Human Nature

[Rafiq]

Humans are motivated by Self Interest.

Humans are not some naturally cooperative or naturally altruistic race of people. That is equally Idealist to the latter.

Humans are a type of ape that transforms it's environment to it's liking. All of our thoughts, our ideas, our morals, are mere reflections of the mode of exchange and production we estabilish before hand. We developed language in order to communicate with each other during hunts. We estabilished the family strucutre based on the mode of production.

all Human action and thoughts are consequences of the material conditions we produced unintentionally.

All of the advances we have made, the structure of our societies, our language, all of which happened by mistake.

Remember:

"Men and women make history, but not as they please".

[Thirsty Crow]

Humans are not some naturally cooperative or naturally altruistic race of people. That is equally Idealist to the latter.

Humans are naturally cooperative since that is the prerequisite for the survival of the species. Humans are social beings, and I don't think that I need to bring evidence of this really common sense claim.

And I think that it's wrong to mechanically separate sefl-interest (something also natural) from the need for cooperation. Also, there is no linear connection between "altruism" and the basic fact of the need for cooperation.
But everything depends on the level of development of human productie forces and the ways in which this cooperation is organized. And there's absolutely nothing inherent to the so called human nature that would prevent radical transformations of the social organization of cooperation among humans in our contemporary period. Anyone who peddles this bullshit is a myth salesman.

[Rafiq]

Humans are naturally cooperative since that is the prerequisite for the survival of the species. Humans are social beings, and I don't think that I need to bring evidence of this really common sense claim.

And I think that it's wrong to mechanically separate sefl-interest (something also natural) from the need for cooperation. Also, there is no linear connection between "altruism" and the basic fact of the need for cooperation.
But everything depends on the level of development of human productie forces and the ways in which this cooperation is organized. And there's absolutely nothing inherent to the so called human nature that would prevent radical transformations of the social organization of cooperation among humans in our contemporary period. Anyone who peddles this bullshit is a myth salesman.

Of course Humans are social animals and are cooperative(I meant cooperative as in non-competitive and egalitarian but w/e). But then again, Capitalism is very cooperative. Hell, even Fascism is very cooperative. But that doesn't mean they are naturally egalitarian or naturally communal.

[ericksolvi]

Many here believe in the psychological theory known as Tabula Rasa or blank slate. This says that everything about us is determined by learning. This theory has been completely debunched, and those that cling to it are dangerous fools who place ideology above reality. Here is a slightly vulgar example, so fair warning read no further if you have a prudish nature: I learned to masturbate without any outside instruction on the matter, If we are without instincts how did I do that. Small children start to draw without anyone showing them how to do so.
This is not to say that there is no cultural component to greed, the predisposition exists within us, and social programming can bring it out.
The idea that a communist society would be totally without crime is another example of people placing ideology above reality. Yes there would be some crime. Yes we would need police to enforce laws. The police in a post revolutionary system would serve the greater good of their communities, and not the interests of the ruling elite. Therefor police post revolution would actually be able to enforce justice. I define justice as the enforcement of the rational.

[Rafiq]

Many here believe in the psychological theory known as Tabula Rasa or blank slate. This says that everything about us is determined by learning. This theory has been completely debunched, and those that cling to it are dangerous fools who place ideology above reality. Here is a slightly vulgar example, so fair warning read no further if you have a prudish nature: I learned to masturbate without any outside instruction on the matter, If we are without instincts how did I do that. Small children start to draw without anyone showing them how to do so.
This is not to say that there is no cultural component to greed, the predisposition exists within us, and social programming can bring it out.
The idea that a communist society would be totally without crime is another example of people placing ideology above reality. Yes there would be some crime. Yes we would need police to enforce laws. The police in a post revolutionary system would serve the greater good of their communities, and not the interests of the ruling elite. Therefor police post revolution would actually be able to enforce justice. I define justice as the enforcement of the rational.

The real fool is you, who is arguing with a straw man.

