Human Nature

[Red_or_Dead]

Ok, I know that this has been discussed before. But since I havent been paying much attention to this topic in the past, well... Here it is.

Ive been talking to a guy today, and when we got around to communism, there was the classic "its against human nature" argument.

Now, Ive noticed before that some of you guys claim that there is no such thing as human nature (or something along those lines). Anyway, can you elaborate on that, please?

Or if it does exist, is communism really against it?

[Mariner's Revenge]

For the "communism goes against human nature" argument, we first have to define some terms and understand what communism is. To make this simple, we will have to contrast equality and power. What does an equal society (communism) mean? Do humans naturally strive for power in one way or another? How does power counteract equality? Can humans still strive for power in an equal society?


If you can answer these four questions you will get your answer.


For my opinion, I have always understood that total equality will never exists because some people are always bigger, stronger, more outgoing, more charismatic, smarter, witter, better looking, etc than others and having those abilities will naturally get one more respect and power than others will lesser born abilities. So I will need to separate my terms for equality. One will be total equality, which can never exist because of my last sentence. The other, social equality would be when a system does not have any oppressive or power based social doctrines such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. My view on communism or any other leftist group is that it goes for social equality and not total equality.

Now into power. The question I have is whether it is "human nature" to strive for power in one way or another. Striving for power does not necessarily just mean working to be president, king, tribal leader, part of a privileged class, etc, but to be the most influential member in a democratic community or be the most feared fighter, etc. As I said earlier, I do believe that humans naturally strive for power because not only does it help our fitness (evolution), power status in one way or another have existed in every society that I have seen in history.

That means that our "human nature" to strive for power can counteract both total and social equality. Since I assume most here realize that total equality is impossible, we need to focus on taking out the type of power that will cause class or caste systems. In order to take out a privileged class, we need to stop stereotyping groups and equalize the worth of each human. That means as long as we look at each other as individuals instead of a group (black, Muslim, etc) or title (president, doctor, etc), this type of equality can exist.

The next problem I have is how we are going to achieve this? I have no desire to create titles or classes but how can we prevent others from doing so? The best answer I can get right now is a balance of powers. Power will always exist and if you try to eliminate it, it will always come back. The only way to make sure some members do not get too much power would be to equalize it within the community. By doing this, we can have a socially equal society.

I do fully believe that an society can exist that does have equality from a systematic and doctrine standpoint, so I would argue that my leftist vision does not go against "human nature" because we can curb equality within a system even though we do realize that social equality will still exist.

[INDK]

As an advocate of 'Situationism', my personal idea is that 'human nature', if you must insist that this does indeed exist, is a flexible and situational factor. That is to say, it is based on external, situational conditions -- such as the socio-economic structure prevalent in society.

Usually, the argument put forward by Capitalists and other skeptics of the possibility of a Communist or Anarchist or whatever society is that these Socialist economies go against the nature of humans, which is along the lines of selfish. However, with a Situationist perspective you can observe that Capitalism makes people economically aggressive (.. selfish ...) because of the competitive nature of the socio-economic conditions that Capitalism creates. You can't live without this aggressiveness. Adversely, a post-revolutionary society working on a Socialist socio-economic basis would create more or less "human nature" to work with the system.

Humans inherently work towards the fulfillment of their various needs (like any animal), thus the way they achieve these needs is defined by social structures surrounding the human, especially since our societies and methods of meeting needs is to heavily based on civilized politics now -- so even if it is a more technologically advanced inherent 'need-meeting' system then a hunter-gatherer kind of society, it can still be analyzed as an environment that can alter human conditions.

[bcbm]

I think it is false to say that no such thing as human nature exists, but I think defining it anything but broad terms is equally false. I think human nature is basically that humans are self-interested in creature. In relation to communism, I think this actually works to our benefit. Its clear that the current system is only in the interests of a select few while leaving billions in the dust. Communism is a system that is in the self-interest of almost every being on the planet, as it serves the interests of the individual and the larger group.

[#FF0000]

Human nature, as people usually mean it when they use it as an argument against communism, doesn't exist. Humans are naturally self-interested, true. However, they are not driven solely by material gain, as capitalists suggest. If this were true, no one would donate to charity, gift-giving would be unheard of, and parents would compete with their children for food. The point is, there's more to self-interest than material gain. People work because of self-interest, for fulfillment. People donate time and money out of self-interest as well, once again, for a sense of doing right.

The best argument against the very idea that humans have an innate nature is found in early hunter-gatherer societies, which were so varied in regard to social structure that it pretty much obliterates the idea that humans have an innate nature. Some of these societies were strictly authoritarian, some were patriarchal, some were matriarchal, some had no division of labor based on gender, some did, and some were totally egalitarian.

