Is the capitalist a defective person? The "human nature" deal

[jake williams]

When I hear free market ideologues babbling on about "human nature" and all that - the whole "Aw shucks, it'd be nice if we could all be helpful to each other but it turns out really we all just hate each other and it's our nature to shit on each other to climb up top", and how no one would really do anything if there wasn't promise of iPods and cars if they were particularly obedient... I start to think: This ain't my nature. Unless I'm completely exhausted or sick, I don't really have an aversion to reasonable, useful work. If I could be reasonably certain that my material needs and "wants" were looked after by the community, I'd be comfortable with that, and I'd be more than willing to contribute my part. In fact I'd enjoy it.

But I don't think this makes me especially virtuous. I don't think I'm a strange angelic aberration and that I'm just ignorant of the "normal" person who wouldn't do this. In fact I think my general view on the matter is probably a pretty common one, if not a universal one, I think it's very unlikely that anything like an idea of "communism" would exist without this perception of things.

The idea of "morality" is a complex one here. I do believe there's something wrong with someone who is only interested in gaining material wealth for themselves, solitary, something very wrong, but because it's difficult to determine the origins of this "nature" I don't know if it's logical to talk about these people as being "bad". But bad in consequence certainly, deontological v. teleological. If anyone really really wants to talk about whether or not these are innate properties of people or whether they come out of some product of the environment, okay, but I'm not that interested. What I'm more interested is whether or not this talk about people being lazy or active, selfish or altruistic, whether it's an ideological construction or an ignorance of the reality of people or whether it's an actual fact of people's character. Because really, I'm starting to think that there's just something defective about these capitalist-ideologue blatherers, just in terms of their basic relations to the needs and existence of other poeple.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Well it's quite a 'logical' conclusion within the capitalist framework. Well think about it, everyone is merely trying to do whats best.
Take a corporation for example, all they want is to make sure their corporation 'survives'. So that they keep their jobs and to earn as much money as possible. Because they need to make profit in order to achieve this they have different interests then others but are not necessarily 'evil'.
Take for example the Xbox360 which had a flawed system, the consumers started complaining who had bought the product. So they got to this consumer-show in the Netherlands after personal approaches to Microsoft failed. Microsoft kept denying anything was wrong with the system and they claimed it was the consumers fault, etc.. etc...
Now what just happened? A contradiction in interests occurred. The consumers bought a highly expensive system that wasn't functioning the way they wanted to. Thus reasonably they wanted either a refund or a repaired system. Whilst Microsoft would financially speaking lose a lot of money if they would have to repair the system, which would be harmful to their corporation.
Governments on the other hand, well lets take gun-laws in the U.S. for example. I watched the Ali G show the other day and 'Ali G' asked a lobbyist (against guns) why they wouldn't make bullets that 'wouldn't fit the guns'. The lobbyist responded that you have to take into account that when passing legislation you have to keep in mind those people producing the weapons etc... For they are an economically and thus politically powerful lobby. So banning guns would be an extremely difficult occasion, even when a majority of the government would be in support of it.
These conflicted interests occur because people merely do what they think is best. For a CEO that is what is best for the corporation, for a worker that is what is best for the working-class (and thus himself), for the President, well thats a difficult one (though he obviously defends ruling-class interests, thanking his position to the ruling-class and mostly being a member of this same ruling class).
All of these conflicted interests might make it seem that everyone is just being 'greedy'. But in the long term these people just do what they think is best, not for themselves in specific (even though to a certain extend it is also for themselves). So even in Capitalist society you can see that those people who at the 'greediest' are mere victims of the system itself (even though they are 'benefiting' victims).
Thus in a society where there would be no more need for this 'greed', that has been build to destroy this 'greed'. Culturally, economically, politically, etc... there would be no more 'greed' (Capitalist greed that is, for people will still see things from their personal point of view and not from someone else's).

My conclusion is thus that 'greed' is a highly relative concept that fully depends on the kind of 'system' we live in. Under Capitalism 'greed' is thus a completely different concept, then under Socialism. And under Socialism it will be a completely different concept then it will be under Communism. Of course when the change of powers occurs, the 'old greed' will still exist and will have to be destroyed. But thats a different discussion.

