The human nature argument

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Every non-closeted socialist is used to hearing certain objections over and over again. Among the most obnoxious is your typical "socialism killed 100 million people" complaint. But I think the one that is used the most is the dreaded Human Nature Argument: that people are inherently greedy and can't work together to build a better society. And that's that.

There are a lot of fallacies in that claim. But to debunk it quickly, I love to use this little diagram to make myself seem smart:laugh::

http://www.robstill.com/worship-and-psychology-part-2/

It's the humanist psychologist Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs. Pretty much any high school/college psychology student has seen it a couple hundred times. As you can see, our deepest needs are food, water, air, and other physiological necessities. Higher up is love, intimacy, self-growth, and other, more "moral" qualities.

Once those basic needs for personal safety are met--and you feel that they will *stay* met, most people will be quite decent. They begin to focus on the higher needs for community and self-actualization.

The tragic thing about capitalism is that it fails to meet even the lowest level requirements. In the world's richest country, one out of every four children is at risk of going hungry. And even the families of those who aren't still have to worry about losing everything overnight.

And so, in a way, antisocialists are right. In our present day society, socialism is against human nature. But it's not because people were born jackasses. Economic deprivation and insecurity, combined with a warped set of Darwinistic social values, have made us that way.

But if we cause revolutionary change that ensures everybody's survival needs are met, things will improve. We'll all seem a whole lot nicer. And the new system will work like clockwork.

I know I'm not saying anything new. You all probably already know this and agree with it (although maybe you don't, in which case I apologize for my ignorance:)). I really just wanted to frame it in slightly different terms, because I love psychology.

[Hagalaz]

Too simplistic.
The human nature argument isn't that simple.
Or limited.

[bropasaran]

that people are inherently greedy and can't work together to build a better society.

Kropotkin, Are we good enough?, 1888.


One of the commonest objections to Communism is, that men are not good enough to live under a Communist state of things. They would not submit to a compulsory Communism, but they are not yet ripe for free, anarchistic Communism. Centuries of individualistic education have rendered them too egoistic. Slavery, submission to the strong, and work under the whip of necessity, have rendered them unfit for a society where everybody would be free and know no compulsion except what results from a freely taken engagement towards the others, and their disapproval if he would not fulfill the engagement. Therefore, we are told, some intermediate transition state of society is necessary as a step towards Communism.

Old words in a new shape; words said and repeated since the first attempt at any reform, political or social, in any human society. Words which we heard before the abolition of slavery; words said twenty and forty years ago by those who like too much their own quietness for liking rapid changes, whom boldness of thought frightens, and who themselves have not suffered enough from the iniquities of the present society to feel the deep necessity of new issues!

Men are not good enough for Communism, but they are good enough for Capitalism? If all men were good-hearted, kind, and just, they would never exploit one another, although possessing the means to do so. With such men the private ownership of capital would be no danger. The capitalist would hasten to share his profits with the workers, and the best-remunerated workers with those suffering from occasional causes. If men were provident they would not produce velvet and articles of luxury while food is wanted in the cottages: they would not build palaces as long as there are slums.

If men had a deeply developed feeling of equity they would not oppress other men. Politicians would not cheat their electors; Parliament would not be a chattering and cheating box, and Charles Warren’s policemen would refuse to bludgeon the Trafalgar Square talkers and listeners. And if men were gallant, self-respecting, and less egoistic, even a bad capitalist would not be a danger; the workers would soon have reduced him to the role of a simple comrade-manager. Even a King would not be dangerous, because the people would merely consider him as a fellow unable to do better work, and therefore entrusted with signing some stupid papers sent out to the other cranks calling themselves Kings.

