How do you counter claims that communism "goes against human nature"?

[Red Nightmare]

One of the most common anti-communist arguments I have heard is the claim that communism couldn't "work" because of intrinsic human nature. Basically the anti-communist argues that communism requires people to be altruistic and selfless in order to maintain equality. They then go on to claim that because of humans' survival instincts and natural self-interest that people will naturally desire more and their greed will lead them to exploit others. Basically they argue that communism is idealistic and that capitalism is the natural state of things.

Do you have any suggestions for responding to this "argument"?

[Skyhilist]

This is obviously false as capitalism perverts human nature and puts people against each other. Species have always evolved so that their habits will give their species te greatest chance of survival. Humans working together and helping each other under communism increases the odds of survival and is much more natural than pitting humans against each other like capitalism does. I don't suppose you could convince this person to read Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, could you? That book does a really good job of illustrating this point.

[Red Nightmare]

Good point but I doubt that the people I am arguing with would be open minded or interested enough to read Mutual Aid.

[goalkeeper]

Such assumptions about human nature are assumingly generalised to all people. There if all people naturally "desire more" surely it would be beneficial to all cooperate to full fill that desire? If all humans wish for more, why not create a society where all can work together to get that "more"? Why create a society where the expression of that "desire for more" requires the exploitation of others and denial of their ability to puruse this supposedly fundamental part of "human nature"?

Greed doesn't just suddenly turn into people exploiting others. How one behaves in the "pursuit of more" is bound up by the social system in which they live. In ancient societies your greed and desire for more would mean you might raise an army and attack some other tribe and steal all their stuff. This of course is no longer acceptable under bourgeois-democracy and capitalism (at least for non state actors we are talking about) so instead if you want and desire more you go and be a tech start up wanker blowing hot air and sweet nothings at silicone valley conferences and TED talks or whatever the hell modern entrepreneurial capitalists do nowadays. In a communist society the nature of that society will determine how someone pursues their desire for more and greed; as the social relations of capitalism will be gone the capitalist option will be too, just as the looting barbarian warlord option is nowadays.

[cyu]

I'm sure it's already been covered a zillion times on this site - I'm just too lazy to search for it :D Anyway, I'll just repost this bit from http://www.revleft.com/vb/urge-dominate-t178539/index.html

As far as "human nature" arguments go, I would say I believe in only one major aspect of human nature - that humans are easily brainwashed by the society they find themselves in.

For example, if you see a lot of bullying in the community you grow up in, then you see it as the standard for behavior and the standard for survival. If you see a lot of gift giving at the end of the year in your culture, then you see gift giving as the standard of behavior expected from "normal" people. If you see everyone else wearing clothes in your community, then you tend to feel embarrassed when you lose your clothes in public.

If you were abused as a child, there may actually be two different reactions. The assimilation reaction would suggest that you would be justified in abusing others "because the world is harsh and the world showed no compassion to you." The rebellious reaction may push you in the opposite direction, urging you to fight injustice so that what happened to you would never again happen to others.

Kind of off topic, but on a sociological level, if your people have been the target of genocide, some may react by using that to justify the same actions against other groups of people... or you may vow to never let that happen again to people of any kind.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

I generally argue that the very concept of human nature is a social construct that is justifies and is dependent on the current relations of production. I then bring up examples, such as Aquinas's "proof" that feudalism was the only viable society and was ordained by god, the traditional justifications for slave empires such as those provided in Greece or in the American South. If none of these are convincing, I usually have to break Godwin's law and be like "Jews/Blacks/Gypsies are, by their very nature, inferior to the master Aryan race, and any theory that claims the contrary is idealistic and will never work in practice." These usually make them think abit.

After they have accepted this, I usually move on to go more in detail about the use of human nature to repeatedly justify oppression etc. I also sometimes argue (if it is an ethical egoist of some sort) that it is communism that can best satisfy human greed (the arguments in The Right to be Greedy are really helpful here).

Hope this helps!

[homegrown terror]

the evolution of the human mind encompasses a lot of changes to what was once simply "human nature." for instance, these days most "normal" people would not see someone smaller than themselves eating a burrito and instinctively walk up, beat them over the head and steal the burrito. the only people for whom communism will go against "human nature" are the ones who are too unevolved and "traditional" to really be a part of the human future anyway. we live for the promise of the future, not for memories of the past.

