Greed

[novemba]

Would greed prevent a communist society on a global scale from happening, if we ever get around nationalism, can a basic human tendency be quelled? I had a hot arguement about this with a friend and he thinks that in the end most people watch their backs closer then a friends, and that the normal human instinct is to watch himself before others. I've traveled around and have seen that this is much more of a western ideology, although he could be right. What are yur thoughts on this...?

[redstar2000]

Have a look at this thread for a communist "take" on "greed"...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32885

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[novemba]

^ thanks i need to start using the search

EDIT: I don't have Acrobat nor a very extensivie vocab, sounded like it needed recapitulation(haha) anyway, care to hit it up?

[Roses in the Hospital]

In the end it all comes down to human nature, and that's something nobody can claim to be an authority on. We are all products of the society that spawned us, ie. Capitalism, so undoubtedly we've been heavily indoctrinated. That's not to say all our psychological process are due to this, nobody can really prove it either way. Next time someone uses the greed argument ask them to prove it. They can't. You might not be able to disprove it but that still dosen't mean they're right. After all, you can't disprove the existance of God, but that dosen't necessarily mean he's not there. 9though he clearly isn't :D )

[Pawn Power]

A relavent quote

"In capitalist society, one in which uncertainty about the future is always present, you have to keep trying to accumulate more because of the risk of losing what you have. So it makes 'rational sense' to be greedy under capitalism, to always want more." Redstar

Greed is not human nature, it is a product of capitalism.

[guerillablack]

I disagree. I don't think the root of greed is stems from a fear of losing what you have.

[YKTMX]

I don't think that greed is a part of "human nature" and I don't think it's "rational" either.


So it makes 'rational sense' to be greedy under capitalism, to always want more

I most certainly can't agree with that. What we normally associate "greed" with (a rapacious appetite for "goods") cannot be considered a "survival instinct" because these things are nearly always superflous to survival. Capitalism makes us think we need them, if we don't we have them then we are "inadquate". Greed is much more an ideological phenomena than some outcome of rational interaction with the system.

Human beings have the potential to be both "greedy" and "generous". It's not a question of what "we" are, it's a question of which traits the system wants to exaggerate.

[SouthernFriedPinko]

Anyone who says greed is part of human nature is taking a very myopic view of history. Read Engels' "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State". Human beings lived in communal tribes for hundreds of thousands of years. This "greedy nature" is only a relatively recent development in society of the past few thousand years.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
What we normally associate "greed" with (a rapacious appetite for "goods") cannot be considered a "survival instinct" because these things are nearly always superfluous to survival. Capitalism makes us think we need them, if we don't we have them then we are "inadequate". Greed is much more an ideological phenomena than some outcome of rational interaction with the system.

Obviously there is an "ideological component" to greed...but I don't see how it could be argued that the ideological component doesn't rest on a material basis.

Sure, capitalist advertising tells us ad nauseam that "we are what we buy"...and the inability or unwillingness to "buy the best" (pay the most) is a measure of our "inadequacy" as a human being.

But beneath that is something far more serious...no matter how much wealth you have accumulated, you really can lose it all! And that through no failure on your part.

That's objective reality...and sane people have to be aware of that, if only in "the backs of their minds".

Granted, it's not a possibility that we dwell on...it would be paralyzing to consciously think about it all the time. Nevertheless, the more wealth you have accumulated, the better your chances of emerging from misfortune with enough to survive and even prosper again.

Once you end up on the street, especially if you're over 30, they can stick a fork in you...you're done.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:44 PM
Anyone who says greed is part of human nature is taking a very myopic view of history. Read Engels' "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State". Human beings lived in communal tribes for hundreds of thousands of years. This "greedy nature" is only a relatively recent development in society of the past few thousand years.
I believe that's because those customs of not being greedy were taught. By nature i mean something that happens naturally.A baby doesn't want more candy for any other reason because he likes the taste and wants to continue to endulge and experience it. There is no fear of not having no more, it's not because of capitalism. He doesn't even have to be hungry no more, he has to be taught that that's enough. Understand where i'm comming from?

[Domingo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 05:01 PM

I believe that's because those customs of not being greedy were taught.
Exactly, just like many other things.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by guerillablack
A baby doesn't want more candy for any other reason because he likes the taste and wants to continue to indulge and experience it. There is no fear of not having no more, it's not because of capitalism. He doesn't even have to be hungry no more, he has to be taught that that's enough. Understand where I'm coming from?