But men are not those free-minded, independent, provident, loving, and compassionate fellows which we should like to see them. And precisely, therefore, they must not continue living under the present system which permits them to oppress and exploit one another. Take, for instance, those misery-stricken tailors who paraded last Sunday in the streets, and suppose that one of them has inherited a houndred pounds from an American uncle. With these hundred pounds he surely will not start a productive association for a dozen of like misery-stricken tailors, and try to improve their condition. He will become a sweater. And, therefore, we say that in a society where men are so bas as this American heir, it is very hard for him to have misery-stricken tailors around him. As soon as he can he will sweat them; while if these same tailors had a secured living from the Communist stores, none of them would sweat to enrich their ex-comrade, and the young sweater would himself not become the very bad beast he surely will become if he continues to be a sweater.

We are told we are too slavish, to snobbish, to be placed under free institutions; but we say that because we are indeed so slavish we ought not to remain any longer under the present institutions, which favour the development of slavishness. We see that Britons, French, and Americans display the most disgusting slavishness towards Gladstone, Boulanger, or Gould. And we concluda that in a humanity already endowed with such slavish instincts it is very bad to have the masses forcibly deprived of higher education, and compelled to live under the present inequality of wealth, education, and knowledge. Higher instruction and equality of conditions would be the only neans for destroying the inherited slavish instincts, and we cannot understand how slavish instincts can be made an argument for maintaining, even for one day longer, inequality of conditions; for refusing equality of instruction to all members ofthe community.

Our spaceis limited, but submit to the same analysis any of the aspects of our social life, and you will see that the present capitalist, authoritarian system is absolutely inappropriate to a society of men so improvident, so rapacious, so egoistic, and so slavish as they are now. Therefore, when we hear men saying that the Anarchists imagine men much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means to rendering men less rapacious and egoistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition? The only difference between us and those who make the above objection is this: We do not, like them, exaggerate the inferior instincts of the masses, and do not complacently shut our eyes to the same bad instincts in the upper classes. We maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation; while our opponents seem to admit that there is a kind of salt of the earth – the rulers, the employers, the leaders – who, happily enough, prevent those bad men – the ruled, the exploited, the led – from becoming still worse than they are.
There is the difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers, ‘unpractical men’.

And old quarrel, that quarrel between the ‘practical men’ and the ‘unpractical’, the so-called Utopists: a quarrel renewed at each proposed change, and always terminating by the total defeat of those who name themselves practical people.

Many of us must remember the quarrel when it raged in America before the abolition of slavery. When the full emancipation of the Negroes was advocated, the practical people used to say that if the Negroes were no more compelled to labour by the whips of their owners, they would not work at all, and soon would become a charge upon the community. Thick whips could be prohibited, they said, and the thickness of the whips might be progressively reduced by law to half-an-inch first and then to a mere trifle of a few tenths of an inch; but some kind of whip must be maintained. And when the abolitionists said – just as we say now – that the enjoyment of the produce of one’s labour would be a much more powerful inducement to work than the thickest whip. ‘Nonsense, my friend,’ they were told – just as we are told now. ‘You don’t know human nature! Years of slavery have rendered them improvident, lazy and slavish, and human nature cannot be changed in one day. You are imbued, of course, with the best intentions, but you are quite ”unpractical”.’

Well, for sometime the practical men had their own way in elaborating schemes for the gradual emancipation of Negroes. But, alas!, the schemes proved quite unpractical, and the civil war – the bloodiest on record – broke out. But the war resulted in the abolition of slavery, without any transition period; – and see, none of the terrible consequences foreseen by the practical people followed. The Negroes work, they are industrious and laborious, they are provident – nay, too provident, indeed – and the only regret that can be expressed is, that the scheme advocated by the left wing of the unpractical camp – full equality and land allotments – was not realised: it would have saved much trouble now.

About the same time a like quarrel raged in Russia, and its cause was this. There were in Russia 20 million serfs. For generations past they had been under the rule, or rather the birch-rod, of their owners. They were flogged for tilling their soil badly, flogged for want of cleanliness in their households, flogged for imperfect weaving of their cloth, flogged for not sooner marrying their boys and girls – flogged for everything. Slavishness, improvidence, were their reputed characteristics.

