Human nature prevents pure communism?

[DoCt SPARTAN]

When I try to talk about how socialism is inevitable to revive the world from globalization, imperialism, and corruption etc. And it is not an evil system. My teacher and some of my capitalist friends say based of human nature their cant be pure communism or Marxism. How would a well-educated communist respond to this? thanks.

[Sinister Intents]

When I try to talk about how socialism is inevitable to revive the world from globalization, imperialism, and corruption etc. And it is not an evil system. My teacher and some of my capitalist friends say based of human nature their cant be pure communism or Marxism. How would a well-educated communist respond to this? thanks.

To combat the human nature argument I usually show how there is not a single defined human nature, and that throughout history the definition of human nation has changed over time, from culture to culture. I also bring up how there is no god to give us such a nature. I also use serial killers as an example to show that if this was human nature we would have killed ourselves off. Also feral children are a good example of human nature being invalid. I don't remember specific examples but feral children who are found often don't act the way we do at all and have adopted the actions of the creatures they observed or been around.

[Yuppie Grinder]

What the fuck would "Human nature" even mean? How is this an argument? The human nature argument is the same as the "good on paper, bad in reality" argument. People think it sounds nuanced and intelligent so they regurgitate it without knowing what they're talking about. It's a case of people knowing the right things to say to convince other people they're intelligent, without having to use any actual critical thinking.

[IBleedRed]

When I try to talk about how socialism is inevitable to revive the world from globalization, imperialism, and corruption etc. And it is not an evil system. My teacher and some of my capitalist friends say based of human nature their cant be pure communism or Marxism. How would a well-educated communist respond to this? thanks.

Point out that "human nature" is an ambiguous notion that is not fixed and eternal.

In the Middle Ages in Europe, the "natural order" involved God at the top, then the King, then the nobility, then the warriors, and then the serfs. Anything deviating from this was seen as an aberration, as something against human nature.

Our ideas about what is acceptable or not are vastly different (and in some ways inferior) to ideas in the past. Here's a good article from Stanford describing how open greed was seen differently in the Middle Ages:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/august/greed-middle-ages-080212.html

Capitalism has not been around forever. It is relatively new, and the relationships we have today are NOT the same we had a thousand years ago. So there has clearly been a change in "human nature". In addition, we are as likely to work together as we are to do anything else. Human nature involves cooperation. Remember, we are not advocating a world of selfless Mother Teresas. It is precisely out of self-interest that the worker should support socialism.

Edit: And another thing, this notion of "pure communism" is kinda silly, since there's no such thing as impure communism. These are probably the same people who think a mixed economy means reconciling socialism and capitalism when all it means is a mix of public and private sector.

[Zanthorus]

Without any elaboration of how the speaker conceptualises human nature in such a way as to make communism impossible this argument is about as interesting as claiming that the nature of indoor plumbing makes communism impossible.

However:


In this society of free competition, the individual appears detached from the natural bonds etc. which in earlier historical periods make him the accessory of a definite and limited human conglomerate. Smith and Ricardo still stand with both feet on the shoulders of the eighteenth-century prophets, in whose imaginations this eighteenth-century individual – the product on one side of the dissolution of the feudal forms of society, on the other side of the new forces of production developed since the sixteenth century – appears as an ideal, whose existence they project into the past. Not as a historic result but as history’s point of departure. As the Natural Individual appropriate to their notion of human nature, not arising historically, but posited by nature. This illusion has been common to each new epoch to this day.

[DoCt SPARTAN]

If I restated these remarks (which are all very good, thank you.) They would say "Then why hasn't communism ever worked?"

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

When I try to talk about how socialism is inevitable to revive the world from globalization, imperialism, and corruption etc. And it is not an evil system. My teacher and some of my capitalist friends say based of human nature their cant be pure communism or Marxism. How would a well-educated communist respond to this? thanks.

