My latest essay: "Are Human Beings Basically Evil?"

[Unclebananahead]

Yeep, I decided to tackle this one. That is, the 'argument from human nature' type objection to the realization of socialism. Have a read, let me know what you-all think. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Are Human Beings Basically Evil?

By Comrade Banana Head

There are those among us, who for various reasons, claim that our species is at its core, debased, and villainous. This notion takes on various forms, and comes from a number of quarters. In particular, it is often articulated by those who object to socialism -- diehard skeptics who supposedly object to it on that very basis. “Humans are selfish” they exclaim, “socialism won’t work because there’s always someone who will want more than what everybody else has, and will endeavor to place themselves in an ascendent position in relation to everyone else.” This can seem true at first, as it’s certainly the case that most of our history is filled to the brim with brutality, oppression, and bloodshed. The current predominating social order of capitalism, seems to be consistent with this idea, with the lion’s share of the world’s wealth being owned by a small elite, and everyone else left to struggle over the leftovers -- the scraps that fall from the table.

The problem with this outlook, is that it ignores that ‘human nature’ is in a constant state of flux. Marx teaches us that “conditions determine consciousness” -- or, put in other words, our environment has a great deal to do with moulding our thoughts and attitudes. For instance, someone born 2,000 years ago would have a much different outlook then they would now. iPods, jet planes, germ theory, cruise missiles and the internet wouldn’t have any bearing on such a person’s thinking. These things are known to us because of the environment we’re born into. Somebody in 10th century England wouldn’t have a clue as to what the Internet is, and if you had a time machine, could travel alà Marty McFly to that time and place, and were able to attempt to explain the concept of it to them, they -- supposing you weren’t burned at the stake for heresy right away -- would be at a loss to comprehend what you were attempting to convey.

The ‘Humans-are-evil’ peddlers suffer from a limited frame of reference. Their notion may seem true initially because of the experience of the world as it exists today, as well as what we know of the history of human civilization. But this ignores a number of factors.

Firstly, human civilization, is young. Wait, what? Young? Hasn’t human civilization been around for thousands of years? Yes, it’s young. Looking at the total amount of time for which our species has existed, the time during which most of us have lived under what is conventionally considered to be ‘civilization’ (which is to say, a sophisticated culture, division of labor, and the existence of a complex urban environment) is a mere blip. It’s a flicker. Human civilization has been around for about five thousand years roughly, yes -- but human beings as a species have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Can you judge a species for what it has been doing for a mere fraction of its existence? Can you really pin down its nature, on a sliver of its time on earth? It would be like observing the behavior of some creature for several days, and then drawing conclusions and judgments about it from the last couple minutes of observation. Could those last couple of minutes give you the final, ultimate answer about the nature, or essential being of the creature? Of course not, but this is what the ‘humans-are-basically-evil’ types ignore. To flesh this out some more, I’ll give you some numbers to consider. According to wikipedia, “anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago.” Meanwhile, the earliest known civilization, began at around 5,300 BC, and was in the region between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates known as Mesopotamia, which contained notable ancient cities such as Sumer, Uruk, Ur, etc. So the human species is 195,000 years old, but human civilization is about 7,300 years old -- a difference of 187,700 years. It’s this 187,700 years that the ‘humans-are-basically-evil’ types don’t seem to bear in mind.

Secondly, we’re social creatures, with a long history of cooperation, and collaboration. How is it that human beings came to dominate the natural environment and place themselves at the ‘top of the food chain’? Was it through competing amongst ourselves? Or was it a cooperative effort? Think about it for a moment, and it will become readily apparent that it took a great deal of collaboration to hunt, domesticate plants and animals, learn to build shelters, and eventually build the pyramids. The pyramids definitely couldn’t have been built by a group of individuals all competing against one another in a war of ‘all against all.’ Human beings, like other primates, are social creatures. Human infants, unlike the young of most other species, are extremely dependent upon the more physically mature members of the species for several years to ensure their survival. This is consistent with the entire social strategy humans and other primates employ to survive in the natural environment. Human beings have always lived in groups in order to cooperate in surviving the elements, defend against attacks from hostile animals, assist one another in finding food, and so forth. How could any common language have been devised amongst our ancestors, if not through cooperation? How could any of the features we recognize as ‘civilized’ have come about from a collection of non-cooperative, autonomous individuals?