[Led Zeppelin]

The "human nature" issue is brought up a lot here by both capitalists and communists alike. The former tries to justify the status quo by mentioning it, the latter is usually "confused" by it, and brings it up here to get an answer to it.

It's very simple, I have posted this same answer several times already, and I'll keep posting it whenever this is brought up, because it is the solution to the "problem".

Existence precedes essence:

Whereas previous methods of philosophical thought held that "essence precedes existence", a concept which dates back to Avicenna and Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi, Marxists flip this around arguing that for humans, existence precedes essence. In the former mode of thought, there is some creator who conceives of an idea or purpose of an object, say a knife for example, and then creates it with the essence of the object already present. The essence of what the knife will be exists before the actual knife itself.

Marxists, who do not believe in God as the creator of humanity, believe that if there is no God to have conceived of our essence or nature, then we must come into existence first, and then create our own essence out of interaction with our surroundings and ourselves. With this comes serious implications of self-responsibility over who we become and who we are. There is no longer, for us, some universal "human nature".

[DrFreeman09]

There is a universal "human nature" in the sense that we have the instinctual urge to survive.

But other than that, our nature changes based on conditions.

In capitalism, human nature only appears so terrible because the society we live in is structured terribly.

The way to survive in capitalism is to beat others down, so naturally, it is the dendency of a significant number of individuals.

But I think cooperation is also part of "human nature" because it is a survival technique. If there is no incentive to slack off, shit on other people, etc. people won't do it. The problem in capitalism is that there are incentives for all of the worst parts of our "natures."

[shorelinetrance]

human nature is hogwash, its just capitalists spouting typical rhetoric.

capitalism breeds greed, the want for more material objects, such as wealth.

capitalists completely flabbergast me with the idea of human nature, humans are born with the inherent idea of wanting more?

doesn't make much sense now does it?

[Enragé]

The "human nature" issue is brought up a lot here by both capitalists and communists alike. The former tries to justify the status quo by mentioning it, the latter is usually "confused" by it, and brings it up here to get an answer to it.

It's very simple, I have posted this same answer several times already, and I'll keep posting it whenever this is brought up, because it is the solution to the "problem".

Existence precedes essence:

Whereas previous methods of philosophical thought held that "essence precedes existence", a concept which dates back to Avicenna and Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi, Marxists flip this around arguing that for humans, existence precedes essence. In the former mode of thought, there is some creator who conceives of an idea or purpose of an object, say a knife for example, and then creates it with the essence of the object already present. The essence of what the knife will be exists before the actual knife itself.

Marxists, who do not believe in God as the creator of humanity, believe that if there is no God to have conceived of our essence or nature, then we must come into existence first, and then create our own essence out of interaction with our surroundings and ourselves. With this comes serious implications of self-responsibility over who we become and who we are. There is no longer, for us, some universal "human nature".

Right on.

Also when most people say that people are greedy, they don't actually mean themselves. The point being, if most people say about most people that most people are greedy, but then deny that they themselves are greedy... yea well you get it :P

The whole "people are greedy" is just part of the cultural hegemony of the ruling class. Capitalism cannot survive if people don't believe people are greedy etc.

[shorelinetrance]

The whole "people are greedy" is just part of the cultural hegemony of the ruling class. Capitalism cannot survive if people don't believe people are greedy etc.

i like that, very well said.

i always bring up leftism in conversation, and the FIRST thing they say is "humans are greedy" it won't work.

very funny :D:D:D

[jake williams]

capitalism breeds greed, the want for more material objects, such as wealth.
I have a few issues with this. The main one I think is the idea that "capitalism" is an actor. Capitalism is the product of constant human action. If people didn't do capitalism, then it wouldn't exist. I'm not saying it doesn't have effects on people, even on their mindsets, but my point is there is a question as to why people "do capitalism".

Also, there are two things we should distinguish. Though they may in fact be the same thing, or at least overlap, there are conceptually two or three groups: those who do capitalism, that is, those who manage and implement the institution of capitalism; those who "theorize" about it, make arguments for it, argue for it, and so on; and those who benefit from it.

In the main I'm only talking about the first two.

[Enragé]

I smell a sociologist..