Debunking the human nature argument

[Dr Mindbender]

Everyone, help me argue with these cappies-

http://ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=2233.msg19355

[Awful Reality]

The argument is null because in human history, even quite recently, there have been communist societies. Take, for example, many of the tribes in North America or some parts of Africa. It was an essentially classless society, where the means of production was evenly spread out among the people- according to their ability; everyone received an equal part of the profits- according to their need. If anyone is going to tell me that human nature has changed since then, that's bullshit.

You could also say that maybe that isn't human nature, but the matter here is nurture, and that with education and social constructs, people could be taught to act and produce reliably under a communist society.

[Green Dragon]

Everyone, help me argue with these cappies-

http://ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=2233.msg19355


Why would a technocrat look to a stone age society for guidance on social issues? Why would ANY socialist do so?

Maybe their social structure accvounts for their primitive technological advance.

[Holden Caulfield]

there have been communist societies. Take, for example, many of the tribes in North America or some parts of Africa.



i would say they are example of anarchism more, but im just nit picking

[Dr Mindbender]

Why would a technocrat look to a stone age society for guidance on social issues? Why would ANY socialist do so?

Maybe their social structure accvounts for their primitive technological advance.
i was looking at it from an anthropological perspective. Moreover, the way in which humans do not necessarilly adopt heirarchial societies when in groups or larger communities.

[careyprice31]

In my opinion, human nature doesn't exist.

People use it as an excuse to avoid change

"oh we can't have socialism because it goes against human nature"

when it isn't human nature that refuses change, it is them.

[pusher robot]

In my opinion, human nature doesn't exist.

People use it as an excuse to avoid change

"oh we can't have socialism because it goes against human nature"

when it isn't human nature that refuses change, it is them.

If that is true, then communists should stop using the argument that people will want to do productive work because it is their natural inclination to do so.

[Dr Mindbender]

If that is true, then communists should stop using the argument that people will want to do productive work because it is their natural inclination to do so.
the choice will be (for the able bodied)do some work or starve to death. Natural inclination does'nt come into it. In my opinion that's socialism.

Technocratic socialism on the other hand, will go further. It will allocate the jobs (and training) on the basis of aspiration, talent and personality. All the regulars know my arguments on this one and I'm not going into them again on this thread. Look through the old ones or something.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If that is true, then communists should stop using the argument that people will want to do productive work because it is their natural inclination to do so.
No problem; if natural inclinations do not exist, then it follows that people's inclinations are determined by social factors, so it is possible for a society to create in its members an inclination to do productive work.

[pusher robot]

No problem; if natural inclinations do not exist, then it follows that people's inclinations are determined by social factors, so it is possible for a society to create in its members an inclination to do productive work.

How does that follow? You're assuming a false dilemma. People's inclinations could just as well be self-determined, or determined by circumstance, or pre-determined, or some combination of any of these.

[RGacky3]

If Human nature does'nt exist how is it possible to explain things that are universal, such as the idea of love, the idea of justice, the family bond, the survival instinct, the contempt of authority, all of these things are pretty much universal and thus cannot be attriputed to society. Human nature is as real as the nature of any other Animal, each specieces has some universal attributes.

How exactly does the Human Nature argument point to a class society being preferable to a classless Society?

[pusher robot]

How exactly does the Human Nature argument point to a class society being preferable to a classless Society?
Because, following from your reasoning, class societies are virtually universal in human history. If it is not human nature, how is it possible to explain this?

[Demogorgon]

Because, following from your reasoning, class societies are virtually universal in human history. If it is not human nature, how is it possible to explain this?

Not really, humans have been about for maybe two hundred thousand years whereas class society has existed for six to ten thousand years. For most of human history there has been no class society.

Obviously the class society that existed before is different from the class society advocated now (with the obvious exception of primitivists). But it is nonsense to claim that by our logic or otherwise class society is cnstant in human history.

[pusher robot]

Not really, humans have been about for maybe two hundred thousand years whereas class society has existed for six to ten thousand years. For most of human history there has been no class society.

Obviously the class society that existed before is different from the class society advocated now (with the obvious exception of primitivists). But it is nonsense to claim that by our logic or otherwise class society is cnstant in human history.