“But wait,” they reply. “Aren’t all people motivated by self interest?” Sure, of course they are. All rational humans are motivated, at least in part, by self-preservation, and the advancement of what they perceive will address their needs, both physical and psychological. Moreover, this has been the impetus driving us from the beginning. It drove us to work together with one another in groups to assist in scraping out a survival in the natural environment. But it’s shortsighted to think that this will invariably result in lopsided social structures. Before the advent of agriculture and the division of labor (which was that 187,700 year period as mentioned earlier), humans lived in small hunting and gathering groups. Thinkers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels regarded this period of human existence as being a kind of “pre-agrarian form of communism.” The reason for this was, according to wikipedia, that this era was characterized by collective, equal access to basic resources, “egalitarianism in social relationships, and absence of authoritarian rule and hierarchy.” All food was used up or consumed immediately for the subsistence of the community, so there was no surplus, and thus no division of labor. This sort of existence wouldn’t support the stratification of society into classes, because what was 'produced’ by hunting and gathering left little or nothing afterwards to be struggled over, and all possessions were limited to what could be transported, due to the nomadic nature of the community. Furthermore, all able bodied members of the tribe would have been 'producers’ involved in the procurement of food via hunting and gathering, leaving no one idle except for the elderly, late stage pregnant women or infirm. The advent of agriculture, permanent settlements, and the division of labor allowed for the existence of a surplus product. A surplus product established the pre-conditions necessary for the beginning of class society, in which society is divided up between various classes, under which there is a transfer of wealth from producers, to non-producers. Flash forward to our time. Up until this point, scarcity due to insufficiently developed means of production has made it so only a small segment of human society could have plentiful, enjoyable, fulfilling lives. This notwithstanding, the surplus product has been on an upward trajectory, creating the possibility of a social order in which all of society’s members can enjoy a ‘good life’ with sufficient food, shelter, health-care, and recreation. Such a social order would be in the the self-interests of its members to preserve. And somebody who tried to circumvent these social interests so as to advance their own self-interests at everyone else’s expense would be going against the self-interests of the vast majority. And, interestingly, that is precisely what the bourgeoisie, or owning class, are doing right now. If you try to balance something lopsided, gravity will show you how unstable it is. The same thing goes for lopsided social structures. The currently wealthy and powerful bourgeoisie foolishly think their lopsided system is permanent and eternal, but nothing could be further from the truth. They believe the current system to be a rational means to advance their self-interest, but how well will those self-interests be served when the tide of revolutionary fury comes roaring into their palatial homes? Therefore, anyone who, in the current age of advanced material means of production, attempts to advance their self-interests at the expense of everyone else via a lopsided social order involving the private ownership of the means of production, is shortsightedly setting themselves up for a big fall. A more rational, long term minded sort of person will thusly favor a more egalitarian social structure with public ownership of the means of production.

In conclusion, humans aren’t basically evil. Conversely, they aren’t basically good either. To suggest that they’re one or the other, is to see things in a black and white way which lacks the nuance necessary to get a more realistic understanding. It’s important for Marxists to have a proper scientific grasp of the history and material reality of the human condition, as it exists. To do otherwise is to venture into the ‘angels and demons’ realm of the religionists, and we have to avoid this at all costs.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I was going to say "human beings are basically evil. they're also basically good, we're complex animals". Skipped down to the conclusion and saw you said that.

Well, you sir, obviously have a critical and dialectical mind

[thesadmafioso]

Your overall style of writing comes off as a bit bland and it makes the piece lose some of the academic legitimacy which it could of otherwise had. The overall flow has a feel of informality and immaturity about it, and your actual point becomes lost in the distracting fray of that at times.

Through I can hardly find anything at fault with your general thesis and the substance you provide to support it, the only real issue here is more or less in the technical skill of your writing ability.

[Unclebananahead]

Your overall style of writing comes off as a bit bland and it makes the piece lose some of the academic legitimacy which it could of otherwise had. The overall flow has a feel of informality and immaturity about it, and your actual point becomes lost in the distracting fray of that at times.

Through I can hardly find anything at fault with your general thesis and the substance you provide to support it, the only real issue here is more or less in the technical skill of your writing ability.

The informality is intentional. I want to make this into a video on You Tube, and thus, have endeavored to appeal to the short attention-span-having channel surfers that seem all too typical these days. I'm not certain what you mean by immaturity though.

[thesadmafioso]

The informality is intentional. I want to make this into a video on You Tube, and thus, have endeavored to appeal to the short attention-span-having channel surfers that seem all too typical these days. I'm not certain what you mean by immaturity though.

I meant that the presentation of the piece contained certain areas which appeared to be geared towards an audience of minimal intellectual capacity. The tone had a direction which denoted immaturity through a poor level of organization and through an occasionally inept display of thought.

