Human Nature

[Agent Equality]

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.

talk about inflexible doctrine You're a walking party manifesto my friend!

[RGacky3]

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.

Have you read any non marxist criticisms of Capitalism?

Those 2 sentances are pure ignorance.

[RGacky3]

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.

Have you read any non marxist criticisms of Capitalism?

Those 2 sentances are pure ignorance.

[Comrade Hill]

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.

Another anti-communist who believes "human nature" exists.

Humans will adapt to their surroundings if the surroundings change at all (but people like you are standing in the way of that change)

Read Marx and get back to us.

[Azraella]

It would seem Utopian Socialists only criticize capitalism to further their own Utopian agenda of some magical society.

Why of course! A non-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian, and loving society based on anarchist principles. I am one of those gosh darned utopians always fucking up good and wholesome criticisms of capitalism.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I think Capitalism is anti human nature.

[Enragé]

1. man evolved according to his environment.

2. Since the discovery of fire man more and more came to rule its environment, i.e change it according to what he wants.

3. For the biggest part of its history man was confined to small hunter-gatherer groups, which depended on eachother to survive in the face of extreme scarcity. (that is, mutual aid is at least as big a factor in our evolution as survival of the fittest is).

4. These days we create our environments almost completely, from all of nature's threats today huge disasters like tsunamis and earthquakes are the only ones which still inspire a tiny bit of fear in the metropolis.

5. Hence, since man is largely man's surrounding, man is what man makes. Throw in a bit of survival based on mutual aid, and some ape while you're at it, and voila: 21st century man.

(by man i mean mens i.e human).

point ofcourse is, we can choose to make something else

[NGNM85]

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.

..........Ok.

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.

Oh lord.. You'll have to forgive me, but I hear this one all the time. In simplest terms... when we talk about human nature, we are talking about two things; the first is a package of dated, pre-loaded evolutionary software, the second is the product of social conditioning. Yes, aggression, and selfishness are ingrained, to some extent, in the human animal, but you must also concede that love, curiosity, and cooperation, among other things, are equally fundamental. The vast range of human expression and experience, from Mother Theresa, to Charles Manson, proves that it is this latter part of our nature that is the most powerful determinant of who we are, and that it is also the most variable. Ergo; we should strive to create a society that nurtures and promotes these better angels of our nature, and, furthermore, we should expect that doing so should have a cumulative effect.

[Le Rouge]

Jealousy, as in social interaction? 2 factors:
- Competition over a mating partner (this I believe is instinctive in most animals)
- Social construct caused by monogamy and morals.

Da fok man? Your against monogamy? I'm just curious...Tell me more.

[Ostrinski]

Da fok man? Your against monogamy? I'm just curious...Tell me more.

You're for it? Tell me more

[Le Rouge]

You're for it? Tell me more

Seriously I don't give a shit about this issue. I against marriage.
But I want to hear why he is for polygamy,.

[Rafiq]

talk about inflexible doctrine You're a walking party manifesto my friend!

You're banned, bro.

[Rafiq]

Why of course! A non-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian, and loving society based on anarchist principles. I am one of those gosh darned utopians always fucking up good and wholesome criticisms of capitalism.

You're not fucking up anything(other than yourself), being that our criticism of the capitalist system remains the most valid.

"Why of course! A non-sinful, morally strong and loving society based on Islamic principles. I am one of those gosh darned Utopians!".

I make no distinction. Of cousre we would all love a non hierarchal and anti authoritarian society in which magical talking animals wiped our ass and we all held hands and sang kumbaya at the fire and all of the World's problems will drown in our loving society, 'cuz all da world needz is more love and peeace!"

But that will never work. It's unrealistic and yes, Utopian.

The truth is, is that anything close to communism can never be brought about through "love" and "peace". It must be brought out by "Total, Universal, and Merciless destruction" and unrelenting terror.

[Rafiq]

Have you read any non marxist criticisms of Capitalism?

Those 2 sentances are pure ignorance.

Yes, I have.

You have the Keynsian criticism of Markets, which is somewhat Okay (In that it is scientific) but then he brings in his opportunistic solution.

Everything else is Moralistic. And I don't like Moral criticisms of capitalism, because the Bourgeoisie has an equally moralistic justification for capitalism.

Non Marxist criticisms of capitalism are generally flawed, ethically absolutist, and structurally baseless.

[RGacky3]

You have the Keynsian criticism of Markets, which is somewhat Okay (In that it is scientific) but then he brings in his opportunistic solution.

Who cares about the solution, its the criticism thats valuble.

Everything else is Moralistic. And I don't like Moral criticisms of capitalism, because the Bourgeoisie has an equally moralistic justification for capitalism.