Only for sufficiently small definitions of "society" - generally, small enough that every individual personally knows every other - and even those had hierarchies of status. Once that threshold is exceeded, I can think of no societies that are not hierarchical.

[Demogorgon]

Only for sufficiently small definitions of "society" - generally, small enough that every individual personally knows every other - and even those had hierarchies of status. Once that threshold is exceeded, I can think of no societies that are not hierarchical.

No. because the expansion of societies into ones with larger populations was part of the changing economy of the time and hence class society formed. The price of development and civilisation has been class society.

However as Communists, we say it is time to come out the other end and return to classless society. We no longer need class divisions to develop.

[Bud Struggle]

However as Communists, we say it is time to come out the other end and return to classless society. We no longer need class divisions to develop.
Back to the stone age! :thumbup: :D

[Dean]

Everyone, help me argue with these cappies-

http://ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=2233.msg19355


I did'nt say that capitalism was a form of government. Quite the reverse, it is privatised method of economic planning. The fact that it's not a form of government is my whole gripe.
How isn't capitalism a form of government? It directly supports the subsumption of economic rights and policies into the hands of a select few. That is its modus operandi. The indication is that, by allowing no controls on who can and cannot seize economic power, society will better. Not unlike the concept that, by allowing people to vote only for representatives unless said representatives enact referendums, society will better. The only difference here is that money is equivalent to voting power in the economy, and of course that one is much less insidious. Of course, the capitalist method cna be aplied to any organization - including police forces - so if all of government was privatized, and the obvious result of centralized authority continued to exist, would you not call this governance?


As for human nature, it does exist. However, it exists as a distinct set of traits which are different in all people, some traits being almost unanimous to the point that certain socilogical states - such as "humans will always fight for freedom, given that their mental capacity for such a drive hasn't been depressed" - are perfectly reasonable. This is why we always see people fighting for freedom, even when they face certain death as a result. For this reason, communism may or may not be a historical necessity, but it will certainly always be fought for. As Marx (I believe) said, "the meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism" (Paraphrased).

Those who think Marx and Engels should have "studied psychology," they should first note that psychology, as a major institution, did not really exist in much capacity in their time. The most prominent and relevent thinkers in this field were Freud, the Psychoanalysts, the philosophers who studied very similar issues, and Marx. Marx is known as one of the first sociologists, and his works and description of man, mnkind's conflicts and the "new man" are all distinctly psychological in nature, and few criticisms, apart from his primary focus on the economic aspect of the mind, hold much weight.

[Joby]

The argument is null because in human history, even quite recently, there have been communist societies. Take, for example, many of the tribes in North America or some parts of Africa. It was an essentially classless society, where the means of production was evenly spread out among the people- according to their ability; everyone received an equal part of the profits- according to their need. If anyone is going to tell me that human nature has changed since then, that's bullshit.

You could also say that maybe that isn't human nature, but the matter here is nurture, and that with education and social constructs, people could be taught to act and produce reliably under a communist society.

Except that in those societies, if you didn't have strong tribal associations, you were fucked.

Like Lebanon with bows and arrows.

[Bilan]

i would say they are example of anarchism more, but im just nit picking

Actually, no, they were not like anarchism, or even communism.
Primitive socialism at best.
Some indigenous nations have rigid hierarchical systems within their social systems, some have private property (not really in the European sense, but to some degree, it can be similar). The contradiction to anarchist politics is self evident, no?

It varied from Nation to Nation, from "Tribe" to "Tribe", from Clan to Clan.

:)

[Matty_UK]

Actually, no, they were not like anarchism, or even communism.
Primitive socialism at best.
Some indigenous nations have rigid hierarchical systems within their social systems, some have private property (not really in the European sense, but to some degree, it can be similar). The contradiction to anarchist politics is self evident, no?

It varied from Nation to Nation, from "Tribe" to "Tribe", from Clan to Clan.

:)

Depends what stage of development they're at. Pre-agricultural nomadic tribes did not have private property, and they had very primitive forms of socialism; not to idealise them though, as it was in many ways a more violent way of life, as scarcity led to conflict; see the Xiongnu and Mongol nomads continually bullying and raiding Chinese farmers whenever they didn't have anything to trade. Agriculture allowed for private property, which had very wide implications for social organisation, but it was also progressive.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There's survivalism on the one hand, and there's greed on the other. Which one's natural, and which one's developed?