Though if this was intended to serve as a sort of script for a video, I feel that the term essay may be slightly misleading. Regardless, it does make a lot more sense of the informal nature of this work and it will probably work quite well in that format.

[Unclebananahead]

Mm

I meant that the presentation of the piece contained certain areas which appeared to be geared towards an audience of minimal intellectual capacity. The tone had a direction which denoted immaturity through a poor level of organization and through an occasionally inept display of thought.

Though if this was intended to serve as a sort of script for a video, I feel that the term essay may be slightly misleading. Regardless, it does make a lot more sense of the informal nature of this work and it will probably work quite well in that format.

Inept display of thought? I readily concede its informal nature, and the organization might not be as tight as an example essay provided by an instructor to an English class on how to structure their writing. But inept? I'm pretty sure I don't comprehend how it is you came to that conclusion. Moreover, I'm not certain how that's at all constructive, which I would generally define as criticism geared towards helping a person to improve. Calling them or their writing inept doesn't strike me as falling under this definition.

[thesadmafioso]

Inept display of thought? I readily concede its informal nature, and the organization might not be as tight as an example essay provided by an instructor to an English class on how to structure their writing, but inept? I'm pretty sure I don't comprehend how you it is you came to that conclusion. Moreover, I'm not certain how that's at all constructive.

Inept
Adjective: Having or showing no skill; clumsy.

Your writing showed little skill and was clumsy for an essay, that is how I came to the conclusion in question. Have you not read a piece of writing which has been constructed in an appealing fashion? My initial remarks were perfectly constructive as they showed clear fault in the structure of your presented piece.

[Unclebananahead]

Fuck you. My writing is just fine. I skimmed over your article (the one on your blog), and I hardly see how it's superior on any meaningful level to my piece. Yes it's informal, yes I intended a more 'conversational style' but inept? Showed little skill? Again, fuck you. Insults aren't constructive.

[Hexen]

Fuck you. My writing is just fine. I skimmed over your article (the one on your blog), and I hardly see how it's superior on any meaningful level to my piece. Yes it's informal, yes I intended a more 'conversational style' but inept? Showed little skill? Again, fuck you. Insults aren't constructive.

[Unclebananahead]

Haha. Point taken. Shouldn't let myself get too worked up by this troll.

[hatzel]

To be honest, thesadmafioso is perfectly correct in his claims. As he said, if you would have read it, 'though if this was intended to serve as a sort of script for a video, I feel that the term essay may be slightly misleading. Regardless, it does make a lot more sense of the informal nature of this work and it will probably work quite well in that format.' This isn't an essay. If an essay says 'firstly, human civilization, is young. Wait, what? Young? Hasn’t human civilization been around for thousands of years? Yes, it’s young', then it's probably a bit of a shit essay, because that's not the kind of thing people write in essays. Hence thesadmafioso questioned whether or not this was an essay at all, rather than just a narration, and, as an essay, it is inept. He did, however, say that it would probably work quite well as a script for a video. Then there comes the issue of whether or not you consider the word 'thusly' (that's not a real word, by the way, so don't use it), which you have employed, to be 'conversational' and 'informal'. I know I don't. If somebody is using the informal tone of the first quote, but also using clearly formal language and structures, in one and the same text, then it does question their understanding and abilities. One of the two is surely out of place, they can't coexist. Therefore it comes across as though you've written a formal piece and just thrown in a few colloquialisms, which would come across as ineptitude, because it's difficult to consider the piece informal when it flips between formality and informality on a regular basis. Hence the accusation of ineptitude, that you might be unaware of what forms and structures pass in a formal essay, which much of this seems to want to be.

Oh, and by the way, "I read your stuff and don't think it's better than mine!" isn't actually an argument, particularly given the fact that your response to any criticism seems to be to totally disregard it and go off on one. This shows that you seem to think that you've written something effectively flawless, so of course you wouldn't consider somebody else's writings to be better than yours, would you, as yours are apparently perfect

(Oh, and also, you seem to like employing the classic 'in conclusion' in a good few of your essays / film scripts / whatever these are. A quick hint is to avoid that. I don't remember much of what my history teacher told me at school, but that was definitely one of his gems. You shouldn't have to flag up that your conclusion is a conclusion, by stating 'hey, this is the conclusion, guys!'; what you've written as the conclusion should make it clear that you're wrapping up. If you have to mention that it's a conclusion for people to notice that it's a conclusion, then it's probably not the best-phrased conclusion out there. Irrespective, when I read 'in conclusion', I always feel as though it's somebody who is trying to draw attention to their conclusion, due to its weakness, and then it's impossible for me to know whether the conclusion would stand by itself, without the flashing lights and arrows around it. It makes even the best conclusion, and perhaps the whole essay come across as very B+ at high school, I can assure you...)

