"human nature" argument

[Redempption]

So, a few days ago I had some arguments about left ideologies (socialism, communism and anarchism) and something that I notice is that many people who are against it use the argument that, even if the theory looks good on paper, the so called "human nature" (in other words greed and idividualism) make them impossible. Because of that I ask you, what kind of book, argument or scientific proof I can use against it?

[Thirsty Crow]

So, a few days ago I had some arguments about left ideologies (socialism, communism and anarchism) and something that I notice is that many people who are against it use the argument that, even if the theory looks good on paper, the so called "human nature" (in other words greed and idividualism) make them impossible. Because of that I ask you, what kind of book, argument or scientific proof I can use against it?
People are "naturally" greedy and co-operative. So what?

Really, this kind of a framework enables one to isolate one specific kind of behavior or a psychological trait and generalize it so it appears as an immutable constant that is an absolute barrier to social change. Needless to say, this is a kind of a myth, based on a specific, ideologically charged interpretation of scientific theory, not the theory itself. Then, it's quite fair to say, where's the evidence?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

They say: "Human nature!"

You say: "Yes, it is good that after thousands of years living in sustainable, and more-or-less egalitarian societies that we finally realized that our fixed and immutable nature was in fact greedy and individualistic, and built states. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go murder my family for the insurance money."

[cyu]

Excerpts from http://www.revleft.com/vb/proving-humans-act-t180376/index.html

humans working together and helping each other has always been the norm, not the exception. a communist future would simply be the application of this on a much larger scale; by cooperating in the interests of humanity we all benefit rather than the 'self-interest' of capitalism where most of us get a race to the bottom in terms of wages, health care, food and everything else while a tiny minority live beyond opulence.

In modern times, well, a construction company works together to build a skyscraper; they couldn't accomplish that if they did not work together. Like the above poster said, altruism isn't required for people to work together toward a goal, and it's really naive on your opponent's part to try to reduce all human action to either selfishness or altruism, anyway.

I wouldn't say it's human nature any more than being born to speak English is human nature. English is taught - and if you were born in another country, you may be speaking a different language. there is a reason that cooperation is taught, just like language is taught. The reason is that cooperation allows humans to survive much better than if it wasn't taught (in fact, language itself is a tool used for cooperation). Without cooperation, we wouldn't have computers, electricity, anti-biotics, cooked meals, clean drinking water. Not only that, without cooperation, we wouldn't even be taught that murder is "wrong".

i personally consider it a misleading debate. Whether human nature is altruistic or selfish, capitalism is injustice and slavery. supporting something because it is human nature, is plain stupid. We have logic for the sole purpose of surpassing our "natural" weaknesses.

[ArrowLance]

You should also take notice of their 'perfect on paper' statements, since they obviously have no clue what socialism/communism even is on paper.

[Spruce]

If humans were all greedy or selfish by nature, we wouldn't have to be told so, we would already know it!

[Decolonize The Left]

So, a few days ago I had some arguments about left ideologies (socialism, communism and anarchism) and something that I notice is that many people who are against it use the argument that, even if the theory looks good on paper, the so called "human nature" (in other words greed and idividualism) make them impossible. Because of that I ask you, what kind of book, argument or scientific proof I can use against it?

The argument needed is the argument against human nature as a whole. Human nature is non-existent, it is a misleading term. In order to argue for human nature one would need to explain when humans actually became humans and ceased to be non-humans because at that time there would have been some difference between humans and animals, hence human nature (and not animal nature). No one can tell you when that time was because that time doesn't exist.

People appeal to human nature when they have no other rational arguments. This is why all religious arguments stem from some notion of human nature (such as original sin). So in order to deal with these people and their arguments you need to remove the notion of human nature from the table. What we are looking at is what's best for people - for us, as workers.

[Thirsty Crow]

The argument needed is the argument against human nature as a whole. Human nature is non-existent, it is a misleading term. In order to argue for human nature one would need to explain when humans actually became humans and ceased to be non-humans because at that time there would have been some difference between humans and animals, hence human nature (and not animal nature). No one can tell you when that time was because that time doesn't exist.

So the taxonomy use in biology, and the notion of the species of homo sapiens sapiens, is only an ideologically induced illusion with no basis in actual reality?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So the taxonomy use in biology, and the notion of the species of homo sapiens sapiens, is only an ideologically induced illusion with no basis in actual reality?

