Human Nature

[JC1]

When in debate about socialism , most pro-capitalists resort to the human nature.
However , when pressed for demonstratable evidence of "Human Nature" ,
only the most stuborn fail to admit there is none.

So I was wonderin' if any of the pro-capital kiddies want to provide some evidence. I bet this thread scares them , knowin' that they cant blame genetics for there own personal fauliures , or having the sad knoledge that on material conditions determine everything.

[apathy maybe]

There is such a thing as "human nature", to argue otherwise is ignoring science. However, it dictates little. What it does dictate is basically what other animals natures dictate to them, eat, drink, sleep, have sex and others. What human nature does not include is a wish to accumulate things, to be competitive no matter what and various other things that many capitalists wish. (To prove this last point we simply have to point out the existence of societies where people did not do these things.)

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 11 2005, 10:35 PM
There is such a thing as "human nature", to argue otherwise is ignoring science. However, it dictates little. What it does dictate is basically what other animals natures dictate to them, eat, drink, sleep, have sex and others. What human nature does not include is a wish to accumulate things, to be competitive no matter what and various other things that many capitalists wish. (To prove this last point we simply have to point out the existence of societies where people did not do these things.)
Exactly....

[_*_]

I really would like to read a negative reaction to this.

[zinc]

Human Nature is what is dicatated to them by the establishment and for good reason, most men are born to serve and the rest are born to live the life we all hope for.

[Black Dagger]

What about women?

[Clarksist]

Basically, human nature exists, but just is too fickle to argue with.

Human nature ceases if it isn't benefiting humanity. After all, humans socially evolve so fast, and through revolution humanity would socially evolve by leaps and bounds (like we saw in the Russian Revolution).

[Publius]

Self-preservation exists in human nature, and the accumulation of material goods (Like food) is important to not dying.

As such, human nature influences economic actions.

[LSD]

Self-preservation exists in human nature, and the accumulation of material goods (Like food) is important to not dying.

The accumulation of material goods is not important, access to material goods is important.

From a survival perspective, it doesn't matter who "owns" the food so long as you can eat it.


As such, human nature influences economic actions.

That's true insofar as it means that any viable economic model must ensure access to basic requirements for, at least, the majority of the population.

But that isn't an argument for capitalism!

[monkeydust]

I think there may be a grain of truth in what you say Publius.

In capitalism, you have to horde because you never know when you're gonna lose it all and end up in the gutter.

Once you take away this worrysome possibility, the urge to accumulate vast wealth quickly dissipates.

[JC1]

Publius. I Congragalate you , unlike youre ilk , have responded to this hole in youre ine. However , you have yet to provide evidence to back up your claim.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Whether or not the desire for an accumulation of personal wealth and selfishness are parts of human nature, capitalism still fails.

It's very obvious that the only way for individuals to acquire a suitable standard of living is for all to unite against the oppressors, yadda yadda yadda and only then will the "have-nots" have what they need/want.

Right now, it's a myth that individuals can acquire great amounts of wealth if they try. Total lie.

For most people to have what right-wingers claim is attainable only in capitalism, socialism is necessary. The only way for us to improve our own individual standard of living is for us all to unite and wrest our wealth from those who have it unjustly.

Forgive the rhetoric.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 12 2005, 03:35 AM
There is such a thing as "human nature", to argue otherwise is ignoring science. However, it dictates little. What it does dictate is basically what other animals natures dictate to them, eat, drink, sleep, have sex and others. What human nature does not include is a wish to accumulate things, to be competitive no matter what and various other things that many capitalists wish. (To prove this last point we simply have to point out the existence of societies where people did not do these things.)
Sorry, but it is human nature to be competitive.

Not only human nature, but it is mammal behavior.

All social mammals have top/down structures with superior individuals on top. They eat first, mate first, and basically domanate lower rank mammals. There are no 'communist' social mammals. Social ranking and dominance is 'human' and basic mammal behavior.

[Publius]

The accumulation of material goods is not important, access to material goods is important.

From a survival perspective, it doesn't matter who "owns" the food so long as you can eat it.

So you have the right to steal food?

What if your access to food prevents someone elses' access?

If it doesn't matter who 'owns' the food, can I just take yours?


That's true insofar as it means that any viable economic model must ensure access to basic requirements for, at least, the majority of the population.

But that isn't an argument for capitalism!

It is if capitalism is the optimal provider of said food.

I maintain that it is, you say it isn't; this acrimony is not likely to be solved here and now.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 02:06 AM
Whether or not the desire for an accumulation of personal wealth and selfishness are parts of human nature, capitalism still fails.

It's very obvious that the only way for individuals to acquire a suitable standard of living is for all to unite against the oppressors, yadda yadda yadda and only then will the "have-nots" have what they need/want.

Right now, it's a myth that individuals can acquire great amounts of wealth if they try. Total lie.

For most people to have what right-wingers claim is attainable only in capitalism, socialism is necessary. The only way for us to improve our own individual standard of living is for us all to unite and wrest our wealth from those who have it unjustly.

Forgive the rhetoric.
Please explain 'fails'?

Were still here and communist parts of the world are becomming free markets while the communist revolutions are becomming bad memories in those same parts.