Well, for starters, the vast majority of people on earth lived in "pure communist" societies (varying from horticulturalist to hunter-gatherer) for most of humanity's history. This only really changed with the so-called "agricultural revolution" (or, more accurately, with various agricultural revolutions), and the advent of the centralized state premised on monocrop grain production (wheat, rice, maize depending on where we're talking about). Some effectively "agricultural" peoples, like the Haudenosaunee, were also effectively communist, so, then even, agriculture (and a "political culture") don't seem to make communism "impossible". Even then, we're talking about entire societies, let alone any number of smaller successful "utopian" experiments and experiences.

On a related note:
http://i.imgur.com/HSVDk9V.jpg

[Sinister Intents]

If I restated these remarks (which are all very good, thank you.) They would say "Then why hasn't communism ever worked?"

Bring up how humans lived in primitive communist societies, also read The Principles of Communism: link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm), Also show how communism hasn't been implemented in the world at all in the last thousand years, you still have 'primitive' (They're not primitive) communist societies in existence in certain tribes in different periods. Show how the DPRK, PRC, USSR, Cuba, VietNam, and other nations are state capitalist nations and not examples of communism. You could also bring up the Paris Commune, Makhno's Free Territory, Anarchist Catalonia, and other such places that socialism has been implemented but utterly destroyed by the forces ov capitalism.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Simple answer: "human nature" is the result of human conditions.

Done.

[ChrisK]

If I restated these remarks (which are all very good, thank you.) They would say "Then why hasn't communism ever worked?"

I would argue that it hasn't come about because those people who are in charge fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. These people have ownership of the means of production, institutions involved in conditioning (ie schools and media outlets) and attempt to force working people into apathy. When revolutions do occur they react with extreme violence and propaganda.

I would further point out that the French revolution was a capitalist revolution, whose failure was pointed to as a reason why the monarchy ought to continue ruling. It wasn't until the mid-twentieth century that the monarchy was politically destroyed. Just because it has not happened yet, does not mean that it will not happen.

[Philosophos]

tell them that the only thing that keeps communism sleeping is their thick heads. Humans can change their behavior ("nature") however the hell they want. For fucks sake we even defy the instinct of self-preservation the most powerful thing ever, can't they possibly believe that we can change our views/"nature" if communism would occur?

[Fourth Internationalist]

If I restated these remarks (which are all very good, thank you.) They would say "Then why hasn't communism ever worked?"

Other than Russia, which was created by a proletarian revolution but degenerated (why it degenerated has been written about a lot by people like Leon Trotsky), all other nominally socialist states were created by Stalinists crushing emerging proletarian revolutions and establishing their own state (China, for example) or leading to reactionary victory (in Spain during its Civil War). Simply, those attempts failed because they weren't able to even establish their own state (any action to genuinely do so was attacked and crushed), not because the Stalinist state was a genuinely socialist state that couldn't create a communist system due to "human nature."

[reb]

If I restated these remarks (which are all very good, thank you.) They would say "Then why hasn't communism ever worked?"

What the person you are arguing with is trying to say that humans are by nature greedy and as a result, would either lead back to capitalism or can not function without the compulsion of the state.

Communists aren't communists just because it is a "nice idea", some sort of theory handed down from high up. It is not a "nice idea", it is the objective result of the capitalist laws of motion. Marxism just helps illuminate these ongoing every day struggles, it doesn't create them.

The question as to whether communism will work because people are greedy is a totally bogus one. What does it matter if people are greedy? The whole point of the emancipation of the proletariat is because we are greedy and we want to live with the full spoils of the world. It also doesn't matter because labor, all labor, is social labor. Again, this associated labor is also one of the main reasons why communism is possible and an objective force in history. People would still have to take part in social labor to get anything made, unless they want to go live in the woods and starve to death.

[Ritzy Cat]

Also:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/20/science-overturns-view-of-humans-as-naturally-nasty/

[the debater]

In a way, maybe you could say that socialism is a response to the worst aspects of human nature, namely greed and oppression. And definitely make sure that you separate Marx from evil dictators like Stalin. Make sure you emphasize that Marx wasn't an evil person. Likewise, people who use the "human nature" argument against communism are probably saying we humans don't have the capacity to share our resources like proper socialists, and that we don't have the capacity to work together and overcome greed. To those people, simply tell them that they sound like defeatists, and that while difficult, we humans still have the capacity for improving our morals and overcoming our behavioral shortcomings. It's difficult, but not impossible. We have to fight for socialism, because capitalism is literally destroying the planet.