No Marxist or Materialist has said that everything about us is determined by learning. Everything about us is determined by the mode of production and the waves of constructs it produces.

And Humans learn on their own. It's still learning.

We are hard wired to a certain extent, but at a minimal degree.

[OHumanista]

To this discussion I am just gonna say:
Check most brazilian indians(or any other, as most are collectivist)If such behaviour was unnatural it would surely not appear on such "primitive" societies and so often. The true artificial constructs are what came later. We always have to remember that for 99,9% of human history on Earth capitalism didn't exist or wasn't the prevailing model for us.

Plus saying human nature is this or that is just bullshit, humans have the potential to shape themselves in(and through) society in incredibly different ways. The only thing that can't be denied is that we are social species. How the social interactions take place is ultimately our choice.(and that of the circunstances)

Finally even if were talking exclusively about the selfish side of ourselves communism would still be in the interests of at least 95% of the world population as it would ensure them far better than living standards, security and prosperity than they have right now.

[ericksolvi]

Everything about us is determined by the mode of production and the waves of constructs it produces.

You really see nothing outside of communist ideology. I suppose you'd throw out psychology, probably claim that to study the mind is too repressive. History burn it why do we need it. Other philosophies, counter revolutionary suppress them.
Your concept of communism will not win over converts from the main stream of the proletariat.

[Rafiq]

You really see nothing outside of communist ideology. I suppose you'd throw out psychology, probably claim that to study the mind is too repressive. History burn it why do we need it. Other philosophies, counter revolutionary suppress them.
Your concept of communism will not win over converts from the main stream of the proletariat.

What does this have to do with communism?

[huytb07t1]

Thanks.

[ericksolvi]

What does this have to do with communism?

You said "Everything about us is determined by the mode of production and the waves of constructs it produces."
Everything about us, seriously? Nothing else has any influence on us?
You believe that everything in the world can be explained by ideology that centers around class and production?
I guess to me that just seems narrow minded and short sighted.
The human race is more then how we make stuff. I'm not puppet, I'm not a victim of circumstance.
I chose to live off of $400 a month, with $315 of that going to rent. If there had been any caves available I would have gone to live in one of them, if I could get a wifi signal. My entire life focuses around the study of human nature. This was not determined for me by society or by modes of production. I come from a society of superficial materialism. I choose the life of a hermit. Explain how everything about me could possibly have been determined by the mode of production and the waves of constructs it produces?

[citizen of industry]

No rebuttal, Fyersing?

[RGacky3]

Note: I'm not a Communist nor do I have any intent of becoming one. That said, I joined this website so that whenever some of my acquaintances cannot adequately argue their own politics (they are Socialists and Communists) I can come here to ask some of you more learned folks for the real answers.

The biggest gripe I have, of late, is this pervasive notion that human nature can somehow be changed / removed by virtue of the social establishments -- that is to say that natural "greed" or "selfishness" or "patriotism" or "jealousies" simply disappear when people are living in a happy, egalitarian-like society. And I've yet to meet somebody from this political mindset that does not believe this to be an absolute truth.

I think what most of them are trying to talk about is the collective valuation / devaluation of certain behaviors (i.e. we don't like killing, don't do it, it's bad) but they're going one step further and saying that social environment can actually physically remove base instincts which makes absolutely no scientific sense; a donkey raised in an eagles nest cannot do things supernatural to other donkeys, he is still a donkey and regardless of how he thinks of himself, good or bad, he will not be able to remove his baser donkey instincts only hone them and condition himself to use the ones he likes.

So how do most of you feel? I'm curious.

+ YouTube Video

[Agent Equality]

+ YouTube Video

You know what is funny? I was actually just about to link this to this very same thread

have you been on /pol/ recently Gacky? I was using it in an anarchist thread against some anarcho-cap idiots.

[Agent Equality]

But I will link this

+ YouTube Video

[RGacky3]

You know what is funny? I was actually just about to link this to this very same thread

have you been on /pol/ recently Gacky? I was using it in an anarchist thread against some anarcho-cap idiots.

whats /pol/?

