Human Nature

[Hegemonicretribution]

I have butchered this from another post I made on the topic, but I am yet to see a response to it and would appreciate one :)

It is often claimed that collectivism cannot work because human nature exists, and this nature is greedy.

First of all this argument is weak because human "instincts" or that which comprises our nature are often overridden as we are creatures of reason. In fact our ability use this ability is one of the reasons that we have survived so well, it is also what seperates us from much of the animal kindom...

Second of all, if you actually read the likes of Dawkins to any great extent, altruism is also inherent in us as well as selfishness. Saying we are selfish plain and simple is not the case, we are both kind and selfish, so arguing that humans can only ever be selfish is not adequate.

Co-operation is also more conducive to survival, and thus collectivism for an intelligent species such as ourselves makes sense.

Saying we are selfish is not enough, we have the potential to be, but where that potential exists and cannot be overcome, collectivist principles still make sense to us.

[ummProfessional]

fair enough, it's true we have both qualities but you have to know where the difference comes....

for example, i don't want anything bad to happen to any of my fellow neighbors, i don't want anybody to die or something, i don't want any of my friends to get a disease, i dont want the Israelis and Palestinians to kill eachother....this is what mostly every sane human being feels, and this is what your refering to with collectivism and shit, because when it comes to material posetions, material goods, and so on your totally wrong...sure i don't want such and such to be poor, but do i really give a fuck? and when it comes to sharing! pfff if this was true there wouldn't be one poor starving family in Africa or any other continent for that matter...

humans are naturally selfish and greedy, these are universal emotions that we posses as humans and can only be found with us....although you might argue that it can be found on some animals like when a dog fights another for a bone...but thats animal instinct, which by the way we are animals as well ;) if we are in a situation of life and death, most of us would try to save our own skin and fuck the other guy, although most of us would try to help another for example if we were in a deserted island because team cooperation would be necessary, we all know 2 heads are better than 1, 4 hands are better than 2 and so on...but when we are settled in the island through with danger, and living well, we will start fighting eachother for power, for who has more coconuts and such...

[Hegemonicretribution]

What of the other points I made? The fact we have the power to overcome such natural urges?

Also, just because some people are greedy in the manner you suggest does not mean all are. Again the desert island scenario makes sense to you, until we are settled, the key is to maintain interdependency indefinitely. We would all rely on each other indefinitely, and once you do away with ownership, it is not in the interests of individuals to fight to protect something that best serves everyone's interest if it is shared.

Why is this nature different with regards to possession anyway? How come it is not straightfoward most of the time, in cases of altruism etc, but you claim it is when it comes to materialism? Simply stating it does not provide a good argument.

It appears you did not really address some of my points, and did not provide much of an argument with the one you did disagree with.

[BobKKKindle$]

humans are naturally selfish and greedy

As HR said, whilst we Humans certainly have the potential to display these emotions, there is no evidence to suggest they are universally predominant over Collectivism and Compassion in our psycological makeup. Rather, they will only 'shine through' when material conditions dictate their necessity. Material conditions include the society in which we live. When We are living in a society that alienates individuals from their fellows through wage labour and places such great emphasis upon the 'get rich quick' mentality is it any wonder that greed holds such predominance in the Postindustrial man's Psyche?

Furthermore, I think it is unfair to equate self interest with greed. Sometimes, as paradoxical as it may seem, it is in our personal interests to act cooperatively - as in your desert Island example. Even Capitalist Society lies on a latent (not explicit, mind) bed of Cooperation - our economy is not composed of Autonomous individuals, but rather different groups of people working together (despite the existance of class antagonisms) For every 'self-made' entrepeneur, there are a thousand silent workers.

[Herman]

humans are naturally selfish and greedy, these are universal emotions that we posses as humans and can only be found with us

Human nature is the response to the conditions which surround us. There are no universal emotions as you say nor feelings. The fact that, as you said, we are animals and previous thing you said that 'greed and selfishness' are only in humans is contradictory. If so, how can animals not be greedy? The answer is simple: It is not in human nature. There is no such thing. Our nature comes from reaction, from interaction and challenge. We create greed because a material condition is there.
For example, is a human baby greedy? Of course not. When a child is born, it does not simply think that it wants more than anyone else. It thinks that it is hungry, therefore it needs food. It believes that it is thirsty, therefore it needs water. There is no greed in that. Those are the basic needs of any human being.

