Human Nature

[Noah]

Hey guys,

I know alot of us here think human nature is a load of crap.

I was talking to my science teacher and she said that in many science journals they proved it was in one's nature to want to be better and have a better lifestyle than other humans, therefore communism cannot work because humans by nature do not want to be equal.

When I asked her for a source she said; 'I'm not sure, it's just multiple science journals i've read'.

So what do you think of this assertion?

[Goatse]

The bit about wanting to have a better life is perhaps true. However, once communism is achieved, it's actually human nature that will keep it there. Once they see how much better they are than under capitalism, they will pretty much string up anyone who endorses capitalism to a tree.

[silentprotest]

Im not sure, but surely, still in a communist society you would still have anarchists bent on bringing down the system. Usually it is not enough for some people just to live well, or have a good life. Some people are just generally greedy.
But, perhaps that is just my view of humanity.
I agree that most people will accept the society once they see how much better they are, but what of those of the upper and middle classes, for most of them their living standards would decrease. It is simply not faesable to say they would accept it and continue their lives.

[which doctor]

People are simply products of their environment. The world in which we live in shapes our views and makes our decisions.

[Janus]

they proved it was in one's nature to want to be better and have a better lifestyle than other humans
I don't know how anyone could scientifically prove that. One has to analyze the material and social context from which these ideas are from as Fist of Blood said. Since we live in a capitalist world where competition is stressed, these ideas tend to be dominant.
So far, the only type of "human nature" that has evidence is that humans analyze things in patterns.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:10 AM
Im not sure, but surely, still in a communist society you would still have anarchists bent on bringing down the system.
You know that anarchists are communists too right, they just belive that we should cut socilism and go stright to communism. Thats all dude.

[Janus]

Anarchists and communists want the same end result which is a stateless and classless society. However the term socialism as a synonym for the transition state was something that Lenin made up. Anarchists don't believe in the need for a transition state in that they believe that a group could gain power over others during this stage as the state still exists.

[Rockfan]

Thank you for writing what I'm to lazy to write.

[KC]

Originally posted by ComradeRed
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.

[ComradeRed]

As I pointed out earlier, and Lazar quoted, human nature does exist but not in any sense that bourgeois crackpots use it!

It's all in pattern recognition. What do you think language is? Contextual patterns.

What do you think science is?

[anomaly]

I may be wrong here, but does it really hurt us if human nature is such that people are greedy? By greedy, I mean people are quided by their class interests. Does not this proposition mean that revolution and, thus, socialism and communism are inevitable? There will come a point, I'm sure we all agree, when it will be in the proletariat's self (or class) interest to revolt, and at that time we will see revolution.

Perhaps not all of you like that, but I am simply pointing out that, as far as communism goes, whether humans are greedy or not does not matter, and the argument cappies always use can be easily spun in our favor.

In response to your teacher's comments, ScottishPinko, I'd throw her a curve: What if it is in the self interest of people to work communally in order to be most efficient? That is, what if it is in one's self interest not to be competitive, but rather to act collectively. This is one thing cappies never think about.

[Sentinel]

Anomaly, I think you have sort of a point there, with revolution being in the interests of the working-class, and people of course act in their self-interest to a certain degree.

That doesn't make us evil or greedy "in nature", simply logical. I also think that generosity and social skills serve the self-interests of humans more than greed ever could.

We are social animals, and happy if our loved ones are. Communists, ie the smartest ones, are people who consider the human race their "family", brothers and sisters. :)

Individualism is simply narrow-minded stupidity.

It is in our power to create a world that is nearly perfect, without poverty and misery.
Capitalists refuse to see that because they want a quick solution in form of personal profits. :rolleyes:

When they could contribute to building an egalitarian society with happiness for everyone! They go around with blinkers. :angry:

Concerning the "nature" of human behavior, I think that Fist of Blood put it right:


People are simply products of their environment. The world in which we live in shapes our views and makes our decisions.

[ComradeRed]

Well, what exactly do you think you do with pattern recognition?

You analyze your environment! And depending where you are, that makes what you see different!

The drive to survive is something that is evaluated based on this analysis, thus if it appears to a capitalist that his firm is going bankrupt, his survival is perceived to be at stake.

This is true: the survival of his social status would be at stake.

It can be agreed, that the bourgeois hypothesis that "people's greed = capitalism forever" is unwarranted, unproved (and unprovable), and ultimately wrong.

[KC]

ComradeRed, have you read The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker? I'm asking because I have it on my shelf and have yet to read it, and Publius stands by it as proof that humans are naturally greedy.

[ComradeRed]

I haven't read it, most things that I look at dealing with human nature is bull (regardless as to whether the author's from M.I.T. or not).

I'm willing to wager that the institute has, once again, failed to grasp the nature of reality...being the pseudo-scientific engineers they are.

I'll start ploughing through it, it shouldn't take too long ;) (famous last words)

[1984]

What was that Rousseau's famous quote, again?

:rolleyes: