A Problem

[Richary]

I come from a school where there is very little left-wing views. I found out about Communism and Socialism quite recently, and dont know much about it. A lot of people at my school, quite obviously disagree wit me.

Most of their arguments are easily refuted. However, I came accross one very simple comeback that has really pissed me off. Human nature is selfish.

I cant come up with anything substantial against this. I hope you can help me.

Thanks

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:49 pm
I come from a school where there is very little left-wing views. I found out about Communism and Socialism quite recently, and dont know much about it. A lot of people at my school, quite obviously disagree wit me.

Most of their arguments are easily refuted. However, I came accross one very simple comeback that has really pissed me off. Human nature is selfish.

I cant come up with anything substantial against this. I hope you can help me.

Thanks
there's no such thing as human nature FIRST OF ALL.
our life experiences and environment highly influence us and how we conduct our selves.
It is NOT determined from birth, or by some sort of divine destiny before us.

It's obvious that under capitalism, a system based on competition and exploitation, we grow up to be more "selfish" and add a bunch of religious mambo jumbo to the non sense of human nature. and you got your self "all humans are selfish by nature" bullshit. ;)

[Richary]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+July 07, 2007 09:56 pm--> (R_P_A_S @ July 07, 2007 09:56 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 09:49 pm
I come from a school where there is very little left-wing views. I found out about Communism and Socialism quite recently, and dont know much about it. A lot of people at my school, quite obviously disagree wit me.

Most of their arguments are easily refuted. However, I came accross one very simple comeback that has really pissed me off. Human nature is selfish.

I cant come up with anything substantial against this. I hope you can help me.

Thanks
there's no such thing as human nature FIRST OF ALL.
our life experiences and environment highly influence us and how we conduct our selves.
It is NOT determined from birth, or by some sort of divine destiny before us.

It's obvious that under capitalism, a system based on competition and exploitation, we grow up to be more "selfish" and add a bunch of religious mambo jumbo to the non sense of human nature. and you got your self "all humans are selfish by nature" bullshit. ;) [/b]
I cant think however of one time where human kind did not act selfishly
Therefore, It is only speculation that when the system changes humans will act accordingly. Perhaps it IS human nature to be selfish, and the reason we are in capitalism is because there is no other system we can operate in." "Why else was Communism not set up before?

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Richary+July 07, 2007 10:04 pm--> (Richary @ July 07, 2007 10:04 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:56 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 09:49 pm
I come from a school where there is very little left-wing views. I found out about Communism and Socialism quite recently, and dont know much about it. A lot of people at my school, quite obviously disagree wit me.

Most of their arguments are easily refuted. However, I came accross one very simple comeback that has really pissed me off. Human nature is selfish.

I cant come up with anything substantial against this. I hope you can help me.

Thanks
there's no such thing as human nature FIRST OF ALL.
our life experiences and environment highly influence us and how we conduct our selves.
It is NOT determined from birth, or by some sort of divine destiny before us.

It's obvious that under capitalism, a system based on competition and exploitation, we grow up to be more "selfish" and add a bunch of religious mambo jumbo to the non sense of human nature. and you got your self "all humans are selfish by nature" bullshit. ;)
I cant think however of one time where human kind did not act selfishly
Therefore, It is only speculation that when the system changes humans will act accordingly. Perhaps it IS human nature to be selfish, and the reason we are in capitalism is because there is no other system we can operate in." "Why else was Communism not set up before? [/b]
if you know your history. specially the one of class struggles you can answer your own questions. there's no such thing as human nature.

you really believe we all are deep inside? or bound to be sooner or later?

[Richary]

I admit I dont know my history - thats why I am asking you.

True there has been class struggles - but im guesing the cappies would say that thats just some people who dont understand the world and all that.

do help me out

[wtfm8lol]

RPAS, what basis do you have for deciding humans don't have a nature?

[Dr Mindbender]

2 words- material conditioning.
Im one respect we are unfortunate having been born into the western world, as our history is rife with the effects of colonialism, and the institutions of class based society and heirarchy which was forced onto us as well as other nations by ruling class brute force.
In recent centuries, explorers who came across indians and tribes in the rainforests of the exotic continents as yet untouched by western capitalism who had no concept of 'heirarchy' or 'leadership' simply because they were not brought up with the material conditioning that we are. I think that proves that the selfishness you speak of, is not 'human nature' but a cultural stumbling block.