How does that follow? "Human nature" is not a biological concept but a political, even theological one - it selects a small subset of human behaviour as "natural", and everything else, depending on the intent, as "impossible", "unnatural", "deviant" and so on.

[Thirsty Crow]

How does that follow? "Human nature" is not a biological concept but a political, even theological one - it selects a small subset of human behaviour as "natural", and everything else, depending on the intent, as "impossible", "unnatural", "deviant" and so on.
That follows from the fact that the concept can indeed be wrested from its theological and political "variants" and uses. Of course, I fully agree with what you say about selection (my argument in the above post precisely), but that doesn't mean that posing the question of the kind of natural specificity of mankind, and even drawing out its methodological, sociological, and political implications (something that for instance I believe Marx does with the notion of species being), should be discouraged.

[Fourth Internationalist]

(I think that there should be a sticky thread for human nature, quick access for newbies and quests)

I think most of the people above me have really summed it up quite well. What we really need to do is get these arguments out there. All these misinformations are being put out by the powerful, multi million dollar media, which is something we don't have an equivalent "counter-attack" of.

[RedMaterialist]

So, a few days ago I had some arguments about left ideologies (socialism, communism and anarchism) and something that I notice is that many people who are against it use the argument that, even if the theory looks good on paper, the so called "human nature" (in other words greed and idividualism) make them impossible. Because of that I ask you, what kind of book, argument or scientific proof I can use against it?

The original human economy was the "gift economy." It was used for hundreds of thousands of years long before barter was even used. There is even a commonly used term from that period: the potluck dinner. Native Americans used the word "potlatch." The custom was apparently still used in medieval Europe and we still see it today in the church potluck. Only with the introduction of private ownership of slaves (even slaves were owned by the community) and land was greed and individualism introduced.

Greed as human nature. Does anyone teach their children to develop their greediness? Modern capitalist society does, however, teach its citizens that they should be greedy and individualistic, or that they should revere those people who have attained great wealth through their greed. So, on the one hand, you have children learning at a very young age not to be greedy and then on the other hand, when they reach their 20s they are taught that greed is the highest and most moral characteristic of economic men and women.

As far as sources, you might google "potlatch, potluck, gift economy." I think a lot of those sources explain the gift economy as a redistribution of wealth or property. If greed was "human nature" a gift economy could not have developed. Capitalism is certainly based on greed, but this does not mean that capitalism is based on human nature, instead it is based on a certain type of perverted human nature, at least in my opinion.

[George Hill]

"Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name!" - Emma Goldman.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I can recommend you all Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid". Forget that he is an anarchist for a while. This is a book every leftist should read.

It shows that, first in nature, than to Savages, Barbarians, Serfdom in the city-states and to modern times, that mutual aid has always been the main factor in society and egoism only occured rarely.
Even between two different tribes, savages already had a good understanding and mutual help.

In the book he also explains that Darwins "survival of the fittest" should be taken as wide as possibly can.
"The fittest" is not always the one who is strongest, smartest or biggest, but mostly the one most adepted to social behaviour. Strength in numbers so to say. It was never meant to be about the individual. We see that in the animal kingdom too. The number of species living isolated is only marginal to the number of species living in societies.

Darwin tried to ecplain that in his "Descent of Man", but the old idea had already gotten so strong.

So to say that greed an dishonesty is "human nature" (even if such might even exist), is just completely wrong.

[Decolonize The Left]

So the taxonomy use in biology, and the notion of the species of homo sapiens sapiens, is only an ideologically induced illusion with no basis in actual reality?

Not equivalent. Biological differences between species aren't what is meant by "human nature." Human nature is not a scientific term; if it were, it would be equally as nonsensical as the nature of humans is drawn from their monkey ancestors which is drawn from their ancestors, etc... all the way back to single-celled organisms.


That follows from the fact that the concept can indeed be wrested from its theological and political "variants" and uses. Of course, I fully agree with what you say about selection (my argument in the above post precisely), but that doesn't mean that posing the question of the kind of natural specificity of mankind, and even drawing out its methodological, sociological, and political implications (something that for instance I believe Marx does with the notion of species being), should be discouraged.