Really? Have you read Institutional economic criticisms? Have you read Bakunin, have you read the Ricardian socialist economists? Parecon crticisms, you even have anti-capitalist neo-classical economists (that criticize the system using hte neo-classical model).

Also the Bourgeoisie moralistic justification can be shown to be paredoxical pretty easily.

Also NO economic theory escapes moralism completely, since economics is intrinsicly tied with ethical concerns.

Non Marxist criticisms of capitalism are generally flawed, ethically absolutist, and structurally baseless.

I don't think you've read non-marxist criticisms.

The truth is, is that anything close to communism can never be brought about through "love" and "peace". It must be brought out by "Total, Universal, and Merciless destruction" and unrelenting terror.

I take it your a materialist and an empiricist, then why don't we look at the empirical evidence of what your model of authoritarian socialism brought about ...

You mock libertarian socialist ideals because you think they don't work, or they are unrealistic, but we have the evidence of what your model brings, trying to bring about communism through authoritarianism is paradoxical, its like trying to bring out democracy through monarchy.

[Rafiq]

"my model" has been the only successful one in the history of proletarian revolutions. It didn't fail because it was "authoritarian". That had nothing to do with it.

[RGacky3]

"my model" has been the only successful one in the history of proletarian revolutions. It didn't fail because it was "authoritarian". That had nothing to do with it.

It depends what you mean by "fail," in my mind they failed when it became clear that the people were not actually emancipated.

[Rafiq]

It depends what you mean by "fail," in my mind they failed when it became clear that the people were not actually emancipated.

Yes, they were. It was only during the civil war and after that a natural class contradiction formed, due to the desperate steps the bolsheviks were forced to take.

An isolated direct democracy would not provide itself efficient in regards to mobilizing the nation and stimulating arms production and distribution against 17 of the most powerful countries + the counter revolution.

Thus one of the reasons the anarchists were crushed in Spain, they couldn't operate and mass mobilize large populations.

The bolsheviks were the only successful force to organize a genuine proletarian revolution and horde off the counterevolution.

If the revolutions in America, germany and britian were successful, there would have been no class contradiction in Russia

[RGacky3]

An isolated direct democracy would not provide itself efficient in regards to mobilizing the nation and stimulating arms production and distribution against 17 of the most powerful countries + the counter revolution.

There is no reason to assume this is true, also direct democracy is not the only other option.

Yes, they were. It was only during the civil war and after that a natural class contradiction formed, due to the desperate steps the bolsheviks were forced to take.

It was during the civil war that any emancipation was undone, yes, the class contradiction you mention of is a proported REASON for undoing any emancipation, but to say that these proported reasons forced the bolsheviks to undo the entire point of the revolution has never been shown.

Any more than 911 FORCED the United states government to pass the patriot act.

Thus one of the reasons the anarchists were crushed in Spain, they couldn't operate and mass mobilize large populations.

Except they did operate and mass mobilize large populations .... Read the history, they were crushed because they were outnumbered, outgunned, outfinanced, and had no outside support.

The bolsheviks were the only successful force to organize a genuine proletarian revolution and horde off the counterevolution.

NO they were not, they did'nt have a genuine proletarian revolution, the working class was never emancipated, give any excuse you want, the fact remains, it did'nt happen.

The spanish revolution was killed by outside armies, the russian revolution was killed by the bolsheviks (give what ever bullshit excuses you want).

If the revolutions in America, germany and britian were successful, there would have been no class contradiction in Russia

thats unsupported specualtion.

ALso this WHOLE side track has nothing to do with the origional discussion, i.e. your lack of knowledge about economics, yet your quick willingness to judge it dispite your lack of knowledge.

YOu said that all non-marxist criticisms are useless and/or unscientific, yet you have NO IDEA what your talking about because you don't know the non-marxist criticisms.

Also your origional claim was

The truth is, is that anything close to communism can never be brought about through "love" and "peace". It must be brought out by "Total, Universal, and Merciless destruction" and unrelenting terror.

Yet all your arguments for the bolsheviks was that their "terror" and merciless destruction" was due to specific unique conditions and not the natural outcome of your ideology .... Which is it.

It seams to me you just have a fetish for authoritarianism and violence.

[Rafiq]

There is no reason to assume this is true, also direct democracy is not the only other option.

Gacky there is a fucking reason to assume it's true, being that those desperate measures had to be taken. Do you honestly, deep down believe that democracy would provide itself useful in combatting 17 of the world's most powerful nation, including the counter revolution, including the chaos of the civil war (With all of the other militia's that formed)? You really think that would have mobilized the country?