[Philosophos]

One of the most common anti-communist arguments I have heard is the claim that communism couldn't "work" because of intrinsic human nature. Basically the anti-communist argues that communism requires people to be altruistic and selfless in order to maintain equality. They then go on to claim that because of humans' survival instincts and natural self-interest that people will naturally desire more and their greed will lead them to exploit others. Basically they argue that communism is idealistic and that capitalism is the natural state of things.

Do you have any suggestions for responding to this "argument"?


Survival makes you an asshole but that's the only ocasion you can be one. Tell them that if someone is not on the verge of death then he won't exploit anyone (unless he means to). Have you seen lots of kids in countries that have for example war (a must survive situation) killing and exploiting everyone? Maybe yes but at the same time there are pictures of kids sharing food with other people even animals. It's in the human nature to take advantage of some people but it's also in the human nature to help others. Also WE ARE HUMANS WE CAN SUPPRESS OUR ENSTICTS. We are not animals. We don't aprove of rapes and we think the rapists are outcasts (sometimes even when they say they're sorry). Have you seen an animal protesting for the rights of the female that wants to have sex with whoever she wants?

How's capitalism the natural order of things? Is money something natural? No. It's something made up from humans so it will "help" us. How's capitalism natural? Is it in our nature to be exploited for getting paper that will provide us with food (I think it's easier if you just take the fucking apple right off the fucking apple tree). Capitalism uses propaganda all day long so it will make us obendient sheep. If it was alright it wouldn't do so. Why are the media being controled? Because everything is natural and they want to protect us from going to the unnatural side? Why the education systems around the globe suck? Is it because every single philosopher/great mind/genius that lived in this world was saying education is number one for human progress, coexistance and happiness?

Last but not least I want to say something about the whole "communism is utopian and can't take place for real". People never thought that they could travel to the moon. For lots of years they thought it was never going to occur, that it was a fairytale etc etc. Well when the scientists (scientists are humans in case they forget it because some of them think they're gods and they achieve what they achieve) gathered all together and said: "Hey, what if we can travel to moon?" THEY FUCKING BELIEVED IN IT AND THEY MADE IT. Nothing is impossible. It may take several years to make something happen but it doesn't mean that it can't happen. How the fuck can't communism work if everybody that participate in communism believe it can work?

[Red Nightmare]

Thanks, these are all good answers

[Q]

To quote my 2011 blogpost on the subject (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1654):


I'm not going to repeat others, but for the "human nature" argument I want to point out that it is also historically flawed. Capitalism has only existed for the last few centuries. Class society only dates back about 10 000 years. Human existence - that is, our specific species, Homo Sapiens - dates back to about 100 000 years. There is a large body of evidense that during about 90% of our existence we lived in a classless society. Marxists refer to this age as "primitive communism". In fact, the Radical Anthropology Group (http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/new/RAG.html), among others, is defending the idea that human existence itself is actually due to the overthrow of the alpha-male system that is seen in other primates, like gorillas. In other words, historically speaking, humanity is a revolutionary species that has lived in a communist social order most of its existence.

Let those silly capitalists answer that!

[Rafiq]

the evolution of the human mind encompasses a lot of changes to what was once simply "human nature." for instance, these days most "normal" people would not see someone smaller than themselves eating a burrito and instinctively walk up, beat them over the head and steal the burrito. the only people for whom communism will go against "human nature" are the ones who are too unevolved and "traditional" to really be a part of the human future anyway. we live for the promise of the future, not for memories of the past.

unevolved?

anyway, human nature today does exist. however, it developed as a reflection of capitalist relations, not the other way around. only through class struggle and the dialectically opposed interests of the proletariat can the human nature of today be shattered.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Blake's Baby]

We spent several million years being communists - which was apparently against our nature. Good job we learned what our nature was just in time to justify the very recent development of class society (in the last 6000 years or so)!

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Human nature has no reality.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Humans evolved as pack animals. The atomized, competitive, destructive nature of capitalist society is not exactly "natural." What most of these people who make the argument really mean is (though they don't know it): "As things currently stand, one reasonable response is to be highly acquisitive and competitive."

What is termed, "human nature," has changed over time. It would be difficult for one of us to have a conversation with a peasant from, say, central europe who lived 500 years ago. Our sense of self, view of the world and our view of human relationships would be so different that even if we could speak the same language, there would be a great deal of confusion. Ideas about "love," "family," and what is important were all changed drastically by the rise of capitalism.

Final thought -- that which is considered normative behavior in a capitalist society would be considered sociopathic in a socialist one.

[goalkeeper]

existence precedes essence

[Blake's Baby]

...
What is termed, "human nature," has changed over time. It would be difficult for one of us to have a conversation with a peasant from, say, central europe who lived 500 years ago...