What is "mankind?" Other than our animal bodies what do you mean by this? Almost certainly you mean "people," or, "ourselves." But here you run into a host of philosophical problems. This is why "human nature" is a worthless concept: it is dependent upon fundamental assumptions which are unsupported and hence it's derivative theories carry these same tendencies towards theoretical rambling and ideological bankruptcy.

[Thirsty Crow]

Not equivalent. Biological differences between species aren't what is meant by "human nature."
Yes, that is true.
Though, what I'm aiming at is that a wholesale repudiation of the term might not be useful. In other words, it might be a good idea to draw out the specificity of the species, but okay, this term is not absolutely necessary here.



Human nature is not a scientific term; if it were, it would be equally as nonsensical as the nature of humans is drawn from their monkey ancestors which is drawn from their ancestors, etc... all the way back to single-celled organisms.
The point is not to draw out what is common to all of the above, but the specificity, the distinguishing characteristics. I believe this might be useful in combating the ideological manipulations of evolutionary biology (in short, social darwinism).



What is "mankind?" Other than our animal bodies what do you mean by this? Almost certainly you mean "people," or, "ourselves." But here you run into a host of philosophical problems. Well, I mean homo sapiens sapiens. Man-kind, man-species.

What philosophical problems do you have in mind?


This is why "human nature" is a worthless concept: it is dependent upon fundamental assumptions which are unsupported and hence it's derivative theories carry these same tendencies towards theoretical rambling and ideological bankruptcy.Yes, I agree, all too often these unsupported, fundamental assumptions do their work. However, I'm arguing for an opposite view, which would amount to a substantiation through evidence and logical coherency and consistency of a view that situates the specificity of the species.

[Orange Juche]

The self indulgent narcissism we see is a product of first world culture, not human nature. They try to exploit our innate nature of need (we need food, rest, etc), by truly implanting the idea of product x or y or whatever else into that - we are brainwashed into believing we need *stuff*. That produces a narcissistic, greedy culture.

If you look at Native Americans, or any small-scale egalitarian societies that naturally formed, "human nature" starts to look a whole lot different.

[IllumiNaughty]

Human Nature is the dumbest "argument" for capitalism Ive ever heard. Its just lazy thinking and pseudo-science. Humans have free will and make conscious choices every second of the day. As humans, we are aware of ourselves and not slaves to our impulses and desires. Edit: So my point is that most people are well-meaning. just because of a few people (capitalists in this case )do fucked up shit in a system designed to survive off greed, doesnt mean most of humanity is the same way. Just as many good people gave their lives to make the world a better place as there are selfish assholes who only take advantage.

[Orange Juche]

Human Nature is the dumbest "argument" for capitalism Ive ever heard. Its just lazy thinking and pseudo-science.

It's honestly meant to be nothing more than one of those "conversation win" statements. Kind of like how if someone says "first amendment" it's (typically) a conversation ender (because you can't argue with the almighty "free speech"), or if someone says "politically correct crowd/police" it's supposed to invalidate your argument and make you look overbearing while they look like the "reasonable" one who is being stampeded on by the overwhelming "pc crowd".

In short, using "human nature" is intended as a conversation ender technique. It's bullshit, and it takes about five seconds of analyzing to figure out it's bullshit.

[Decolonize The Left]

The point is not to draw out what is common to all of the above, but the specificity, the distinguishing characteristics. I believe this might be useful in combating the ideological manipulations of evolutionary biology (in short, social darwinism).

Fair, but odd. In brief, my problem is with the word "nature" as this implies a static time and existence; the term itself seems to run contrary to the notion of evolution by natural selection which is in constant flux.

Furthermore, wouldn't the only specific characteristic be the size of our brains and subsequently the development and use of language? In general, this is how I differentiate people (or, "selves") from animals (babies included in the latter).


What philosophical problems do you have in mind?

What makes a person a person? Is there such a thing as a self? What is identity? Etc...


Yes, I agree, all too often these unsupported, fundamental assumptions do their work. However, I'm arguing for an opposite view, which would amount to a substantiation through evidence and logical coherency and consistency of a view that situates the specificity of the species.

Very well, I have no real problems with this other than what I just outlined in this post; would you like to take a stab at it here?

[Thirsty Crow]

Fair, but odd.What exactly about it is odd, in your opinion?


