Greed and Human Nature

[Rubin Carter]

The basic capitalist problem is greed. Man's nature of war, violence and other vices, are often fueled by things such as religion, racism and the idea of superiority of one nation over another. These concepts all tie into or are fed by greed. I am new to the socialist way of thinking, I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on how a socialist society would deal with capitalism's most troubling problems since they are a part of human nature as we have different ideas and opinions on certain issues.

[Lolumad273]

Greed is pathological, it is not human nature. It's the result of working class people striving, to be equals with the capitalist class. They take out huge amounts of debt to live a life that they can't live. Capitalism results in material worship, and thus, greed.

In order for anything to be human nature, you need to be able to observe it in every person. You can observe in a cat, the stalking they do before attacking prey, so it is nature to cats. If you take a look at ancient humans, hunting and gathering, they would have been insane to stay out hunting for more food than they needed, they wouldn't have been able to eat it, and they would have wasted a lot of time hunting. Not observable all the time, only under certain conditions.

[CommunityBeliever]

Whenever a proletarian works on satisfying the needs of the bourgeoisie, rather working to overthrow and kill them for them, that is an act of altruism. Human nature isn't based upon greed because if it was then capitalist society couldn't even begin to function.

[Rooster]

The basic capitalist problem is greed. Man's nature of war, violence and other vices, are often fueled by things such as religion, racism and the idea of superiority of one nation over another. These concepts all tie into or are fed by greed. I am new to the socialist way of thinking, I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on how a socialist society would deal with capitalism's most troubling problems since they are a part of human nature as we have different ideas and opinions on certain issues.

Wars might be fuelled by things such as religion, racist and the ideas of superiority but they're not the cause of wars. Wars happen for economic reasons, for carving up the world into markets to protect profits within metropolises, to commanding trade routes or for controlling resources. The basic capitalist problem isn't greed. The basic capitalist problem is one of capitalism, and it's compulsion to accumulate capital without which capitalism would cease to function. Human nature, just like humanity, isn't a fixed thing. Where does humanity begin and end? How can you generalise humanity like that (I noticed you haven't provided any sources for this) anyway?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Man's nature of war, violence and other vices, are often fueled by things such as religion, racism and the idea of superiority of one nation over another.The way I see it, religion, racism, and nationalism are some ways in which the rulers of countries convince people that wars are in their interests when, in fact, they are not.


These concepts all tie into or are fed by greed.As rooster pointed out, it's not greed in the abstract that cause wars or racist policies, it's the desire of a tiny minority class to rule over workers as well as competing capitalists.


I am new to the socialist way of thinking, I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on how a socialist society would deal with capitalism's most troubling problems since they are a part of human nature as we have different ideas and opinions on certain issues.As others have said, since these issues are not abstractly and universally present in human behavior then they are conditional and the conditions can be changed. Take racism, for example, while all class societies have certain prejudices (designed to help maintain that order of society) racism is a very recent concept. The idea that heritage or culture make people superior or inferior is one that developed along with capitalism. In feudalism, people weren't considered inferior because of some biological reason but just because they were and God basically assigned them to that status. But if your rulers aren't chosen by God, but by their merit (ideally, though of course this is rarely ever really the case in capitalism) then in a system where there's still inequality, you have to come up with a reason why some are more equal than others. In the US, if all men are created equal, why are some slaves... well they had to develop an ideology that explained that some people were slaves because they just weren't capable of "civilization". Why are US Irish immigrants poor... well it's because of their inferior religion and race according to people in the 1870s. If racism doesn't exist today according to US politicians, then why is there so much structural racial inequality... because "black culture is inferior and Latino immigrants won't assimilate".

As Malcolm X said, you can't have capitalism and not also have racism. Well logically then we may be able to eliminate racism when capitalism and the inequality inherent to the system have been eliminated. This isn't to say that we shouldn't or can't fight racism or make gains today, just that ultimately a system like capitalism has to divide the oppressed and blame the victims of the system and so it won't be gone for good until we get rid of the source.

The same is true of wars. No modern war happened because of any "natural" tendencies in humans. In fact, modern war is particularly unnatural which is why there is so much intense training and conditioning of soldiers in capitalist armies. The big wars in the last century happened because of capitalist competition or because of people trying to resist imperialism.

[human strike]

What exactly do we understand 'greed' to mean though? Are we talking commodity fetishism and accumulation? Or something much more basic? And how does it relate to the concept of selfishness? Is altruism strictly uninterested in self-benefit?