[Publius]

I think there may be a grain of truth in what you say Publius.

In capitalism, you have to horde because you never know when you're gonna lose it all and end up in the gutter.

Once you take away this worrysome possibility, the urge to accumulate vast wealth quickly dissipates.

Mao tse-Tung say: Our communism utopia will create most special food wealth. Under capitalism you never know when you are going to lost it all and end up in the gutter. Once we dissipate this worrisome possibility, we will live in a peaceful paradise for 1000 years!


In Red China there was no need to accumulate vast wealth, I mean, the hugely successful communes would supply you with all th e food you would ever need! Why accumulate anything!?

[Publius]

Publius. I Congragalate you , unlike youre ilk , have responded to this hole in youre ine. However , you have yet to provide evidence to back up your claim.

Do you deny that humans have a will to live?

[Publius]

Whether or not the desire for an accumulation of personal wealth and selfishness are parts of human nature, capitalism still fails.

It's very obvious that the only way for individuals to acquire a suitable standard of living is for all to unite against the oppressors, yadda yadda yadda and only then will the "have-nots" have what they need/want.

Right now, it's a myth that individuals can acquire great amounts of wealth if they try. Total lie.

For most people to have what right-wingers claim is attainable only in capitalism, socialism is necessary. The only way for us to improve our own individual standard of living is for us all to unite and wrest our wealth from those who have it unjustly.

Forgive the rhetoric.

Communist says:

Right now, it's a myth that individuals can acquire great amounts of wealth if they try.

The real world says:

Ideologies and thinkers fight over the best solution to our problems. Capitalism is the recognition that this one best answer does not exist. We can’t build a perfect system, which would suit everyone. That is why capitalism says that all peaceful ideas, projects and systems are welcome. It says that we don’t know the one best way, so people have to decide themselves what might be best for them, what kind of ideas and dreams they want to realise and what kinds of goods and services they should or shouldn’t consume. You are free to try anything, as long as you don’t use force against other people, or force them to pay for your projects. Capitalism is the economic system that leaves the economic decisions to the people, instead of the system.

Want a “Buy nothing-day”? Sure, go ahead. You can have it every day of the week. Capitalism means voluntary relations. No deal is ever made if both parties don’t think that they benefit from it.

Some people blame capitalism for the poverty in the world. That’s because they haven’t studied – or at least haven’t understood – history. Poverty is nothing new. Poverty has always been the fate of mankind. 200 years ago every country was an underdeveloped country. The new thing in the world – the fantastic thing that demands an explanation – is wealth. The fact that some countries and regions have been lifted out of poverty for the first time in the world’s history.

The reason is capitalism. It was capitalism that opened the doors for human creativity, so that we could produce goods and services on an unprecedented scale.

130 years ago my forefathers in Sweden starved. Sweden then was poorer than Congo is today, and people lived twenty years shorter than they do in the average developing countries. To survive the Swedes had to make bread from bark, lichen and straw, and they made porridge on meal minced from the bones of fish and other animals.

Sweden was not developed by socialism and the welfare state. If we had redistributed all property and all incomes in Sweden then, every Swede would be living on the same level as the average person in Mozambique. Instead, Sweden was liberalised in the mid-19th century, and free people on free markets with free trade could produce wealth, and make us a rich country. Our economy was specialised and made more efficient so that we could feed ourselves and afford other goods as well – clothes, housing, newspapers, education. By 1950, before the Swedish welfare state was built, the Swedish economy had quadrupled. Infant mortality had been reduced by 85 per cent and life expectancy had increased by a miraculous 25 years.

This has happened in every place where people have got the freedom to own, produce and trade – where they have capitalism. We can see this clearly in regions divided not by people, culture or tradition, but by their political economy. Capitalist West Germany became one of the world’s leading economies, communist East Germany stagnated; capitalist South Korea went from underdeveloped to European standards of living, socialist North Korea went from bad to much, much worse; the Chinese on capitalist Taiwan had the fastest growth in the world, the Chinese in red China starved – until they started their own economic liberalisation.

In the last 20 years, global economic growth has lifted 200 million people out of absolute poverty. It is true that there is a horribly unequal distribution in the world. But that is because of the unequal distribution of capitalism in the world. Those who have capitalism grow rich – those who don’t, they stay poor.

130 years ago in Sweden, luxury was to have sufficient food for the day, and be able to give your children an education – something available only to the rich. Capitalism made it possible for ordinary people to get that. Then luxury became to afford a car and a telephone. Luxury is that which is almost, but not really, within reach. And the constant change and dynamics in capitalism changes the concept of luxury constantly.

Luxury is something relative. Luxury is that which we want, but rarely have access to. When I was a poor student with a lot of spare time, luxury was to afford to eat out, and drink expensive drinks. Today luxury is to have more spare time, to sit and read a book over a cup of tea.

The incredible development under capitalism constantly makes us richer, and makes the goods we want available to new groups. And as we get richer and afford the old luxuries, new goods, that we never thought about before, become the new luxuries, worth striving for. In North Korea luxury is still to get sufficient food to survive the day.