Another important thing you should emphasize is that socialism is compatible with libertarian views on gun rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, trials by juries, etc. Eliminate the misconceptions people have about communism/socialism. These are my two tips at the moment.

[the debater]

If there's an ideology that can't work due to human nature, it's capitalism.

[SovietCommie]

>>2708086 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-prevents-t186324/index.html?p=2708086)
>Implying that Stalin was evil
>ever

[Comrade #138672]

"Human nature" is a nonsensical idea, which is used to justify the current system by making it seem natural, eternal and inevitable, in order to destroy the idea that there is a way out of this mess (communism).

[G4b3n]

Humans are a product of their environment. Bourgeois society tells us that capital is our main priority, with humanity being somewhere lower on the list. As humans, we have the conscious capability to shape and change our environment, and to socialists, this means to destroy bourgeois property relations, i.e, the foundation of what is regarded as "human nature".

[DOOM]

It's funny how every anti-communist seems to understand human nature and talks about it, as if it was something static and completely explored:grin:

[celticnachos]

"Human nature" is the means to which humans adapt themselves to meet specific needs. This idea of human nature can be understood in terms of labor, what makes the human species unique is that we can produce without are physical needs compelling us to do so. We have the ability to shape the world for our own purposes sake, we produce universally.

Karl Marx wrties in his Economic and Physical Manuscripts of 1844,

"Through this production, nature appears as his work and his reality. The object of labor is, therefore, the objectification of man’s species-life: for he duplicates himself not only, as in consciousness, intellectually, but also actively, in reality, and therefore he sees himself in a world that he has created."

However, this objectification of man's species-life has been distorted to serve the purposes of capitalism. We see this with the enstranged labor imposed by capitalists, which takes away man's objects of production.

"In fact, the proposition that man’s species-nature is estranged from him means that one man is estranged from the other, as each of them is from man’s essential nature."

Historically the alientation has occurred with slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. Therefore we can conclusively derive that "human nature" directly serves the purposes of socialism and communism.

[Ocean Seal]

First human nature isn't a biological thing. It's learned. The accumulation of money into capital has only been around for a while, and before it was established it was seen as "going against human nature" by the church and nobility.

Second "pure communism" is pure crap, don't address matters in that way with such vague terms.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I would argue that "human nature" and the need to acquire resources are what cause the inherent contradiction in capitalism. The worker will always want better wages and working conditions while the capitalist will always want to cut wages and extend the work day to maximize profit. Therefore, there is a struggle between the classes that will be the driving force for change until capitalism is abolished. This "human nature" argument that capitalists love to throw around is actually the foundation of dialectical materialism (if by human nature you mean the want to acquire as many material needs as possible)

[reb]

"Human nature" is the means to which humans adapt themselves to meet specific needs. This idea of human nature can be understood in terms of labor, what makes the human species unique is that we can produce without are physical needs compelling us to do so. We have the ability to shape the world for our own purposes sake, we produce universally.

Karl Marx wrties in his Economic and Physical Manuscripts of 1844,

"Through this production, nature appears as his work and his reality. The object of labor is, therefore, the objectification of man’s species-life: for he duplicates himself not only, as in consciousness, intellectually, but also actively, in reality, and therefore he sees himself in a world that he has created."

However, this objectification of man's species-life has been distorted to serve the purposes of capitalism. We see this with the enstranged labor imposed by capitalists, which takes away man's objects of production.

"In fact, the proposition that man’s species-nature is estranged from him means that one man is estranged from the other, as each of them is from man’s essential nature."

Historically the alientation has occurred with slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. Therefore we can conclusively derive that "human nature" directly serves the purposes of socialism and communism.

A couple of things.


