Human nature

[Barry the Sprout]

It definately does not involve saying greed is a new phenomenon. I just said that greed was not inherent but had instead arisen because our lives depend on it economically. We have the option to build a system that does not rely on that, but it has been so long since we had a different kind of life (I am talking thousands and thousands of years for most societies) we are scared stiff that it will fail.

I am not saying that we must ignore the "rule of the jungle" I am just asking why it still applies to us. The only reason is because of the economic system we live in. And yes capitalism is a moral system as well as an economic one. I say this because it governs our outlook on life and therefore our morals. We live our lives according to the principles of capitalism - they govern what is and isn't acceptable for us.

But I do agree with you 100% on one point - Humanity is not ready for socialism yet. The revolution will come at some point IMO, just not for a while. Not in my lifetime, but it is still inevitable.

[Thoran]

I wish it were inevitable, but I think there are many paths... perhaps the one that offers the most hope for humanity is a kind of social system where human beings feel that they belong to and gain validation from the group while still maintaining their individuality. Pure socialism in my opinion is as bad as pure capitalism... successful socialism is only gained through loss of individuality (ultimate order I guess... the hive mind)... but pure capitalism results in chaos.

I guess my belief regarding greed is that it has always existed, it's a part of animal nature to WANT. Greed is the idea of WANT applied to the ultimate satisfier of physical desires... money. Non humans species on this planet exhibit greed also, as it applies to wanting something you don't have.

SO... you're suggesting that humans once existed in a socialist society, and while I agree there have been civilizations in the past that have displayed socialist traits (lots of them), the origonal basis of human behavior is self-interest and thus inconsistant with pure socialism. I guess I would suggest that possibly you're putting the cart before the horse... it's not social structure that defines human nature... it's human nature that defies the required parameters of a social structure (if it's to succede it must accomidate human nature).

I think many people today (not saying you do of course) believe that "the old days" were an idyllic time where everyone lived together in harmony with nature. The reading I've done isn't consistant with that... but rather points to a world that gets progressively more harsh and wild as you travel farther back. The rule of the strong and "survival of the fittest" was much more in effect 100 years ago than today... and stronger yet 1000 years before that, and so on. Society IS moving away from rule by force, capitalist though it is, it's just that we as a species might run out of time before we can get to equilebrium with nature.

(to jump back a bit) ... many take the idea that "the origonal basis of human behavior is self-interest" to be a negative statement... I disagree... it's gotten us to where we are today. HOWEVER, for us to move forward and not destroy ourselves we need to evolve. There's the challenge.

And when I write I'm basically thinking out loud... so if I write something as statement, take it for theory... I don't pretend to have all the answers [img]smile.gif[/img] .

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Barry the Sprout]

I can see that you are trying to take a middle path - we have to replace capitalism but not with socialism. That is a difficult path so I commend you for trying it, but I think that the only way forward can be socialism.

To answer your various questions, I don't think socialism requires a loss in individual liberty. If you can follow the logic you took to get to that statement I will be impressed as I don't think there is any. Unless you identify yourselves entirely by saying "I am poor" or "I am rich" then I don't think financial equality will make us any more or less individualistic. And if we do identify ourselves solely by that quality then surely it says more for capitalisms effect on us than our actual mental qualities (garbled, I know, it is a little difficult to explain what I mean there).

Second, I didn't say that there was a socialist society pre history. There is evidence of some societies operating on a simple commune basis like the Isreali kibbutzs. But what I really meant was that our lives have only recently (the last 500 yrs or so) started to be dominated by capital in such a manner. What I mean is that we mistook what we did for necessity a long time ago as our inherent character. And then we ended up making it the sole basis for our society. And now if you can provide an argument against an alternative way of life that doesn't rest on "Its against our nature" I will be impressed if it holds up. It being against what we think our nature is is the way in which we tell ourselves that it is all still alright... we don't need to panic about change... all the shit that has happened was unavoidable.

But yeah, in general I think human nature is not greed. The two have become interlinked, but that is what we have made ourselves, not the other way around.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Ummm, lets redress the balance a bit here shall we. Here comes socialism...

I basically think, to answer the first question Dreamer, that there is no such thing as human nature. There is an animal instinct when pushed to do what we can for survival. This has been carried into todays world because we have made the mistake of building our moral system around it. The whole of the economic and social foundations of our lives are based on the idea that you have to worry about yourself and not other people. The object of life at present is to "win" the economic race. I don't think that has anything to do with some kind of innate driving force. We are greedy people simply because we have made ourselves greedy by gradually accepting that greed is the right thing to do.

All the people who said socialism doesn't account for human nature are wrong in my opinion as a socialist. Socialism basically states that human nature has been perverted to make us greedy, we weren't greedy first. So now I agree with everything you say Dreamer - the world is in a big mess (to simplify slightly) and we are convincing ourselves that this is the only possible way.

I think your view of the perfect world Rikard is very possible. We have got ourselves to the stage where our only reason for not adopting it is because we think it will never work. That is the primary defence of capitalism, and in my opinion it is no defence at all.

---

So if Socialism is so workable, how come there has never in the history of the world been a successful socialist government leading the world to true enlightenment? So far the best hope for mankind looks to be a modified form of democracy. Most likely a Representative Democratic Republic perhaps.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
I can see that you are trying to take a middle path - we have to replace capitalism but not with socialism. That is a difficult path so I commend you for trying it, but I think that the only way forward can be socialism.