Today more than 72 per cent of those classified as “poor” in the US have a washing machine, and one or more cars, 60 per cent have a microwave, 93 per cent have a colour television. The poor in the US have more of these things, than the average American had 30 years ago. The poor in Western countries have a standard of living that the kings couldn’t dream of 200 years ago.

And this is because some people were allowed to take the first steps to luxury. When the first millionaires bought a car, the socialists derided it as a rich mans’ toy. But the rich’s car purchases gave resources to the producers, who could invest them in more efficient production methods, which made the cars available to more people. The same thing happened with refrigerators, telephones, radios, medicines and education. If those who fought for material equality and against luxuries had won the day, these inventions would never have been developed, and the research that went into making them in a cheap way for the mass market, would never have been subsidised by the wealthy’s purchases.

So much for those who complain that the introduction of personal computers and the Internet creates a ”digital divide”. Progress always starts somewhere, with someone, and that is contrary to their demand for equality. If they had been present 50 000 years ago, they would have complained about the ”elemental divide” that was created when some learnt to control the fire, or the ”transportational divide” when someone invented the wheel.

Goods and services are not trivial. They contribute into making our lives good, comfortable and entertaining. Those who think it is superficial must ask themselves why people strive for them everywhere. The kind of goods that are perceived as luxuries in a society says a lot about that society. One of the reasons why the Russians hated the communist system was that it turned tampons and toilet papers into luxuries. The first thing many Afghanis did after the taleban dictatorship had fallen was to put on make-up and listen to the music that used to be forbidden. If not even brutal dictatorships can control man’s interest in the good life, what could?

But if we always want more, and better things, isn’t this a curse more than a blessing? We strive for more wealth, but when we attain that we are not content, instead we merely continue to strive for even more. Does money really make us happier? A singer answered: “perhaps not, but I’d rather cry in a Roll-Royce than on a bus”.

But that is to understate the case. It is not the money in itself that makes us happier. Instead it is the knowledge that our lives can improve. There is something in human nature that brings us joy when we get something that is hard to come by. Luxury is lust and joy. Capitalism – through the constant improvement and wealth creation – is the only system that regularly gives us that enjoyment by letting us come closer to, and within the reach of luxuries, and that gives us new ideas of new luxuries, with the hope that we will attain them in the future as well. Not for a small privileged class, but for all of us.

In six years, two thirds of the Americans in the poorest fifth of the population, climb to one of the top three fifths. And at the same time, the bottom fifth is constantly filled with new poor immigrants and students who are about to enter the same upward social mobility. That is why Cubans swim to the US, and not the other way around. The belief in a better future is perhaps mankind’s most rewarding and important psychological gift. Champagne and caviar is a good symbol for that.

For many elitist intellectuals, this is merely a materialist hunt for superficial pleasures. But that’s merely because they have other pleasures and luxuries. To find that rare book, to listen to that great lecture or to get that title of professor. We all have our favourites. These intellectuals would be amazed by the diversity of pleasures that exist in a society. They should learn to appreciate some pluralism.

http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=73

[violencia.Proletariat]

i tire of the human nature arguement. is it natural to use machines like we do in most capitalist countries to make our lives easier, no doesnt seem so. so why do anti leftists say this? i dont think we can associate "human nature" idea with most people because we are so far from being in a natural situation. not to mention the fact that we can overcome this nature if we can cooperate. why isnt cooperation natural? is it not another way to survive?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 02:26 AM

I think there may be a grain of truth in what you say Publius.

In capitalism, you have to horde because you never know when you're gonna lose it all and end up in the gutter.

Once you take away this worrysome possibility, the urge to accumulate vast wealth quickly dissipates.

Mao tse-Tung say: Our communism utopia will create most special food wealth. Under capitalism you never know when you are going to lost it all and end up in the gutter. Once we dissipate this worrisome possibility, we will live in a peaceful paradise for 1000 years!


In Red China there was no need to accumulate vast wealth, I mean, the hugely successful communes would supply you with all th e food you would ever need! Why accumulate anything!?
Yea. That is why communist China lost millions to famine after the yellow river flooded. The extra food production that existed, never existed.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 04:19 AM
i tire of the human nature arguement. is it natural to use machines like we do in most capitalist countries to make our lives easier, no doesnt seem so. so why do anti leftists say this? i dont think we can associate "human nature" idea with most people because we are so far from being in a natural situation. not to mention the fact that we can overcome this nature if we can cooperate. why isnt cooperation natural? is it not another way to survive?
Please understand. Humans are animals. We have millions of years of built in behavior. Some of this behavior is so hard wired that you don't even know that your doing it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The real world says:

No it doesn't.


Ideologies and thinkers fight over the best solution to our problems. Capitalism is the recognition that this one best answer does not exist. We can’t build a perfect system, which would suit everyone. That is why capitalism says that all peaceful ideas, projects and systems are welcome.

Capitalism is not a peaceful system in itself.
Economic hierarchy = class antagonisms


It says that we don’t know the one best way, so people have to decide themselves what might be best for them, what kind of ideas and dreams they want to realize and what kinds of goods and services they should or shouldn’t consume. You are free to try anything, as long as you don’t use force against other people, or force them to pay for your projects.

You are also "free" to take away other peoples' freedoms. By this I mean those who own capital.
You're missing what our beef is with capitalism. What we don't like is the fact that a small elite controls capital.