However, this objectification of man's species-life has been distorted to serve the purposes of capitalism. We see this with the enstranged labor imposed by capitalists, which takes away man's objects of production.
It hasn't been distorted by capitalists, it is the historical result of class society with the culmination being reached under capitalism, where alienated labor now confronts the producer and generalized commodity production has penetrated the inner cores of life.


Historically the alientation has occurred with slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. Therefore we can conclusively derive that "human nature" directly serves the purposes of socialism and communism.

Do you think that alienated labor was abolished under the places you think were socialist?

[RedMaterialist]

I would argue that "human nature" and the need to acquire resources are what cause the inherent contradiction in capitalism.

Well, human nature and the need to acquire resources have been around for about 200K years. The original human economy was what Marx called "primitive communism." I don't know if that is what you mean by pure communism, but the inherent contradictions in capitalism are probably more fundamental than just the need to eat.

[celticnachos]

A couple of things.

It hasn't been distorted by capitalists, it is the historical result of class society with the culmination being reached under capitalism, where alienated labor now confronts the producer and generalized commodity production has penetrated the inner cores of life.



Do you think that alienated labor was abolished under the places you think were socialist?

It comes down to your interpretation of Marx and alienated labor. In socialist states workers are not necessary selling their labor power for the benefit capitalists, as exploitation ceases to exist. Instead workers have sold their labor power for a wage determined by central planning, in a country where the ownership of the means of production are in the hands of a socialist state. (This method is only an example in one country.) In the Critique of the Gotha Programme Marx wasn't particularly interested in full labor value because of social necessities such as schools and safety of disabled. However, in interpreting alienated labor we can say that you have become alienated from your labor by making someone a sandwich. An interpretation of humanism to a dangerous point can lead us away from class analysis, this is evident in how it has destroyed many socialist movements.

[reb]

It comes down to your interpretation of Marx and alienated labor. In socialist states workers are not necessary selling their labor power for the benefit capitalists, as exploitation ceases to exist. Instead workers have sold their labor power for a wage determined by central planning, in a country where the ownership of the means of production are in the hands of a socialist state. (This method is only an example in one country.) In the Critique of the Gotha Programme Marx wasn't particularly interested in full labor value because of social necessities such as schools and safety of disabled. However, in interpreting alienated labor we can say that you have become alienated from your labor by making someone a sandwich. An interpretation of humanism to a dangerous point can lead us away from class analysis, this is evident in how it has destroyed many socialist movements.

So basically, you are giving me vague waffling in an attempt to throw people off from the fact that there was alienated labor in the USSR. You see no correlation with

"His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague. External labor, labor in which man alienates himself, is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification."

And the various ways in which labor was coerced in the soviet union in the face of dropping productivity levels? We are talking about class here and class struggle. The only class in capitalist society that suffers the most from alienated labor is the proletariat, whereas the bourgeois class finds itself at home in it. Alienation that results directly from wage-labor. This althusserian separation of a young Marx and a mature Marx was the result of a crisis in Leninism because it is plainly obvious that the worker in the soviet union was confronted by alienated labor and alienation on a massive scale, the same as that of any other capitalist country. The Grundrisse for example follows on from many of the points that Marx raised in the EPM.

[Octopus]

It's remarkable that the main argument against communism is usually the "good on paper, bad in reality..." one that was mentioned before. It's basically accepting that we ought to endorse communism, but cannot. If people realized how weak the argument that communism is impossible actually is, based upon a very misunderstood interpretation of evolution usually, then maybe we'd get somewhere.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

Human nature is and always will be what the structures that have come into being over the centuries have made it. One is always defined by the culture they are most familiar with.

However, there is such a thing as the human condition which is permanent in a way, given that certain prerequisites have been met.