When people tell me communism's against human nature, I say that the only thing inherent in humans is the will to survive and procreate, like any other animal. How a person will go about doing that is dictated, like Escape Artist said, by external conditions, including geography and cultural context.*

*more detail: in the event of a huge disaster, people will react in different ways. For example, some people might go and search for other people, and cooperate with them in finding food, shelter, and assuring the survival of everyone. Others will get guns and go it alone. Hope this example makes it clearer.

EDIT: fixed post. Makes more sense now, I hope.

[danyboy27]

human nature sure exist, and in a communist society, sure there will be people who will cheat the system, the only difference is that, in a capitalist society there will be more powerless piss poor peoples, and there is people that will cheat the system.

its like, you got the choice between two meal, a burger and a salad for exemple, lets say both of these meal give you gas, but that at least the salad keep you healthy.

in that situation burger is capitalism , and salad is communism.

usually, when you argues with someone keep stuff simple greatly help to get a point.

[The Intransigent Faction]

If I can focus enough, I'll try..
I had a similar discussion with a Socialist friend who felt that a complete revolutionary change in the system would be too drastic since although such equality is a "fundamentally good idea", we could never achieve it due to "human nature".

First we must define what is the alleged "human nature" that Communism goes against.
Since it's the common argument against a system which strives for social equality, I'm assuming that this guy you were talking to was thinking of "the greed gene".

The argument is therefore that people won't share since they will "naturally" want more for themselves.

As has been mentioned elsewhere; in a Communist society, people would
be secure from destitution. As a worker continued to labour, they would not face threats from a higher-up in a company's hierarchy to cut them off from their only means of income should they refuse to accept a change (such as wage reduction) introduced by management.
In a Capitalist society, however, there is such a threat of loss of income that people become driven to hoard what they can out of fear that they could lose everything. As a result of the material circumstances of personal security, people may be more inclined to turn their attention toward mutual benefits.

I'm not sure how clear that was, but in any case, a major mistake in Capitalist thinking in this regard is that individual benefit and collective benefit are necessarily mutually exclusive. In the modern bourgeois competitive mindset, you either benefit individually (swim) or someone else does (sink). In a Communist mindset, the more everyone contributes, the more there is for everyone. The greedy bourgeois are of course inclined toward "skepticism" that people would be willing to accept such a system.
This skepticism will be shown as less and less justified the more material circumstances change in a way that shows the masses that a system of mutual assurance of survival is ultimately the most beneficial system.

If human nature does exist, it is incredibly malleable by circumstance.
Also, to determine exactly how unequal people really are, we would have to observe them in circumstances in which every other variable is equal.
Think of an uphill race. What Capitalists support is an uphill race where some people start at the midpoint, some near or at the end, and some at the start.
What Communist support is a race where we all start from the beginning.
In which scenario can we more properly determine how good a racer each individual really is? If that's unclear: We would make a grave mistake in telling the son of a poor man that he is not equal to the son of a rich man on the basis of unequal potential resulting from a systemic flaw. So in terms of equality, we must start off on as reasonably equal footing as possible in order to ensure that everyone may show their true potential.

Additionally, were greed a negative yet natural human trait, would it necessarily follow that a system which is designed to encourage this trait would be ideal or (in a long-term sense) workable?
That's pretty much all I'll say for now.
A bit late..had to log back in after typing this and..oh well.

EDIT: So I would essentially agree in many ways with "Escape Artist"..it's situational, at the very least, to a large degree.

[trivas7]

[...] and in a communist society, sure there will be people who will cheat the system
But the point for me is i don't want a system... :cool:

[Red_or_Dead]

As an advocate of 'Situationism', my personal idea is that 'human nature', if you must insist that this does indeed exist, is a flexible and situational factor. That is to say, it is based on external, situational conditions -- such as the socio-economic structure prevalent in society.


That makes sense to me. In that respect the issue of "human nature" is similar to the issue of morality - the opposition claiming that both are universal and unchangeable, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


Usually, the argument put forward by Capitalists and other skeptics of the possibility of a Communist or Anarchist or whatever society is that these Socialist economies go against the nature of humans, which is along the lines of selfish. However, with a Situationist perspective you can observe that Capitalism makes people economically aggressive (.. selfish ...) because of the competitive nature of the socio-economic conditions that Capitalism creates. You can't live without this aggressiveness. Adversely, a post-revolutionary society working on a Socialist socio-economic basis would create more or less "human nature" to work with the system.


That was exactly what this guy (and some others before) claimed (the part about selfishness). Basicly, I agree with you on that one as well. Capitalism breeds selfishness through competition.



I think it is false to say that no such thing as human nature exists, but I think defining it anything but broad terms is equally false. I think human nature is basically that humans are self-interested in creature. In relation to communism, I think this actually works to our benefit. Its clear that the current system is only in the interests of a select few while leaving billions in the dust. Communism is a system that is in the self-interest of almost every being on the planet, as it serves the interests of the individual and the larger group.

