Human Nature - Not Communistic

[Curiouscapitalist]

The nature of humans is to improve upon the individual, materialisticaly. To gain possesions and riches, so it has been shown. In a selfish maner, where one is motivated by the desire to increase in wealth, wheather it be intellectualy, or financialy. Communism removes the incentive to make oneself happier and satisfied with possesions. Communism expects that every individual contribute his labor to society, where in return, the individual is rewarded with nothing but the same which his neighboors have. The incentive is to surpass your social equals in social status, but how can one do that with no material possesion. Or even with no status at all?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If anything, capitalism represses human nature by allowing a small number of wealthy aristocrats to make millions by the use of the labor of thousands who in turn earn near to nothing. What hope of competing socialy or attaining a higher standard of living for his family does a man who can barely get by with his minimum-wage job. What "riches" can this man afford when he has just enough, if even that, to pay for his rent.

Capitalism expects that every individual contribute his labor to society, where in return, the individual is rewarded with nothing.

oh the irony!

If there is such a human instinct that leads us all to greed, such an instinct must be supressed!

[The Muckraker]

I think your premise may be flawed.

In feudal society there was very little class mobility, which is what you're talking about. People were born not only into a class, but into a job: if your father was a blacksmith, you too would be a blacksmith, if he farmed, so would you. Women, of course, had for the most part only two choices, marriage or the Church, and many of them chose the Church.

But, if your premise is correct, then feudalism should never have even come about for it demands an existing state of affairs contrary to what you present as the very nature of human beings. If a society can be constructed that is contrary to human nature, then of what value is this nature? None, obviously. The reality of the world destroys the validity of the theory. It just doesn't stand up to empirical scrutiny.

I recall seeing an interview with a man from Switzerland, maybe Sweded, one of those cold Nordic countries, in which he talked about the differences between his society and US society. He claimed that the most striking difference was that in the US everyone wanted to be better than his neighbor, whereas in his country people wanted to be the same as their neighbors. So cross-culturally your premise, again, seems to be flawed.

I don't think it's wise to take an apparent truth that occurs in a specific place and specific historical context and generalize from that about a transcendant nature of mankind.

[Palmares]

I agree with Muckraker.

I believe (though I was unsure before) that it is a misconception that human nature makes us want more than we have. Of course we will always want things (sex, etc), but quantity is dependent on what is cultured in to the individual/society. I have done much research into psychology and sociology in regards to this and I have discovered that my previous conceptions were faux (or at least narrow-minded). From what I remember, desire had to do with humans wanting a balance or constistentcy with thier surroundings. There is other stuff, but this is one I remember off my head concerning culture (i.e. surroundings).

(Edited by Cthenthar at 11:03 am on May 7, 2003)

[Som]

90% or so of human history went without a profit motive.

Human nature, eh?

[apathy maybe]

people do everything for selfish reasons. selfless things make them feel good, there for they do them.

[Sabocat]

Indiginous or aboriginal indians of most continents existed almost entirely as a collective. All working for thier community. Their desire was to live in sync. with nature and their surroundings, not the aquisition of material objects.

It was the invaders culture that brought greed and selfishness to these continents.

True happiness cannot be achieved with possesions.

[YAY CAPITALISM]

How many of these people you critisise (CEO's and such) have started off with nothing and put in the hard yards. I would be willing to say at least 70%. Most had to pay their own way through College or aim for scholarships. (Thats if they went to College in the first place)

Look at Paul Stoddard or Richard Branson as examples. They are the smartest people alive, they dropped out of school at about year 10 yet they worked their asses off to get some place decent, very decent.

Socialism and Communisum allows people to sit on their butt and expact to live off others. If you think you have the right to cut these people down (Tall Poppie Syndrome) then YOU are the narrow minded souls.

Not all CEO's are legit, I give you that, yet these are the people that take the world foward into the future.

So put away your pruning siccors and put in the hard yards. You may find yourself in a place that does not so closely resemble hell.

[LOIC]

Socialism and Communisum allows people to sit on their butt and expact to live off others.