Capital belongs to the working class, and capitalism allows that be in the hands of the employers? What did they do to deserve it? How did they become the employers? How did this collective product end up in the hands of a few folks? Why don't I enjoy this "freedom"?


Want a “Buy nothing-day”? Sure, go ahead. You can have it every day of the week. Capitalism means voluntary relations. No deal is ever made if both parties don’t think that they benefit from it.

I think everyone's a aware that the bourgeoisie always benefits. The problem is that there's no alternative.
What the "all-powerful" consumer tries to do is find the deal that will get him fucked in the ass-hole least by the capitalists.


Some people blame capitalism for the poverty in the world. That’s because they haven’t studied – or at least haven’t understood – history. Poverty is nothing new. Poverty has always been the fate of mankind. 200 years ago every country was an underdeveloped country. The new thing in the world – the fantastic thing that demands an explanation – is wealth. The fact that some countries and regions have been lifted out of poverty for the first time in the world’s history.

Capitalism is to blame for the national rift of wealth.
We are very aware that poverty has always existed. But what exists today is the bourgeoisie of the first world and the working class of the third world.

I'll also use this opportunity to point out the fact that Cuba has been the only Latin Amrican country to pull itself out of rampant poverty.


Sweden was not developed by socialism and the welfare state. If we had redistributed all property and all incomes in Sweden then, every Swede would be living on the same level as the average person in Mozambique. Instead, Sweden was liberalised in the mid-19th century, and free people on free markets with free trade could produce wealth, and make us a rich country. Our economy was specialised and made more efficient so that we could feed ourselves and afford other goods as well – clothes, housing, newspapers, education. By 1950, before the Swedish welfare state was built, the Swedish economy had quadrupled. Infant mortality had been reduced by 85 per cent and life expectancy had increased by a miraculous 25 years.

Yes, we recognize the improvements brought about by industrialization and capitalism (in countries not victimized by globalization).

But almost every socialist experiment also yielded very good results. China and Russia, for example, were living in the middle ages by the early 20th century.


In the last 20 years, global economic growth has lifted 200 million people out of absolute poverty. It is true that there is a horribly unequal distribution in the world. But that is because of the unequal distribution of capitalism in the world. Those who have capitalism grow rich – those who don’t, they stay poor.

Lie.
Those which are rich stay rich, those which are not stay poor.

I'll reply more later, your writing bores me.

take care.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 13 2005, 11:23 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 13 2005, 11:23 AM) Sorry, but it is human nature to be competitive.

Not only human nature, but it is mammal behavior.

All social mammals have top/down structures with superior individuals on top. They eat first, mate first, and basically domanate lower rank mammals. There are no 'communist' social mammals. Social ranking and dominance is 'human' and basic mammal behavior. [/b]
Notice I did not say that humans are not competitive, but rather competitive not matter what. There is a difference.

I call your bluff on the last paragraph. Do dolphins and whales have a social hierachy? Do certain members of a group eat first? Face it you are wrong.


ahhh_money_is_comfort
Please understand. Humans are animals. We have millions of years of built in behavior. Some of this behavior is so hard wired that you don't even know that your doing it.
Yes.

[Professor Moneybags]

You are also "free" to take away other peoples' freedoms. By this I mean those who own capital.

No, they don't. What freedom is being taken away ?


You're missing what our beef is with capitalism. What we don't like is the fact that a small elite controls capital.

Don't worry, they don't.


Capital belongs to the working class,

Capital belongs to whoever earns it.


and capitalism allows that be in the hands of the employers?

Can your employer raid your bank account a will ? Then he's not in charge of your capital.


What did they do to deserve it?

They made it. They paid for it.


How did this collective product end up in the hands of a few folks?

Because they paid for it, or created it.


Why don't I enjoy this "freedom"?

Because you didn't create it, or pay for it.

[cubist]

it is absurd to undermine evolution with this human nature argument, it is not natural to be greedy and until the religous zealots stop forgiving us for our inherent sins we will never rid ourselves of this shamefull explanation,

nature is about weeding out the weaknesses to be successful, not oppressing the masses to be rich,

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:06 AM
Whether or not the desire for an accumulation of personal wealth and selfishness are parts of human nature, capitalism still fails.
By what standard are we judging this failiure ?

[Publius]

No it doesn't.

Thanks for setting me straight on that one!




Capitalism is not a peaceful system in itself.
Economic hierarchy = class antagonisms

Yeah, I mean, look at all those wars that have broken out between the classes in the last 200 years, there are what, zero of them?



You are also "free" to take away other peoples' freedoms. By this I mean those who own capital.
You're missing what our beef is with capitalism. What we don't like is the fact that a small elite controls capital.

Capital belongs to the working class, and capitalism allows that be in the hands of the employers? What did they do to deserve it? How did they become the employers? How did this collective product end up in the hands of a few folks? Why don't I enjoy this "freedom"?

Capital belongs to the working class? I think you mean it SHOULD.

And I think you're wrong.

What shouldn't a small elite control the wealth? Because it's not 'fair'? What's not 'fair' about it?

Do you have any arguments other than these infantile 'things should be this way' garbage?