[thesadmafioso]

Fuck you. My writing is just fine. I skimmed over your article (the one on your blog), and I hardly see how it's superior on any meaningful level to my piece. Yes it's informal, yes I intended a more 'conversational style' but inept? Showed little skill? Again, fuck you. Insults aren't constructive.

Why exactly did you ask for constructive criticism if you were not actually open to receiving it? I presented a valid point against the style of your writing which was perfectly justified given the context, and you responded by levying completely unfounded insult towards my own writing. That does not support your previous statement of being welcome to constructive criticism. Let us presume for a moment that you are actually correct in your assumption that your writing is of a higher grade than my own, would that necessarily lend more legitimacy to your point? Of course it would not, as my critique would still remain. The question of your motivation for even bringing that irrelevant variable into the equation has to be asked at this point. Simply put, it has a desperate look about it when you start blindly attacking the works of others to avoid critique.

The 'In conclusion' bit was also a very valid point as I can recall being lectured against that in grade school, and that should serve as a rather large red flag in your writing if you are failing to adhere to that sort of basic construct.

[Unclebananahead]

Why exactly did you ask for constructive criticism if you were not actually open to receiving it? I presented a valid point against the style of your writing which was perfectly justified given the context, and you responded by levying completely unfounded insult towards my own writing. That does not support your previous statement of being welcome to constructive criticism. Let us presume for a moment that you are actually correct in your assumption that your writing is of a higher grade than my own, would that necessarily lend more legitimacy to your point? Of course it would not, as my critique would still remain. The question of your motivation for even bringing that irrelevant variable into the equation has to be asked at this point. Simply put, it has a desperate look about it when you start blindly attacking the works of others to avoid critique.

The 'In conclusion' bit was also a very valid point as I can recall being lectured against that in grade school, and that should serve as a rather large red flag in your writing if you are failing to adhere to that sort of basic construct.

Perhaps I erred in assuming that people would have a proper grasp of what constructive criticism consists of. I define it as 1) identifying strengths, 2) identifying *specific* areas in need of improvement, and 3) suggesting *specific* ways to improve the particular areas thus identified. Throwing words like 'inept' around puts people on the defensive, and closes them off from what you have to say.

[Unclebananahead]

To be honest, thesadmafioso is perfectly correct in his claims. As he said, if you would have read it, 'though if this was intended to serve as a sort of script for a video, I feel that the term essay may be slightly misleading. Regardless, it does make a lot more sense of the informal nature of this work and it will probably work quite well in that format.' This isn't an essay. If an essay says 'firstly, human civilization, is young. Wait, what? Young? Hasn’t human civilization been around for thousands of years? Yes, it’s young', then it's probably a bit of a shit essay, because that's not the kind of thing people write in essays. Hence thesadmafioso questioned whether or not this was an essay at all, rather than just a narration, and, as an essay, it is inept. He did, however, say that it would probably work quite well as a script for a video. Then there comes the issue of whether or not you consider the word 'thusly' (that's not a real word, by the way, so don't use it), which you have employed, to be 'conversational' and 'informal'. I know I don't. If somebody is using the informal tone of the first quote, but also using clearly formal language and structures, in one and the same text, then it does question their understanding and abilities. One of the two is surely out of place, they can't coexist. Therefore it comes across as though you've written a formal piece and just thrown in a few colloquialisms, which would come across as ineptitude, because it's difficult to consider the piece informal when it flips between formality and informality on a regular basis. Hence the accusation of ineptitude, that you might be unaware of what forms and structures pass in a formal essay, which much of this seems to want to be.

Oh, and by the way, "I read your stuff and don't think it's better than mine!" isn't actually an argument, particularly given the fact that your response to any criticism seems to be to totally disregard it and go off on one. This shows that you seem to think that you've written something effectively flawless, so of course you wouldn't consider somebody else's writings to be better than yours, would you, as yours are apparently perfect

(Oh, and also, you seem to like employing the classic 'in conclusion' in a good few of your essays / film scripts / whatever these are. A quick hint is to avoid that. I don't remember much of what my history teacher told me at school, but that was definitely one of his gems. You shouldn't have to flag up that your conclusion is a conclusion, by stating 'hey, this is the conclusion, guys!'; what you've written as the conclusion should make it clear that you're wrapping up. If you have to mention that it's a conclusion for people to notice that it's a conclusion, then it's probably not the best-phrased conclusion out there. Irrespective, when I read 'in conclusion', I always feel as though it's somebody who is trying to draw attention to their conclusion, due to its weakness, and then it's impossible for me to know whether the conclusion would stand by itself, without the flashing lights and arrows around it. It makes even the best conclusion, and perhaps the whole essay come across as very B+ at high school, I can assure you...)