Now came the Utopists and asked nothing short of the following: Complete liberation of the serfs; immediate abolition of any obligation of the serf towards the lord. More than that: immediate abolition of the lord’s jurisdiction and his abandonment of all the affairs upon which he formerly judged, to peasants’ tribunals elected by the peasants and judging, not in accordance with law which they do not know, but with their unwritten customs. Such was the unpractical scheme of the unpractical camp. It was treated as a mere folly by practical people.

But happily enough there was by that time in Russia a good deal of unpracticalness of the peasants, who revolted with sticks against guns, and refused to submit, notwithstanding the massacres, and thus enforced the unpractical state of mind to such a degree as to permit the unpractical camp to force the Tsar to sign their scheme – still mutilated to some extent. The most practical people hastened to flee away from Russia, that they might not have their throats cut a few days after the promulgation of that unpractical scheme.

But everything went on quite smoothly, notwithstanding the many blunders still committed by practical people. These slaves who were reputed improvident, selfish brutes, and so on, displayed such good sense, such an organising capacity as to surpass the expectations of even the most unpractical Utopists; and in three years after the Emancipation the general physiognomy of the villages had completely changed. The slaves were becoming Men!

The Utopists won the battle. They proved that they were the really practical people, and that those who pretended to be practical were imbeciles. And the only regret expressed now by all who know the Russian peasantry is, that too many concessions were made to those practical imbeciles and narrow-minded egotists: that the advice of the left wing of the unpractical camp was not followed in full.

We cannot give more examples. But we earnestly invite those who like to reason for themselves to study the history of any of the great social changes which have occured in humanity from the rise of the Communes to the Reform and to our modern times. They will see that history is nothing but a struggle between the rulers and the ruled, the oppressors and the oppressed, in which struggle the practical camp always sides with the rulers and the oppressors, while the unpractical camp sides with the oppressed; and they will see that the struggle always ends in a final defeat of the practical camp after much bloodshed and suffering, due to what they call their ‘practical good sense’.
If by saying that we are unpractical our opponents mean that we foresee the march of events much better than the practical short-sighted cowards, then they are right. But if they mean that they, the practical people, have a better foresight of events, then we send them to history and ask them to put themselves in accordance with its teachings before making that presumptuous assertion.

[cyu]

If people can be brainwashed into thinking that miniskirts look good on a woman, but not on a man, they can be brainwashed into just about anything.

[Loony Le Fist]

Too simplistic.
The human nature argument isn't that simple.
Or limited.

Am I tripping? Or did someone delete my previous response to this? Hopefully I can remember what my response was.

It's pretty simple to me. Human nature is not static but subject to change. Humans are capable of metacognition which allows us to analyse our nature. It's a rather remarkable ability when you think about the logical loops the act of thinking about thought creates. Nonetheless, it provides us with the ability to analyse and critique our nature. Therefore human nature is not a static unchanging entity, but rather one which is dynamic and fluid.

[Slavic]

Am I tripping? Or did someone delete my previous response to this? Hopefully I can remember what my response was.

It's pretty simple to me. Human nature is not static but subject to change. Humans are capable of metacognition which allows us to analyse our nature. It's a rather remarkable ability when you think about the logical loops the act of thinking about thought creates. Nonetheless, it provides us with the ability to analyse and critique our nature. Therefore human nature is not a static unchanging entity, but rather one which is dynamic and fluid.

The only common "human nature" that is shared by humanity is the need to keep our bodies alive, ie. obtaining food, water, shelter, and to an extent reproduction.

This is the only thing that is concrete and is sustained through out human history because if this were not the case then there wold be no humans. Anything other actions that a human takes is not directly necessary for survival and can change according to time, place, and circumstances.

It is human nature to eat. If I grow my own food, grow food in a commune, enslave farmers, rob a food market, eat my neighbors, then I am fullfilling my human nature. The actions I take are subjective to the time and place, the end goal is my inherent nature.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Too simplistic.
The human nature argument isn't that simple.
Or limited.

