Human nature and the leftist assumption

[Mr. Big]

Hi All,

My basic argument is this:

True communism (as defined by Marx) cannot exist because it runs counter to an aspect fundamental to human nature; self-interest. Whats more, the best social system should be one that caters to humans' true nature, and this has been achieved in the form of capitalism.

I look forward to being shredded!

Mr. Big.

[Zeebadee]

Silly. Any economic system can exist if there's enough force behind it. And the "best social system" has nothing to do with it.

[Mr. Big]

Hi Zeebabee,

In order for "enough force to be put behind it", and this force continued, it would have to agree with human nature. Please feel free to put forward a sound argument if you wish.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr. Big Hi Zeebabee, In order for "enough force to be put behind it", and this force continued, it would have to agree with human nature. Please feel free to put forward a sound argument if you wish.

Kim Jong Il seems to have established a "social system" that appears to go against human nature, yet it has endured.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Mr. Big Hi All, My basic argument is this: True communism (as defined by Marx) cannot exist because it runs counter to an aspect fundamental to human nature; self-interest. Whats more, the best social system should be one that caters to humans' true nature, and this has been achieved in the form of capitalism. I look forward to being shredded! Mr. Big.

There are multiple aspects to human nature, you know. Its not just greed. We also carry a competing desire to do good for those around us.

Pure laissez-faire Capitalism is about the death of this desire. Giving without expecting something in return and mercy for your competition do not integrate into a fully capitalist society. Your goal is your personal advancement and maximum return to shareholders.

Pure Marxist communism is about the death of greed. Everybody works for the good of the whole. Your goal is your collective advancement.

Both systems fall flat on their face in practice. Pure completely unregulated capitalism would turn to monopoly and slavery very, very fast. Pure Marxism would last about 24 hours before somebody decides they want more than the man or woman next to them.

It is interesting that it seems to be possible to turn off compassion completely, yet it is not possible to turn off greed. Is this an innate feature, or is it something cultural that we might one day be able to transcend?

[Sonart]

.

Hiya Mr.Big.

Methinks you're being somewhat self-serving in your definition of "fundamental human nature". Fundamental human nature also includes the fact that human beings are social animals, and that we have survived and thrived in nature by banding together in cooperative, harmonious social groups. And that, too, is, at bottom, from self interest. It's in our self interest to cooperate with each other, to treat each other in a mannerly fashion, to work for the benefit of the community, etc. etc. Having good manners, for instance, is a self-imposed discipline we place on ourselves for the self-benefit of having others treat us in a similar manner, for the enhancement of mutual cooperation and social harmony that benefits all of us.

Indeed, humans are also ambitious, acquisitive, imaginative, and self-centered, so extreme 'pure equality' driven economic systems like communism will seem restrictive to many, if not most. That doesn't mean that the other extreme -- 'survival of the fittest' libertarianism -- is the answer. Our liberal government evolved because Americans as a group decided they didn't like the robber barons, child labor, company stores and dangerous working conditions of unfettered capitalism combined with the advent of modern industry and technology.

.

[SoylentGreen]

Mr. Big Whats more, the best social system should be one that caters to humans' true nature, and this has been achieved in the form of capitalism.

Care to point out where this has been achieved?

[grandpa]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Care to point out where this has been achieved?

My point exactly. Under capitalism, I see plenty of people doing things adverse to their nature only to attain money. That's not only a "leftist assumption," but a matter of fact.

Grandpa h.

[Century 25]

Both systems fall flat on their face in practice. Pure completely unregulated capitalism would turn to monopoly and slavery very, very fast. Pure Marxism would last about 24 hours before somebody decides they want more than the man or woman next to them.

True. All of life.. physics.. must be in balance in order to continue for extended lengths of time.

Using the USA as an example.. we will soon see the effect of the unbalanced system that capitalism has created for us.

Also, can another "great" depression recur..??

[Bob652]

Quote by: Mr. Big Hi All, My basic argument is this: True communism (as defined by Marx) cannot exist because it runs counter to an aspect fundamental to human nature; self-interest. Whats more, the best social system should be one that caters to humans' true nature, and this has been achieved in the form of capitalism. I look forward to being shredded! Mr. Big.

