People who say capitalism embraces ''human nature''

[AshiusX]

While communism fails to do so. What is a refutation of such an attack?

[Yazman]

There's no such thing as human nature in the sense they mean it. DNA doesn't code for personality traits. The way humans behave socially tends to reflect the social, economic, and political structure of that environment. This is a very well supported and substantiated argument anthropologically speaking.

[Prinskaj]

While communism fails to do so. What is a refutation of such an attack?
Human nature is, as Yazman has already said, not a fixed concept. What human beings define as natural changes constantly due to the changes in their surroundings. If human nature was fixed, as the argument proposes, then why did we ever change from the hunter-gatherer mode of production? Which was pretty much the antithesis to the capitalist mode of production.

[Marxaveli]

Human nature = a social construct, as the others have said. There is nothing biological or intrinsic about it.

As material conditions of society change, so do people, and that is what ignorant reactionary douche bags can't seem to grasp. The human nature argument is very idealist and is easily refuted by the fact that matter always precedes thought.

[bcbm]

if human nature was 'every man for himself' and the ruthlessness of capitalism we would have been extinct before we made it out of the trees. early humans and our ancestors lived in egalitarian communal societies, which seems much closer to our 'nature'

[Blake's Baby]

In the Middle Ages in Europe, it was thought that 'human nature' corresponded to one of the types - 'those who fought, those who prayed, those who worked'. Not 'those who were entrepreneurs', strangely.

In ancient Rome, the act of buying property, investing in improvements and selling at a profit was regarded as strange and unusual, as the usual behaviour in that situation was to enjoy the improved property for oneseslf.

If 'capitalism corresponds to human nature', all I can say it's a good job we've found out what our nature is in the last century or so, because those c250,000 years modern humans have been around living 'unnatural' lives without commodity production and wage labour were getting kinda embarrassing.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

A lazy cop out for those who like the idea of being wealthy and superior to others.

As others have said, there is no fundamental human nature distilled in us from birth..if there is I doubt it's a primal drive to play the market and reduce overheads.

[Mr. Natural]

There is most definitely a "human nature," although its specifics always arise from living in a particular socio-natural environment.

Human nature is the same as that of the rest of life's natural beings. People and life's other living systems are self-organized, integrated, material systems that exist in dynamic interdependence with each other and their environment. This holds true for our physical bodies and our social systems.

Nature's living systems and our bodies are self-organized communal forms, as are anarchism/communism. Anarchism/communism are therefore natural forms of human being, unlike capitalism. Capitalism splits natural forms of community into commodities and a runaway profit taken from the communities of life. Life, however, generates a sustainable, ecological surplus (profit) with which it creates and maintains its myriad communities, and anarchism and communism uncannily emphasize this naural organization. They must if they are to work, for it is this pattern of organization that brings matter and people and their communities to life.

The problem is that the rest of life enters into communal relations automatically, while we must do this consciously and haven't known how.

The new science(s) of life's organization contain the information necessary to organize revolutionary processes out of capitalism into the communities of life and anarchism/communism. The mindblowing book to read on this matter is Fritjof Capra's Web of Life (1996). Web reveals the organization underlying the things of life.

My red-green best.

[DasFapital]

I think my signature sums it up pretty well :thumbdown:

[doesn't even make sense]

The whole human nature thing ties into the rhetoric about socialism being antithetical to human freedom. 'Human nature' is often implied to equate to peoples basic desires for autonomy and a good life which would supposedly be denied to them. Not to mention "you wouldn't be able to make more money!" works on every social stratum: the working class person hears that they'll have no hope of improving their already shitty lot and the aspiring petty-bourgeois defensively clutches his precious little hoard.

[Bardo]

These people must have failed their basic high school introductory psychology class. Then they must have failed their introductory sociology course in college. Then they must have failed to venture outside of their social bubble to observe how individuals interact within different social constructs.

In short, the nature over nurture argument is a failure.

[helot]

Let us assume that human nature is competitive, violent, barbaric etc. Surely then, a mode of production in which such traits are embraced is actually pretty damn bad. Surely, if such a human nature existed a far better mode of production would be one that tries to limit these problems otherwise, considering the barbarism of capitalism and how it amplifies such self-serving behaviour, society would cease to exist.

[cyu]

Examples off the top of my head how culture, rather than DNA, determines "human nature":

Some types of clothes are considered attractive when worn by one group of people, but considered unattractive when worn by the other gender.

