Human Nature is BULLSHIT

[FidelCastro]

I hate it when people say, Communism doesn't work because of human nature. That is a crock of bull. Communism wasen't given enough time, maybe three generations at most. Capitalism was still fresh in everyones mind and they lived in a capitalist world. After 6 or 7 generations, it would have faded. In the west and in Europe we don't use the trade system (trading 1 cow for 2 pigs). That is a product used long ago (I don't know exactly when) and it is something we don't even consider anymore. It was used for a while in Civilizations but is a concept faded from our mind, like capitalism, if given the chance.

[Abood]

sorry comrade, i dont get exactly what ur trying to say. plz explain so i can discuss.

[loveme4whoiam]

Erm, I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I'll have a go.

I'm one of those people who say that Communism won't work due to the selfish and self-destructive nature of humans. Even if there had been a global revolution as Marx and Lenin desired, it would have broken down since it relies on a spirit of co-operation being prevalent. Human nature is such that at least one person would attempt to get more than others, thus breaking the system.

I applaud Communism as a perfect theoretical system (I don't yet know enough about anarchism to judge that system), but unfortunately humans are vile, destructive, and selfish.

*Waits to be lambasted :ph34r: *

[Abood]

I'm one of those people who say that Communism won't work due to the selfish and self-destructive nature of humans.
i don't believe in human nature. u are what society makes u. humans are selfish and self-destructive because thts what society made us be. if we were born in a selfless, communist, equal world, then we would learn to be like that.

[loveme4whoiam]

Hmm. Not sure if I buy into that one, although I guess the only way to be sure would actually be to HAVE a selfless, communist, equal world, and test the occupants! :P

I've studied Psychology for two years, and Sociology for one, and so far everything I've seem leads me to believe that altruism and selflessness are exceedingly rare things indeed among a group of people, such as a society. What I mean is that on a one-to-one level humans can be altruistic, call it about 40-60% people. However, when grouped together, these altruistic tendancies magically disappear, being replaced by a mob mentality of cynisim, bigotry, and stereotyping. Since Communism relies on an entire society being selfless, I cannot see how it would overcome the mob mentality.

Still, like I said, we can't really know for sure until we try, right? And, of course, taking examples from history :D

[Abood]

We should have a huge dome (like the Biosphere 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2)) and teach people Communist values, put them their, and see how they live.. that'll be a great experiment ;)
I hope it works, so we can shove it up every single cappie's ass...

[Jadan ja]

To me, all arguments that communism "cannot work" because "human nature" is "bad" sound simply stupid.

For a long period of time, people lived in a primitive communism, society with no property or hierarchy. If there is any "human nature," than "human nature" can be used only as an argument for communist society, because, if people really lived in such societies for such a long time, there must be something "communist" in their nature.

Also, I think that communists and anarchists really believe that people are selfish and that they will exploit others if system allows them to do that. If people are "bad" that means that hierarchy is certainly unable to create justice or better world and that only sytem of equality can be a successful system.

[Ligeia]

Hmmm..human nature?

Let's take an example from the social science.

Parson said that people are keen to develope a hierarchy ,some kind of social order ,where power,goods,status ...etc. are allocated among a society,consequenlty our persistent system developed out of that social process and it seems everyone of us is at the mercy of the society and we can't do anything,that's our nature...?

Then there were other scientists like Mead and Habermas which postulated another theory which questioned this "being at the mercy of society".

They thought every person interacts with others on the principle of their own personality and their social personality for the society and thus are more active beings ,able to shape the society and not be at the mercy of this only and further that means that if our individual personality develops other thoughts then the one about a hierarchy ,we are able to realize it because there is no thing as human nature,we have a personalty shaped by society and another of our own.

...confusing.....

[Abood]

we are able to realize it because there is no thing as human nature,we have a personalty shaped by society and another of our own.
i agree with that. which is what i said before:
u are what society makes u

[pharmer]

The Evolution of human nature?
Is this possible in the span of a few generations?

I offer this as an example of how capitalism, in the not so distant past, exploited human psychology to stimulate a culture of consumerism.
Post World War 2, people were still under a conservationist mentality which was encouraged, at the time, to support the war effort. Saving tin cans, rationing of food and goods, etc... This was how the common person could 'do their part'. Post-war the economy was stagnant; Americans were still adhering to the conservationist mind set.
The question posed by the government was; how do we stimulate growth and consumption?
Bruneyes (Freud’s nephew, if I remember correctly) used Freudian psychology to develop marketing strategies that would not just market the product but also the lifestyle associated with the product. The theory was if advertising could cater to the ID (each person's deep, dark, sometimes sexual desires that we are constantly repressing) then the consumer would be driven to buy the product to sub-consciously satisfy these desires (satisfy the ID).
For example, when selling a car have a lingerie model lie across the hood, the car then becomes a symbol of sexual potency not just a mode of transportation. Cigarette commercials that would feature female actresses were used to increase the number of female smokers. Cigarettes became a symbol of female autonomy and females who smoked were independent and free of male oppression.