People can be beaten into submission by any powerful, abusive form of government; but a system that doesn't not allow the "invisible hand" in a free market to function can only bring prosperity to a select handful of elitist, ruling class despots while the remainder of the population suffers oppression and poverty.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Bob652 People can be beaten into submission by any powerful, abusive form of government; but a system that doesn't not allow the "invisible hand" in a free market to function can only bring prosperity to a select handful of elitist, ruling class despots while the remainder of the population suffers oppression and poverty.

Yeah, and your point is??

[Mr. Big]

Hi,

Due to the overwhelming response and the little time I have, I will only be able to engage with the first three respondents. Sorry to the rest. Though, if you want to visit the dark side for a laugh, I'm sure you'll find plenty of debate.

I made a mistake. I should have provided a working definition for Capitalism. I apologize to those of you who have already posted. In this debate, capitalism refers to the socio-economic system that incorporates 1. free "laissez-faire" markets, 2. a government which only provides public goods (in economic speak), 3. freedom of movement for capital and labour, and 4. freedom of enterprise.

Zeebadee,

"Kim Jong Il seems to have established a "social system" that appears to go against human nature, yet it has endured."

I don't understand how this is relevant to the topic.

Thanatos,

"There are multiple aspects to human nature, you know. Its not just greed. We also carry a competing desire to do good for those around us."

Indeed.

"Pure laissez-faire Capitalism is about the death of this desire."

Do tell....

"Giving without expecting something in return and mercy for your competition do not integrate into a fully capitalist society. Your goal is your personal advancement and maximum return to shareholders."

This seems to contradict your previous statement. How can capitalism be both about the death of desire and the desire for personal advancement?

But, just looking at this quote, I am not convinced that altruism and mercy are done without thought to, or despite of, the feelings that are gained from these acts. We are all need based creatures, we act to fulfill a need. One need that many have is the need to help others. Acting in this way merely fulfills this need.

Other needs may include the need to try to satisfy greed, the need for achievement, or the need for recognition, to name a few. All these can be satisfied in various ways, but greed its self is a fundamental aspect of human nature, and is expressed through capitalism.

Ultimately other needs would and could be fulfilled in a capitalist society. Nothing is stopping a wealthy person from donating a part of his wealth. Therefore charity to others could still exist, as people feel the need to gain satisfaction through helping.

I am not sure how mercy for your competition is in conflict with a purely capitalist society. If society is a reflection of human nature, then in this type of society, if this is indeed a part of human nature, it will be expressed and mercy will be shown.

"Pure Marxist communism is about the death of greed. Everybody works for the good of the whole. Your goal is your collective advancement."

In theory, yes.

"Pure Marxism would last about 24 hours before somebody decides they want more than the man or woman next to them."

You beat me to my counter argument! In economics they call this game theory. In psychology its called the prisoner's dilemma.

"Both systems fall flat on their face in practice. Pure completely unregulated capitalism would turn to monopoly and slavery very, very fast. "

Please provide support.

"It is interesting that it seems to be possible to turn off compassion completely, yet it is not possible to turn off greed. Is this an innate feature, or is it something cultural that we might one day be able to transcend?"

This is a very interesting comment. I am not sure how to respond to it. While it is impossible to tell what another human is thinking or feeling for certain, I wager that even the most hardened businessman or criminal has compassion for a loved one, whether husband, wife, child, or parent. That being said, it certainly seems harder to turn off greed, which is partly why a capitalist society/system works best with human nature.

[Mr. Big]

Hi Sonart!

"Methinks you're being somewhat self-serving in your definition of "fundamental human nature". "

I don't recall ever defining human nature, I only said that a part fundamental to it is self-interest.

"Fundamental human nature also includes the fact that human beings are social animals, and that we have survived and thrived in nature by banding together in cooperative, harmonious social groups."

We truly are social animals, but I am not sure this has determined our survival and success. To some degree, if evolution is correct, being a social animal has served some survival function, but I would argue that we have come to "thrive" (i.e. dominate "nature") because of our capacity to think in abstract ways, and to think about the future. You don't see zebras in domination over nature as humans have come to dominate, despite their herd mentality.