Some hairstyles are considered attractive on one group of people, but considered unattractive on the other gender.

Some foods are considered delicacies in one country, and gross people out in another country.

Some people can't tell the difference between green and blue, simply because they don't have the word "blue" in their language.

Any others?

[Let's Get Free]

A basic sense of decency and mutual aid lies at the core of human behavior. Even in this fucked up capitalist society, we do not find it unusual that adults will rescue children from danger although the act will endanger their lives. We do not find it strange that miners, for example, will risk death to save their fellow workers in cave-ins, or that soldiers will crawl under heavy fire to carry a wounded comrade to safety. What tends to shock us are those occasions when aid is refused.

There is nothing in this society that would seem to warrant a molecule of solidarity, yet it exists despite this society.

[Crimson Commissar]

Whether there is a capitalistic human nature or not, the position of leftists should be to reject that nature, not to embrace it.

A lot of the right-wing has a tendency to live by those same primitive concepts that would have defined human life pre-civilization. Survival of the fittest, social darwinism, inherent human natures, etc. While it's true to an extent that humans are, by instinct, meant to value their own survival and well-being over others, these aren't traits that should be in any way encouraged by any sort of progressive movement; so I just don't think the issue is all that relevant.

[Marxaveli]

Survival is probably the only thing that I would attribute to being in our DNA as far as our nature and the way we behave goes. But even THAT itself can influenced and altered by our environment - which is exactly what happens when people are suicidal.

BTW, how does one go about changing their user name here?

[leftistman]

Many other users have already said it, but human nature is subjective and relative to the social relations and conditions in which we live and interact. For the majority of our history, we have not had money-based economies, or any economies at all. Money was only introduced 640 B.C.E. Most people that have existed have lived in moneyless, egalitarian communities where people were only concerned about the survival of the other people in the community. Economies did not exist. Capitalism destroyed this way of living for most people. Capitalism divided people and created competition. The desire to help our fellow people so that they would help us in a mutually beneficial relationship was eliminated.
If we consider that a more primitive form of communism has been the basis of human interactions for the majority of our history, we can and should make the argument that capitalism is contrary to human nature.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Human nature is certainly embraced by Capitalism, but that this means that Capitalism is:

a) the only system, OR
b) the best system

doesn't follow, it's a non-sequitor. Human nature constantly adapts and, to me, seems to have a very dialectic type of relationship with evolution and nurture. Humans were once highly allergic to milk. That was human nature at the time. That (clearly!) doesn't mean that the toxicity of milk to humans was bound to endure.

Similarly, that Capitalism grew out of human nature is, to excuse the awkward turn of phrase, extremely natural. It was a natural evolution of humans' natural consciousness - a better method of organising production and distribution to raise living standards for a greater number of people, and bring about revolutionary discoveries that the feudal lords could only have dreamed about innovating. However, as many others have said in this thread, human nature is a fluid concept, it changes over time - it has to, otherwise we'd still be tiny little bacterial organisms, would we not?

Besides, communism isn't some conspiracy, it is itself a self-interested political theory containing an economic framework that would lead to the betterment of living standards for the majority of the humans who exist today, as the oppressed, as wage slaves, as long-term unemployed, as minorities. So even if human nature WERE a fixed concept (which it isn't), it wouldn't follow that this dis-qualifies communism as a concept for a system of production, since communism itself is based on the self-interest of the overwhelming majority of humans.

[Mr. Natural]

Capitalism has seized upon certain characteristics and potentials of human nature and perception/consciousness and fetishized them. For instance, we perceive ourselves as separate beings, while all life forms actually exist in an ecological, dynamic interdependence. There is no separate life, and humans are intensely social, but capitalist relations have turned us into a collection of alienated, isolated individuals existing in competition against each other. Capitalism thus fetishes the rugged, "free" individual who wins against the competition and gets the gold.

Boss, all life on Earth has the same pattern of organization, despite the myriad life forms this pattern of organization generates. Thus both your bacterium and a human being are: self-organized material systems network-patterned with their life activity (what they do; how they make their living; their dynamically interdependent relations with their environment).

Let's not let this get confusing. Wouldn't anarchist and communist societies consist of self-organizing material systems (people) network-patterned with their life activities (how they live; how they make their living)? Wouldn't communists self-organize their workplace into the manner by which they produce their product and make their living? Anarchism and communism are natural.