In brief, my problem is with the word "nature" as this implies a static time and existence; the term itself seems to run contrary to the notion of evolution by natural selection which is in constant flux.Yeah, I get it. The term itself, however, is a secondary issue here, it can be changed.



Furthermore, wouldn't the only specific characteristic be the size of our brains and subsequently the development and use of language? In general, this is how I differentiate people (or, "selves") from animals (babies included in the latter).Yes, I agree, but I think you're leaving out one other thing, the specificity of human production (which is inseparable from what you say, language, but is another side, aspect of the problem).


What makes a person a person? Is there such a thing as a self? What is identity? Etc...
I think all of these are false philosophical problems.



Very well, I have no real problems with this other than wmy at I just outlined in this post; would you like to take a stab at it here?I don't know about that. There are two reasons:

1) effective hijacking of the thread :D

2) my opinions are tentative, provisional - unfortunately, I didn't and do not have enough time to read all of the relevant studies and works. But sure, I can offer my own view, maybe better in another thread.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes, I agree, but I think you're leaving out one other thing, the specificity of human production (which is inseparable from what you say, language, but is another side, aspect of the problem).

I can see that you were learning towards this, but doesn't human production rely upon language? And if so, then why wouldn't language be the issue of importance?


I think all of these are false philosophical problems.

How? Do you mean in a Wittgenstein sense?


I don't know about that. There are two reasons:

1) effective hijacking of the thread :D

2) my opinions are tentative, provisional - unfortunately, I didn't and do not have enough time to read all of the relevant studies and works. But sure, I can offer my own view, maybe better in another thread.

Well, the OP hasn't posted again since the start of the thread and I think this issue is of importance to the notion of "human nature" as we are attempting to reshape it, in a sense. So I'm not sure how off-topic it is (hijacking). I say go for it. It's it's truly off-basis a BA member can split it.

[Thirsty Crow]

I can see that you were learning towards this, but doesn't human production rely upon language? And if so, then why wouldn't language be the issue of importance?
Yes, this is precisely my point, and it is an issue of importance.



How? Do you mean in a Wittgenstein sense?Yes.


Well, the OP hasn't posted again since the start of the thread and I think this issue is of importance to the notion of "human nature" as we are attempting to reshape it, in a sense. So I'm not sure how off-topic it is (hijacking). I say go for it. It's it's truly off-basis a BA member can split it.Okay. Though, I'm not sure where to start :lol:

[the debater]

So, a few days ago I had some arguments about left ideologies (socialism, communism and anarchism) and something that I notice is that many people who are against it use the argument that, even if the theory looks good on paper, the so called "human nature" (in other words greed and idividualism) make them impossible. Because of that I ask you, what kind of book, argument or scientific proof I can use against it?

Those people probably imagine communism as a system where merit pay doesn't exist, and no workers are held accountable for their laziness. If that's the case, I personally would respond by saying that a socialist economy does not have to be ruled by a dictatorial government, but rather, said socialist economy could be overlooked by a democracy instead. This would solve any problems involving lazy unaccountable workers in a socialist economy. If you're the head of a public company and you don't do your job well, boom, you get voted out of your post, and a politician will find a replacement for you. And don't forget that capitalism usually relies on competition for there to be low, affordable prices for consumers. This is not a good idea for motivating people because companies may have to engage in unethical behavior to cut their costs and to make more money than their competitors. Besides, if people say that communism/socialism can't work because people aren't moral enough, well, that kindof strikes me as being a defeatist argument, depending on what context it's used in. Humans are generally imperfect individuals morally, but that doesn't mean we should just throw in the towel and give up when it comes to tackling immorality and injustice.

I guess ultimately, it comes down to whether companies are more concerned about making quality products and not screwing the workers or the environment, or whether they're just concerned about making money.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes, this is precisely my point, and it is an issue of importance.

Okay. Though, I'm not sure where to start :lol:

Well, I said:

This is why "human nature" is a worthless concept: it is dependent upon fundamental assumptions which are unsupported and hence it's derivative theories carry these same tendencies towards theoretical rambling and ideological bankruptcy.
To which you replied:

Yes, I agree, all too often these unsupported, fundamental assumptions do their work. However, I'm arguing for an opposite view, which would amount to a substantiation through evidence and logical coherency and consistency of a view that situates the specificity of the species.

So what we're looking to discuss and expand upon is what is the situation of the specificity of the species. Thus far we have reached the issue of language and how it leads to labor.