"Suppose that a tyrant took pleasure in throwing prisoners who had been flayed alive into a small cell; suppose that to hear their screams and see them scramble each time they brushed against one another amused him a lot, at the same time causing him to meditate on human nature and the curious behaviour of men. Suppose that at the same time and in the same country there were philosophers and wise men who explained to the worlds of science and art that suffering had to do with the collective life of men, the inevitable presence of Others, society as such -- wouldn't we be right to consider these men the tyrant's watchdogs? By proclaiming such theses as these, a certain existentialist conception has demonstrated not only the collusion of left intellectuals with power, but also the crude trick by which an inhuman social organization attributes the responsibility for its cruelties to its victims themselves. A nineteenth century critic remarked: "Throughout contemporary literature we find the tendency to regard individual suffering as a social evil and to make the organization of society responsible for the misery and degradation of its members. This is a profoundly new idea: suffering is no longer treated as a matter of fatality." Certain thinkers steeped in fatalism have not been troubled overmuch by such novelties: consider Sartre's hell-is-other-people, Freud's death instinct, Mao's historical necessity. After all, what distinguishes these doctrines from the stupid "it's just human nature"?

Hierarchical social organization is like a system of hoppers lined with sharp blades. While it flays us alive power cleverly persuades us that we are flaying each other. It is true that to limit myself to writing this is to risk fostering a new fatalism; but I certainly intend in writing it that nobody should limit himself to reading it.

Altruism is the other side of the coin of 'hell-is-other-people'; only this time mystification appears under a positive sign. Let's put an end to this old soldier crap once and for all! For others to interest me I must first find in myself the energy for such an interest. What binds me to others must grow out of what binds me to the most exuberant and demanding part of my will to live; not the other way round. It is always myself that I am looking for in other people; my enrichment, my realization. let everyone understand this and 'each for himself' taken to its ultimate conclusion will be transformed into 'all for each'. The freedom of one will be the freedom of all. A community which is not built on the demands of individuals and their dialectic can only reinforce the oppressive violence of power. The Other in whom I do not find myself is nothing but a thing, and altruism leads me to the love of things, to the love of my isolation.

Seen from the viewpoint of altruism, or of solidarity, that altruism of the left, the sentiment of equality is standing on its head. What is it but the common anguish of associates who are lonely together, humiliated, fucked up, beaten, deprived, contented together, the anguish of unattached particles, hoping to be joined together, not in reality, but in a mystical union, any union, that of the Nation or that of the Labour Movement, it doesn't matter which so long as it makes you feel like those drunken evenings when we're all pals together? Equality in the great family of man reeks of the incense of religious mystification. You need a blocked-up nose to miss the stink.

For myself, I recognize no equality except that which my will to live according to my desires recognizes in the will to live of others. Revolutionary equality will be indivisibly individual and collective." - Raoul Vaneigem


It is in this sense that communism is individualistic.

[Book O'Dead]

The basic capitalist problem is greed.

Maybe "greed" is not the basic problem of capitalism.

IMO the basic problem of capitalism is the arbitrary, uneven and unjust division of labor's product. Another consequential problem of capitalism--but one that existed before capitalism--is the class struggle, that is, the economic, personal, social and political antagonism that arises from the arbitrary division of labor's product.

[Yefim Zverev]

Saying that human is naturally corrupted or greedy in that matter is a good excuse not to revolt against system. Because if we are greedy, battle is already lost, humanity will exterminate itself. So this is the easy way out.. Saying we are greedy naturally. Because what hard is to eliminate that.

Human is a flexible being and it is a product of many variables like society, family, economical system etc.

Greed is not a reason. It is a result. Greed is a result of such variables... education we receive from our family which may impose us directly or indirectly to be greedy win and win gain and gain more and more capital !, be the best ! be a president ! be a mayor ! get a higher position! , books we read, what we see in the street, watch in television, these codes are written into our minds.

So actually socialism must work on it to make human being ready for communism which is to eliminate greed which is product of such variables and such variables are product of capitalism. Since with these behaviors communism can not live. Humans innately need to get rid of pre-communist behaviors since during communism there will not be a state or a source of control over people.

Humans are naturally greedy : Easy way out

[NewLeft]

Greed is pathological, it is not human nature. It's the result of working class people striving, to be equals with the capitalist class. They take out huge amounts of debt to live a life that they can't live. Capitalism results in material worship, and thus, greed.

In order for anything to be human nature, you need to be able to observe it in every person. You can observe in a cat, the stalking they do before attacking prey, so it is nature to cats. If you take a look at ancient humans, hunting and gathering, they would have been insane to stay out hunting for more food than they needed, they wouldn't have been able to eat it, and they would have wasted a lot of time hunting. Not observable all the time, only under certain conditions.
Greed is a natural response to scarcity. It is part of human nature.. Under capitalism, scarcity of certain resources are a reality, while others are artificially created (e.g. food scarcity). Material worship does not lead to greed, it's a form of fetishism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

there is no human nature, only the behavior of individuals and societies conditioned by the material circumstances of their spatial or temporal situation.