[overlord]

Human nature is a poor argument against collectivism?

We don't need to argue the point. Look at the 20th century. Big fat failure. No amount of sophistry can change it. You can type type type your silly revolutionary essays till your fingers are blue in the face. Collectivism is still a failure thanks to unconquereable human nature.



Saying we are selfish is not enough, we have the potential to be, but where that potential exists and cannot be overcome, collectivist principles still make sense to us.


Just cause collectivism makes sence doesn't mean we have to totally give ourselves up to the Borg. We live in cities don't we? Don't capitalistic relationships ensure collectivity? Doesn't communism destroy the necessity for relationship and civility since greed is no longer at stake? Without civility does not civilisation collapse like communist cambodia?


Second of all, if you actually read the likes of Dawkins to any great extent, altruism is also inherent in us as well as selfishness. Saying we are selfish plain and simple is not the case, we are both kind and selfish, so arguing that humans can only ever be selfish is not adequate.


As is arguing humans can only be altruistic, which is what your system requires? :lol:


Co-operation is also more conducive to survival, and thus collectivism for an intelligent species such as ourselves makes sense.


We are cooperating. Its called capitalism and [prepare for a big shock :o ]...It works! :lol:

[JKP]

Since the revolution will probably use LTV, or ETV vouchers, "human nature" is irrelevant.

[BobKKKindle$]

which is what your system requires

I find it very annoying when people simplify Capitalism to be complete Competition and Socialism to be complete altriusm. Just as Capitalism contains important elements of Cooperation, Socialism will contain important elements of Self Interest. If people knew work for them (no matter for anyone else) could be intrinsically more satisfying and rewarding under another system then they would function quite happily in a Socialist society. Socialism recognizes self interest and accepts humanity for what it is. One might even say that Socialism is all about the individual, for by getting rid of wage labour we are allowing the individual to use his time in whatever way he chooses (with the possible exception of small amounts of manual labour every week depending on how Socialism is organised)


Doesn't communism destroy the necessity for relationship and civility since greed is no longer at stake

What makes you think Greed is necessary for Civility and Dignity? No doubt people were perfectly civil in Pre-Class Society, when there was no private ownership of anything and all resources were shared , and therfore no reason to be greedy. This is an absurd assertion that you have failed to back up in any manner. Capitalism shrouds relationships through commodity fetishism, in which the social nature of labour is distorted and objects are valued over those who made them. Socialism will not revolve around the production of commodities for profit and labour simply as a means for the production of commodities, and so will better allow for Human Relationships.


Look at the 20th century. Big fat failure. No amount of sophistry can change it

You cannot say that these societies failed because the idea that Humans are inherently greedy no matter what. These Societies failed to achieve Socialism because they were examples of State Capitalism; the MoP were still in the hands of the minority, and the Wage labour system still dominated. All these societies do is further illustrate how greed flourishes under Capitalism.


We are cooperating. Its called capitalism

So You are admitting that Humans have a tenedency to cooperate when it is necessary for the production of commodities etc. Therefore you are inaverdantly supporting the notion that our behaviour is determined by our material conditions. We act depending upon the needs of our environment.


Without civility does not civilisation collapse like communist cambodia

Democratic Kampuchea (as it is properly referred to) was a failure because the policies were absolutely absurd and did not have the faintest relation to Socialism. Even you should know that. For one thing, traditional marxism designates the Proletariat as the revolutionary class, yet Kampuchea involved shipping the limited urban populaiton out into the countryside to work. Clearly not Socialist.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 08:56 AM
We don't need to argue the point.


It is a discussion board, if you don't want to then don't post.


Look at the 20th century. Big fat failure. No amount of sophistry can change it. -_-

Man can never build a flying machine, look at the 14th Century...
Democracy can't be sustained, look at Athens...

This is a cop out of an argument and you know it, do we really need to have this stage of explanation before any debate?


You can type type type your silly revolutionary essays till your fingers are blue in the face. Collectivism is still a failure thanks to unconquereable human nature.
I attempt an argument, and you reassert your position, wow you sure showed me :rolleyes:


Without civility does not civilisation collapse like communist cambodia?
I will ignore your reference to Cambodia, and will put it down to your lame attempts to get a rise out of members which is all you are trying to d if you are being honest...