To answer your various questions, I don't think socialism requires a loss in individual liberty. If you can follow the logic you took to get to that statement I will be impressed as I don't think there is any. Unless you identify yourselves entirely by saying "I am poor" or "I am rich" then I don't think financial equality will make us any more or less individualistic. And if we do identify ourselves solely by that quality then surely it says more for capitalisms effect on us than our actual mental qualities (garbled, I know, it is a little difficult to explain what I mean there).

Second, I didn't say that there was a socialist society pre history. There is evidence of some societies operating on a simple commune basis like the Isreali kibbutzs. But what I really meant was that our lives have only recently (the last 500 yrs or so) started to be dominated by capital in such a manner. What I mean is that we mistook what we did for necessity a long time ago as our inherent character. And then we ended up making it the sole basis for our society. And now if you can provide an argument against an alternative way of life that doesn't rest on "Its against our nature" I will be impressed if it holds up. It being against what we think our nature is is the way in which we tell ourselves that it is all still alright... we don't need to panic about change... all the shit that has happened was unavoidable.

But yeah, in general I think human nature is not greed. The two have become interlinked, but that is what we have made ourselves, not the other way around.

---

Nothing at all wrong with Capitalism...capitalism is not a form of government, capitalism is a type of society...there will be a government controling the capitalistic society...all capitalism is a system that allows a person to succeed with a combination of intelligence and hard work.

[Thoran]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
I can see that you are trying to take a middle path - we have to replace capitalism but not with socialism. That is a difficult path so I commend you for trying it, but I think that the only way forward can be socialism.

---

In the real world (away from the purists, looking at the reality of Nature), the middle path is almost always the correct one. Nature follows rules of equilibrium, and as you push a natural system farther to an extreme, you invite disaster. Both pure Socialism and Capitalism represent opposite extremes of a continuum of "human social consciouness", on one end is the perfectly self centered, on the other is the perfectly group centered. Both are undesireable in my opinion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
To answer your various questions, I don't think socialism requires a loss in individual liberty. If you can follow the logic you took to get to that statement I will be impressed as I don't think there is any.

---

I disagree, in fact I didn't post the logic because I felt it was fairly obvious. The premise of socialism is to provide a non-differential achievement centered system where all people are treated equally. Everyone contributes to their capability and is provided for by the government (or governing body). Free will and individuality are functions of differentiation... and in a socialist system differentiation is impossible to maintain because it's a system that requires conformation for stability. The obvious natural analogies for socialist societies are Bee and Ant colonies. Every participant in those societies contributes to the success of the whole without consideration of their own success "we succeed if the colony succeeds". As I think I said in a different thread, the failure of socialism as it would be applied to humans is its inability to accomidate human need for success and achievement... at least not without mixing in some capability for individual achievement. Today you see Capitalist societies mixing in socialist concepts (universal Health Care for instance), moving slowly towards a centrist approach to government. The Chinese government is working towards the solution from the other end of the spectrum, adding capitalist elements to their society to accomidate the realities of human nature (and believe me, if it wasn't necessary, the Chinese wouldn't be doing it).

The other obvious risk of socialism is the marginalization of the individual, as can also be seen in nature. If a thousand ants die defending the hill... that's acceptable loss. Most varieties of bees die after stinging... again, acceptable loss of individuals in defense of the colony. In human society, socialism led to marginalization of the individual and death on a scale unequalled in western civilization... in both China and the Soviet Union, tens of millions of individuals were destoryed in search of social unity. In the end one failed outright, and the other is in the process of changing... but STILL exhibits a tendency toward suppression of free will and individuality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Unless you identify yourselves entirely by saying "I am poor" or "I am rich" then I don't think financial equality will make us any more or less individualistic. And if we do identify ourselves solely by that quality then surely it says more for capitalisms effect on us than our actual mental qualities (garbled, I know, it is a little difficult to explain what I mean there)..

---

I understand where you're going with this but I think you're oversimplifying. Material wealth is not the ultimate goal, differential achievement is... being "rich" is merely the obvious expression of achievement. What people need to be able to say to themselves is "I have worked hard, and look what I have achieved"... not "I am rich".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
But what I really meant was that our lives have only recently (the last 500 yrs or so) started to be dominated by capital in such a manner. What I mean is that we mistook what we did for necessity a long time ago as our inherent character. And then we ended up making it the sole basis for our society. And now if you can provide an argument against an alternative way of life that doesn't rest on "Its against our nature" I will be impressed if it holds up. It being against what we think our nature is is the way in which we tell ourselves that it is all still alright... we don't need to panic about change... all the shit that has happened was unavoidable.

---

"Necessity" is what motivates us all. What we did for "necessity" a long time ago was the appropriate path to take. At the same time in history there were other paths available, the path we are on is the one that won out. Again you're putting the cart before the horse... our inherent character DEFINED the correct path to take, not the other way around. There were no mistakes, we followed the path with the highest probability for success given the character of humans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
But yeah, in general I think human nature is not greed. The two have become interlinked, but that is what we have made ourselves, not the other way around.

---

I do not believe we have made ourselves greedy, we simply need to continue to achieve to feel successful. The old concept of "providing your children with a better life than you had". What we need is not a new social order, we need alternative metrics of success for humanity that still satisfy our basic desire to succeed.

[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: Thoran ]