[NewLeft]

there is no human nature, only the behavior of individuals and societies conditioned by the material circumstances of their spatial or temporal situation.
So we all begin with a blank slate?

[Franz Fanonipants]

So we all begin with a blank slate?

nope

e: or, that would be p. simplistic. your mother's nutritional profile while bearing you and other factors obviously contribute.

[NewLeft]

nope
Then how can there not be a human nature? :confused:

[Franz Fanonipants]

Then how can there not be a human nature?
:confused:

because describing people as blank slates is incorrect

[Ocean Seal]

The basic capitalist problem is greed. Man's nature of war, violence and other vices, are often fueled by things such as religion, racism and the idea of superiority of one nation over another. These concepts all tie into or are fed by greed.
That's going to be pretty hard to prove.


I am new to the socialist way of thinking, I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on how a socialist society would deal with capitalism's most troubling problems since they are a part of human nature as we have different ideas and opinions on certain issues.
Capitalisms most troubling problems from my opinion are exploitation, starvation, war and alienation from my point of view. None of those have anything to do with human nature so I'm not going to go ahead and "fix" human nature.

[smk]

"Greed" is a very interesting subject and it's important to define the term first. We must say that "greed" is conscious self-interest. Unconsciously, we evolutionarily developed to look out for ourselves, but in ways such as being altruistic and promoting fairness, which develops reciprocity. In addition, neuroscience research in 'mirror neurons' and compassion suggest that we are wired to genuinly care about others and that making others happy makes us the most happy. Sure, all of this is so we can live long enough to have sex with lots of people, but that isn't much of a hindrance to any socialist ideals.

In addition, clearly we have a 'human nature', but to say that our behavior is fully dependent on genetics is ridiculous. One's life is also a large contributor to behavior. In most people's lives, in the West at least, we are bombarded with the Greed message, and so we naturally think that it is natural to be greedy. However, as anyone can find out with minimal effort, we still like to be compassionate and it isn't too hard to override the messages we have been fed of being selfish to develop a more caring behavior.

[Bostana]

And it's not in man's nature to be compassionate?

[Regicollis]

I think that we humans have several conflicting natures. We certainly have tendencies towards greed, tribalism and other nastiness. But we also have tendencies towards altruism, compassion and solidarity.

How pronounced these tendencies become depends on the form of society we live in. Some societies facilitates and nurtures greed, others promote altruism.

[Armchair War Criminal]

Most people always have and will want to live in comfort and security, and will always compete over social status, which is inherently scarce. So selfishness in a fairly trivial sense is perfectly endemic to human nature. Even in the best society, we'll have to deal with these.

The desire to make as much money as possible, regardless of the impact on other human beings, is on the other hand completely historically specific. The analytic reasons for this are fairly simple - humans tend to be satisfied with a social baseline of use-values except when wealth itself becomes a form of social status, while capitals must out-compete other capitals to survive - but if you don't find the a priori reasoning sufficient (which you shouldn't; deduction should always be checked by observation, even if the conclusions you make from observation should be heavily interrogated by theory) look at, like, all of history and anthropology. Capitalism's most intellectually honest and nuanced boosters, like Adam Smith and Max Weber, are perfectly aware of this.

Nor does the logic of capital basically depend on humans being greedy, in a characterological sense, for capitals to be ruthless in their self-expansion. Plenty of successful businesspeople are perfectly compassionate, balanced, sincere people outside of work whose utter amorality when they step into the office is justified as a matter of duty, not personal ambition. The minority of businessfolk who are characterologically greedy aren't because going from $100,000 to $101,000 a year makes a difference in the material quality of their lives, any more than some creeper decides that he's going to study "pick-up artistry" and hit on every woman in sight because he really enjoys sex - it's on account of an abstract Score.

The problem with capitalism isn't greed, it's capitalism.

[gorillafuck]

it shouldn't be up for dispute that all people are self-interested and hence greedy, it's just that in our societies we've set levels for what level of self-interest is considered greedy which is why some levels are considered greedy and some aren't even though they are from the same basic instinct. the reason people don't like work isn't because they think "oh man I hate being a slave for the capitalist class being exploited for my labor when I should be in solidarity with the proletariat" it's because it's fucking boring and the only reason we do it is because we get paid which goes along with our self interest.