I hope that argument shuts up your reactionary classmates. Good luck with that ;)

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:58 pm
RPAS, what basis do you have for deciding humans don't have a nature?
I think his point was there is no 'instinctual' differentiation between the nature of humans and that of the animal kingdom.
The selfishness that the thread starter speaks of is a product of intelligence, life experience and social conditioning it is not some sort of natural reaction built into us. Hence my point regarding the rainforest indians.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:58 pm
RPAS, what basis do you have for deciding humans don't have a nature?
does it smell like shit in here? or is it just me?

[Janus]

However, I came accross one very simple comeback that has really pissed me off. Human nature is selfish.
The problem with that assertion is that it is extremely biased and influenced by our current environment and social system. As such, there is not much of a set defined "human nature" asides from some of the biological drives/impulses that we have simply because much of our behavior is strongly impacted and influenced by the system in which we live in.

Human nature (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57285&hl=+human++nature)
human nature (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56239&hl=+human++nature)
human nature (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49904)
human nature (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46465)
human nature (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67265&st=0)

Also, check out this guide for other refutations to basic capitalist arguements:
High school commie's guide (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25500)

[MrT]

As such, there is not much of a set defined "human nature" asides from some of the biological drives/impulses that we have simply because much of our behavior is strongly impacted and influenced by the system in which we live in.

You talk about 'the system' as if it were some sort of other-worldly, abstract, mythical creature.

[bcbm]

Humans are self-interested creatures, that is undeniable, but that doesn't make a communist society impossible. I believe a society based on mutual aid, voluntary cooperation, etc would, in fact, be more in the self-interest of most members of society, especially what are currently the under-classes.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 07, 2007 08:01 pm
Humans are self-interested creatures, that is undeniable, but that doesn't make a communist society impossible. I believe a society based on mutual aid, voluntary cooperation, etc would, in fact, be more in the self-interest of most members of society, especially what are currently the under-classes.
The Best Post of the Thread.

Who says communism isn't in individual humans' material interest? If things are made with more enthusiasm and more efficiency then why won't everyone be happier? If you're working at something you enjoy, won't your be happier? If goods are produced for use and not exchange (read: more reliable and efficient) isn't that in everyone's material interest?

In short: who cares if human nature is selfish?

[Janus]

You talk about 'the system' as if it were some sort of other-worldly, abstract, mythical creature.
:blink: If that were the case, then there's no way that it could affect our daily actions and conduct; something which I've pointed out is the opposite of what is occuring now as our behavior is constantly being influenced by the economic and social structure in which we live in.

[Richary]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 07, 2007 11:00 pm
2 words- material conditioning.
Im one respect we are unfortunate having been born into the western world, as our history is rife with the effects of colonialism, and the institutions of class based society and heirarchy which was forced onto us as well as other nations by ruling class brute force.
In recent centuries, explorers who came across indians and tribes in the rainforests of the exotic continents as yet untouched by western capitalism who had no concept of 'heirarchy' or 'leadership' simply because they were not brought up with the material conditioning that we are. I think that proves that the selfishness you speak of, is not 'human nature' but a cultural stumbling block.

I hope that argument shuts up your reactionary classmates. Good luck with that ;)
This is helpful - Very helpful.

Any chance of telling me where you found this out. It would be good to quote a source.

Thanks guys!

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:59 pm

Who says communism isn't in individual humans' material interest? If things are made with more enthusiasm and more efficiency then why won't everyone be happier? If you're working at something you enjoy, won't your be happier? If goods are produced for use and not exchange (read: more reliable and efficient) isn't that in everyone's material interest?

In short: who cares if human nature is selfish?
There can be little doubt that those who work at what enjoy doing what are the best worker. The problem for the communist is that that is not the only problem to solve, and in reality it is a small part of the problem.

The real problem is figuring out how to get to people what they want and need. And happy workers, no matter how enraptured they areof their job, do not guarantee this. Ultimately, that is how any system is judged.