You're right. It is a simplification. For example, sometimes people will hurt themselves physically to escape emotional pain--from drugs to self-mutilation to suicide. That hardly follows the pyramid perfectly. Still, I just think it's an interesting way of looking at things.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Behaviorist research an literature kind of dispels the human nature argument entirely IMHO.

[bropasaran]

Behaviorists got it wrong on pretty much everything. Chomsky's work on the philosophy of science pretty much demolished their super naive preconceptions. Behavior economics on the other hand does gives some interesting findings.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Behaviorists got it wrong on pretty much everything. Chomsky's work on the philosophy of science pretty much demolished their super naive preconceptions. Behavior economics on the other hand does gives some interesting findings.

Ok, I guess we got have some words here, ummm.....wtf, are you talking about?

[Ledur]

People are greedy and selfish by nature? No, we're social beings first.

Communism would be a better social arrangement, not only for everyone, but also for oneself. So if we're indeed greedy and selfish, why chose capitalism then?

[Creative Destruction]

The best way to answer it is that there is no set "human nature" in the sense that everything humans do is in our nature. Otherwise we wouldn't do it. What attributes we exhibit as a society more than others depends on our social conditions. If you raise a competitive and ruthless society, you'll more likely produce competitive and ruthless social conditions. If you raise a cooperative society, you'll more likely produce cooperative social conditions.

[Patrice O'neal]

While the whole idea of selfish philanthropy might have some merit on a person to person basis, it has none at all throughout history, so to say human nature is to mutually aid each other is completely unscientific, communists have basically took the selfish gene and took the tiny parts they like while ignoring the body of work as a whole.
There is no human nature and to say its human nature to mutually aid one another for our own benefit is equally as nonsense and formulated and agenda driven as it is to say personal greed and viciousness are.

Both Glenn Gary and Karl Marx are part of the human condition, personal self interest and interest in the group collective are both real, but they are not rigid or concretes and to pretend otherwise has no basis in reality.

[Prole]

The notion of “self-interest” is clearly inherent to the human being's common urge to survive. This is obvious enough and it is easy to see historically how the raw necessity of personal survival, often extending to family and then the “tribe” (community), set the stage for the divisive, protectionist paradigm we exist in today. It should have been expected from the standpoint of history that vast economic theories would also be based upon the notion of competition and inequality, such as in the work of Adam Smith. Considered the father of the “free market”, he made popular the assumption that if everyone had the ethic to look out for themselves only, the world would progress as a community.



This “invisible hand” notion of human progress arising from narrow personal self-interest alone might have been a semi-workable philosophy many years ago when the simplicity of the society itself was based on everyone being something of a producer. However, the nature of society has changed greatly over time, with population increases, entirely different role structures and exponentially advancing technology. The risks associated with this manner of thought are now proving to be more dangerous than beneficial, andthe true definition of “self-interest” is taking a larger context than ever before.


Is it not in your self-interest to protect and nourish the habitat that supports you? Is it not in your self-interest to take care of society as a whole, providing for its members, so that the consequences of deprivation, such as “crime” are reduced as much as possible to ensure your safety? Is it not self-interest to consider the consequences of imperialist wars that can breed fierce jingoistic hatred on one side of the planet, only to have, say, a suitcase bomb explode behind you at a restaurant as a desperate “blow-back” act of retribution?
Is it not self-interest to assure all of societies' children have the best upbringing and education so that your future and the future of your children can exist in a responsible, educated, and increasingly productive world? Is it not in your self-interest to make sure industry is as organized, optimized and scientifically accurate as possible, so that we do not produce shoddy, cheap technology that might perhaps cause a problem in the future if it fails?


The bottom line is that things have changed in the world today and your self-interest is now only as good as your societal interest. Being competitive and going out for yourself, “beating” others only has a negative consequence in the long-term, for it is denying awareness of the synergistic system we are bound within. A cheaply made nuclear power plant in Japan might not mean much to people in America. However, if that plant was to have a large scale technical failure, the fallout and pollution might make its way over to American homes, proving that you are never safe in the long run unless you have a global consciousness.



