What do you have to say to this?

[Digitalism]

"what people mean by human nature IS cars, houses etc... the need to adapt. If people did not feel the need to adapt, there would be no greed and thus be able to live on just what they needed. this is what socialism and commnism is based on which is why it failed: humans were greedy and wanted more but the soviet state just could not provide.
if you hve read marx then he uses the word "human nature" also provides evidence towards that fact and also why communism only works in theory not in reality.
ps. people who do not need cars technology etc tend to be people in self sufficient small villages and work in a society automatically based on socialism. ie. everyone has a job, everyone provides ecetera. look at native tribes and you will see how similar they are compared to the ideal communist state, just on a smaller scale."

was reading around on facebook groups and came across this guy talking about "human nature". I also thing he's wrong on his statements about the collapse of the CCCP. Still, just sounds like the generic reply about the topic.

[Apollodorus]

I have no idea about what he means by the 'need to adapt'. How is me wanting another chocolate biscuit got to do with the need to adapt? Because everyone else is having chocolate biscuits?

Do not go into human nature, by the way, there seems to be a lot of topics and a lot of discussion about it. If I may add my two cents to the subject: even if Marx thought human nature was relevant, I do not see how it is. Humans are greedy, but why does this mean that socialism could not work? 'To each according to his contribution', as the phrase goes.

What does he mean by people in self-sufficient villages needing cars and technology? How come they need a computer any less than I do?

Besides, what was your question?

[Module]

Well of course people who live in self sufficient small villages don't need cars. In a way that almost goes against his argument that people are 'greedy'. I don't follow his first sentence, might I add. "If people did not feel the need to adapt there would be no greed." What exactly is he suggesting people feel the need to adapt to, and how does that need constitute greed? If people feel a need to adapt then the way I see it is that isn't greed, but wanting to live off 'just what they need'. Human beings seek to find easier and more efficient ways of doing things, but that is adaptability and not greed. They aren't interchangeable terms, which is what he seems to assume.
(Or maybe I've misunderstood something? :confused:)

[Marsella]

Frankly these threads make me feel sick.

The human nature argument is repeated ad nauseum.

Do a search on 'human nature.'

Hell:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-t52093/index.html?t=52093&highlight=human+nature

http://www.revleft.com/vb/hell-human-nature-t60878/index.html?&highlight=human+nature

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-human-nature-t71366/index.html?t=71366&highlight=human+nature

http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-t68061/index.html?&highlight=human+nature

http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-t46397/index.html?t=46397&highlight=human+nature


if you hve read marx then he uses the word "human nature" also provides evidence towards that fact and also why communism only works in theory not in reality.

Well I'll be darned! Marx was an advocate of human nature and insisted (contrary to the experiences of the Paris Commune) that 'communism only works in theory.'

No wonder he said (although in a different context) 'All I know is that I am not a Marxist.'

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I say regency style!

[Digitalism]

I should've posted the message HE was replying to.

here it is.


Please, those who bring in "human nature" to this. Give me some scientific data, researches done on "human nature" that adds, if any, credibility at all to that arguement. How do you know what people would act like had there never been such a thing as money, a car, a house, clothes. Probably not the same way we ALL do now. Humans adapt, there IS no human nature.

[Awful Reality]

I do not believe in a fixed human nature.

However, if human nature is fixed in terms of socio-economics, then one must come to the conclusion that humans are in fact naturally communist, judging by the early societies of the world (and only until a few hundred years ago, in the Americas and Africa)- the means of production were controlled by the tribal workers, and it functioned on an "from each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" basis. Also, we must remember that statist societies are relatively new on the human spectrum of history, having emerged just a few thousand years ago. And to claim that human nature has changed in just a few hundred- even a few thousand- years, is ludicrous.

I hate the human nature argument, I just give them this every time.