Okay, so you're not a fan of my work. I can live with that. Now, how do I improve it? What's the game plan? Suggestions for improvement are far more interesting and potentially useful than anything else, when it comes to feedback on my work.

[hatzel]

Okay, so you're not a fan of my work. I can live with that. Now, how do I improve it? What's the game plan? Suggestions for improvement are far more interesting and potentially useful than anything else, when it comes to feedback on my work.

I told you already, as you surely noticed when you read my post you quoted. I'll repeat, though, in summary form: don't mix and match between formal and informal styles - choose one or the other, and stick to it throughout; avoid 'thusly'* like the plague; don't use the phrase 'in conclusion,...'. Simple!

I won't comment anything on the actual content, because I'm not a Marxist, so all that Marxism talk...I have no idea whether that's 'right' or 'wrong' or whatever, and frankly don't think it's useful me ripping into what might be a perfectly fair representation of Marxist ideas. Hence I'm only concerned with the writing style



* Etymology
thus +‎ -ly, dating from the 19th century, seemingly coined by educated writers to make fun of uneducated persons trying to sound genteel, with a false inference that thus is not an adverb.

[Unclebananahead]

I told you already, as you surely noticed when you read my post you quoted. I'll repeat, though, in summary form: don't mix and match between formal and informal styles - choose one or the other, and stick to it throughout; avoid 'thusly'* like the plague; don't use the phrase 'in conclusion,...'. Simple!

I won't comment anything on the actual content, because I'm not a Marxist, so all that Marxism talk...I have no idea whether that's 'right' or 'wrong' or whatever, and frankly don't think it's useful me ripping into what might be a perfectly fair representation of Marxist ideas. Hence I'm only concerned with the writing style



* Etymology
thus +‎ -ly, dating from the 19th century, seemingly coined by educated writers to make fun of uneducated persons trying to sound genteel, with a false inference that thus is not an adverb.

Okay, so firstly, I should purge "thusly" from my script, because it isn't a 'real word' (whatever that means). Secondly, I should endeavor to stick to one style, because it'll make it so that my viewers will likely have more respect for my competence as a writer/speaker, and thus more likely to take what I have to say seriously? Am I understanding you correctly? If so, should I make the script all formal, or all informal? What will best allow me to convey my message? What's worked best for you, in your written works?

[ChrisK]

Yeep, I decided to tackle this one. That is, the 'argument from human nature' type objection to the realization of socialism. Have a read, let me know what you-all think. Constructive criticism is welcome.

If you're going to convince a non-Socialist that humans are not basically evil, never ever say things like "Marx teaches us". While people like us understand that usage, to other people you sound like a cult member.

Further, just quoting Marx and wikipedia does not make a good argument. You ought to use quotes from Anthropology books that indicate that humans acted in a very different manner for about 90% of human existence before states emerged. They did not have property or possessions and when chiefs did emerge, they were required to give gifts to the rest of the tribe and have less than the totality of the tribe.

[Unclebananahead]

If you're going to convince a non-Socialist that humans are not basically evil, never ever say things like "Marx teaches us". While people like us understand that usage, to other people you sound like a cult member.

Further, just quoting Marx and wikipedia does not make a good argument. You ought to use quotes from Anthropology books that indicate that humans acted in a very different manner for about 90% of human existence before states emerged. They did not have property or possessions and when chiefs did emerge, they were required to give gifts to the rest of the tribe and have less than the totality of the tribe.

Okay, so...
1) change "Marx teaches us" into, "Marx writes," to avoid sounding cultish. I admit the phrase is reminiscent of Malcolm X speeches in which he'd state, "Elijah Muhammad tells us" and so forth.

2) Bring in some quotes from anthropologists (maybe from anthropologists who aren't explicitly Marxist?) in order to further legitimize my arguments.

[Tommy4ever]

You guys don't have to be so harsh. Sure it wasn't exactly the best piece of writing in the world you don't need to be so cruel in pointing this out. I think UBH came here to tell us his ideas, not to have you dissect his writing.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I don't think anyone was harsh, the OP asked for constructive criticism and that is what he was given.

The problem the OP has here is with taking academic criticism constructively, without taking it personally. He put his post forward as an essay and it was treated as one. All academic works can be subjected to the harshest criticism--the point is not to take it personally.