Nature vs Ideals

[MKS]

Does human nature work against Socialism?

According to Charles Darwin competition is a good thing, self promotion and surivial are tpart of the natural law, so how do humans seperate themselves from natural inclinations of self promotion and survival?

Che talked about the creation of the new man, a person who lives and works not for personal gain but for the beneift of the people and the state. I agree with this position, people by nature are flawed and this flaw attracts them to capitalism because it allows for a greater personal gain in terms of health, wealth and "happieness".
Socialism has failed in the past because men have sought power over benevolence, greed over sacrafice and fame over humility. We must change ourselves before we change the system.

I am a committed Socialist but I am also aware of the almost impossible task of making the revolution a reality in the developed world.

So how can Socialism succeed in the Developed World? Armed Revolution? Or Democratic Action?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:01 PM
According to Charles Darwin competition is a good thing,
What? No.

Darwin's theory describes the origin of species, how living things change.

There is no "good" or "bad" about it. That's the naturalistic fallacy.

Nor does the theory automatically imply that all organisms are instinctively "selfish"; cooperation can also enhance survival and reproduction.

[MKS]

Darwin wrote that the main "goal" of a species if procreation, therfore logically a species in order to procreate in order to ensure its survival must compete with other species. The conclusion being competiton is a natural law, competition, more specificaly successful competition is a good thing because survival is ensured.species clearly have a natural inclination of self promotion and survival if this was not true there would be no life on the planet.
Competition not only occurs amongst species but also among animals of the same species. This was my point, that humnas natrual inclination for self promotion amongst each other can and does cause a collapse of any moral or idealistic theory.
Procreation,Adaptation, and survival.

[NovelGentry]

Darwin wrote that the main "goal" of a species if procreation, therfore logically a species in order to procreate in order to ensure its survival must compete with other species.

And what of polygamy? The hardlined embedded "instinct" flies out the window when you introduce reason. Human evolution is more likely to come in the form of Human genetic modification now than it is from some environmental change that forces our species to mutate in order to survive.

Furthermore, there is nothing that implies competition is necessary for survival if scarcity is not an issue. That is to say, if there is enough food for everyone, there is no need for competition.

On top of all this, you seem to act as if competition is something other animals are even conscious of. The idea of natural selection does not specifically state that if you're not good enough you die, furthermore, in prolonging the species it does not matter if I die, only that my species lives on.

The idea behind it is very simply that those who are not ABLE to survive under a given condition, die off, and those with more minor genetic changes that make them more apt for the given condition move forward, thus, evolving.

There is nothing conscious about it, nor is it something that's in our hands. But as I said, you can pretty much throw this natural method out the window. If it's cold outside, you're not gonna evolve, you're gonna turn the heat up.

EDIT: You're still overlooking a glaring contradiction that Severian pointed out and is also valid from my statements on the idea of multiple partners. It is indeed possible that we evolve to coorperate in order to survive.

[Zingu]

I read an argument that if humans are naturally greedy; then all the better for the Socialist cause.

Since the revolution will be fueled by class struggle; as in which the conditions of the working class get so bad (I'm simply going by the book right now) that will revolt for better conditions; a simple way of saying what I'm getting at is, Socialism will offer more than Capitalism ever will in material interests.

Think of it like this; in Capitalism, the more you buy; the less you have of yourself thanks to Alienation and wage slavery, correct?

While in Socialism; with no Alienation and wage slavery; the more you have, the more you have of yourself since you material possesions you will get are the embodiment of your very own labor power that is no longer stolen by capital.

Bascially; you have more under Socialism, and if there is greed; then it will be natural to want Socialism.

I'm going to try to find that paper; very interesting.

[redstar2000]

MKS, I think you need to read some stuff from modern evolutionary studies -- I would recommend the works of Stephen J. Gould.

Evolution is now known to be far more complex, subtle, and nuanced than was the case in the time of Darwin...not to mention the "nature red in fang and claw" caricature from late 19th and early 20th century "social darwinists".

