Is human nature a barrier to socialism?

[Karl]

Good evening, comrades.



'Socialism is a good idea but it won't work. You can't change human nature!'

This is the most common and influential of all objections made to socialism. It is the first argument that comes up on the factory floor, in the work canteen or in de dance.

It is the argument that many intellectuals and politicians fall back on. It is also an argument accepted by many people who would sincerely like to see a better society but can't quite believe it is possible, including socialists. What we often see is the watering down of socialism to mean tinkering with the present system instead of changing it fundamentally.

Perhaps you or somebody you know has come out with one of these common phrases: 'There always have to be some people on top,' 'People are basically selfish,' 'Some people always want to have more than others,' 'Revolutions always go wrong and lead to tyranny.'

So, thoughts? Is human nature a barrier to socialism? I'll pipe up in a little while if the discussion gets rolling.

In solidarity,
Karl

[knell]

perfect in theory, but the history of its practice hasn't resulted in anything truly worthwhile, compared to the idea behind it...


in my opinion, i think that it could work, but i think that it would have to be in particularly small communes of people who love and respect each other and work together to fulfill basic needs...

also, i hope you're referring to the stage of economic development in progression towards Communism, and not the idea of Socialism as a whole... since you are, you know... a Communist, not a Socialist.... in case you were confused.

[helix]

i hope you're referring to the stage of economic development in progression towards Communism, and not the idea of Socialism as a whole... since you are, you know... a Communist, not a Socialist.... in case you were confused.

That's what I was thinking.

[WhosZena]

Human nature is a myth.

Well imo.

[tr0tsky]

Is human nature a barrier to socialism?

You answered you own question in Das Kapital, vol. III:

"Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite."

[Sirius]

what is human nature? in order for socialism to come into order we need to have an extreme & violent revolution. we need to take it back to the stone age. once we are there... when we have nothing... only then can we be equals. you are asking about socialism... but you should be talking about communism. i have seen communism work in many realms of my own life. the person that try's to take advantage is quickly humbled. marijuana, mdma, and LSD25 are the tools that are needed to be used by all, in order to get rid of the ego & to open a shared consciousness!

socialism= a society caring & working for a society.
communism = everything being shared and being equals,

a society and a community have different needs!
each one teach one, help your neighbours. this is how to build a healthy community!

[alphacat]

Anyone can come up with all kinds of perfect systems, but as long as the participants who comprise the system (people) are imperfect, then you have a problem - this is the root of coercive politics and power struggles.

While I have much respect for Marxist contributions to political, philosophical, historic, and economic thought, in the end I side with Bakunin in his objection to the Socialist/Communist concession to the need for the state. When politicians become a separate class and a career calling - as it is currently in the U.S. - shit gets fucked up quick.

Knell kind of hits the nail on the head when he says "perfect in theory, but the history of its practice hasn't resulted in anything truly worthwhile, compared to the idea behind it..." - true, "pure" Socialism or Communism have almost never even been attempted - they've always been abridged versions promising the revolutionary fast track to the Paradise of the Proletariat when in reality, achieving true Communism would be at the very least a significant step in our social evolution, and at the most might require actual physical evolution where collectivist tendencies were rewarded by evolutionary success. There's a lot of socio-economic and historical baggage that would need to be shed to make this change widespread as well.

[Sirius]

wasn't marx a socialist who through his own evolution devised communism???

[alphacat]

wasn't marx a socialist who through his own evolution devised communism???

Marx saw Socialism as an intermediary or transitional step on the way to Communism.

[hayze99]

Take a social institution that has come around naturally. Let it reach complexity to a point where no human or computer could ever fully understand or manipulate it. Throw a few players in there for governance and watch them turn greedy. Watch them tweak the system by an absolutely minuscule amount, and walk away with an unbelievable amount of power and riches. That's capitalism.

Now take a social institution that comes forward through intentional human planning and action. Build it up to complexity by planning it in such a way that different parties and computers can understand it and manipulate it. Throw a few players in there for governance and watch them turn greedy. Watch them walk away with everything we've ever known. That's socialism.

People are going to attack the point that people are thrown in to govern socialism, but I truly believe that human society is simply not possible without some sort of governance.

Ultimately, Hayek and all of that party closed the coffin up with the calculation debates. There's absolutely no way for a human being to even begin to understand how to allocate resources to a nation. I'd say the only chance for socialism is if computers get powerful and intelligent enough to do it more efficiently than the market; and considering that markets are unbelievably efficient, I don't see it happening any time soon.

[2manynoobs]

there has to be some kind of golden midway, a perfect balance between liberalism & socialism?
also, marx was (is?) a cigarette

altho he was right about religion... but that he stole from Feuerbach or what's his name

[-dubson-]

If you teach people to be greedy, wasteful and bad to each other then what do they do? Weirdly they are greedy, wasteful and bad to each other.

Make people to take responsabilty and properly educate them then things can function. Palming off society's faults as being "human nature" is ridiculous.

IMO

[hayze99]

If you teach people to be greedy, wasteful and bad to each other then what do they do? Weirdly they are greedy, wasteful and bad to each other.

Make people to take responsabilty and properly educate them then things can function. Palming off society's faults as being "human nature" is ridiculous.

IMO

It has nothing to do with society, IMO. Look at young children. They're all fucking dickheads until they grow old enough to understand moral sensibility.

[2manynoobs]

If you teach people to be greedy, wasteful and bad to each other then what do they do? Weirdly they are greedy, wasteful and bad to each other.

