social predictions about all of it -- needless to say, this kind of topic gets *very* abstract very quickly -- (!)

As a follow-up I'd like to hone in on one particular tack -- we should start by making a distinction for the paired terms of 'human' / 'humanity', 'self' / 'selfishness', and 'greed' / 'greediness'. The first term of each pair refers to an *individual*, while the second term of the pair refers to a large-scale generalization over *numerous* individuals.

It's easy to *say*, "If *everyone* did that then the world would be chaos," but in reality people do all sorts of *different* things -- some are more acquisitive, and others aren't. If we want to use generalized characteristics accurately -- and not just blithely throw around moralistic abstractions -- we'd have to have actual *evidence* that "humanity is greedy" or whatever.

Many people who are new to politics will take what they learned in science class about basic *biological* behavior and just copy it right over into the *societal* column. It's always worth pointing out that human society has definitely transcended crude survival-and-reproduction evolutionary cycles, to the point where our *social* and *cultural* norms have far more impact on our future generations than the glacial speed of genetic changes.

To illustrate this I'll juxtapose the first framework below to the second one:











Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming. Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_imperatives





http://lopezfamilynow.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/maslow-hierarchy-of-needs.jpg




Maslow's hierarchy of needs is often portrayed in the shape of a pyramid, with the largest and most fundamental levels of needs at the bottom, and the need for self-actualization at the top.[1][6]

The most fundamental and basic four layers of the pyramid contain what Maslow called "deficiency needs" or "d-needs": esteem, friendship and love, security, and physical needs. With the exception of the most fundamental (physiological) needs, if these "deficiency needs" are not met, the body gives no physical indication but the individual feels anxious and tense. Maslow's theory suggests that the most basic level of needs must be met before the individual will strongly desire (or focus motivation upon) the secondary or higher level needs. Maslow also coined the term Metamotivation to describe the motivation of people who go beyond the scope of the basic needs and strive for constant betterment.[7] Metamotivated people are driven by B-needs (Being Needs), instead of deficiency needs (D-Needs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs


Note the difference between the 'biological imperatives', which can apply to *any* organism, and that of 'Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs', which can *only* apply to people.

So, instead of positing the *individual* as the problem, we should be *championing* individualism and asking why *human society* can be such a hindrance to that.





It's capitalism that tells you your self-interest [...] is in prostrating yourself for some dick in a top hat.





[P]eople are always going to be interested in doing things that interest them while not always being so strictly concerned with who else might benefit from those efforts








A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.

Now, I have said that the community by means of organisation of machinery will supply the useful things, and that the beautiful things will be made by the individual. This is not merely necessary, but it is the only possible way by which we can get either the one or the other. An individual who has to make things for the use of others, and with reference to their wants and their wishes, does not work with interest, and consequently cannot put into his work what is best in him. Upon the other hand, whenever a community or a powerful section of a community, or a government of any kind, attempts to dictate to the artist what he is to do, Art either entirely vanishes, or becomes stereotyped, or degenerates into a low and ignoble form of craft. A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist. Art is the most intense mode of Individualism that the world has known. I am inclined to say that it is the only real mode of Individualism that the world has known. Crime, which, under certain conditions, may seem to have created Individualism, must take cognisance of other people and interfere with them. It belongs to the sphere of action. But alone, without any reference to his neighbours, without any interference, the artist can fashion a beautiful thing; and if he does not do it solely for his own pleasure, he is not an artist at all.

The Soul of Man under Socialism by Oscar Wilde

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/slman10h.htm


Generalizations-Characterizations

http://postimage.org/image/1d6itveo4/

[Tim Cornelis]

We should make a sticky for "human nature" topics because we come across this every week or so.

[rylasasin]

We should make a sticky for "human nature" topics because we come across this every week or so.

A better idea would be a large FAQ with like the top 20-50 most common capitalist arguments (I could only assume that "Human Nature" would be somewhere on there) and their proper refutations on them.

Although something like that probably already exists somewhere but where exactly I have no idea. :crying:

[daft punk]

Anyway, me and my friend got into a debate about communism that I had trouble with. She was arguing that once the final stage of communism sat in, where the means of production were public-owned and there was only free association, people would still be too lazy or incapable to learn certain advanced skills (Such as electronics), and the people who could do that would either only produce enough for themselves, leaving the rest of the world without their creations, or they would form a monopoly on the skills they possess and start charging people, basically backpedaling to capitalism.