I agree that a baby is not motivated by fear of "running out"...but I disagree that a baby will keep eating candy even if it's not hungry any more.

To eat past the point of satiation is actually to turn pleasure into its opposite...people seem to have to learn this through first-hand experience, especially babies. I don't think it's something that you can "teach".

I predict that assuming normal intelligence, a baby will over-eat candy a few times, get sick, and decide to stop doing that.

Babies are very "grounded" in material reality.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[guerillablack]

You disagree that a baby will keep eating candy or cake even if it's not hungry anymore?Do you have any brothers, sisters or younger cousins?Have you every been around children in your life!?

I'm not talking about eating until their stomach explodes. But eating past a level that satisfies their hunger.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:24 PM
You disagree that a baby will keep eating candy or cake even if it's not hungry anymore?Do you have any brothers, sisters or younger cousins?Have you every been around children in your life!?

I'm not talking about eating until their stomach explodes. But eating past a level that satisfies their hunger.
Well, how can you tell whether they are eating past a level that "satisfies their hunger" or not?

It's their stomach, not yours, right?

Of course, very young children are inexperienced...they may and do eat so much that they become ill.

But do you imagine that they are unable to learn from experience? To see a connection between cause ("ate too much candy") and effect ("got sick")? Especially if there's someone older present to point it out?

It seems to me that what you're really hinting at here is a matter of parental inconvenience.

That is...

1. I allow my kid to eat too much candy.

2. Kid gets sick and vomits.

3. I have to clean up the mess.

4. Therefore, I'll make the kid stop eating candy before she's ready to stop on her own.

An understandable reaction...but let's don't dignify it, ok? Let's don't conclude that it's "human nature" to chronically overeat to the point of nausea.

Quite clearly that is not the case.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[novemba]

I think i've come to the conclusion that there's not such thing as "Human Nature" persay, rather a mark a society leaves on the individual.

[Irish_Bebop]

There is a theory in neo-marxism (i forget the name), that states that capitalism actively works against communism, even once a communist regime has been established. They state that the values of materialist gain, greed if you will, are socially constructed through the capitalist system and internalised by the individual, as with the other norms and values that society propogates. As a result, when a new communist state is formed capitalist beliefs still continue to erode the fabric that is the base for social cohession within the communist system. Therefor, as all communist societies, by definition, are built upon a collapsed capitalist system, communism is inherently flawed by that system.

Now that i come to write that out, i dont think its neo marxist after all...

I know, basically i'm just repeating the theory that greed is bred through capitalism, but i wanted to get my first post out of the way. :P

I think though that it is incredibly niave to say that communism is doomed to fail due to something as base as greed. Capitalist systems are just as prone to corruption, and by design, maybe even more so, you get plenty of corrupt capitalist societies, but you also get plenty of functioning capitalist societies (of course if your a marxist, a functioning capitalist society is some what of a....paradox). Of course most functioning capitalist states (by this im really only refering to the first world) have centuries of history to consolidate there position and stability. Not to mention that nearly all of them got where they are today through imperialistic exploitation.
- but i digress, these societies function because capitalism is being practiced properly and the usual instabilities that plague every other capitalist country have, to some degree been ironed out.

i take this as evidense that capitalism is susseptable to the same flaws as communism, and that if capitalism can over come them, then a proper communist system can be established with even more ease. The only thing baring it from working, minus the same challenges that face working capitalism, is the international climate, by this i mean of course the conserted efforts of the capitalist world to thwart what it most fears. Internally, and maybe this was a result of the international climate, the greatest single threat was Stalinism.

[novemba]

There's some truth in that, although not much. I disagree with that whole argument cause a capitalist society moves towards free market economies(even though thats the biggest oxymoron ever...), but in that type of society there will still be oppresed people. In a global commune, of course, it would be a stateless classless society.


PS - ups to portugal's SP victory

[Irish_Bebop]

Most Marxists argue that greed and materialism are essencial values that you need in order to survive in Capitalist society, so therefore once you enter the communist system that survival mehanism will fall away as it will no longer be needed. Greed still prevailed in the soviet block, but if thats communism then i've been seriously missled.

[Iepilei]

We're taught to compete for petty necessities under a capitalist system. We adhere social status and norms to people of varying class levels.

You could say that greed is a sociological by-product of capitalism.

:ph34r:

[Aurorus Ruber]

I don't think greed will be that big a problem. The argument that it will seems to stem from the idea that we want everything, the whole scarcity thing.