And isn't a barracuda a self-organized material system whose "stuff" is network-patterned into the form by which it engages its environment and makes its living? A flounder is also a fish, but its stuff is network-patterned into a different form and it makes its living differently.

It is human nature to create and live in community as self-organizing social individuals. However, our human perception/consciousness cannot readily perceive the organizational relations underlying the communities of life and society. Human perception/consciousness sees separate things, and capitalism creates humans who are "separate things."

Marx and Engels knew we are natural beings living unnaturally within capitalism. Capital I: "Nature does not produce on the one hand owners of money or commodities, and on the other hand men possessing nothing but their own labour power. This relation has no basis in natural history ..."

Marx and Engels also knew of the systemic effects capitalism's rule would have on the ruled: "The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." (preface, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)

So we have a human nature that is organized communally, as is all life, but a perception/consciousness and a capitalism that are organized in opposition to realizing human social individuality in natural, anarchist/communist forms of being. So we are currently "living" and "thinking" alienated lives within a reductive perception/consciousness and capitalist system.

Come on, comrades, it's way past time for open but critical minds to re-radicalize and develop a viable revolutionary organizing theory suitable to our times, and it is my firm, much-researched belief that the answers to our conceptual and organizational problems are to be found in the new sciences that explore the self-organization of matter to life on Earth.

Humans are self-organized material systems and must consciously organize in the manner that matter comes to life on Earth. This concept may be mindboggling, but it is also simple and correct.

Well, at least I spared everyone a dissertation on Capra's triangle--this time. My red-green best.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Human beings are soft-wired towards communalism, but we are also highly adaptable. The ways in which relate to each other and organize our existence varies greately depending upon context.
If capitalism embraces human nature, then how come so many people are taught from birth they are inadequete, unhealthy, or inferior because of things they have no control over? Race, sexuality, appearance?

[Althusser]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/jesse-ventura-considers-t175450/index.html?p=2517983#post2517983

[The Borg]

There is actually good statistical knowledge that we usually work alot more than what we could selfishly get away with. For example, the so called "Italian strike", in which workers stop any work that is not specifically in their work contract, has been studied to drop production up to 30-50%. It means, that if we humans only selfishly worked the minimum possible amount we could get away with, our world would be only half as rich as it is now.

[RebelDog]

If people are going to be selfish and shit on others as right-wing philosophers and economists constantly repeat, then why have an economic system that encourages that?

[Jimmie Higgins]

As others have said, human nature isn't really a thing - human social organization has been very flexible and has appeard in many different forms.

Capitalists often claim that Capitalism is a more organic expression (or direct result) of human nature. But for this to be true, The Flinstones would have to be an accurate anthrological depiction of pre-history. No one before capitalism worked based on some arbitrary schedule, no one was told to go hunting or gathering because a factory wistle blew to tell them to do so, no one sat in a traffic jam on their way to plough fields, no one did one task over and over again while sitting in the same place for 8-12 hours a day 5-6 days a week. People worked to get things they needed for most of human history, not for wages or profits.

If capitalism was human nature, then it wouldn't have taken 10,000 years of known history to achieve nor would it have required revolutions to be established. And it wouldn't need military forces, cops and ideological myths to be held in place in society.

[Lucretia]

Capitalism is certainly compatible with "human nature." But so is feudalism, slavery, and so many other practices that have had long histories in human societies. The problem is that they are only one-sided reflections of human nature -- the side that seeks survival at the expense of others in conditions of relative or artificial scarcity.

Communism is not only compatible with human nature; it will help humans realize that human nature in a more all-around and complete way by placing them in relations that enable them to cooperate rationally with one another, while never, of course, giving up individuality and the need to distinguish one's self from others through work, leisure, etc.

[Sea]

http://wearemany.org/a/2010/06/before-classes
http://wearemany.org/a/2010/06/is-human-nature-barrier-to-socialism

I've been listening to a lot of these whatchamacallits lately and some of them are pretty damn good.

Here, OP. Have a few. They don't cost nothin'.

[Lowtech]

capitalism holds a very poor definition of 'human nature'; if there is a human nature in any sense, it is more of a capacity rather than a archetype, the capacity to do great good or great harm, however, capitalists attempt to justify being very stupid socially on what they consider a fixed human nature, whereas in the eyes of the law, human nature has never been allowed as an excuse for things so intolerable we have passed law against it.

now, we should embrace the better parts of our nature, but not indoctrinate anything except altruism and a more responsible attitude toward being a (self-proclaimed) technologically advanced civilization.