Capitalism allows you to make money. THat's pretty simple. But the trick is, the caveat if you will, that you can only get money if other people give it to you.

Your complaint about the rich is that to many other people GAVE them money.

Your problem obviously isn't with the rich, the hapless recievers of the funds, but with the consumers who piss their money away to the very people who want to kill them!

Now why would the poor go and do a thing like that, give away their money to people that want to exploit them? None on their right mind would, and it stands that people don't.

The 'collective' product only ends up in the hands of a few because the collective gave them that money via their labor or their purchases.


I think everyone's a aware that the bourgeoisie always benefits. The problem is that there's no alternative.
What the "all-powerful" consumer tries to do is find the deal that will get him fucked in the ass-hole least by the capitalists.

No alternative except every other capitalist or potential capitalist that exists.

Why would people do things that anally rape them?

Wouldn't people be much more inclined to give money to people that won't sodomize them? Won't this in turn run the sodomites out of business?




Capitalism is to blame for the national rift of wealth.
We are very aware that poverty has always existed. But what exists today is the bourgeoisie of the first world and the working class of the third world.

I'll also use this opportunity to point out the fact that Cuba has been the only Latin Amrican country to pull itself out of rampant poverty.

What is the unemloyment rate of the third world. Compare the poverty rate among the workers and the non-workers in the third world.

Except for Chile and Mexico.



Yes, we recognize the improvements brought about by industrialization and capitalism (in countries not victimized by globalization).

But almost every socialist experiment also yielded very good results. China and Russia, for example, were living in the middle ages by the early 20th century.


HHAHAHAAH

How is globalization bad? Even the people being GLOBALIZED think it's good: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/185topline.pdf

And can you prove that China and Russia are better off during that time period than they would have been if they were capitalist? If not, you have no point.




Lie.
Those which are rich stay rich, those which are not stay poor.

I'll reply more later, your writing bores me.

take care.

So everyone who is rich has been rich for all eternity?

And it isn't my writing.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 13 2005, 04:49 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 13 2005, 04:49 AM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 04:19 AM
i tire of the human nature arguement. is it natural to use machines like we do in most capitalist countries to make our lives easier, no doesnt seem so. so why do anti leftists say this? i dont think we can associate "human nature" idea with most people because we are so far from being in a natural situation. not to mention the fact that we can overcome this nature if we can cooperate. why isnt cooperation natural? is it not another way to survive?
Please understand. Humans are animals. We have millions of years of built in behavior. Some of this behavior is so hard wired that you don't even know that your doing it. [/b]
yes but if we are talking about human nature interfearing in a leftist society, then why would it? I mean, were are all the same species, so if some of us can live in a leftists society and put down our "human nature" why cant everyone else? i mean sure there are smarter people than others but that doesnt mean the less smart person cant learn more. idk if this has been said before but its easy to use human nature as an excuse becuase of the society we live in.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:23 PM
it is absurd to undermine evolution with this human nature argument, it is not natural to be greedy and until the religous zealots stop forgiving us for our inherent sins we will never rid ourselves of this shamefull explanation,

nature is about weeding out the weaknesses to be successful, not oppressing the masses to be rich,
Greedy?

You have never seen monkeys at the zoo and a big pile of bannans. Every monkey is carrying away more bananas in hands, mouths, and feet; than they could hope to eat. Now are these monkies somehow corrupted by capitalism to be greedy?

[JC1]

You have never seen monkeys at the zoo and a big pile of bannans. Every monkey is carrying away more bananas in hands, mouths, and feet; than they could hope to eat. Now are these monkies somehow corrupted by capitalism to be greedy?

I just had a crazy idea ! Use empirical evidence to back up youre absurd claims !!!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
But that is to understate the case. It is not the money in itself that makes us happier. Instead it is the knowledge that our lives can improve. There is something in human nature that brings us joy when we get something that is hard to come by. Luxury is lust and joy. Capitalism – through the constant improvement and wealth creation – is the only system that regularly gives us that enjoyment by letting us come closer to, and within the reach of luxuries, and that gives us new ideas of new luxuries, with the hope that we will attain them in the future as well. Not for a small privileged class, but for all of us.

This is unusually well-argued and seemingly confirmed by common observation.

Consider an expression heard frequently in capitalist societies -- "I want to better myself" -- understood by all to have nothing to do with that individual's personal qualities or characteristics, but to refer, instead, to the acquisition of commodities that were previously too expensive for that individual to afford.

I bettered myself by obtaining the wealth for a more expensive home, automobile, etc.

Or the "rush" that people get when they buy something previously "out of reach"...for at least a little while, they feel better about themselves just looking at their new commodity.

Of course, they soon need another "fix"...but so what? Capitalism has your next luxury in a showroom near you. And if you spend your entire life buying things to get that "rush"...who cares? Better that than chasing after "salvation", right?

I think Publius's explanation of what we may call the "psychological appeal" of capitalism is, broadly speaking, accurate for our era.

The only questionable part is his brief statement that "there is something in human nature" that is the real source of this appeal. He assumes without discussion that humans are like a computer with an operating system "hard-wired" to respond in certain limited ways while ruling out all possibilities of other responses.

Is his assumption justified?