[blake 3:17]

I think one of the worst errors made by the revolutionary Left is the denial of human nature.

[Decolonize The Left]

I think one of the worst errors made by the revolutionary Left is the denial of human nature.

I'm interested. What do you think "human nature" is? And how do you substantiate this claim?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I think human nature is that we are able to adapt to our enivironment. We live in a selfish and greedy world, so we get selfish and greedy. This is not something we were always, as i've said before, but something we gradually "evolved" into. Let's hope we can evolve back.

[Althusser]

There is no inherent human nature. People are a reflection of their material conditions and their relationship to the means of production. The bourgeoisie, being the ruling class, has ideological hegemony. Therefore the principals of their system are the principals that are reproduced into the masses by use of physical force (the repressive state apparatus: Cops, courts, military) and the use of ideology (the ideological state apparatus: our schools where we receive a bourgeois education, our media, our own families even help reproduce the ideology of the oppressor as it was instilled in them)

Everything from history to what concepts we would call "common sense" are tainted by the ideology of the ruling class.

[edwad]

it's strange how often we are told that humans are both naturally competitive AND lazy. when it boils down to it, the human nature argument kinda cancels itself out.

[Red Economist]

I notice is that many people who are against it use the argument that, even if the theory looks good on paper, the so called "human nature" (in other words greed and individualism) make them impossible.

The 'human nature' argument is a central part of liberal political theory, but is usually unwritten.

Philosophically speaking, 'human nature' is a kind of original cause or motive force which sets in motion human society. A few centuries back the idea of human nature and natural law/rights was closely associated with the belief in god. In many ways therefore, the conception of human nature is liberal belief in a metaphysical but secular 'soul'.

Hence, "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights"; the act of creation not only explain the origins of man, but the origins of his rights; god didn't just create the natural world, but the natural order of society.

Consequently, if someone use the 'human nature' argument, they have essentially run out of 'rational' arguments and are now drawing on faith in a concept of the nature of reality. In a debate therefore you will almost never get past this point because of how fundamental the 'human nature' argument is to a person's conception of society.

The argument is that the properties of human nature define the 'natural' kind of society. So by redefining human nature, you re-define what kind of society is possible; So early on socialists argued that human nature was altruistic not selfish, social not individualistic.

However, the concept of human nature is essentially ahistorical and does not take into account social change. someone can argue there are 'variations' on human nature, but this is essentially leads to the conception of human nature as being driven by spontaneous and irrational changes in the human psyche (because what causes it?).

Human nature is based on assuming that the moral nature of man is objective and independent of the will of an individual. Hence the character of a society is also independent of the will of an individual. So when someone says, socialism can't work because of human nature, they saying that some underlying law of nature will contradict it.

By identifying the changes in human society, you can begin to argue that human nature itself can be changed. This however requires us to identify some underlying causes in these changes, so that we can say they are predictable. For Marx, this was a broadly 'economic' determination of man's social relations (i.e. he replaced human nature with the productive process).

Marx's thought process was however dialectical, not 'mechanical'. what this means is that where as mechanical motion understands how self-contained 'atoms' interact by external change (and therefore requires an original cause to get them moving), 'dialectical' thought would argue internal change by internal contradictions. In terms of society individuals (social atoms) interact externally, and need an original cause (human nature/natural law/god) to get them moving. Economics can therefore take on the role of an 'original cause' as a way of substituting the human nature argument; Spotting the difference between 'economic determinism' and Marxism is a major philosophical problem in itself and gets many Marxists head in a spin.


Because of that I ask you, what kind of book, argument or scientific proof I can use against it?

The major problem is that you can't employ an entirely 'scientific proof' against the human nature argument. By all means, you can throw a huge amount of data at someone else, but unless they are already receptive to the idea, you probably won't get anywhere. For this purpose, a general knowledge of social psychology is fairly useful (because it has always been a center of left-wing thought since it's inception and begins by assuming man is social, not individual).
Science tests individual hypothesis, but rests on certain philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality as a way of defining what can and can't be tested. The concept of human nature defines the 'reality' of human social relations (several centuries of thought means we've gone from "what is the natural social/moral order?" to "what kind of society is realistic?").