In the end, only an Earth-humankind conscious view can assure a person's true self-interest and hence, in many ways, also assure our society's “evolutionary fitness”. The very idea of wishing to support “your country” and ignoring or even enjoying the failure of others, is a destabilizing value system.


thezeitgeistmovement[.]com/orientation#faq6

Human Nature is ultimately about survival. If we wish to live in a winner-take-all society where the strongest get what they can take we must also understand that those without will be forced to survive by any means possible.

It is much more beneficial for everyone to just agree that we should sacrifice our, infinitely miniscule, chance at being one of the winners and instead focus on establishing a level playing field on which every member of society can fairly compete.

Ultimately ensuring citizens are provided for out of the abundance of the society isn't a moral or theological opinion, but rather a factual understanding of human nature and humankind.

[Red Economist]

The human nature argument is actually a profoundly conservative one. So conservative you can turn it on it's head against liberalism.

If people are both naturally selfish and naturally unequal- then any legal system which promotes even legal equality is unnatural. The human nature argument is pretty much one which forces us towards totalitarianism; why is greed for money more natural than greed for power? Was National Socialism not therefore more natural than liberalism? Why is the status quo natural if human nature is so inherently destructive and anti-social? surely that is a case for social regression? Shouldn't we therefore try to better ourselves through reason, science and progress if that is the case rather than be resigned to the worst aspects of our humanity?

The existence of liberalism is dependent not of 'self-interest' but on 'enlightened self-interest', where people accept it is reasonable for others to have equal rights and opportunities, if only so they can trade with each other. So why is communism impossible, when liberals already accept that reason is the governing force of a liberal society? If you can get people to accept the idea that liberalism is based on progress- then you can make the argument that we can and should progress to communism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Referencing the Maslow Pyramid does not prove egalitarianism is compatible with human nature.


The only common "human nature" that is shared by humanity is the need to keep our bodies alive, ie. obtaining food, water, shelter, and to an extent reproduction.

Suicide refutes this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'll counter by saying that, in lower periods of class struggle, workers aren't "greedy" enough. The right wing likes to talk about "greedy unions." Why shouldn't union members be self-interested about wages and working conditions?

Class struggle also implies that, in a certain sense, we should be more self-interested than we're showing. Right now one could argue that right-wing workers on minimum wage are too "charitable."

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

I'll counter by saying that, in lower periods of class struggle, workers aren't "greedy" enough. The right wing likes to talk about "greedy unions." Why shouldn't union members be self-interested about wages and working conditions?

Class struggle also implies that, in a certain sense, we should be more self-interested than we're showing. Right now one could argue that right-wing workers on minimum wage are too "charitable."


That's an excellent point. You're right; the right-wingers claim to be pro-self-interests, pro-individual, but ultimately they really only care about the people with fistfuls of cash.

By bringing the Maslow Pyramid into the mix, I wasn't trying to act as though on one neat, clean level, there are "good" people, and on another there are greedy, objectively "bad" people. I was just trying to bring up a discussion about how circumstances can determine so much of how we relate to each other.

[Christopher Johnson]

Idk how so many people can talk about "human nature" as if it were something we can actually observe. We can observe how humans act in society, conditioned by the way that society operates, yes, but that IMO is different from human nature. What bothers me the most is that people use this argument in order to justify every messed up and oppresive thing in the world.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Maslow's Pyramid", by the way, doesn't really have any solid empirical confirmation. In fact Maslow himself admitted that his data sample was cherry-picked, as he didn't want to study "cripple psychology".

[cyu]

If it is human nature for capitalists to be greedy and that it is natural for them to exploit their workers, then it is also human nature for employees to kill their oppressors.

[adipocere12]

I just point out that human nature has been used to justify everything from slavery to homophobia so has no place in modern debate.