One difficulty with his assumption is the historical fact that capitalism was "a long time coming". If we have, say, 5,000 years of recorded human history to consider, modern capitalism is only a small part of that total.

Why did it take so long for humans to invent this "perfect system" so "in tune" with "human nature"? There have been merchants and traders -- the forerunners of capitalism -- throughout recorded history...but it wasn't until the 17th century or so that they really began to become capitalists in a modern sense.

Perhaps it took that long to overcome religious scruples. Or perhaps we couldn't have capitalism until we had a technological base for it.

But then there is another and more serious difficulty: as people are "lifted out of poverty", they do show a marked tendency to think more...and it takes an increasingly elaborate and expensive effort to keep people "dumbed down" and shopping regularly. It's difficult to see why this should be if "human nature" has, at last, found its "perfect system".

I've read some absurd numbers -- that U.S. corporations spend "a trillion dollars" a year on marketing -- which doesn't seem possible. But we do know that the sums are very large and getting larger. And we'd have to add in the amounts spent by the sprawling entertainment industry...the circuses of imperial Rome are trivial by comparison.

Why the need for such elaborate distractions? Isn't the regular flow of "new luxuries" sufficient?

Still another problem: why the apparent growth of cynicism? Why do more and more people (it seems) express not opposition to capitalism but cynicism about its real motives? Not to mention its leading personnel.

Is it the fault of "intellectual malcontents" alone? (I've seen this argument made by defenders of capitalism.) But if capitalism is "in tune" with "human nature", why should there be any "intellectual malcontents" at all? The only discontent should arise from people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are permanently "shut out" of the flow of luxuries...and, if Publius is right, those people will eventually be admitted to the flow and their discontent will ebb.

Yet people who are well immersed in the flow (what Americans like to call "the great middle class")...are growing cynical. As in the popular expression "the problem with the rat race is that the rats always win".

Or as revealed in the popular delight when some leading personality -- a celebrant of the virtues of capitalism -- goes to prison. (Remember all the Martha Stewart jokes?)

Or the inexplicable "epidemic" of "clinical depression" that is sweeping the capitalist world. Why should people be "depressed" when things are "getting better"?

Some "part" of "human nature" is not "adjusting well" to the "perfect capitalist system"...at least for a significant portion of its beneficiaries.

This does not bode well for Publius's assumptions about "human nature".

And suggests that capitalism may not be "the perfect system" for "human nature" after all.

It may be just another stage along the way.

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

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 02:21 PM







Consider an expression heard frequently in capitalist societies -- "I want to better myself" -- understood by all to have nothing to do with that individual's personal qualities or characteristics, but to refer, instead, to the acquisition of commodities that were previously too expensive for that individual to afford.

Bettering yourself can mean many things.

Get a new degree, be it for money or the intellectual prize, learning a new language for use at a job, or for fun, picking up a game or sport, or hobby, or recreation.

It's far to basic to label bettering oneself to the acquisition of goods. To some people, that is their goal, to many others, it isn't.


Or the "rush" that people get when they buy something previously "out of reach"...for at least a little while, they feel better about themselves just looking at their new commodity.

How can this 'rush' be created by capitalism? Does an economic system have the inexplicable power to release chemicals in your brain?

It's very obviously not about the commodity at all, because 2 people can be overjoyed at 2 very different items, and people recieved this joy before 'capitalism'.

As man said, people have a natural propensity to truck, barter, and exchange goods.

Perhaps this is seated much more deeply in our pschye and nature than is currently known?

As a matter of fact, a recent article on the Economist spoke of a study released in an Econonics journal that states that Homo sapien won it's evolutionary battle against Homo neanderthalensis due not to technology or intelligence, but due it's superiour economic skills.

Basically, Neanderthals did not trade and Homo sapiens did, and this is possibly the difference maker.

One could say, if this data is true, that we are Homo economicus.


Of course, they soon need another "fix"...but so what? Capitalism has your next luxury in a showroom near you. And if you spend your entire life buying things to get that "rush"...who cares? Better that than chasing after "salvation", right?

Are you attempting to state that capitalism is some sort of addiction?

To some perhaps, but it is really less of an addiction than a simple action. You make hundreds of economic decisions a day, not because you're addicted, but because it's the way the world works, and I don't mean 'capitalism'.

And are you attempting to say that communism would change our very psyches and make us react differently to the material world?

Delving into unsubstantiated marxist metaphysics are we?


I think Publius's explanation of what we may call the "psychological appeal" of capitalism is, broadly speaking, accurate for our era.

Our era being the human era.


The only questionable part is his brief statement that "there is something in human nature" that is the real source of this appeal. He assumes without discussion that humans are like a computer with an operating system "hard-wired" to respond in certain limited ways while ruling out all possibilities of other responses.

I'll see if I can find this study, sadly I don't subscribe to the Journal and I doubt you subscribe the Economist.


One difficulty with his assumption is the historical fact that capitalism was "a long time coming". If we have, say, 5,000 years of recorded human history to consider, modern capitalism is only a small part of that total.

One cannot have meaningful 'capitalism' without industrial production or an equivilent.

Without goods to trade, goods cannot be traded.