Mark Fisher in Capitalism Realism [worth a look!] makes the argument that capitalist social relations are presented as the only 'real' social relations; that they are objective to the will of man and the individual (and consequently, you end up arguing that society doesn't change). What he forgot to mention is that this is part of the scientific realism of our society (what began as 'natural philosophy' became 'natural science' by dropping the uncertainty and discussions surrounding the nature of reality and it's laws).

The best idea is just to see how far the concept of 'human nature' affects your own ideas and the better you understand the contradictions in your own thought (we all have them!) the better you'll get at spotting the contradictions in someone else's arguments.

So in general, you can argue someone to a standstill, and you can maybe persuade them that you are telling them something they already believe and hold the ideas they already hold. But they will reach their own conclusions on human nature in their own experience on this one.

[bcbm]

it's strange how often we are told that humans are both naturally competitive AND lazy. when it boils down to it, the human nature argument kinda cancels itself out.

these two things don't cancel each other out, their reality just doesn't mean what proponents of reactionary 'human nature' think it means

[hashem]

"human nature" argument is mostly based on 2 points:

1- humans like property.
2- humans like wealth.

but answer is simple: if humans like property and wealth, then why a small minority monopolises them?

other arguments which are usually repeated by religious people, claim that humans believe in god or a life after death by their nature. but history has known many primitive human societies which were non religious.

[Comrade Jacob]

What they forget is that greed is only "part of our nature" because of our surroundings, we do on some basic level have greed in us. We have it because it is necessary for our survival, however place humanity in a society where greed isn't a benefit but in fact a damage to survival (which for the most part is anyway) and they will no longer be greedy. They say humanity is the way it is because of our past societies but it's future is also that, which one it is is up to us. Greed and selfishness or compassion and cooperation.
This turns the argument on it's head, they except that we evolved but seem to forget that we are still evolving. This is of course an argument you'll use if you agree with the premise that humans are natural selfish arse-holes.
(Which has already been shown to be bullshit in a study I hope somebody links for me).

But other than that argument you can just say that people are only greedy because they need to be to survive, take that necessity for the being greedy and we won't act greedy, it's capitalism that makes us greedy because it's a system where you CAN'T survive without it. It is more so the system that breed greed more than human nature.
I hope my ramblings make sense.

[bluemangroup]

So, a few days ago I had some arguments about left ideologies (socialism, communism and anarchism) and something that I notice is that many people who are against it use the argument that, even if the theory looks good on paper, the so called "human nature" (in other words greed and individualism) make them impossible. Because of that I ask you, what kind of book, argument or scientific proof I can use against it?

As an answer to the OP's initial question I'd first of all say that as far as anti-communist "arguments" go, the so-called human nature argument is easily debunked. (having seen this argument used time and time again from non-Marxists, its become easy to spot and to demolish IMHO)

William Hinton once said in his book Fanshen that the human consciousness was like an artichoke; the layers had to be peeled back as the human consciousness changed to reflect new circumstances.

I'm paraphrasing from memory without the book in my hand, but his basic assertion throughout the book (and the basic assertion of many Marxists past and present) is that human nature can be-and was-changed in China due to the experience of the agrarian revolution.

Prior to the 1949 Chinese Revolution, village society was primarily male-dominated (rural Chinese society having been particularly rigid and conservative), which was furthermore (re)enforced by the landed gentry's system of village rule (village administration prior to the revolution was notoriously corrupt and blatantly in favor of the land owners and the rich peasantry, as was the village militia and of course the Nationalist government)

The revolution in northern China (which was being waged before the second United Front and after the surrender of Japan in 1945, the civil war having continued in 1946) swept aside the old forms of rule; gone were the land owner-dominated village administration and in its place was the popularly-elected peasants' assemblies. The village militia was replaced by a popular militia drawing its ranks from the poor and landless peasantry. Women's Associations tore away at the male-dominated society. Women were allotted their own housing and farmland, and even worked as elected officials in the a few select Peasants' Assemblies

These radical, revolutionary measures changed the way people thought from a cultural, political, and/or economic point-of-view.

For example, there was in 1950 the New Marriage Law which freed women from forced arranged marriages. Before that there were the communist party laws on land reform, which swept aside in a few short paragraphs the 'semi-feudal' conditions which had hitherto prevailed in China.

Human nature changes as material conditions change, as the political-economical superstructure is replaced and/or changes.