You are wrong, that's what capitalists are doing. Communism is a fight against exploitation. You can't live off others in a communist society.

Concerning human nature, my opinion is that if your only goal in your life is to earn a lot of money, then you must have a really pathetic life.
Capitalism is against human nature because it reduce everything(people, relationships,...)to money.

[onepunchmachinegun]

Quote: from Curiouscapitalist on 1:29 am on May 7, 2003
The incentive is to surpass your social equals in social status, but how can one do that with no material possesion. Or even with no status at all?


Communism is also about that people should learn that possesions don't make them happy. It's all about making humans better than they are today...

[suffianr]

Jumping on the back of this so-called "anthropological" debate, well, one of the reasons why China and Russia had been susceptible to communism was because their societal structures were largely collectivistic, as opposed to the West, which after the Renaissance and the Great Schism, became more individualistic.

You can't really say that communism is against human nature, because the precise condition of human nature is strictly relative; maybe feudalistic/collectivistic societies would be more open to the collectivistic aspects of communism just as much as modern Western democracies are more open to capitalism/individualism.

Besides, human nature is an abstract concept, and most abstract concepts are open-ended i.e. you'll see what you want to see and you'll listen to what you want to hear, so, other than that, this is a load of bollocks.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from YAY CAPITALISM on 12:52 pm on May 7, 2003
How many of these people you critisise (CEO's and such) have started off with nothing and put in the hard yards. I would be willing to say at least 70%. Most had to pay their own way through College or aim for scholarships. (Thats if they went to College in the first place)

Look at Paul Stoddard or Richard Branson as examples. They are the smartest people alive, they dropped out of school at about year 10 yet they worked their asses off to get some place decent, very decent.

Socialism and Communisum allows people to sit on their butt and expact to live off others. If you think you have the right to cut these people down (Tall Poppie Syndrome) then YOU are the narrow minded souls.

Not all CEO's are legit, I give you that, yet these are the people that take the world foward into the future.

So put away your pruning siccors and put in the hard yards. You may find yourself in a place that does not so closely resemble hell.


Socialism and Communisum allows people to sit on their butt and expact to live off others you have very little understanding of socialism. In a socialist socioty people work to improve socioty. If socioty improves then peoples well being improves proportionatly

For example the more bread the nation produses as a whole the more bread you are given, as there is more to give.

People in a socialist socioty do not sit on there buts all day doing sweet fuck all. You are confusing socialism with corporate managment.

Look at Paul Stoddard or Richard Branson as examples.

They are good examples, they wirked to better them selves, however what about the the people they employ at £4.50 an hour, who do as many hours he does and work equily as hard. He was lucky and got an oppertunity, capitalism is fundimentaly flawed as it see's all people as having an oppertunity, is uggest you open your eyes to the starving millions in Ethiopia and ask your self do they get a chanse like Richard Branson?

[notyetacommie]

If we were guided by purely "natural laws", we would still be hunting mammoths. And, I personally suggest, that we would be doing it COLLECTIVELY. Man is guided not only by natural drives such as thurst, hunger, sex, etc., but by what little intellect they have. This intellect actually allows the choice between working together for the benefit of all OR working together for the benefit of one. So you suggest it is human to work together for one specific person hoping that someday this one person who gets the benefit would be you?

[Umoja]

Humans don't have a nature. We do whatever gives us food, and keeps us happy. The economic/administrative systems are just overly complex ways of keeping people from killing each other to keep themselves stable (although under some system it still works that we "kill" each other.)

[YAY CAPITALISM]

Actually, I know my fair share about Communisum and Socialism.

I think you are getting mixed up with the theory and practical side of things.

Off the paper I would say Communisum (god help me) is quite a reasnable step towards the security of the world....

Then again, once you see how it works in life situations you can begin to see that it is not so far off hell.