This is so very very true.

In the Middle Ages, there were three 'orders' of people according to Aelfric (AD955-1020), an abbot, scholar and philosopher of Anglo-Saxon England; the same scheme may actually pre-date him, being found it seems in a note to the English translation (sponsored by King Alfred) of Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy. These orders were: Oratores, “those who pray”; Bellatores, “those who fight”; Laboratores, “those who work” -

"...Laboratores are those who labor for our living;
Oratores are those who plead for our peace with God;
Bellatores are those who battle to protect our towns
and defend our land against an invading army.
Now the farmer works to provide our food,
And the worldly warrior must fight against our foes,
and the servant of God must always pray for us
and fight spiritually against invisible foes..."

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/middleages/topic_1/aelfric.htm

The same idea is expressed in slightly different words by Bishop Adalbero of Laon and Gerard of Cambrai, both from the early 11th century http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture23b.html

I think it relates to Greek ideas of distinctions between 'reason, spirit and appetite'. In the medieval scheme, the Oratores represent reason, the Bellatores spirit (courage and energy) and the Laboratores appetite.

There wasn't an order of "those who own property but have others to work for them" or even "those who buy and sell". So the medieval world wouldn't have recognised the 'human nature' of today. Instead, it foolishly had its own view that supported its own social structure. Odd that, don't you think?

[Internal_Strife]

The people who make this argument make the error of assuming that human nature is something that is fixed and set in stone. It's not; rather, it conforms to the person's socioeconomic environment that they are a part of. Someone who is a part of capitalist society will most likely internalize the dominant values that this society upholds (like greed), while in a communist society, the things that are valued by the bourgeoisie will no longer remain as the dominant values of society, as the bourgeoisie will have been vanquished as the ruling class, and as the ruling class has been vanquished so too will be the hegemony that their ideals have carried over society. And when people's values change so too will their actions.

In place of bourgeois values in communism the dominant values of society will be cooperation, real democracy, etc., as people will see what is happening around them (as these are necessary features of communism that need to exist in order for the system to be able to come into existence in the first place) and shall instill these values into themselves.

[Narodnik]

There is no fixed human nature.

[I'm not scum]

I believe that capitalism is mostly human nature, but as humans rise above other animals, can we not rise above our primitive instincts? I say communism is beyond what normal animals and even other, weaker willed and minded people. So communists are truly better minded people. This is not to say that we should treat capitalists as idiots, rather people that have not reached their full potential, and we must help them get there.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

I believe that capitalism is mostly human nature, but as humans rise above other animals, can we not rise above our primitive instincts? I say communism is beyond what normal animals and even other, weaker willed and minded people. So communists are truly better minded people. This is not to say that we should treat capitalists as idiots, rather people that have not reached their full potential, and we must help them get there. I dont know where you base this notion of communist being unnatural on. As marx pointed out the first human societies were very much like communism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism. After this hierarchy set in and up till now this hierarchy was perpetuated by there not actually being enough products to be consumed by everyone. However because of technological development it has now become possible to build communism where everyone can fulfill in their needs, hierarchy and capitalism has no place anymore. Capitalism is not a primitive instinct, just like feudalism and tribalism were not primitive instincts, they were products of the material state the world finds itself in. Capitalism is the product of a technological impetus and the colonization of the america's and integrating european markets with asia. This destroyed the reactionary nobility set in their inefficient ways of producing goods. Just like this, by showing that communism is the more efficient way of of living, we will go to the next stage. It has nothing to do with instincts or human nature.

[General Winter]

Marx also pointed that all history is but a continuous transformation of human nature. The unchanged human nature is a myth.

[Antiochus]

Incest is "human nature". There is no human nature because humans aren't animals that are bound to an ecological niche. Incest was a perfectly acceptable means of sexually reproducing feudal social relations. But now its "taboo". Now of course your average naturalist would throw in a phrase like "Humans are naturally opposed to incest because of the accumulation of genetic mutations!". But this is simply not true. One would have to explain the thousands of years humans fucked each other's sisters/brothers/, especially within the blood-bound nobility.

This holds true for literally hundreds of "backwards" behavior such as wife-beating, rape, slavery, child-abuse, misogyny, homophobia and so on. Humans aren't "naturally" averse to any of these.

[contracycle]

Cobblers; there is no "thousands of years". Hunter-gatherer societies were not merely isolated bands with no contact with outsiders, they would meet up with other groups and out-marry.

Fun fact: killer whales out-marry too.