To be an evolutionary "winner" does not necessarily require any particular "strategy"...all that's required is that you have at least one viable offspring that survives long enough to reproduce. You can be the "strongest" and "most fit" human in the world...but if you fail to reproduce, then you are an evolutionary "loser".

And so what if you are? The genes that you carry are also carried by millions of other humans, some of whom will reproduce.

All that stuff you hear about "superior genes" is 99% hokum.

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

[DEPAVER]

A biologically driven predisposition to human behavior is not the same as "human nature."

The argument has always been that human nature prevents any successful anarchist society. The human nature that is pointed to is "need for authority," hierarchy, greed, desire for leaders. No one has ever demonstrated that these characteristics are inherent, genetically determined behaviors.

Behaviors not exhibited by infants, including language, are learned from the dominant society. In language acquisition, infants make all sounds possible then stop making sounds that are not reinforced by their society. The same is true for all learned behavior. Therefore, the behavior observed in authoritarian, centralized, hierarchical societies is learned within that society and is not genetically determined.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm still of the opinion that selection happens at the random genetic level, and that the perpetuation of genes tends to matter more than the life of any single given organism. As such, it follows that, within a species, there may be a degree of "altruism" (used loosely), and there are certainly instances of symbiotic relationships.

[MKS]

My argument was broad and generic. The main point being how can man overcome human nature inorder to create an equal society? I did not want to explore Darwinism, only explore human nature. Furthermore competition is always prevelant in nature, competiton within species and amongst species. The main idea being "only the strong survive" proves that fact. If there was no competition than there wouldnt be a stronger or a weaker. And I still believe that in nature competition is a driving factor of survial.
in nature it is usally the strongest that procreate, because they have been able to stay alive. For a human example, rich men are more likely to attract women than poor men, therefore the rich man is more likely to procreate.

[Redmau5]

I believe human nature has been shaped by feudal/capitalist society rather than any genetic material. Although genes tend to make less evolved animals compete, i believe human beings have got to the stage were competition is a product of our society rather than any inbuilt competitive drive.

The answer is simple; change society = change human nature.

It may take a few generations to come into practice, but i believe a change in competitive nature will eventually happen.

If this is to succeed, it is paramount for world wide revolution to happen, rather than socialism in a few countries.

[MKS]

Human nature must change first otheriwse any socialist nation that is established will degenerate into totalitarian states (like the USSR)

[NovelGentry]

The main idea being "only the strong survive" proves that fact. If there was no competition than there wouldnt be a stronger or a weaker. And I still believe that in nature competition is a driving factor of survial.

This is where you go off on a weird tangent. Yes there is competition, and there will be competition in socialism and communism, whether it be in the form of sports, or people trying to actually create better products for others. The issue is whether or not competition HAS to be a competition for survival. And again, this comes down to scarcity. When there's enough to go around, competition is pointless, what are you competing for?

Compete just to survive fo the sake of survival? No one's trying to kill you or take anything away from you? SO why are you competing?

And again, as creatures who have developed reason, the fact alone that you can question this should point out to you that we are capable of overcoming it -- If indeed it is actually "natural." I don't believe competition for survival is natural, however, as I don't really believe scarcity is natural aside from instances where natural disaster might wipe out a large portion of what is needed to supply people with what they need to survive, but if that is the case, it probably would wipe out a large portion of people too depending on how densely populated we are.


In nature it is usally the strongest that procreate, because they have been able to stay alive. For a human example, rich men are more likely to attract women than poor men, therefore the rich man is more likely to procreate.

Alphamale syndrom in nature is indeed focused on the strongest, literally, the strongest, animals actually FIGHT over a mate. I don't think you can really compare us to animals. Women don't marry rich guys cause they'll survive and procreate, they marry them so they can use their money to enjoy whatever the hell they want... in fact, they'd probably want the son of a ***** dead so they can get all the money.