[Capitalist Killer]

Communism works but evil capitalist imperialism has destroyed it and made people believe it does not work, they tell people that Marx was wrong but Marx is still relevant and true today even after 150 years capitalist society has not changed

[apathy maybe]

YAY CAPITALISM and notyetacommie goto policticalcompass.com, the USSR and China were both in the upper left, what peaple here are trying to acchive is in the lower left, a democratic society not a dictatorship. China has now moved to the upper right.

[notyetacommie]

So what? I haven't even mentioned China or Russia (Funny, there were 15 republics in the USSR and people still refer to it as Russia). What has your post got to do with human nature?

[peaccenicked]

Here's a poem of mine on the subject.

Glimmers of Hope




FIRST BREATHE

Evading city fatigue, the all pervading bustle
To the air and the sea and the greenery
That is the dream that rises above the clouds
those dull rain-makers of nightful day

To gather thoughts anew, so fresh
To blether with a gentle soul mate
To laugh like Olympian gods in unison
at the bizarre foibles of men in ruins

This is breathing with each sadness
This is teasing out the hours
catching nettles as they pass
This is sitting on the sea bank
toying with a blade of grass

BREATHE 2

Stoating in the city as is the habit of clientele
Listening to the inner angst of spectacular natives
The vital statistics of a national nightmare

Honing in on the groundswell of discontent
catching snatches of barking broken hearts
Irate tirades over last evening's viewing

The diaspora of outcast and vagabond assertion
Taking the high ground in an empty dispute
Placing inner bets on the outcome of a non-event

This is the beautiful voice of suicidal despair
running away from its sordid conclusion
Dancing, forever wanton, but dancing !

LAST BREATHE

It is worth a passing mention
The political situation
Vertical structures of Power and Wealth

If there is something more absurd
It is the claim that this human nature

Most people are inclined towards horizontal positions:
From lying down to speaking freely
From sleeping rough to quilted bed.
For every corpse and lover's rest -
Equality in a real way is human nature's only test

[Capitalist Killer]

If the Evil USA's imperialism had not put so much strain on socialist countries, then socialim would be working perfectly.

[abstractmentality]

YAY CAPITALISM:
yes, some people have made the great leap from rags to riches, that is fact. however, how many other hard working peers of the few that have "made it," not made it? your attitude is one of "if you just pull on your boot straps, you can make it," which is blatantly not true in america. if you want a good talk about the ol' pulling on the boot straps, go check out the film The Color of Fear, in which one character, Victor, speaks about his boot straps, and how he pulled so hard on them, that they broke.

there are so many social structures inhibiting people from doing what they want. not just social structures, but economic and racial structures that hold people back as well.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Capitalist Killer on 1:20 pm on May 13, 2003
If the Evil USA's imperialism had not put so much strain on socialist countries, then socialim would be working perfectly.


By your own admission socialism can not compeat with free markets. Socialism is killing itself by not being able to keep up free markets.

The "Evil USA" played by the same rules and your beloved communist countries. They were both trying to topple each other. Communism toppled, free markets are just getting stronger.

(Edited by kelvin9 at 3:52 am on May 24, 2003)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

the argument that in capitalism anyone can become a multi-millionaire is ridiculous. It's extremely rare and only through investment can capital be made from very little money in capitalism. Investment, I might add, is also an exploitation of the working class' labor.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Kelvin.

If you still buy into that archaic rhetoric in an attempt to "prove" capitalism works brilliantly then you are more of a fool than I originally thought. Well, you are a capitalist I suppose. Not a very bright one I can see.
Get back on your computer and make another 200.00 quid in 2 minutes.
I'm sure there are some new rims for your motor on the market that would make you look real flash with the ladies.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 5:42 am on May 26, 2003)

[Pete]

IMO human nature fits communisim more than capitalism. Why are there so many people commiting suicide? Mostly farmers after their farms are bought by corporations. What about the levels of stress, schitzophrenia and other mental illnesses, as well as crime that exists in Capitalism? These are all the flaws of your system. Stress was not heard of until the mid 1900's, mental disorder is the highest in the middle of large commerical centres, and crime sprouts from 'need, greed, and opporutnity' (I have retail training). In communism the stress isn't there, thus the mental disorders fall as people have time to live and people have niether the need nor the greed (which .: disqualifies oppurtunity).