[Mr. Natural]

My point is that "human nature" is based in our natural human biological/material organization, and there is most definitely a "human nature" that reflects the natural organization of all life forms, and that revolutionaries must come to grips with the organization of Mother Nature/human nature.

This human nature is deeply communal, and various forms of anarchism and communism accurately reflect this. Human beings are social individuals who must live in community, and Marx and Engels wrote extensively on this point. Marx: "Only in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible." (German Ideology)

No commonly held human nature? Then how do we live together socially, and what might we be able to say to each other? No human nature? Our bodies and our lives are randomly chaotic? No way!!

It is our ultimate human nature to consciously, naturally organize our lives together in community. The new sciences of organization that almost no lefties have touched reveal the underlying, natural organization of life and the cosmos, and it is these sciences that the left must engage if it is to understand human nature/natural organization.

This is not as difficult as you might think. I employ Capra's triangle, which models life's universal pattern of organization for we who must consciously organize our lives according to nature/human nature.

My red-green best.

[human strike]

Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?



http://i.qkme.me/3quysz.jpg

[Mr. Natural]

Humans have a nature-al organization that is then socially constructed, but under capitalism's relations our natural organization is being destructed.

If humans didn't have an underlying organization/nature, on what would society be able to construct?

My red-green best.

[cyu]

If capitalism was human nature, it wouldn't need military forces, cops and ideological myths to be held in place in society.

Well said. And "capitalism is just human nature" is precisely one of the ideological myths that pro-capitalists use to perpetuate their religion.



The "humans are inherently selfish" argument just doesn't have any actual basis.


Right, it's just a self-fulfilling prophesy. If Randroids convince them that "smart people" should act selfish, then they start acting more selfish. (After all, who wants to be seen as "irrational" in front of their peers? That would be, like, so embarrassing!)

[Maize]

There is no such thing as human nature. In any definable, meaningful form. The entire field of anthropology generally destructs this. The old, trite excuse that greed is the core of human nature and therefore THE suitable fit with capitalism is one of the most disgusting, wide-spread lies to permeate our society. I detest and refute these so called "biotruths," that attempt to bend human nature into such a narrow lens. The overabundance of greed that appears so common in our capitalist system are just a product of its social construct. The capitalist system preys on the aspect of greed, it amplifies it and glorifies it. Is it any wonder that greed is so common in a society whose functions actively promote it?

Human nature being rendered into easily summed terms is one of the most successful narratives pumped out by populist and capitalist classes. At the heart of the issue, it is a defeatist conclusion. It denies humanity one of its greatest attributes; the power of self-determination. In essence, it's total and utter bullshit.

[Mr. Natural]

Maize, You wrote that the concept of a human nature "denies humanity one of its greatest attributes; the power of self-determination."

Well, isn't the "power of self-determination" a "human nature"? Isn't it our nature to consciously labor to create and produce the conditions of our existence? Isn't Marxism based in this "human nature"?

And hasn't capitalism, as you accurately write, now determining the conditions of our laboring and existence, and doesn't capitalism's insatiable greed arise from those conditions?

I'm not trying to stir up a beef with you, Maize, but I am definitely firmly opposing the many posters who deny a human nature. This is dogma, and it is obviously wrong. There is indeed a human nature that is communal and consciously produces our lives, and if there isn't such a nature, we simply could not exist, much less organize our existence.

And we won't be existing much longer if we don't do something about that capitalism problem. My red-green best.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In addition to what has been said by many above about how "human nature" is not fixed assuming it even exists, I would say that even if such a thing as "human nature" does exist and that it is biologically fixed, then the solution to me is obvious - fix human biology. If being a selfish profiteering fuckstick is something that is say, fixed by genes, then if we wish to have any meaningful claim of being ethical beings, it behooves us to remedy such a situation. The consequences of not doing so would go further than condemning future generations to the misery of capitalism; it would also doom us to extinction as the unsustainable nature of capital consumes all.

[Marxaveli]

In addition to what has been said by many above about how "human nature" is not fixed assuming it even exists, I would say that even if such a thing as "human nature" does exist and that it is biologically fixed, then the solution to me is obvious - fix human biology. If being a selfish profiteering fuckstick is something that is say, fixed by genes, then if we wish to have any meaningful claim of being ethical beings, it behooves us to remedy such a situation. The consequences of not doing so would go further than condemning future generations to the misery of capitalism; it would also doom us to extinction as the unsustainable nature of capital consumes all.