There are some people, many, I would say, who put far less stock in being "rich" than this. No one wants to struggle, true, but no one should be struggling under socialism/communism -- why would we struggle when the wealth of the world is in the hands of those creating it? There is no one to exploit us.

[MKS]

Women choose rich guys because they appear more successfull therfore are better mates than poor men.
I am stating that competition is a part of human nature, weather it is organic or derived from evolution is irrelevant, the fact remains that it exists, and will remain a block to true socialism.

[NovelGentry]

Women choose rich guys because they appear more successfull therfore are better mates than poor men.

That must be why all the rich mistresses sleep with the muscular pool guy then. Get real, they want the money, they don't care what kind of "mate" they are.


I am stating that competition is a part of human nature, weather it is organic or derived from evolution is irrelevant, the fact remains that it exists, and will remain a block to true socialism.

And I'm stating that competition is not in contradiction with socialism. There is nothing under socialism that says don't compete. There's a big difference in competing to be the best you can be in what you do and trying to enslave someone else with the clause "I'm better than you."

Wage slavery is not about competition, nor can power struggle be if there is no place of power such as that. Again, what are you competing for in socialism? What is it that puts you in a position where all the sudden you can say "Do what I tell you" and people will just take it?

We are terribly stupid creatures that seem to like to accept things rather than confront them dead on, that is the only nature I can see to humans, and that is perfectly fine, so long as those who become revolutionary are willing to bare the full struggle and once it has changed, establish a system that is equal -- and let the people just accept it yet again.

The fact is though, we all have our limits of what's acceptable. You're not gonna get away with tyranny over people with revolutionary mindsets and competition isn't gonna mean jack shit for inequality if there is nothing that allows the better man in whatever the competition may be to survive where the worser man doesn't. Which IS the case.

Capitalism is not a competition of worker vs. bourgeoisie to see if the worker can rise up to his level. It's a struggle forced upon workers to pin them against workers by people who already are at the top. You don't compete with the bourgeoisie, you compete with your fellow worker (if indeed you are working class) for the ability to survive. And they look to us as mange mutts fighting for table scraps without ever realizing that we're the ones who grew the food.

The bourgeoisie is NOTHING without the working class in it's pocket, and right now people are ok with accepting that, whether they simply don't realize it or whether they simply don't care. But if you think you will ever see socialism to begin with, that mindset will have to change, and when it does, don't expect someone to revert the system to anything like it was before. The USSR never collapsed back to capitalism, it collapsed into capitalism for a first time after having tried to jump over it -- and there's no doubt that the majority of people, even if they did see revolutionary, were revolutionary for reasons that we would call reactionary today. And their reactionaries were something of extreme reactionaries, probably wanting to crawl back to the gutter of feudalism.

You try and pin competition and human nature as these loopholes to fall from the grace of socialism, but you're pinning them on the wrong set of people and using examples of other people who's mindsets cannot even be considered comparible to the mindest of someone in late term or post-capitalist society.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

There is a difference between the "strongest" and the "most fit" that is being overlooked here. Often the fittist are those best suited to co-operation, and adaptation. The matter of competition is often indirect - as in, I may outcompete you in the matter of my ability to network, and to form beneficial connections, so I'll reproduce, and you'll die off - but this competition is not conflictual in nature.

I will never be hunky-pool-guy, nor rich husband - but I rarely find myself sex-starved. I think both evolution and human nature are getting pretty negatively narrowed in this thread.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by MKS
For a human example, rich men are more likely to attract women than poor men, therefore the rich man is more likely to procreate.

You assume (as do the "evolutionary psychologists") that the woman who is attracted to the "rich man" wants to have his kid.

There are practical (social) reasons why a woman would be "attracted" to a rich man that have nothing to do with reproduction; if she fucks him, he'll give her lots of money.