"And that, too, is, at bottom, from self interest. It's in our self interest to cooperate with each other, to treat each other in a mannerly fashion, to work for the benefit of the community, etc. etc."

First, in capitalism you see this type of behaviour; firms cooperating can achieve a larger profit than they would if they were to try to destroy each other. Two examples of this this off the top of my head are the petrol-chemical companies before the industry died due to government regulation, and television networks during the 80s and 70s. Extra profits that companies can make by gouging customers is the reason there are laws against collusion. All this being said, your argument doesn't work.

"Indeed, humans are also ambitious, acquisitive, imaginative, and self-centered, so extreme 'pure equality' driven economic systems like communism will seem restrictive to many, if not most. That doesn't mean that the other extreme -- 'survival of the fittest' libertarianism -- is the answer."

To what question? All I have said is that capitalism is the best system that fits with human nature, and the best social system should be one that caters to humans' true nature.

"Our liberal government evolved because Americans as a group decided they didn't like the robber barons, child labor, company stores and dangerous working conditions of unfettered capitalism combined with the advent of modern industry and technology."

Very debatable. But anyways, I don't see how this is a counter argument. Perhaps you can clarify.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr. Big Zeebadee, "Kim Jong Il seems to have established a "social system" that appears to go against human nature, yet it has endured." I don't understand how this is relevant to the topic.

Perhaps you should go back and read posts 2,3 and 4.

[Mr. Big]

Sorry Zeebadee,

I have reread those posts, and I just don't see how your argument counters mine... or is at all relevant to my argument as laid out in the first post.

Are you trying to say that North Korea is communist in the way that Marx defined it, or are you trying to say that North Korea's system is the best system?

[Century 25]

I made a mistake. I should have provided a working definition for Capitalism. I apologize to those of you who have already posted. In this debate, capitalism refers to the socio-economic system that incorporates 1. free "laissez-faire" markets, 2. a government which only provides public goods (in economic speak), 3. freedom of movement for capital and labour, and 4. freedom of enterprise.

Um-hmm.. in other words, a license to steal. Left to it's own device, capitalism is like fire. It will burn ever greater.. until.. ashes. Think of the furnace/fire analogy. Or even better.. the law of thermodynamics. Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant. Think of a long-lived star vs a supernova. In the end.. Murphy always wins.. (2nd law of thermodynamics) how long we take to get there.. another story.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr. Big Sorry Zeebadee, I have reread those posts, and I just don't see how your argument counters mine... or is at all relevant to my argument as laid out in the first post. Are you trying to say that North Korea is communist in the way that Marx defined it, or are you trying to say that North Korea's system is the best system?

Nope. You said communism cannot exist because it runs counter to human nature. The you said even if force was involved, it would have to agree with human nature. Yet N. Korea has a communist system, though perhaps not strictly as defined by Marx, it runs counter to human nature (at least to it's subjects), and yet it endures. Perhaps I misunderstand you, if so, my apologies.

[Technosoul]

Mr Big.

Capitalism works only due to false promises. Like gambling, people get this dream they can beat the House and become rich someday, but they end up doing nothing other then wasting their life feeding the one armed machine ( okay,.. then got push button ones now... but the point is the same)..

Those on top rave about the system and how great it is. But capitalism within a democracy is simply and nothing more then then right to pick which dictator you want to work for and obey.

Instead of one dictator we got thousands of dictators who want us to become dependant upon them. AKA - the Boss.

A million people who all want to get promotions to become Mr Big. A million people buy tickets to win the Big Lotto. A few win, the rest do not.

Capitalism is not a social system, it is a scam. Nothing more.

I hope you do not "have time" to respond to my message.

[SoylentGreen]

Mr. Big capitalism refers to the socio-economic system that incorporates 1. free "laissez-faire" markets, 2. a government which only provides public goods (in economic speak), 3. freedom of movement for capital and labour, and 4. freedom of enterprise.