Why did it take so long for humans to invent this "perfect system" so "in tune" with "human nature"? There have been merchants and traders -- the forerunners of capitalism -- throughout recorded history...but it wasn't until the 17th century or so that they really began to become capitalists in a modern sense.

It took us a while to invent language, but Chomsky and many others say that we were 'pre-programmed' for it.

Is langauge also a trait of our era?



Perhaps it took that long to overcome religious scruples. Or perhaps we couldn't have capitalism until we had a technological base for it.

Religious scruples, what an oxymoron. I assume your kidding, because any 'scruples' gotten under the threat of eternal damnation are washed out by the repugnance of the blackmail needed to commit them.

"Help that old lady cross the street our I'll shoot you in the head!" isn't an example of any sort of morality on any party's part.

I would say the problem was technological and societal.

Without complex trade networks, cities, and with constant warring, capitalism was not likely to spring up.



But then there is another and more serious difficulty: as people are "lifted out of poverty", they do show a marked tendency to think more...and it takes an increasingly elaborate and expensive effort to keep people "dumbed down" and shopping regularly. It's difficult to see why this should be if "human nature" has, at last, found its "perfect system".

How did this complex system of subjugation arise? Why do people keep buying into it?


I've read some absurd numbers -- that U.S. corporations spend "a trillion dollars" a year on marketing -- which doesn't seem possible. But we do know that the sums are very large and getting larger. And we'd have to add in the amounts spent by the sprawling entertainment industry...the circuses of imperial Rome are trivial by comparison.

Yay communism! Get rid of entertainment!



Why the need for such elaborate distractions? Isn't the regular flow of "new luxuries" sufficient?

I was under the impression that 'elaborate distracions' and 'new luxuries' were the same things in your eyes.



Still another problem: why the apparent growth of cynicism? Why do more and more people (it seems) express not opposition to capitalism but cynicism about its real motives? Not to mention its leading personnel.

Few people are cynicle about free and fair trading, they are cynical about a lot the trading going on today, that admittedly, is neither free or fair; this I chalk up to flawed (Because it exists) governmental policy and lack of convern taken by consumers, mixed in with an expected level of malfeance in the business sector.


Is it the fault of "intellectual malcontents" alone? (I've seen this argument made by defenders of capitalism.) But if capitalism is "in tune" with "human nature", why should there be any "intellectual malcontents" at all? The only discontent should arise from people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are permanently "shut out" of the flow of luxuries...and, if Publius is right, those people will eventually be admitted to the flow and their discontent will ebb.

Language is certainly in tune with human nature buy many people would find it offensive if I told them to go fuck themselves.

Are those people 'linguistic malconents'?

Language, like capitalism, is a tool, that can be used for good or bad. If the people on want to buy guns and beer, society could be a hellhole, if people only want to buy kittens and strawberry muffins, it's a magical place.

Capitalism IS a representation of human nature, the good and bad.

Just like murder is a representation of some parts of human nature, malavalent capitalism (If it could be called that) is a part of human nature.

Does the bad outweigh the good?


Yet people who are well immersed in the flow (what Americans like to call "the great middle class")...are growing cynical. As in the popular expression "the problem with the rat race is that the rats always win".

This getting philosophical, and marxist philosophy is not something I want to get into a debate over.

We could argue over existentialism all day and night, and it would get us nowhere.

I ask this, how would communism fix these problems and be free of new ones?


Or as revealed in the popular delight when some leading personality -- a celebrant of the virtues of capitalism -- goes to prison. (Remember all the Martha Stewart jokes?)

She commited a crime. That's not 'capitalism' any more so than stealing a car is.


Or the inexplicable "epidemic" of "clinical depression" that is sweeping the capitalist world. Why should people be "depressed" when things are "getting better"?

Sweden, a socialist 'paradise' has a suicide rate much higher than the capitalistic U.S.

If it's capitalism that causes depression, shouldn't the more capitalistic countries have higher rates than the more socialistic ones?


Some "part" of "human nature" is not "adjusting well" to the "perfect capitalist system"...at least for a significant portion of its beneficiaries.

I agree. Many people have a need for 'something more' than this world.

I really don't think I do. I doubt I have any religosity or spirituality, and I'm happy for it.

It's not an economic problem, very obviously, it's something else.



This does not bode well for Publius's assumptions about "human nature".


I don't think it bodes at all.



And suggests that capitalism may not be "the perfect system" for "human nature" after all.

If not, then why hasn't anything else taken hold?


It may be just another stage along the way.

I doubt it.

[Andy Bowden]

The reason humans have evolved to the dominant species on earth is because we are social animals. We raise and care for our young, develop relationships and work together. Humans are not entirely greedy nor are they entirely selfish. History is filled with both those selfish humans and those who sacrifice - an example the US Socialist James Cannon provided was the way workers would donate some of their skin to be grafted to people they didn't even know.

Capitalism acts against human nature because it turns things into commodities, produced not for human need, but for profit. Food that is overproduced for example is destroyed under Capitalism - most people would far rather see this produce given to those who are starving or malnourished than have it destroyed.

By the same token, military technology and arms are produced under Capitalism not because they are needed but because it is profitable to make them, for example the Indonesian govt's purchase of Hawk Hunter jets to ethnically cleanse the people of East Timor while most of the Indonesian population lived in poverty.