The only way was Red Terror. And it worked. The bolsheviks didn't mean to take power from the Soviets forever, by the way, it was only after 1919 where they concluded the revolution was not going to spread, thus the revolution degenerated. I mean, how fucking obvious can it get? This was specifically pointed out by Marx and Engels, yet the Anarchists came jumping up and down "Hur dur we told ya authoritarianism don';t work!". It was authoritarianism that saved the last bits of any sort of proletarian democracy.

It was during the civil war that any emancipation was undone, yes, the class contradiction you mention of is a proported REASON for undoing any emancipation, but to say that these proported reasons forced the bolsheviks to undo the entire point of the revolution has never been shown.

You don't know what you're talking about. And you're also twisting my words (I understand you can't debate me, so you'd have to adjust my words to your liking, so it's okay).

Firstly, during the civil war, in 1918, the bolsheviks were forced to take away supreme exectuvie power from the soviets. This was an absolute necessity, being that the Soviets never provided themselves useful in mobilizing the entire population against the counter revolution. Unless you think the bolsheviks were evil and never had the intention of bringing Russia's proletariat to power, then you must conclude that they didn't do it on purpose. Why the fuck would they?

Any more than 911 FORCED the United states government to pass the patriot act.

Oh my fucking facepalm god.

I kind of feel bad for you, gacky.

Is the fucking United States an isolated, semi Feudal country, with no structural organization constantly being under siege by all imperialist powers, including a counter revolution?

More importantly your post has no fucking class character once so ever.

You could, on the other hand, say that the U.S. government, as a puppet of the bourgeoisie, was forced to instil Neoliberalism to repel the power of labor (Women's rights, black rights, etc.). But no, gacky the fucking idiot decides to throw in 9/11

Except they did operate and mass mobilize large populations .... Read the history, they were crushed because they were outnumbered, outgunned, outfinanced, and had no outside support.

I did read history. The bolsheviks were outnumbered, outgunned, and outfinanced, and had no outside support that provided itself useful (unlike the spaniards, who at least had the international brigade). Yet they still repelled the counter revolution.

Try again.

NO they were not, they did'nt have a genuine proletarian revolution, the working class was never emancipated, give any excuse you want, the fact remains, it did'nt happen.

The october revolution was a genuine proletarian revolution. Even mainstream Anarchists have accepted that. Marx and Engels pointed out that if the revolution didn't spread to the industrialized countries, it would fail and have to adjust itself to the world market. That is prescisely what happened. There is no scientific or historical evdicen to say it was because of "Authoritarianism" or "Corruption". But there is evidence to say that the revolution did not spread, and, we can easily understand the steps the bolsheviks took in return.

The spanish revolution was killed by outside armies, the russian revolution was killed by the bolsheviks (give what ever bullshit excuses you want).

The bolsheviks had to do that in response to the outside armies. So yes, the outside armies were responsible. And like I said, it was meant to be temporary. Read some of Lenin's works during 1920's. You'll see what a shit situation they were in.

thats unsupported specualtion.

So if the revolution spread to the very countries that were sieging it, thus the destruction of the world market, you don't think they would get outside aid and the Russian proletariat would have organically formed through an international effort to industrialize the country, thus creating a more peaceful situation in which the counter revolution would have no support and would be isolated and destroyed? And you say that's unsupported speculation! Idiot.

ALso this WHOLE side track has nothing to do with the origional discussion, i.e. your lack of knowledge about economics, yet your quick willingness to judge it dispite your lack of knowledge.

Those Anarchists and Utopian socialists are not economists, they're utopians.

YOu said that all non-marxist criticisms are useless and/or unscientific, yet you have NO IDEA what your talking about because you don't know the non-marxist criticisms.

Yes, I do. If you could provide a non marxist, non keynsian text criticizing capitalism that is scientific I'm all ears.

Also your origional claim was

Stands correct.

Yet all your arguments for the bolsheviks was that their "terror" and merciless destruction" was due to specific unique conditions and not the natural outcome of your ideology .... Which is it.

You're confused. The terror and destruction would have happened regardless, but if the revolution would have spread by 1919, not only would the bolsheviks be done with the red terror, they wouldn't have to ally themselves with the Kemalists or anyone else opposed to the rule of the proletariat. Even fucking Makhno had to use terror to secure the Ukrainian revolution.

It seams to me you just have a fetish for authoritarianism and violence.

If they weren't necessary, I would be the happiest guy on Earth.

Yet they are.

Tell me, ever been to a big city, gacky? What about a really populated one? Or have you been to one of the chaotic countries? Like Lebanon, or somalia? Go to one.

If you think Somalia's problems will be resolved with democracy, you're a fucking idiot who has no opinion.