Humankind & radical politics

[Rebid]

Do you think that trust in basic goodness of humanity is necessary for radical leftist politics? If not, why?

What I'm thinking: Radical leftist ideas look forward to future society which is organized rationally to have people co-operating for the good of all and everyone (vs. market & money as leaders with their randomized outcomes). But if most people (also the activists who call themselves good) were basically and permanently 'evil' (looking for their own petty gains, even sadistic ones, on others' expense), how could that co-operation or that society ever be attained?

I thought this would be a real problem, but as I'm writing I'm getting it that of course there could be some sorts of mechanics which stop people from acting destructively towards their fellows (making all the efforts where personal gain is to be achieved on others' expense, fruitless), sort of an updated version of police imprisoning the criminals in the present society (the idealized picture, that is).

But anyways I'd like to hear your attitudes and ideas on this.

[Dean]

Do you think that trust in basic goodness of humanity is necessary for radical leftist politics? If not, why?

What I'm thinking: Radical leftist ideas look forward to future society which is organized rationally to have people co-operating for the good of all and everyone (vs. market & money as leaders with their randomized outcomes). But if most people (also the activists who call themselves good) were basically and permanently 'evil' (looking for their own petty gains, even sadistic ones, on others' expense), how could that co-operation or that society ever be attained?

I thought this would be a real problem, but as I'm writing I'm getting it that of course there could be some sorts of mechanics which stop people from acting destructively towards their fellows (making all the efforts where personal gain is to be achieved on others' expense, fruitless), sort of an updated version of police imprisoning the criminals in the present society (the idealized picture, that is).

But anyways I'd like to hear your attitudes and ideas on this.


Competitive societies are inherently unstable, by nature of the fact that private interests (i.e. the "petty gains" you talk about) are in conflict and therefore engender antagonism to the state of things from those whose interests are not fulfilled.

So these "petty gains" are in fact part of the process which destabilizes competitive societies. cooperative societies do no engender these problems.

[Rebid]

Competitive societies are inherently unstable, by nature of the fact that private interests (i.e. the "petty gains" you talk about) are in conflict and therefore engender antagonism to the state of things from those whose interests are not fulfilled.

So these "petty gains" are in fact part of the process which destabilizes competitive societies. cooperative societies do no engender these problems.

Ok, but how can you attain the cooperative society, if we (the evil people) are to move there from here (this competitive society)? How can we have people acting cooperatively, if their private interests are in conflict?

One might suggest: "We can organise the society so that private interests are no more in conflict." But can we, if the majority of people opposes it?

[Dean]

Ok, but how can you attain the cooperative society, if we (the evil people) are to move there from here (this competitive society)? How can we have people acting cooperatively, if their private interests are in conflict?

By freeing individual humans to actuate their own interests on equal, cooperative grounds. The abolition of private capital accomplishes most of the economic footing for this model.


One might suggest: "We can organise the society so that private interests are no more in conflict." But can we, if the majority of people opposes it?
Well, no. You can't force people to be free. My point about stability is that when more cooperative societies come to manage the means of production, commerce and politics, a greater level of stability is attained. Capitalism is more cooperative than most forms of absolutist monarchy and dictatorship, for instance, and its stability is clearly more significant. The problem is that major capitalist societies such as we see in the US, Russia, China, are all seeking to create absolutist systems in other nations. But this itself is unsustainable as well.

If you are a vanguardist, you might believe in organization against the interest of the majority, but this is neither communist nor socialist. They have some intriguing arguments to that end but I think the absolutist character of a vanguardist system is highly unsustainable.

The thing is, people want to work together. People may not tend to give up power, but the impulse to resist unequal systems - even when one may benefit - is quite strong. Go and tell a couple people that one will be the slave to the other, who will be the master, and they will reject it. Only if it is hidden will it be approved.

The striving to approach one's peers on equal footing is quite strong, despite our institutions, which only try to hide the fact. Even libertarian extremists rarely admit that unequal property rights engender unequal systems in this way.

[runequester]

Society is inherently based on everyone doing what they can to get along.
The notion of "inherent selfishness" was created to help explain why some have it all and the rest have nothing.
"It's human nature you see".