As far as the existance of human nature goes - I remain undecided. I havent heard (not even from those that run to it as an anti-communist argument) a clear definition of what human nature allegedly is. If it means that all people inherently have certain characteristics like selfishness, greed ect. then I disagree, and my response (from today on) would be the one that Rorschach offered:


When people tell me communism's against human nature, I say that the only thing inherent in humans is the will to survive and procreate, like any other animal. How a person will go about doing that is dictated, like Escape Artist said, by external conditions, including geography and cultural context.*

*more detail: in the event of a huge disaster, people will react in different ways. For example, some people might go and search for other people, and cooperate with them in finding food, shelter, and assuring the survival of everyone. Others will get guns and go it alone. Hope this example makes it clearer.






My view on communism or any other leftist group is that it goes for social equality and not total equality.


Good point, and true as well. It also disperses another myth: that communism needs robots, not people.



Well, thanks for the responses everyone. Ill be sure to put them to good use.:)

[Incendiarism]

I tell them to read Mutual Aid or I will murder them because I am naturally predisposed to kill, rape, and compete with others.

But really, I agree primarily with Escape Artist. The conditions which we are in and the institutions in place play a very definitive role in how we interact with one another, and under capitalism competition, greed, and all those other negative qualities are treated as paramount, so it comes as no surprise that people act in terrible ways chasing after a profit or some other material gain.

However, by championing solidarity and funneling our collective energy into cooperating and mutual aid, I think there most certainly is reason to believe that this would become the dominant trait within society. The average man acts and thinks within a capitalist context precisely because he knows of no better conditions.

All in all, I think human nature is extremely complex and it would be ignorant to paint it in such broad strokes or attempt to confine it to either extreme.

[Mariner's Revenge]

Hmm....I didn't think of this before but ask them if they have ever hung out with a group that wouldn't be considered culturally western. I was good friends with a group of Somalis for a good two months and they were some of the most communal, unselfish people I've met in my life. They would share everything. Definitely an argument against selfishness as "human nature".

[INDK]

In addition, I can certainly agree that humans are self-interested; exactly why 1. they are economically agressive in Capitalism 2. economically communal in Communism. The pursuing of self-interests is certainly in no way greed, simply the way life is lived.

Also, to say absolutely no one in a post-revolutionary society would be 'greedy', so much so where they are a threat to the economic sanctity of the commune. This would be wishful thinking. However, dealing with these people is another topic on the whole, so I'm not going to delve into it further than I have.

[Trystan]

Or if it does exist, is communism really against it?

My opinion is that it is human nature to want "power" of some sort. In a capitalist world you can only get it through exploitation of others,and by competing with them. I don't think that this makes communism impossible. Indeed, in a communist society people would have power/control over productive life. I think that communism could prove to be far more compatible with human nature than capitalism.

Just my opinion.

[el_chavista]

The term "human nature" is too generic. Our cavemen ancestors survived due to their gregarious nature and their primitive communistic society.

[More Fire for the People]

Bourgeois philosophical discourse, with all its self-effacing tricks and turns, posits the existence of “human nature” but it never raises the question “What do we mean when use the term ‘human nature’”. Is it the nature of individual humans or the human-species. And by “nature”, what do we mean: the exhibited characteristics of a human? The essence of a human?

As historical materialists, we understand that human individuals and their individuality can only be comprehend properly in their collectivity: and their collectivity is determined by their concrete, material, productive existence. When we talk about an individual we are also talking about their conditionedness as well as their personal habits. This conditionedness manifests itself in different ways: in the primary condition, their relation to the means of production (class), and their secondary conditions (race, gender, culture, sexuality, etc.).

That is what we mean when we say “human” in the context of historical materialism (i.e. the most full, concrete, and accurate understanding of history). With that settled, we have to answer what we mean by “nature”. If we mean “genetic” character, well it is obvious to anyone who isn’t a white nationalist whose traded a white robe for a white lab coat, that are individual behavior doesn’t come from our genes. If we define that nature as the essence as humanity then we quickly realize that humans are constantly defining their own essence. Hence, people are what they make themselves (and, hence, can only set out to solve the problems it has create/discovered).

Therefore, humans as a species only have the human nature they give themselves. The only problem human nature injects in the struggle for communist emancipation is the extent to which we are capable of challenging ourselves and our conditions.

[Mariner's Revenge]

Humans are highly defined by our environment but to think that we are entirely free from instinct and naturally internal needs is very elitist as a species. We did evolve from species that lived entirely out of instinct and I would be very skeptical of thinking that we lost all of it.

Until there is hard proof that humans can socially adapt to any environment, this argument will remain entirely within a philosophical realm.