Gee isn't it just fantastic that capitalism is such a complex, well thought out, intergrated system of social and economic ideas, that when put together form the most perfect of systems.
Where as simplistic Marxism can be summed up in one simple sentence
"Everybody works for the good of the whole. Your goal is your collective advancement."
Because you know capitalism took years and years of very clever peoples lives to figure out , while communism was probably just a thought some one wrote down on the back of a cigarette packet while sitting on the toilet.
Please feel free to insert a :rolleyes: anywhere you like in there.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Mr. Big Hi, Due to the overwhelming response and the little time I have, I will only be able to engage with the first three respondents. Sorry to the rest. Though, if you want to visit the dark side for a laugh, I'm sure you'll find plenty of debate. I made a mistake. I should have provided a working definition for Capitalism. I apologize to those of you who have already posted. In this debate, capitalism refers to the socio-economic system that incorporates 1. free "laissez-faire" markets, 2. a government which only provides public goods (in economic speak), 3. freedom of movement for capital and labour, and 4. freedom of enterprise. Zeebadee, "Kim Jong Il seems to have established a "social system" that appears to go against human nature, yet it has endured." I don't understand how this is relevant to the topic. Thanatos, "There are multiple aspects to human nature, you know. Its not just greed. We also carry a competing desire to do good for those around us." Indeed. "Pure laissez-faire Capitalism is about the death of this desire." Do tell.... "Giving without expecting something in return and mercy for your competition do not integrate into a fully capitalist society. Your goal is your personal advancement and maximum return to shareholders." This seems to contradict your previous statement. How can capitalism be both about the death of desire and the desire for personal advancement? But, just looking at this quote, I am not convinced that altruism and mercy are done without thought to, or despite of, the feelings that are gained from these acts. We are all need based creatures, we act to fulfill a need. One need that many have is the need to help others. Acting in this way merely fulfills this need. Other needs may include the need to try to satisfy greed, the need for achievement, or the need for recognition, to name a few. All these can be satisfied in various ways, but greed its self is a fundamental aspect of human nature, and is expressed through capitalism. Ultimately other needs would and could be fulfilled in a capitalist society. Nothing is stopping a wealthy person from donating a part of his wealth. Therefore charity to others could still exist, as people feel the need to gain satisfaction through helping. I am not sure how mercy for your competition is in conflict with a purely capitalist society. If society is a reflection of human nature, then in this type of society, if this is indeed a part of human nature, it will be expressed and mercy will be shown. "Pure Marxist communism is about the death of greed. Everybody works for the good of the whole. Your goal is your collective advancement." In theory, yes. "Pure Marxism would last about 24 hours before somebody decides they want more than the man or woman next to them." You beat me to my counter argument! In economics they call this game theory. In psychology its called the prisoner's dilemma. "Both systems fall flat on their face in practice. Pure completely unregulated capitalism would turn to monopoly and slavery very, very fast. " Please provide support. "It is interesting that it seems to be possible to turn off compassion completely, yet it is not possible to turn off greed. Is this an innate feature, or is it something cultural that we might one day be able to transcend?" This is a very interesting comment. I am not sure how to respond to it. While it is impossible to tell what another human is thinking or feeling for certain, I wager that even the most hardened businessman or criminal has compassion for a loved one, whether husband, wife, child, or parent. That being said, it certainly seems harder to turn off greed, which is partly why a capitalist society/system works best with human nature.

Believe me, people are quite capable of turning off compassion for strangers. Some even manage to turn it off for those closest to them.

Consider the benefits of vertical integration and a monopoly. The more things you own the more you can buy up and the better you are at strangling potential competition. Without antitrust laws the invisible hand of capitalism itself will be crushed.

Absolute power corrupts.

The end result is an asymptotic approach to absolute economic power. The only time this has ever been approached in U.S. history is Standard Oil and the other great gilded age monopolies, but sanity prevailed and the trusts were broken. Earlier examples of oligarchies and hydraulic empires abound. You yourself have decried examples where a few held absolute economic power in modern times such as the Soviets, although they skipped the capitalistic approach to establishing monopoly and used force of arms instead.

I think you'd also agree with me that we need some laws, such as basic environmental protection laws and protection from debt slavery.