[redstar2000]

I guess I should have anticipated the intellectual level (low, unserious) of your response; you "sucked me in" with a pretty decent post and then returned to the typical cappie "one-liners" in this forum.

As it happens, I do read the Economist on line every week and urge other lefties to do likewise. It is far and away the most intelligent capitalist publication (in English) that I'm aware of...and the most honest as well.

Perhaps you are aware that whenever Marx himself wanted to quote an authoritative capitalist opinion on some matter of the day, he preferred the Economist to any other source.

The premium content on their site is now available to non-subscribers...all you need do is permit them to load an ad and then you're home free.

http://www.economist.com/

I am also aware of the "study" that you are referring to. The Economist itself admitted that it was a guess albeit a plausible one.

We are unlikely to ever learn why Neanderthal Man went extinct...or even why modern humans underwent a kind of cultural "explosion" c.25000-50000 years ago. Our own species is at least 100,000 years older than that...and all we did was chip flints and make fires like the Neanderthals did.

And then, "suddenly", we started making tools out of bones, painting cave walls and putting up elaborate drawings on the sides of cliffs, and living in what could only be called villages, etc.

And even, apparently, trading stuff.

Shortly afterwards, Neanderthal Man was gone forever.

The really odd thing is...Neanderthal Man actually had a slighter larger brain than we did (or do).

Did we just "get lucky" or what?

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

[Publius]

We capitalists are masters of the bait and switch technique.

Ever bought a car?

Aside from my flippant tone, I dont' see how I was being particularly low and unserious.

And the Economist is an extraordinary magazine.

Glad I learned of it's existence.

[Professor Moneybags]

History is filled with both those selfish humans and those who sacrifice

This is a false dilemma.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 02:21 PM
Or perhaps we couldn't have capitalism until we had a technological base for it.
Putting the cart before the horse as usual.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 01:15 AM

You have never seen monkeys at the zoo and a big pile of bannans. Every monkey is carrying away more bananas in hands, mouths, and feet; than they could hope to eat. Now are these monkies somehow corrupted by capitalism to be greedy?

I just had a crazy idea ! Use empirical evidence to back up youre absurd claims !!!
You mean you don't believe me?

You mean you don't believe me that if there is a big pile of bananas in the monkey exhibit, monkies will get greedy and hoard bananas just like I stated?

Ok.

If I put a big pile of bananas in the middle of the monkey exhibit at different zoos and different groups of monkeys in the wild, how many times do you think this greed behavior will be observed?

1%

2%

30%

or will it be

100%?

I think it will be 100%? How about you?

I think you are sooooo prejudiced and closed minded that even if YOU went to the zoo and saw this behavior, you would deny it even happened. Why not? Communist have been re-writting history so things 'never happened' to serve thier purpose, why not YOU too?

[JC1]

You mean you don't believe me that if there is a big pile of bananas in the monkey exhibit, monkies will get greedy and hoard bananas just like I stated?

Ok.

If I put a big pile of bananas in the middle of the monkey exhibit at different zoos and different groups of monkeys in the wild, how many times do you think this greed behavior will be observed?

1%

2%

30%

or will it be

100%?

I think it will be 100%? How about you?

This is Andecdotal evidence, amnd has little to dop with humans.

Find me some genetic evidence of " Human" Nature. If it exists it should be there, the Genome is fully mapped.

[JC1]

I see no has a genetric marker for human nature , so there fore human nature is non-issue becuuase it dosent exist.

[JazzRemington]

I feel sorry for human nature. It gets blamed for everything that someone does.

It gets blamed for why people hoard, why people share, why people kill, why people don't kill, why people steal, why people give, why people are mean, why people are nice, why people are quiet, why people are social, why people are evil, why people are good.

[*Hippie*]

Have you ever noticed when people use the "human nature" argument, they are often just trying to justify and rationalize a negative trait they AS AN INDIVIDUAL possess.

Human nature is a bourgeous LIE!

[JC1]

No ansewers from the Cappies ?

[JC1]

So its like that.

[OleMarxco]

Perhaps the cappies jus' don't care :P
Ipso factos, most cappies are wrong -- or atleast hypocritical, simply because what they hit at us, ricochets back to 'rem! See, when they speak of HUMAN NATURE's fault in as of Communism, I could just point at the New York times, the Stock Market, multinational companies in the Thirld-World, privatizing of foreign water and sweat-shops, if not Enron, and they would better shut their fuckin' mouth up. WOOORD UP!

It's apparantly human-nature to exploit and rape as monsters withouth sense of guilt or consciousness, too! ;)
So if the real problem is Human nature regardless of "system", I would still prefer Communism to Capitalism anyday!

[riverotter]

My two cents:

There may be a human nature (there probably is) but a) we don't know what it is because it's buried under all this socialization stuff and b) all this socialization stuff that obscures human nature is itself human nature.

Humans have the most complex brains of all animals, and they are the only ones whose brains continue growing after birth. This aspect of the neotony (retaining childhood traits into adulthood) that characterizes humans is what makes humans so adaptable. Humans have evolved to rely largely, if not mostly, on socialization as opposed to some sort of biologically programmed "human nature".