The incentive/human nature argument, falls flat on so many levels, one, the misunderstanding be capitalists over the actual nature of human nature, two, the fact that it makes no difference, even if their vision of human nature were true, it has nothing to do with how you organize incentives, infact if it were true, you'd want to organize incentives in a way to minimize the damage it could do.

[Agent Equality]

whats /pol/?

The incentive/human nature argument, falls flat on so many levels, one, the misunderstanding be capitalists over the actual nature of human nature, two, the fact that it makes no difference, even if their vision of human nature were true, it has nothing to do with how you organize incentives, infact if it were true, you'd want to organize incentives in a way to minimize the damage it could do.

/pol/ is a um....board on 4chan...

Watch the video on empathetic civilization. It pretty much smashes any notion that capitalism and the way it functions and makes people function can further work (although I don't think the speaker really had anything to say against capitalism seeing as how he says "business practices")

[RGacky3]

Its interesting how many economists and academics now accept Marxs critiques of capitalism and other socialist or anarchist criticisms of capitalism, yet try to overcome them while holding on to capitalism.

Its an interesting video.

[Rafiq]

You said "Everything about us is determined by the mode of production and the waves of constructs it produces."
Everything about us, seriously? Nothing else has any influence on us?
You believe that everything in the world can be explained by ideology that centers around class and production?
I guess to me that just seems narrow minded and short sighted.
The human race is more then how we make stuff. I'm not puppet, I'm not a victim of circumstance.
I chose to live off of $400 a month, with $315 of that going to rent. If there had been any caves available I would have gone to live in one of them, if I could get a wifi signal. My entire life focuses around the study of human nature. This was not determined for me by society or by modes of production. I come from a society of superficial materialism. I choose the life of a hermit. Explain how everything about me could possibly have been determined by the mode of production and the waves of constructs it produces?

Now you're just talking out of your ass.

You are only able to choose things within the constraint of our society, which the mode of production is responsible for. You were raised and brought about to the material world and therefore everything you do is based off of your past experience, and the mode of production determines your experience. Had it not been for that you wouldn't have been able to study "Human Nature" and you wouldn't recieve a salary of 400 bucks because money wouldn't even exist. And how dare you abuse the term "Materialism" and equate it with consumerism. Not only are you completely Idealist in your understanding of human behavior, you don't even know what Idealism and Materialism are.

Now not 100% of things are completely determined by the mode of production, that is about you (Some things about Humans will exist regardless of social constructions, sexual attraction, the need to survive, genetics, etc.) But most of it is.

[Rafiq]

Its interesting how many economists and academics now accept Marxs critiques of capitalism and other socialist or anarchist criticisms of capitalism, yet try to overcome them while holding on to capitalism.

Its an interesting video.

No Mainstream academics really accept "Socialist or Anarchist" criticisms of capitalism.

And the Only criticism of capitalism I hold valid is that of Marx's. I don't buy into this moralistic and opportunist criticism of capitalism. It would seem Utopian Socialists only criticize capitalism to further their own Utopian agenda of some magical society.

[Thirsty Crow]

Now not 100% of things are completely determined by the mode of production, that is about you (Some things about Humans will exist regardless of social constructions, sexual attraction, the need to survive, genetics, etc.) But most of it is.

Hey man, I think the issue of the relationship between the so called base and the so called superstructure are more complex than you're quantifying approach suggests. There can't be a linear, mechanical causal connection between the mode of production and certain aspects of people's lives such as the behaviour and of sports fans (think football, that is, soccer firms) precisely because there are mediations operating between the two. Anyway, you wouldn't really explain much if you just repeated "it is the determinant of the mode of prodution".

And the Only criticism of capitalism I hold valid is that of Marx's. I don't buy into this moralistic and opportunist criticism of capitalism. It would seem Utopian Socialists only criticize capitalism to further their own Utopian agenda of some magical society.

Or that hey are socially disconnected from the living workers' movement