The problem of the alleged human urge to behave in what is ultimately a selfish way, does bother me a bit though. As others have said, there is no 'one' human nature but i still have trouble ascribing that self serving behaviour to culture and structure alone. It seems to simple. After all, structures are caused by people responding and behaving within other structures. You can't keep tracing everything back endlessly, something/someone must have caused of the most primal structures.
What do you guys think?

ps: not referring to any deities or anything when i say "something/someone", I'm referring to people with certain ideas

[Axiomasher]

When I try to talk about how socialism is inevitable to revive the world from globalization, imperialism, and corruption etc. And it is not an evil system. My teacher and some of my capitalist friends say based of human nature their cant be pure communism or Marxism. How would a well-educated communist respond to this? thanks.

I think they are in danger of what is called 'question begging' by assuming that the behavioural demands of capitalist society represent some kind of neutral environment in which our 'natural' behaviours are used to judge any other circumstance. An animal in a cage (and humans are animals) will behave like an animal in a cage, likewise, a human in a capitalist society will behave in ways shaped by capitalism.

Another way to look at it is to suggest that when a society is so arranged to reward greed and selfishness and punish mutuality and equitability, human 'nature' will reflect such arrangements.

[Crabbensmasher]

Call them dirty licentious Hobbesians.

In reality though, I always end up drifting towards some sort of nature vs nurture argument. Things like selflessness and altruism are purely nurtured into people. That's where our capacity for empathy and sympathy comes from.

The fact that we are bipedals, or that we reason, however, is by nature. (Sorry for the bad example)

[IBleedRed]

I would like to stress the importance of staying away from the trap of promoting altruism and selflessness as if they are necessary foundations for socialism. Yes, human beings possess both the qualities of greed and altruism, and either one can motivate our actions, but remember that we are socialists precisely because it is in the self-interest of the worker to overthrow capitalism and construct socialism.

i.e. it's precisely because "we're greedy" (although that's an overly simplistic statement) that we ought to support socialism. We, the "99%", if you will, are greedy and we're sick and tired of living in a world where a handful of people are consuming all the wealth we've created.

[Axiomasher]

I would like to stress the importance of staying away from the trap of promoting altruism and selflessness as if they are necessary foundations for socialism. Yes, human beings possess both the qualities of greed and altruism, and either one can motivate our actions, but remember that we are socialists precisely because it is in the self-interest of the worker to overthrow capitalism and construct socialism.

i.e. it's precisely because "we're greedy" (although that's an overly simplistic statement) that we ought to support socialism. We, the "99%", if you will, are greedy and we're sick and tired of living in a world where a handful of people are consuming all the wealth we've created.

But wanting the just rewards of our labours, or the reversal of our alienation from such labours, doesn't really make us greedy; 'greed' usually implies an unreasonable selfishness. Yes, humans are orientated to self-interest but they are also orientated to accomplish that self-interest through mutuality, at least our long evolution as socially co-operative animals suggest such.

[Crabbensmasher]

I would like to stress the importance of staying away from the trap of promoting altruism and selflessness as if they are necessary foundations for socialism. Yes, human beings possess both the qualities of greed and altruism, and either one can motivate our actions, but remember that we are socialists precisely because it is in the self-interest of the worker to overthrow capitalism and construct socialism.

i.e. it's precisely because "we're greedy" (although that's an overly simplistic statement) that we ought to support socialism. We, the "99%", if you will, are greedy and we're sick and tired of living in a world where a handful of people are consuming all the wealth we've created.

Yes, and self interest is an important factor. As our friend said, greed is a bit different. Greed, I think, is when it becomes this becomes a problem. Greed is a negative term, no matter what the mayor of London says.

To a degree, I think the problematic self-interest we see today won't work following a revolutionary situation. I'm just going to skim the surface with this one, but what about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?.

I'm not saying you should have a degree of altruism to be a saint. You're right, the last thing we want to fall into is a sort of 'we're morally superior' arrogance.

What I'm saying is that in the capitalist world, especially the west, greed is kind of fetishized. It's what happens when self interest becomes detrimental. It's the backbone of a whole ideology, a whole way of life that's sustained capitalism for too long. If we want communism to 'work', we can't keep dogmatically preaching self interest the way we do.

[motion denied]

Yeah but, in fact, we're actually morally superior.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Behaviorist psychology and its associated research would seem to poke holes into that whole thing.