If he gives her enough, it's her ticket out of wage-slavery...not to mention never having to fuck anybody again unless she wants to.

Over the last few centuries, the actual reproductive rates of various classes has been noted and commented on at length.

The more wealth you have accumulated, the fewer kids you will have.

It's a matter of what evolutionists call "strategy".

1. You can have a whole bunch of kids and figure that one or two will live long enough to reproduce.

2. You can have only one or two kids, but you invest enough resources in them that they will almost certainly live long enough to reproduce.

Both "strategies" are found in nature and both work!

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:18 PM
Women choose rich guys because they appear more successfull therfore are better mates than poor men.
This is what evolutionary biologists call a "Just So Story."

Y'know, like "How the Leopard Got His Spots."

It is not a testable scientific hypothesis.

"Evolutionary psychology" - which used to be called sociobiology before it got so discredited it needed a name change - is full of stuff like this, and it's highly debatable whether it's a science.

***

For the great majority of human existence - roughly 180,000 years - people have lived in hunting-gathering societies which tend to be based on great relative equality and reciprocity, and tend not to be very competitive. Compared to only a few thousand years of class civilization.

So the competitive "human nature" some people like to talk about, seem to be socially conditioned rather than genetically programmed. Yes, clearly human nature has to be changed, as Che said. That this means that genes must be changed, or even genetic influence overcome, is doubtful. Certainly unproven.

****

One of our closest living relatives, the bonobo, lives in groups characterized by cooperation, nonviolence, female dominance, and lots of sex. The dominance hierarchy among males is even matrilineal: it depends on who your mother is. The resemblance to the primitive matriarchy theorized by Morgan and Engels jumps out at me.

'Course chimpanzees are equally close relatives and their group life sounds like a lot less fun. More violent, more male-dominated, anything scarce goes to whoever's the best at violence and intimidation.

Bonobos, though, may be closer to the common ancestor of all three.

And female bonobo sexuality, which is important to their social bonding, shares one unusual characteristic with humans: sexual receptivity most of the time, rather than "going into heat" only during limited periods.

Bonobo groups are also a good example of a competitive Darwinian advantage going to those individuals who are best at cooperating with others: "Because females appeared more successful in dominating males when they were together than on their own, their close association and frequent genital rubbing may represent an alliance. Females may bond so as to outcompete members of the individually stronger sex."

source (http://www.geocities.com/willc7/bonobos.html)

Also, there's less size difference between males and females in our species - and our ancestors in genus Homo - than in most other primates. Which that "natural" hominid social behavior would more like bonobos than chimps.

So who knows, it may be patriarchal class society that is "unnatural" or contrary to our genetic heritage.

[MKS]

Competition is in cotradiction with socialism when it is competition that creates for class divisions and all the problems that follow.

My main point was this: Modern man because of certain dispositions is inclined to the more capitalist society, the nature of man in most socities contradicts socialist theory. An equal society cannot exist when there is competition. There is a difference between competition and improvement.

[viva le revolution]

Whatever you say about Darwinism, i believe that it does have a part to play in Socialism(the theory at least).As Darwin spoke of species evolving and adapting to their enviornments by going through a series of changes so too have societies changed. According to Marx true Socialism can only occur if societies pass through certain systems
According to Marx first there was Primitive communism, then feudalism and then capitalism. Marx Stated that a true socialist state can only come into existence after it has passed through Capitalism.Capitalism though an unfair and imperialistic system is only one that can produce infrastructure by the dreams of wealth that it sells so readily to the underprivelleged to motivate them to continue their menial slavery for imperialistic masters. However Capitalism does produce surplus and an enviornment of plenty. Accordng to Marx, after this envirnment of "plenty" has been established can the "plenty" be divided amongst the proletariat, through mass revolution.
Thus Marx himself acknowledges that an evolutionary system is in place(for societies) and that Darwinism does have a part in our glorious struggle for the elimination of imperialism and capitalism