Make people to take responsabilty and properly educate them then things can function. Palming off society's faults as being "human nature" is ridiculous.

IMO

best point made in this thread.
You are right. rousseau thought this as wel, he educated his kids on the countryside, in the woods away from the fucked up people. It failed but it was a good cause anyways :p

If you teach people to be greedy, wasteful and bad to each other then what do they do? Weirdly they are greedy, wasteful and bad to each other.

Make people to take responsabilty and properly educate them then things can function. Palming off society's faults as being "human nature" is ridiculous.

IMO

It has nothing to do with society, IMO. Look at young children. They're all fucking dickheads until they grow old enough to understand moral sensibility.

nahh man, don't pidgeon hole that. not all little kids are dickheads. We should jsut stop feeding them sugar and tv.. and from when they are little we should teach them to love each other, and teach them asap that the world is not all about theirselves

[hayze99]

If you teach people to be greedy, wasteful and bad to each other then what do they do? Weirdly they are greedy, wasteful and bad to each other.

Make people to take responsabilty and properly educate them then things can function. Palming off society's faults as being "human nature" is ridiculous.

IMO

best point made in this thread.
You are right. rousseau thought this as wel, he educated his kids on the countryside, in the woods away from the fucked up people. It failed but it was a good cause anyways :p

If you teach people to be greedy, wasteful and bad to each other then what do they do? Weirdly they are greedy, wasteful and bad to each other.

Make people to take responsabilty and properly educate them then things can function. Palming off society's faults as being "human nature" is ridiculous.

IMO

It has nothing to do with society, IMO. Look at young children. They're all fucking dickheads until they grow old enough to understand moral sensibility.

nahh man, don't pidgeon hole that. not all little kids are dickheads. We should jsut stop feeding them sugar and tv.. and from when they are little we should teach them to love each other, and teach them asap that the world is not all about theirselves

Meh, I don't agree. I think they're all massive fucking stnuc. The only reason they're ever nice is because they want attention. The same reason a dog is nice to the person who feeds it.

[-dubson-]

^ I'm a kid, we are having a civilised debate, am i only doing it for attention cos i'm a tnuc?

[hayze99]

^ I'm a kid, we are having a civilised debate, am i only doing it for attention cos i'm a tnuc?

Psssssh. You know what I mean. I'm a kid. I'm talking about anything under about 6-10 - depending on how fast the kid learns.

[Ennayess]

what about meritocracy

[Ennayess]

double post.

[Karl]

Some interesting things have come up. I will try to respond to a few of the issues raised.

it would have to be in particularly small communes of people who love and respect each other and work together to fulfill basic need

when we have nothing... only then can we be equals.

I will respond to these two statements first since they are similar. I would argue the opposite: we are closer to the possibility of achieving a truly egalitarian society than we have been in the past. Class society arose as soon as the tools and methods of production were sophisticated enough to produce a surplus. As our tools and methods improve, less and less physical labour is required from individuals in order to keep the population happy and fed. It is no longer necessary for the majority of people to be constantly toiling in order for the rest to have satisfactory lives.

While I have much respect for Marxist contributions to political, philosophical, historic, and economic thought, in the end I side with Bakunin in his objection to the Socialist/Communist concession to the need for the state. When politicians become a separate class and a career calling - as it is currently in the U.S. - shit gets fucked up quick.

human society is simply not possible without some sort of governance.

Read this article; it is a critique of Bakunin's charge that Marxism is statist and therefore undemocratic.

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=616&issue=125

Governance does not imply the need for a separate political class - it is not a true that political organisation is in itself incompatible with democracy.

Ultimately, Hayek and all of that party closed the coffin up with the calculation debates. There's absolutely no way for a human being to even begin to understand how to allocate resources to a nation. I'd say the only chance for socialism is if computers get powerful and intelligent enough to do it more efficiently than the market; and considering that markets are unbelievably efficient, I don't see it happening any time soon.

This is perhaps the most sophisticated defense of capitalism out there. There is no doubt that capitalism has allowed for expansion and production that would not otherwise have been possible. To say that it is efficient in its allocation of resources is a gross error however when you consider the vast swathes of population that go without adequate food, shelter or healthcare. It is only profit which drives capitalism forward.

In relation to Hayek, the flaw in the market system is that prices don't tell you very much about value. The price of an SUV and the fuel it consumes tells me nothing of the effect using it might have on a Bangladeshi village getting flooded. I might value not doing that but the price doesn't reflect that.

You don't really need prices in order to solve complex problems either. The internet is a shining example of how humans can co-ordinate complex problems without reference to prices or the market.

The crisis we are experiencing now is a direct result of a systemic failure. It is a direct result of banks and other institutions believing that they were perfectly informed about the kinds of risk they were taking, that they had the computer power and the sophisticated knowledge to be able to take those risks but then not being able to price those risks at all. The crisis reflects the failure of capitalism even on its own terms to co-ordinate properly.

Perhaps this is straying a little far from the topic...

there has to be some kind of golden midway, a perfect balance between liberalism & socialism?
also, marx was (is?) a cigarette

It's called social democracy - which does nothing to address the contradictions or the inequalities of capitalism head on

altho he was right about religion... but that he stole from Feuerbach or what's his name

Dude I didn't 'steal' from anyone - yes he was an influence on me but the bigger influence on both of us was Hegel. In any case, Feuerbach simply could not get past a utopian understanding of socialism.