I told her about the historical materialist theory that human nature was defined by its environment, and if our technology was advanced enough and free of private ownership, there would be no reason for people to hoard things, nor would it possible since if someone didn't want to share their creations, people could just make their own. But most importantly, if our society was arranged in the communist fashion, people wouldn't be as greedy as they are now, and they would be happy to help their fellow man.

However, my friend still wasn't quite convinced. She just kept saying that humanity's nature is to pursue its own self-interest, and a communist society would fall apart because everyone would just produce the bare minimum for themselves, and all the people who didn't know how to produce certain things or didn't care to know would just be out of luck.

I really didn't know enough about the final stage of communism to counter her, so can anyone here enlighten me? What's stopping humans from behaving like my friend claimed and just forming a type of monopoly on production?

Thanks for any insightful answers!

Thing is, the working week would be very short. Production would be done by robots and whatnot. You would only need so many people interested in making robots or computer programming. Bear in mind that everyone in the world would be highly educated. So finding enough people interested in different specialities shouldnt be too hard. There would be no money, so no chance to go back to capitalism. All knowledge would be shared.

Also bear in mind that it would take a couple of generations at least to get to communism and as you say people's outlook changes with their material conditions.

In socialism you would get your respect by doing a useful job, and everyone would have to work.

Once production was at a high level, and all the useless shit stopped, the sky is the limit.

On day one almost you could double production. 25% of Americans are unemployed, and 25% do useless jobs (marketing, weapons manufacture etc).
Make everyone do a useful job and you immediately double your effective workforce.

Day two we go green, green energy, public transport and so on. Public transport could quickly be made free.

Day 3 revolutionise agriculture, make it sustainable.

and so on.

Sorry, not literal days, playing god there for a minute!

For a practical example of egalitarian living google Cayonu and Catalhoyuk.

[Oswy]

...but my friend still says that, since humans are too greedy...

Well, they're wrong, making the mistake of thinking about human behaviour orientations as directed by capitalism normatively. It's not just that capitalism encourages or rewards greed and selfishness, and so elicits it, but in many circumstances it demands these behavioural orientations on penalty of poverty, maybe even starvation.

You can lead a horse to water...

[Strannik]

As I understand this, people can team up because they are lazy. When one individual sets out to make bread just for themselves, they have to work more than five individuals who divide their labor and make bread for all five of them.

Theoretically, I suppose, specialist work knowledge could be used by individuals in order to demand more prestige, etc even in communism. However, there is nothing that would prevent others from acquiring that specialist knowledge for themselves and destroy this monopoly. Education, technical and knowledge resources are available for everyone. All you need is to sit down and study.

That said, I can still imagine an individual "mad scientist" or computer hacker even in quite advanced communist society. They probably won't need to exploit the labor of others, but could mobilize means of production and resources for some individual project in a manner that disadvantages others.

However, advanced communist society, if I understand this correctly, is more "aware" or "enlightened" than previous social formations and can design an appropriate collective response for such actions.

[o well this is ok I guess]

You could ask her for biological evidence
You don't even need to know anything about biology
You've already won

[ckaihatsu]

As I understand this, people can team up because they are lazy. When one individual sets out to make bread just for themselves, they have to work more than five individuals who divide their labor and make bread for all five of them.

Theoretically, I suppose, specialist work knowledge could be used by individuals in order to demand more prestige, etc even in communism. However, there is nothing that would prevent others from acquiring that specialist knowledge for themselves and destroy this monopoly. Education, technical and knowledge resources are available for everyone. All you need is to sit down and study.




That said, I can still imagine an individual "mad scientist" or computer hacker even in quite advanced communist society. They probably won't need to exploit the labor of others, but could mobilize means of production and resources for some individual project in a manner that disadvantages others.


This subtopic is worth exploring....

I would think that everyday society -- particularly around work roles -- would be socially integrated enough, far more than today's patchwork landscape of private micro-fiefdoms, for word to get around about who's doing what at any given moment with the public resources on the public commons. In this way a communist society would be more like an academia that's extended over onto industry rather than the other way around.

We should keep in mind that computer systems, large or small, are "only" the means of *control* over productivity machinery and are not the means of (industrial) production itself. Anyone who would attempt an "industrial coup" would find that their own methods of control over machinery could always be displaced and replaced with *other* implementations of (computer-system) control and direction. In this way politics would continue to be paramount.





However, advanced communist society, if I understand this correctly, is more "aware" or "enlightened" than previous social formations and can design an appropriate collective response for such actions.