BTW being a mod and all I will just send a friendly reminder that flaming is not good arguement.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 10:24 pm on May 13, 2003

there are so many social structures inhibiting people from doing what they want. not just social structures, but economic and racial structures that hold people back as well.


Bill Gates himself is starting to realize the same thing. By no means is he becomming a commie, he is realizing the inequity and weakness of capitalism. Those weakness are not production, decentralizatlion, free markets, individual liberty, or individual freedom.

For example his kids are getting all the advantages that wealth can bring to give them a good start in life, but he has stated they are not going to get the fortune.

[Anonymous]

Quote: What about the levels of stress, schitzophrenia and other mental illnesses, as well as crime that exists in Capitalism?


Communism is not so rosy. Soviets are notorious for achololism.

http://www.aagrapevine.org/archive/aroundw...isitSoviet.html (http://www.aagrapevine.org/archive/aroundworld/VisitSoviet.html)

The only good thing that can be said about Soviet alcoholism, is that they are not as bad as the Finns.

You don't ever want to go a mental health facility in the Soviet Union. The KGB might get ideas about you:

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/f...-151553,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_redirect/0,10987,1101890410-151553,00.html)

Well never know how stressed Soviets really were. Those records were never kept.

[notyetacommie]

There were bad things going on in the Soviet Union, kelvin. There were lots of alcoholics then all right. BUT!!! These figures cannot be compared to what we have in Russia now that we have capitalism. The alcoholism has become NEARLY TOTAL! The alcoholism in the USSR cannot be compared with one that existed before the revolution, because it was also NEARLY TOTAL. The alcoholism in the Communist China, on the other hand, is close to non-existant. In fact, in a week I spent in China, I didn't see A SINGLE ONE DRUNK Chinese.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Well I for one would rather go bowling with a drunk russian that a cracked-out yanquee....The crack makes 'em to fidgety...they can't hit shite....no competition at all.

cheers

Jules

[Pete]

1989. The time of good ole Gorby (may he be shot if he is not yet dead). They paid people in vodka then. Lol. What do you expect?

About the mental health in the CCCP. Kruschev through Gorbachev had a wierd version of what 'sane' was to say the least. Dissenters where medicalized for disabilities. Damn revisionists eh?? (From 1989 again during Gorby's reign)

(Edited by CrazyPete at 10:13 pm on May 27, 2003)

[RAM]

Anyone subscribe to Natural Moral Law cos I don't but I don't think that we can ever have a human nature that is used across all cultures and all religions all of the time! E.g. People shoulden't kill each other but they do in war! I don't belive there to be any real human nature apart from the desire to have sex!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Human Nature is very complex...it goes quite a bit further than than banging some bird....or bloke...
Try reading some literature on Sociobiology...There are some incredible insights into human nature/behaviour and their genetic implications.

[RAM]

Human nature also chnages e.g. Jesus Christ casued a chnage in the law cos in the Old Testmanet Jesus was allowed but when Jesus came along he forbode it so there is also a chnaging human nature as well!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Could you re-phrase the post RAM? I'm not quite sure I follow where you were going with it.

cheers comrade

[RAM]

Sorry! I will try again: -

Human nature also chnages e.g. Jesus Christ casued a change in the law because in the Old Testmanet divorce was allowed but when Jesus came along he forbode divorce so there is also a changing human nature as well!

[IHP]

RAM, I'm not sure where you're heading. All I can glean from your post is that Jesus said something and people followed. I wouldn't say that's human nature, it's people following teachings. I learn politics, but my nature is made up of one aspect of politcs, such as the divorce code being an aspect of Jesus' teachings.

I would call what you've said a change acceptability that encompasses all followers of Christianity. Such as, there would be people who follow his teachings, but disagree with divorce being forbidden.

Could you please elaborate on your point? Thanks.

--IHP