The same can be said of the Soviet Union in the 1920's, or American society after the U.S. Civil War.

Human nature is not fixed, and never has been. greed and individualism are consequences of the present capitalist society, and will be swept aside by an incoming socialism.

Hoped that helped. :)

[AsozialerKommunist]

I guess when people talk about "human nature", they mostly mean, that human is an egoist. But maybe the communist society supports egoism? In this society every human/ egoist is allowed to take according to its needs, he is able to satisfy its desires. In capitalism, most people are not able to fulfil oneself, it does not support the "human nature".

[cyu]

http://www.psmag.com/magazines/magazine-feature-story-magazines/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/

Henrich used a “game”—along the lines of the famous prisoner’s dilemma—to see whether isolated cultures shared with the West the same basic instinct for fairness. Henrich expected to confirm one of the foundational assumptions underlying such experiments: that humans all share the same cognitive machinery—the same evolved rational and psychological hardwiring.

North Americans, who are the most common subjects for such experiments, usually offer a 50-50 split. When on the receiving end, they show an eagerness to punish the other player for uneven splits at their own expense. In short, Americans show the tendency to be equitable with strangers—and to punish those who are not.

if differences could be measured across other populations, this assumption of universality would have to be challenged. What other certainties about “human nature” in social science research would need to be reconsidered when tested across diverse populations?

in some societies—ones where gift-giving is heavily used to curry favor or gain allegiance—the first player would often make overly generous offers in excess of 60 percent, and the second player would often reject them, behaviors almost never observed among Americans.

they began to find research suggesting wide cultural differences almost everywhere they looked: in spatial reasoning, the way we infer the motivations of others, categorization, moral reasoning, the boundaries between the self and others, and other arenas. These differences, they believed, were not genetic.

The research the three were compiling suggested that the mind’s capacity to mold itself to cultural and environmental settings was far greater than had been assumed. The most interesting thing about cultures may be in the way they mold our most fundamental conscious and unconscious thinking and perception.

We shape a tool in a certain manner, adhere to a food taboo, or think about fairness in a particular way, not because we individually have figured out that behavior’s adaptive value, but because we instinctively trust our culture to show us the way.

the American mind strives to figure out the world by taking it apart and examining its pieces. Show a Japanese and an American the same cartoon of an aquarium, and the American will remember details mostly about the moving fish while the Japanese observer will likely later be able to describe the seaweed, the bubbles, and other objects in the background.

the culturally shaped analytic/individualistic mind-sets may partly explain why Western researchers have so dramatically failed to take into account the interplay between culture and cognition. the goal of boiling down human psychology to hardwiring is not surprising given the type of mind that has been designing the studies.

[Axiomasher]

So, a few days ago I had some arguments about left ideologies (socialism, communism and anarchism) and something that I notice is that many people who are against it use the argument that, even if the theory looks good on paper, the so called "human nature" (in other words greed and idividualism) make them impossible. Because of that I ask you, what kind of book, argument or scientific proof I can use against it?

Humans have evolved as social animals and 99% of our history as a species has seen us living as mutually supportive communities of hunter-gatherers. That's the science.

You should also be aware that arguments about humans being 'greedy' or 'selfish' are invariably normative, that is to say they assume human behaviour within capitalist society is human behaviour in any form of society - to this you can suggest that an animal in a cage inevitably behaves like an animal in a cage and that a society (such as capitalism) which rewards, demands even, selfishness and greed and punishes anything else, inevitably elicits just such behaviour.

[Comrade Jacob]

'Socialism can't work because of "human-nature"' ... 'Charity will work because people are naturally giving'. -An-caps

Human nature exists based on the material-conditions, this has been proven by scientists. I don't believe in the 'man is fallen' bullshit.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

I think human nature is that we are able to adapt to our enivironment. We live in a selfish and greedy world, so we get selfish and greedy. This is not something we were always, as i've said before, but something we gradually "evolved" into. Let's hope we can evolve back.

WINNER!

Under capitalism those who are greedy rise to the top, under communism/socialism greed will get you nowhere and so it will fade away.

I find it particularly funny when I get referred to as cynical (particularly in my misanthropy) when in fact it is I that believe humans are capable of selflessness, and others who think humans are destined to live life as slaves to their innate greed.

The human nature argument is short-sighted in EVERY direction.