[luxemburg89]

"Why else was Communism not set up before?

Because, according to Marxist theory, we need capitalism to industrialise the world first. When Capitalism has gone to far (as it will due to the fact it oppresses those who work to support it) we come sweeping in with our revolution. It can be argued this isn't always the case and by and large a long system of Capitalism can be bypassed, as the Bolsheviks were forced to do (obviously it is far more complicated than this and it has been argued the USSR was just a form of State Capitalism etc.).

The 'Against human nature' is probably my favourite cappie argument next to 'Oh Communism doesn't work because...it just doesn't work!!'
An English teacher of mine, now a good friend, said to me: 'whenever they say this, just tell them society exists, friendships exist, love exists, the desire to help others does indeed exist, how, therefore, is a theory based on equality and freedom against human nature?' I completely agree, though I'm sure many will not. Mr. Charles Darwin, or rather Social Darwinists, will have to forgive me here but I'm about to dismiss the 'survival of the fittest' theory. In my opinion society, particularly Socialist society, would actually help the weakest and, as the weak generally outnumber the overly-strong then the strong will be destroyed by the collective strength of the weak caused by their great numbers; were there to be such a struggle between weak and strong. I am no scientist, and science doesn't interest me particularly (though I do, of course, recognise it's vital significance) and I cannot argue that across species 'Survival of the Fittest' will apply, however, I do not think it can be applied to the human race. I actually believe that the fact we have societies and we live in groups would suggest we are social, not selfish, creatures by nature - though selfishness is part of us to an extent. I've had this argument dismissed as 'idealistic Romantic Lefty crap' but I am an Idealistic Romantic Lefty so it didn't hurt me too bad :P . In other words when they say that 'it's against human nature' tell them to go back to the bourgeois paper, parent or professor that told them that, as their arguments are wasted on you. They only think it is 'against human nature' because some figure of relative authority has told them so, and they would believe it not to be against human nature had they been told otherwise.

Comrade, the best thing I can suggest is reading the learning and theory section to widen your knowledge of the topics in question, and feel free to send me a Personal Message (PM) for any websites, books or any other info I can provide. 'Learning' is always a good place to start, then branch out to politics and theory, and from there fill the site with your knowledge :D . In the meantime, ignore the worthless reactionaries you have to deal with, even if it is hard to do lol.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:49 pm


Most of their arguments are easily refuted. However, I came accross one very simple comeback that has really pissed me off. Human nature is selfish.

If we are selfish, that's all the more reason for adopting a socialist economic system. Being selfish, all the more strongly do we demand that we shall receive one hundred precent of what we produce. Under capitalism, we receive in the form of wages a mere fraction of the wealth that we produce, which we selfish beings should find intolerable.

[mikelepore]

The people who argue against socialism based on "human nature" usually make the assumption that competition and cooperation are characteristics of human behavior. The truth is, competition and cooperation are not primarily human characteristics. Instead, they are characteristics of procedures or systems of doing things that humans occasionally adopt. They are design criteria that are built into certain methods and protocols. For example, say there are four manufacturing buildings at a particular street corner. Buildings 1 and 2 are owned by the A Corporation. Buildings 3 and 4 are owned by the B Corporation. The workers in buildings 1 and 2 cooperate with each other, forwarding plans and other information back and forth, shipping parts back and forth. Likewise, the workers in buidings 3 and 4 cooperate with each other. However, the workers in buildings 1 and 2 don't cooperate with the workers in buildings 3 and 4. They don't share their technical discoveries, or assist each other; instead, they do things to oppose each other. What's going on here? So, is it in our basic nature for people to cooperate or to compete? Neither. The tendency to cooperate or to compete is a feature of the administrative system that has been adopted. Socialism has no need to change our nature. Our natural behavior is irrelevant. Socialism simply implements a management system that has the effect of cooperation built into its structure. All the workers in all of the buildings are arranged as departments of the same organization.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:15 pm
The people who argue against socialism based on "human nature" usually make the assumption that competition and cooperation are characteristics of human behavior. The truth is, competition and cooperation are not primarily human characteristics. Instead, they are characteristics of procedures or systems of doing things that humans occasionally adopt. They are design criteria that are built into certain methods and protocols. For example, say there are four manufacturing buildings at a particular street corner. Buildings 1 and 2 are owned by the A Corporation. Buildings 3 and 4 are owned by the B Corporation. The workers in buildings 1 and 2 cooperate with each other, forwarding plans and other information back and forth, shipping parts back and forth. Likewise, the workers in buidings 3 and 4 cooperate with each other. However, the workers in buildings 1 and 2 don't cooperate with the workers in buildings 3 and 4. They don't share their technical discoveries, or assist each other; instead, they do things to oppose each other. What's going on here? So, is it in our basic nature for people to cooperate or to compete? Neither. The tendency to cooperate or to compete is a feature of the administrative system that has been adopted. Socialism has no need to change our nature. Our natural behavior is irrelevant. Socialism simply implements a management system that has the effect of cooperation built into its structure. All the workers in all of the buildings are arranged as departments of the same organization.
There is probably truth to this. Capitalism is after all, a form of cooperation.