Not everyone will do so in a perfect manner, and some will actively work against it, but that's why education and good role models will be important.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do you think that trust in basic goodness of humanity is necessary for radical leftist politics? If not, why?Well personally I feel that terms like goodness or badness are abstract. But if you mean is it necessary to believe that humans are not born with an inherent selfishness and cruelty, then I'd say sort of. The way I'd put it is that you have to believe that while we have the capacity to be cruel or selfishly harmful to others, we also have at least the same capacity for altruism, empathy, and kindness.


What I'm thinking: Radical leftist ideas look forward to future society which is organized rationally to have people co-operating for the good of all and everyone (vs. market & money as leaders with their randomized outcomes). But if most people (also the activists who call themselves good) were basically and permanently 'evil' (looking for their own petty gains, even sadistic ones, on others' expense), how could that co-operation or that society ever be attained?Well that's the "original sin" argument and it's a very old and common one used to shift systematic problems onto some inherent flaw of humans (Wars can't be stopped because it's not about powerful people sending armies to try and maintain or increase that power, it's just because all people are just xenophobic and aggressive and we have a bloodlust). In addition it makes systemic problems seem unavoidable and outside the system and circumstances that cause the problems. For example: you can never do away with corruption in government because people are just selfish.

I don't think any of these "common sense" arguments about inherent selfishness, laziness, greed, violence, etc hold up to much scrutiny. Sure humans have the capacity to do all these things, but they also show just as much the opposite to be true and I think the logical conclusion is that our behavior is circumstantial and due to the conditions we find ourselves in. People don't horde tap-water - why? Because they trust that it's always there when they need it. If there was sustained interruptions in tap water coming to people's homes and sometimes you'd have to go a week without tap-water then people would definitely try and horde it when the water was still running and would probably deny extra water to others if they weren't sure they'd have enough to last.


I thought this would be a real problem, but as I'm writing I'm getting it that of course there could be some sorts of mechanics which stop people from acting destructively towards their fellows (making all the efforts where personal gain is to be achieved on others' expense, fruitless), sort of an updated version of police imprisoning the criminals in the present society (the idealized picture, that is).

The police force has only existed for just shy of 200 years. It is a product of industrial capitalism and humanity has gotten by without this for a long long time. In fact even in class societies, people have policed themselves - ancient societies usually only had judges, it was up to the people with the conflict to take themselves or take an unwilling suspect to the judge who would then settle what he thought should be done. So I think that with full communism any major violence would be handled in an ad-hock way with maybe an elected jury to decide what to do if that was even necessary. Ultimately, people would be most effective by eliminating the root causes of these problems. Right after a revolution, some kind of community safety might be desired, but rather than have a standing police force, they could (and have in many real-life examples) have a sort of rotating neighborhood patrol with elected coordinators subject to community recall. And for problems that aren't necissarily physical and violent in nature, workers would probably want to create some basic resolutions like community councils and workplace councils can't discriminate based on race or sex.


If you are a vanguardist, you might believe in organization against the interest of the majority, but this is neither communist nor socialist. They have some intriguing arguments to that end but I think the absolutist character of a vanguardist system is highly unsustainable.This is a straw-man - an understandable one considering shitty history of some of the groups and traditions after Stalin that called themselves "party of the vanguard".

I'm a "vanguardist" by which I mean that I think revolutionaries need to organize and coordinate: learn lessons together and generalize their experiences. IMO this is necessary to have a decent chance at a revolution when mass class radicalization happens. This has nothing to do with a party ruling in the name of the population or becoming the "worker's state".

What you are describing sounds like some Maoist and M-L traditions that argue that only the vanguard can rule and eventually the class will catch up. They argue this because they came to power in coups and appointments, not by working class revolutions. The working class may have to rule against the interests of other classes, like they may piss off some elite professionals and small businesspeople and they will by nature have to rule against the will and interests of the old ruling class. But a working class revolution from the bottom up will by nature involve workers taking over the administration of their workplaces and necissary community services and at that stage the class doesn't need a guiding hand, it needs representatives to carry out the process - proletarian democracy.