One minor detail in this - genetics is MUCH harder to fix or alter than environment is, and doing so is stepping into the realm of eugenics which is just as bad in itself. If human nature was based on genetics, and greed was innate within us, the solution would be to live in a system that discourages that particular trait, rather than one that promotes it like capitalism does.

Thankfully, human nature is ENTIRELY a social construct (with perhaps the stark exception of our will to survive - and even this can be influenced by environment), and we don't have to worry about that.

[adace]

To those who say there is no such thing as human nature, how do you respond to Chomsky's argument that it does exist in the sense that we're hard-wired to exist in a social setting as evidenced by our ability to use language (if I understand his argument correctly)?

[Maize]

Maize, You wrote that the concept of a human nature "denies humanity one of its greatest attributes; the power of self-determination."

Well, isn't the "power of self-determination" a "human nature"? Isn't it our nature to consciously labor to create and produce the conditions of our existence? Isn't Marxism based in this "human nature"?

And hasn't capitalism, as you accurately write, now determining the conditions of our laboring and existence, and doesn't capitalism's insatiable greed arise from those conditions?

I'm not trying to stir up a beef with you, Maize, but I am definitely firmly opposing the many posters who deny a human nature. This is dogma, and it is obviously wrong. There is indeed a human nature that is communal and consciously produces our lives, and if there isn't such a nature, we simply could not exist, much less organize our existence.

And we won't be existing much longer if we don't do something about that capitalism problem. My red-green best.

Poorly worded, perhaps. There are some basic observations we can make about "human nature". You could say that humans, are by nature, social animals. And I would agree. I was mainly refuting the entire concept of "Humans nature is <insert emotion/psychological state>" Which you could fill with anything really. "Human nature is greedy/loving", "Human nature is warmongering/peaceful".

When I said self-determination, I should have explained that I was referring to our vast array of complex actions and emotions, thoughts and ideas. In retrospect, the term was poorly used. There aren't easily definable categories of human nature, on a grand scale, when it comes to vague terms such as greed, love, hope, whatever. I reject the sum total. Greed, if anything, is just another aspect of our nature, and to say that we are greedy at the core is just a bare attempt at justifying capitalism.

[cyu]

Excepts I found interesting at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cooperation

the theory of group selection argues that natural selection can act on groups: groups that are more successful – for any reason, including learned behaviors – will benefit the individuals of the group, even if they are not related.

Robert Trivers demonstrated how reciprocal altruism can evolve between unrelated individuals, even between individuals of entirely different species. it "takes the altruism out of altruism." The Randian premise that self-interest is paramount is largely unchallenged, but turned on its head by recognition of a broader, more profound view of what constitutes self-interest.

It does not matter why the individuals cooperate. The individuals may be prompted to the exchange of "altruistic" acts by entirely different genes, or no genes in particular, but both individuals (and their genomes) can benefit

The benefits of such reciprocal altruism was dramatically demonstrated by a pair of tournaments held by Robert Axelrod. In both actual tournaments and various replays the best performing strategies were nice: that is, they were never the first to defect. Many of the competitors went to great lengths to gain an advantage over the "nice" (and usually simpler) strategies, but to no avail: tricky strategies fighting for a few points generally could not do as well as nice strategies working together.

rationality and deliberate choice are not necessary, nor trust nor even consciousness. Often the initial mutual cooperation is not even intentional, but having "discovered" a beneficial pattern both parties respond to it by continuing the conditions that maintain it.

work on the evolution of cooperation has expanded to cover prosocial behavior generally, and in religion. It has also been used to challenge the rational and self-regarding "economic man" model of economics, and as a basis for replacing Darwinian sexual selection theory with a theory of social selection

While this does not yet amount to a science of morality, the game theoretic approach has clarified the conditions required for the evolution and persistence of cooperation, and shown how Darwinian natural selection can lead to complex behavior, including notions of morality, fairness, and justice. It is shown that the nature of self-interest is more profound than previously considered, and that behavior that seems altruistic may, in a broader view, be individually beneficial.

[TheAnswersYes]

Human nature is what the psychopaths with the power say it is, in this case individual greed.

[R_P_A_S]

great conversation. Surprisingly no high jacking. people going straight to the point. thanks!