Human Nature

[Saketh]

I am sure that all of you have heard the classic argument against socialism and its subsets: "It won't work, because it's human nature to be selfish."

I find this argument most irritating, and the heads that spew it most impervious. There is nothing that one can say to convince them otherwise.

I'm unable to criticize this position effectively, and thus I am always susceptible to this particular position. I realize how weak it is, how unfounded the conclusions are, but I have no defense against it.

This argument usually comes from people who think that Russia and China were communist governments (oxymoron), but telling them that "true communism has never happened" will only sound useless.

If I gather enough information, I may try to write an article refuting this argument, or at least making it unusable.

[Decolonize The Left]

I agree Saketh.

There is a whole thread with numerous replies to this same question/complaint in the Philosophy section called "Can 'human nature' Change?"

I suggest you read that for some of our thoughts on the subject.

-- August

[Paradox]

This argument usually comes from people who think that Russia and China were communist governments (oxymoron)

That's not the oxymoron. The actual one is Communist state. In Communism there is government... but it is the people governing themselves.


"It won't work, because it's human nature to be selfish."

Well, yes human nature is BS, but on the selfish part, Socialism/Communism is selfish in a way. It's not about altruism, but rather what is in the interest of the people and the individual as well. You've got to convince people that Socialism/Communism will not just benefit a bunch of people in some far off place they've never been to, you've got to convince them it's in their own interest as well. Otherwise, why would they struggle for it? So in that sense, Socialism/Communism is "selfish." As far as what the capitalists mean, that people "naturally" want to be rich, that's BS.

[anomaly]

Its human nature only to survive. In a capitalist society, one is forced to survive by laboring for a wage. His wage is his survival, so he takes care of this wage. It goes to him first, so this is viewed as selfishness.

In communism, the people will work collectively for mutual benefit. If the bourgeosie don't get the extreme luxuries they receive today, cannot these luxuries be spread evenly to the people? For most this will mean gaining more material wealth than they received under communism, so why wouldn't they accept it? Man has his substenance, and to attain substenance is certainly human nature.

It is also human nature to want power (as Nietszche called it the 'Will to Power). In capitalism, power comes with capital. In communism, this power will be given to all equally. Again, for the vast majority, their power will increase compared to their power under capitalism.

Unfortunately, the capitalist usually believes himself, not you, so any argument to something so intangible as 'human nature' may prove useless. It's still fun to see the blank look in their eyes, though.

[space_ice_cream]

<I am sure that all of you have heard the classic argument against socialism and its subsets: "It won&#39;t work, because it&#39;s human nature to be selfish."

I find this argument most irritating, and the heads that spew it most impervious. There is nothing that one can say to convince them otherwise.

I&#39;m unable to criticize this position effectively, and thus I am always susceptible to this particular position. I realize how weak it is, how unfounded the conclusions are, but I have no defense against it. >

The defense against this kind of argument is simple. It is only the individual who has individual greed, society as a whole has no sympathy for individualist greed. If you have a government which is established in which no individual can attain higher political power than any other individual, then there is no risk of individualist greed.

[JD]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:37 PM
<I am sure that all of you have heard the classic argument against socialism and its subsets: "It won&#39;t work, because it&#39;s human nature to be selfish."

I find this argument most irritating, and the heads that spew it most impervious. There is nothing that one can say to convince them otherwise.

I&#39;m unable to criticize this position effectively, and thus I am always susceptible to this particular position. I realize how weak it is, how unfounded the conclusions are, but I have no defense against it. >

The defense against this kind of argument is simple. It is only the individual who has individual greed, society as a whole has no sympathy for individualist greed. If you have a government which is established in which no individual can attain higher political power than any other individual, then there is no risk of individualist greed.
Exactly&#33; It is the individual who has the drive to want more (greed). However, does this mean more "stuff" or more power? I have been thinkinga bout what someone said to me in a debate a few moths ago. He said "In other coutries (with more socialist policies) you can get by and never worry. In the US, you can make something of yourself." At first, I didn&#39;t have anything to come up with, but then I thought, "why si making something of yourself (in the capitalist sense of making more money and having more things) a good thing? In my experience and knowledge, those who "make something of themselves" usually do so at the expense of others. Yet, we are taught that we are supposed to do well by others. How is that possible if the basis of the system creates damage for others who are affected by the person who achieves victory in the competative structure?

In other words, we can&#39;t do well by others and "make something of ourselves", in Capitalism. It is this hypocrasy and oxymoronic training that stunts the growth of the masses. They want to do good and succeed. Is it wrong to succeed if you are trying to create a cure for communicable dieases? No. But at the same time, while you compete against someone to create it first, you end up putting drugs on the market that are not rerally effective. This is wrong. So even while you are trying to do good, you are also stuck in a system that will end up doing harm for others, no matter what you try and do.

Getting back to greed, is greed always monetary? What about a thirst for knowledge? You want more and more knowledge, and nothing is ever going ot be enough. This isn&#39;t a bad thing. So , greed in a general sense is not a bad thing. If it were nurtured in a system where this part of Human Nature lead to ambition to perform and create, it could be used for good. So, in Communism, this aspect would cause a human being to want to do more. It will go from "I want it&#33;" to "I want to do it&#33;". The philosophy behind Communism takes what is in humankind and transforms it and guides it into creative endeavors rather destructive.

[afnan]

Can ‘Human Nature’ Change? -- Harry Magdoff and Fred Magdoff (http://reddiarypk.blogspot.com/2005/07/can-human-nature-change-harry-magdoff.html)

The thread regarding this article is going in here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38708).