In a relatively short period of time the consumerism mentality has become uncontrollable. Was this an evolution of the human mind or exploitation of a piece of our psychology which already existed?

*I don't pretend to be a psychology expert so some of this may be BS*

[Apka]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 01:16 PM
I'm one of those people who say that Communism won't work due to the selfish and self-destructive nature of humans.
Are you selfish, greedy and self-centered?

[loveme4whoiam]

For a long period of time, people lived in a primitive communism

Er, a primitive communism in which people lived in caves, hunting animals every day and wearing their skins. As soon as any form of permenance was established, crude economies were begun. I hope the revolution doesn't plan to take us back to that kind of living? :lol:


Also, I think that communists and anarchists really believe that people are selfish and that they will exploit others if system allows them to do that. If people are "bad" that means that hierarchy is certainly unable to create justice or better world and that only sytem of equality can be a successful system.

I might be misinterpreting this bit, sorry if this is the case, but are you saying Communists and Anarchists are trying to bring in a system of equality when they believe that people are selfish and exploitative of such a situation? Interestingly, I think this sums up my own opinion quite nicely. I don't see Communism as bad (the opposite), just that it can't work due to the aforementioned selfishness.

It's clear you guys have a lot more and better knowledge of researchers than I do :P, but I still stand by my belief that people are inately selfish. I completely agree that this is exaserbated by capitalist society. I guess I'm swayed by the fact that in Russia and China the Communist system there still allowed a single man to become all-powerful - any other attempts to do so would have the same results, in my opinion.

I like pharmer's examples of the post-WWII economic development in the US. I had no idea about this stuff before you posted about it, but it is so perfect an example of appealing to the selfish and capitalist instincts of people that I can't think of a single way to criticise it. And to answer your question, it is most definitely an exploitation of our self-centred psychology.

[VictoryOverWar]

i think people who say that humans are naturally greedy selfish people is a gross underestimation of humanity. If you are going to sit here and tell me at birth we are born of greed i would have to disagree.

On antoher point you say that someone will always try to exploit the system. Under true communism this could not ever happen. There is no money, there is no private property and there is no way for 1 person to become more powerful then the next. Most of our thoughts on human nature are based on a system that supports corruption. Ofcourse people steal and kill now to get on top because that is the nature of the system.


guess I'm swayed by the fact that in Russia and China the Communist system there still allowed a single man to become all-powerful - any other attempts to do so would have the same results, in my opinion.

and there lies the problem. These leaders of there so called communist system are still part of a dominate capitalist world. From birth they have been capitalist so exploitation is a natural part of who they are. These people were corrupted by power and there lies the problem with socialism and lenninism. They still had to compete in a capitalist world and that ultimately spelled doom from the get go.

But even with this i do not think humans by nature are selfish and if any thing they are just the opposite. Selfishness is a human condition that is learned through the experiences of a capitalist society

[which doctor]

Humans are simply products of their environment. Bring a person up in a selfish and greedy environment, and he will most likely be a selfish and greedy person. Bring a person up in an egalitarian commune and he will most likely grow up to be an open-minded, self-sufficient, down to earth person.

[Zingu]

One word: Neuroscience.


There is no such thing as a static human nature, its all about pattern recognition, communist revolution will break out when the material conditions are at a point that makes communism a vital nessecity for the average working class man anyways.

[loveme4whoiam]

Hmm. I can't really argue against that except for repeating my earlier arguments, which don't really cover this. It comes down to opinions, and you guys seem to have a much more positive view of human's than I do, which definetly makes you better lefties than me :D In truth you've part-swayed me, but the only way we'll know for sure is to actually have the revolution and see. And at least I'll be on the right side of the lines.

[ComradeRed]

Actually, there "is" a human nature that Neuroscience has proven...and this is very revolutionary stuff.

Now, before anyone says anything, listen to it completely.

Humans recognize patterns (that's it!). Humans are hardwired and programmed to the core to recognize patterns.

Look up On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkings and Sandra Blakeslee, Kunihiko Fukushima's article NNeocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position In "Biological Cybernetics", Maximilian Resenhuber and Tomaso Pogio's Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex in "Nature Neuroscience" and so forth.

Think about it: when you read, you don't read "w-h-e-n, ah that's 'when,; now 'y-o-u' you, ok, when you; 'r-e-a-d'...". No one reads that way. You recognize certain patterns in the letters, and certain characteristics of the words.

Language, it could be argued, is a pattern.

And so on, so on, so on. :D

[loveme4whoiam]

Ah ha, something I know about (because I just had an exam on it :P)

The human brain is born with the ability to form schemas about certain things; that is, to group things together, for example, "red" goes in the schema "colours". This ability allows us to quickly (ish) learn new things because we simply fit in anything new into our pre-existing schemas.