We are talking of a social and economic doctrine, so I think this is really to do with your lack of understanding. To be honest you can read up on your own, lengthy explanations will be lost on you until you show some awareness of the principles of debate.


As is arguing humans can only be altruistic, which is what your system requires? :lol:
Re-read the initial post :rolleyes: I stated that humans are both. Also I designated a portion of what I said to explaining why co-operation can result from selfishnes....and there are geneticists that agree with me.


We are cooperating. Its called capitalism and [prepare for a big shock :o ]...It works! :lol:
Well it worked in a way, no Marxist would deny this, but it is a better alternative that we seek.

[overlord]

QUOTE
Look at the 20th century. Big fat failure. No amount of sophistry can change it.



Man can never build a flying machine, look at the 14th Century...
Democracy can't be sustained, look at Athens...

This is a cop out of an argument and you know it, do we really need to have this stage of explanation before any debate?

You think you can explain it using completely unrelated concepts? Imposing a political system which conflicts with evolutionary biology is not the same as coming up with a new invention. :rolleyes: And are you saying communism hasn't been invented yet?


I will ignore your reference to Cambodia, and will put it down to your lame attempts to get a rise out of members which is all you are trying to d if you are being honest...


Now who's being a copout! :rolleyes: We should learn from history, not ignore it. 3 million died for a false religion. Former officials of that regime still beleive starvation took place from internal treason, not an idiotic system. :o The Human nature of suspicion and lust for power won and communism failed. How many more failures before you will understand men are not living in smurftopia. Why didn't the Cambodian officals show a little compassion and kill themselves out of benevolence for their fellow man rather than killing 3 million?


We are talking of a social and economic doctrine, so I think this is really to do with your lack of understanding. To be honest you can read up on your own, lengthy explanations will be lost on you until you show some awareness of the principles of debate.


Another copout. Be a man, debate me and I'll refute everything. No one here can stand up to me because the a-priori benevolant mind lacks reason. My experiment is complete. Your minds are inferior to the composite a-posteriori. You are weakened freaks of tribal society reliant upon diplomacy for survival. You are all incapable or unwilling, I think incapable, to even come up with a forward thinking plan for revolution despite my many requests. Why won't you? Its because you can't. You are all benevolence and bluster, little else.


QUOTE
As is arguing humans can only be altruistic, which is what your system requires?


Re-read the initial post I stated that humans are both. Also I designated a portion of what I said to explaining why co-operation can result from selfishnes....and there are geneticists that agree with me.

Is your understanding of human nature complete? You think to harness greed for continuous redistribution? Well it's happening in Cuba. Too bad Castro is too SELFISH for power and won't relinquish. Name one dictator who has voluntarily relinquished power, thus employing the altruism you speak of.

In fact, if via a combination of base instinct and upper benevolence you hope for a successful revolution, what makes you think today's evil capitalist societies are not already a product of this?

[Tungsten]

Hegemonicretribution

Co-operation is also more conducive to survival, and thus collectivism for an intelligent species such as ourselves makes sense.
Co-operation isn't an intrinsicly good thing. Pointing a gun at you and forcing you to work to further the survival of others is not what I'd call "more condictive to survival" (certainly not from your viewpoint). Don't complain that this isn't a valid example of co-operation because it's not voluntary- communism isn't about voluntary co-operation.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Overlord I think your issue avoision and the double-think required to understand your position make responses not that valuable a use of my time...

Still I will reply to you later. Please though, for the sake of argument, read my post, most of your criticisms I directly attempt to deal with at least, and you haven't taken issue with these. I was generally interested in discussing this sensibly, I think it is a shame.

Tungsten:We can't really discuss whilst we are talkng of totally different things, I see the issue you contest is the fact that communism is liberal in its approach to society.

That is a totally other thread, and there ar plenty dealing with this, but I was talking specifically of human nature and thought that it could be argued from a more theoretical or scientific angle, rather than shifting debate. Do youhave comments at all on the argument that I outlined initially?

[Janus]

communism isn't about voluntary co-operation.
Ahh yes, that kind of crap is still taught in schools these days.

Communism is all about voluntary cooperation, how else would a stateless society work?

Hege, you raised some good points about human nature but I have yet to see any supporters of it bring scientific evidence to prove it rather than some interpretations.