But it is easy for socialists to say socialism is about cooperation. The difficulty they have is showing HOW.

[mikelepore]

Suppose we have an old system in which stockholders elect the board of directors, one share one vote, and that system's attitude toward the employees who actually perform all of the productive work is "shut up and get back to work." Suppose we then have a new system in which the workers elect the board of directors, one person one vote. I think a good case could be made that even this transformation alone is a substantial increase in the use of cooperation.

Suppose we have an old system in which there is no formulatic correlation between personal incomes and personal sacrifice, such that we a person who sits around in an office and flips socially useless paperwork gets a hundred times the hourly income of a person whose labor is genuinely essential. Suppose we then have a new system in which any difference in personal incomes must be the result of a consciously adopted public policy of giving more compensation to those whose work is more strenuous, with ratios clearly defined. I think a good case could be made that even this transformation alone is a substantial increase in the use of cooperation.

[Punkerslut]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:49 pm
I come from a school where there is very little left-wing views. I found out about Communism and Socialism quite recently, and dont know much about it. A lot of people at my school, quite obviously disagree wit me.

Most of their arguments are easily refuted. However, I came accross one very simple comeback that has really pissed me off. Human nature is selfish.

I cant come up with anything substantial against this. I hope you can help me.

Thanks
Someone else mentioned it -- the system of Communism and collectivized ownership of the means of production better suits the interests of the working classes. Socialism does not rely on human behavior becoming ideal in order to achieve some utopian dream; rather, it relies on changing the relationships people have with the factories, the farms, and the mines. If security and liberty are necessarily bound to an individual's relationship with society's forces of production, then we should choose a relationship between laborer and machine that best satisfies the worker's interest. Just like the best way to model a nation's laws is on the consent of the people, the ideal way to determine the best relationship between worker and machine is with the worker possessing a right to guide and direct the means of production.

Whether human nature is greedy or selfless doesn't necessarily enter the equation; plus, it's rather arguable that human nature is grounded in how people are raised, or conditioned -- even ferral children never learn to speak. I believe in the collectivization of capital, because it is the only way to provide the worker with a way to direct and coordinate the economy to their own interests. Arguments over whether mankind is inherently selfish or selfless are about as valid in criticizing Communism as they are in criticizing Democracy. Even if you could prove that people are selfless or selfish, it wouldn't dent the theory of political autonomy; there's no reason to think it would inhibit the theory of socialized industry.

[Coggeh]

While their is no definite "human nature" their is most certainly alot of human characteristics but selfishness and greed are not one of those

Greed Vs Socialism (http://www.geocities.com/anita_job/human.html)

Alot of capitalists think this is the ultimate question of socialism and disband it just by satying "people are naturally greed , it can't work " but greed is a product not of human nature but of capitalism itself , the pressure to always want more and to do better than everyone else creates this greed.

Systematically socialism can't stop greed , but materialistic greed will be destroyed leaving only natural envy or jealousness on social matters woman/men , good looks and what not . Socialism isn't Utopian its just a simplified better and more efficient system to capitalism .. lol

[Richary]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:16 pm
greed is a product not of human nature but of capitalism itself , the pressure to always want more and to do better than everyone else creates this greed.