The problem is when something completely revolutionary comes along which doesn't fit into any schema, such as Communism. When this happens we either ignore the differences and jam that new thing into an old schema based on other knowledge that we may have picked up, from propaganda and elsewhere. This is how most people come to the conclusion that Communism is bad. However, the other type of people (ie, most of the guys and gals here) are able to take brand new things and create new schemas. These people are the open-minded ones :D

How does this link with what we've been talking about? Er, actually, I'm not sure. I suppose because I was hanging on to my preconceived ideas about human nature I was not able to view the ideas that you guys were putting across. Hmm, I appear to be more close-minded than I thought :P

Anyway, laying that to one side, I had a revelation I'd like to share on this subject. Namely, the possibility that Communism might not work is no reason to not try!

Now, you guys probably came to this conclusion anyways, but for me this a great breakthrough in my understanding of my own ideology. Just because I'm unsure of whether or not we would stop being selfish doesn't mean that we should keep the system that has been proven to be bad for society as a whole! Hurray!

Er, you can ignore this post if you want, since it's pretty much random drivel from myself :D

[Abood]

Humans recognize patterns (that's it!). Humans are hardwired and programmed to the core to recognize patterns.
Comrade.. totally agree! :D
if we're programmed to be selfless, helping people.. then we WILL BE!!
we gotta destroy the whole world, and build it from scratch again..
I think we should make underground hide-aways for leftists, kill evry1 else, then come out and reproduce :lol:

[odinsgrandson]

Originally posted by Jadan [email protected] 26 2006, 02:22 PM
To me, all arguments that communism "cannot work" because "human nature" is "bad" sound simply stupid.

For a long period of time, people lived in a primitive communism, society with no property or hierarchy. If there is any "human nature," than "human nature" can be used only as an argument for communist society, because, if people really lived in such societies for such a long time, there must be something "communist" in their nature.

Also, I think that communists and anarchists really believe that people are selfish and that they will exploit others if system allows them to do that. If people are "bad" that means that hierarchy is certainly unable to create justice or better world and that only sytem of equality can be a successful system.
We're wondering just what our theory here is.

We could take a Thomas Hobbes' idea. The social contract theory. In the "State of Nature" everyone is entitled to everything, but since we all want each other's stuff, we kill each other and take it. So humans started grouping together, and made laws that the society abides by out of fear.

That's an account of human nature, and primative society that accounts for the beginning of property and heirarchy. Still, I woudn't call it communism.

Hobbes accounted for everything from a survival instinct point of view. It's unlikely that survival instincts come from anything other than nature.

I'm open to other theories of human nature, but I'm skeptical of completely social ones- I think there's more than culture at work in human nature. I'm also quite certain that the 'fear of retribution' argument is a little too simple to account for everything.

[La Comédie Noire]

I do not get whats so hard about understanding the fact Human Nature Does not exist, a set one anyways. It's quite obvious when you think about It, man is extrinisc therefore his acts and behaviors are dictated by whats around him. The only reason Human beings seem selfish and destructive is because we had to survive the wilderness at first, and than we went to feudalism, to mostly capitalism and of course these social climates breed greed and hostility. My whole point Is that you are very narrow minded to think that human nature exists because your only looking at the beging of humanity, you refuse to give other societys a chance.(directed In General)

But think what you want, but you have to prove It.

[SmithSmith]

Human nature is not something absolute. It depends on the environment and culture.

I remember reading an article about a twin who were separated at birth and grow up in totally different environments. Guess what? they both had different natures that represent the environment they grew in.

[JKP]

Human nature is irrelevant to communism, especially with labour vouchers.

[CCCPneubauten]

Sorry I got in this semi late, could any one give a brief overview of labor vouchers? Are they the "new" money in communism?

[loveme4whoiam]

Actually this is the first time in this thread they have been brought up, the thrad discussing them is here. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45039)

I hadn't actually looked it from that point of view before JKP. I guess you are right, at least partially, since they make taking advantage of the Communist system a hell of a lot harder. Still (as I've found in a recent debate with some stubborn capitalists) people seem to be insistent that people will instinctively gravitate to the easy LTV-earning jobs, leaving the mucky, unpleasant, but still necessary, jobs undone. Now while automation can handle a deal of this, people are still going to have to undergo a change in behaviour in order for the society to function fully and correctly. This is where the other arguments we've talked about in these threads come in :D

Cheers for pointing that out JKP, it&#39;ll help me in that debate I mentionde <_<

[JKP]

I want to make it clear that LTV communism is only a lowerstage. True communism has no designated exchange unit at all, and instead is a complete gift economy, to be facilated by automation and improvements in the workplace.

The thing about LTVs is that it allows us to basically have communism, minus the gift economy(although that will be gradually introduced as the means of production facilitate it; we&#39;ll probably start out with things like health care, food, housing and then move on to luxaries)

[loveme4whoiam]

The way I envisaged LTVs (partly from Socian Greenman&#39;s excellent explanatory posts in that thread, and partly my own hopes and expectations) was that essential industry work would earn LTVs, which would then be set aside for medical, education, health-care, etc, needs for each individual, with things like luxury items being free for all anyway.

This is probably an incorrect view of the system, which just shows I need to get a better understanding of gift economy etc.