I aggree with you but is there any evidence to support this?

[apathy maybe]

I know I'm just repeating arguments, but to abolish the argument that "humans are naturally selfish, and therefore communism wouldn't work", you only need one counter-example.

There are a lot more then one counter-example. These range from co-operative societies in rainforests through to communes in the middle of the US. Through out history there have been co-operative societies.


As well, attacking the "Social Dawinists" of his day, Peter Kropotkin (probably the most famous of anarchist-communists) wrote a text called Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual+Aid:+A+Factor+of+Evolution), which you can find at the Anarchy Archives, (Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html)).

[Richary]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 19, 2007 08:29 pm
I know I'm just repeating arguments, but to abolish the argument that "humans are naturally selfish, and therefore communism wouldn't work", you only need one counter-example.

There are a lot more then one counter-example. These range from co-operative societies in rainforests through to communes in the middle of the US. Through out history there have been co-operative societies.


As well, attacking the "Social Dawinists" of his day, Peter Kropotkin (probably the most famous of anarchist-communists) wrote a text called Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual+Aid:+A+Factor+of+Evolution), which you can find at the Anarchy Archives, (Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html)).
These systems all failed due to selfishness did they not?

thanks Ill read those

[Ol' Dirty]

Most of their arguments are easily refuted. However, I came accross one very simple comeback that has really pissed me off. Human nature is selfish.

Yeah, that can be a difficult nut to crack. <_<

A simple answer for them is to calmly tell the person you are talking to that altruism is very much a natural thing. Ask them about "maternal instinct," or, if you feel like being gender-neutral, "parental instinct." Humans, by nature, feel love for their children. We feel compeled to do right by our children, often even if that is against our self-interests.

Empathy, too, is a good response to the "human nature" classic response. If a person sow a living person that was obviously sick or injured while out and about, they will either feel empathy for that person themself, or, if with others, will feel compeled to act in an altruistic way.

Sorry if that didn&#39;t help. :)

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:49 pm
Most of their arguments are easily refuted. However, I came accross one very simple comeback that has really pissed me off. Human nature is selfish.

I cant come up with anything substantial against this. I hope you can help me.
Human nature is associative... Humans desire oneness with their fellow man and mankind in general. This is what it means to be a social creature. Associative interests can be compared to collectivism. A collective is interested in the individual interests of all its members and what is made up of the whole, much like democracy.

Democracy, however, is a form of dominance over man by majority - collectivized interests will no doubt have some aspects which result in fulfilling the interests of the many at the expense of the fewer, but it would be limited because collectivized interests take into account each individual interest. This is because association (aka social - orientation, socialism) is the bringing of men together. The interests of your neighbor, for instance, will be much more important to you if you are interested in society rather than yourself.

Collectivization is not against individualism - in fact, it is very much individualist; each individual is respected more because each individual is interested in looking in to society instead of looking away, and toward the self. Looking away from society and mankind in general is selfishness, capitalism.

Self-interest cannot be confused with selfishness, however. Selfishness seeks possession, hedonism, pleasure in general. Self-interest seeks to know oneself; as such its primary goal is to become what one potentially is. Because at our core we are social creatures, interested in relationships, mankind, etc., our primary goal as individualists (or our self interest) is to actuate these ends.

[Never Give In]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:49 pm
I come from a school where there is very little left-wing views. I found out about Communism and Socialism quite recently, and dont know much about it. A lot of people at my school, quite obviously disagree wit me.

Most of their arguments are easily refuted. However, I came accross one very simple comeback that has really pissed me off. Human nature is selfish.

I cant come up with anything substantial against this. I hope you can help me.

Thanks
Here is my formal response to something that has irked me for way too long.


Humans have almost no instinct at birth, besides breathing, voice, and the other basic body functions. A human baby does not come out of the womb thinking that if there was no laws, it&#39;d destroy everything, or that they are natuarally greedy. What makes a person think that is what they are brought up around. The enviroment the person grows up in and the things they learn and agree with makes up what they believe in upon their growing up. Because one was raised in a Capitalist society, they learn to think that Capitalism is the only way. Especially from propoganda and things of that sort. So it is programmed that anything other than Capitalism is bad for a country.