|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:36 pm
It is often said that Human nature is the number one problem facing the success of communism. The belief I hold is that humans have no instincts or compulsions other than hunger that isnt determined by material circumstances. I am passing the question to you comrades. Do you believe humans have instincts? Is it all deterministic? Do humans have a set of behaviors that will be with us no matter what economic system we are in?
POST SOME ******** ANSWERS!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:44 pm
I believe that all members of the human race are instinctively democratic fools. They see all communism from birth as bad politics. But as we progress, our minds become more wild and we stray from our original ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:46 pm
There are primal instincts (like survival and curiosity), and there are also different personalities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:57 pm
Comrade Rob It is often said that Human nature is the number one problem facing the success of communism. The thing I find most interesting in the human nature argument is that it often revolves around the belief that the humanity is naturally possessive and yet I've often wondered is man not compassionate for his fellow man also; and if the benefit of one man's labor helped all the people in society, of which he is a part of, would he not contribute to society. Comrade Rob Do you believe humans have instincts? I believe that the one instinct people are born with is the instinct to keep oneself alive. Comrade Rob Do humans have a set of behaviors that will be with us no matter what economic system we are in? If the previous two statements are true then will people cooperate to preserve the societal organism and to improve it as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miza_Radioaktiv Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:02 pm
Nokturnal Evisceration There are primal instincts (like survival and curiosity), and there are also different personalities. I agree. Humans do have a primal instinct that still lingers with us from a prehistoric time. It's in our genetics. But those that use human instinct as a reason why communism won't work are fools. Civil society changes a human being's instincts. Communism, just like capitalism, is an economic and social system that changes human nature according to what ideals the system needs. With communism there is collectivism; with capitalism there is competition. Both bring out a different side of human nature. 永远。。。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:04 pm
Okay, here's my view.
When a lot of people talk about 'human nature', they tend to be taking a very ethnocentric and ahistorical view of it. Everyone here I'm sure is familiar with 'communism will never work because people are naturally [greedy/bad/whatever].'
Yep, even (and especially) scientists are incredibly guilty of this... if anyone's familiar with sociobiology, you'll see that some claims are made about 'human nature' (with a biological explanation) that are simply not true (and have not been true) of all people in all societies.
What human nature is NOT is greedy, individualistic and static.
What human nature IS is extremely flexible and highly dependent on its social (and of course economic) environment. This is why going straight from capitalist society to a stateless society would not make sense, and the withering away of the state must occur over time. Think about the stuff Marx says about socialism emerging from the womb of capitalist society: capitalist ideas and mindsets are still present, but they will fade. Some of these attitudes that will fade are exactly what a lot of people now like to claim are 'human nature'.
I hope this made sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:11 pm
Comrade Kotka Okay, here's my view. When a lot of people talk about 'human nature', they tend to be taking a very ethnocentric and ahistorical view of it. Everyone here I'm sure is familiar with 'communism will never work because people are naturally [greedy/bad/whatever].' Yep, even (and especially) scientists are incredibly guilty of this... if anyone's familiar with sociobiology, you'll see that some claims are made about 'human nature' (with a biological explanation) that are simply not true (and have not been true) of all people in all societies. What human nature is NOT is greedy, individualistic and static. What human nature IS is extremely flexible and highly dependent on its social (and of course economic) environment. This is why going straight from capitalist society to a stateless society would not make sense, and the withering away of the state must occur over time. Think about the stuff Marx says about socialism emerging from the womb of capitalist society: capitalist ideas and mindsets are still present, but they will fade. Some of these attitudes that will fade are exactly what a lot of people now like to claim are 'human nature'. I hope this made sense. Exactly. what is considered to be human nature is determined by the socio-economic system in play. When we have socialism, the economy is different, therefore the society is different. The hardest part is when that society has just emerged from its womb for that is when contradiction is starchiest contrast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:31 pm
Syntax450 Comrade Rob Do you believe humans have instincts? I believe that the one instinct people are born with is the instinct to keep oneself alive. exactly, and to make ones life as good as possible, and the best way for talented people(who control society, unfortunately) to achieve that is by using capitalism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:24 am
Comrade Rob It is often said that Human nature is the number one problem facing the success of communism. The belief I hold is that humans have no instincts or compulsions other than hunger that isnt determined by material circumstances. I am passing the question to you comrades. Do you believe humans have instincts? Is it all deterministic? Do humans have a set of behaviors that will be with us no matter what economic system we are in? POST SOME ******** ANSWERS! This is a moralistic question, I shall address it as such. We are born men, but are men who were bore of animals, and animals are beings that thrive solely on instinct. We are no better excepting our intelligence. Therefore; it is the triumph of man to discipline itself, to decide what instinct is good, what is bad, and to control its own activities, not to be the soulless slave to ones own whims. Therefore, Humans can thrive under any economic system, but it takes much change in philosophy, and many ideas must take effect above the old ones, in order for people to embrace instincts formerly rejected, and to reject those formerly embraced. This ultimately means shying away from any system on the basis of it being against 'human nature' is simply lazy, meanwhile, demanding change take effect for the same reason is desperate. In my view, a system should be taken on merit alone. Thus; I am a relativist. However, having said that, like any other being, I have my own morals. The difference between relativists and universalists, morally at least, is that a relativist senses a dichotomy between what they value and what others do, and they do not resent that difference, but accept it. Or at the very least, they tolerate it. A universalist does not, and instead seeks its purge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:44 am
We are, are we? C'mooon, you'd get in trouble if you used this in an essay. It's not acceptable to use 'man' to represent all people any more. *ahem* Some of the rest of the stuff is okay, but I am NOT a relativist in the sense that I don't say something like 'well hey, they want to perform clitorodectomies that's okay, that's just their culture,' or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:22 am
dl1371 Syntax450 Comrade Rob Do you believe humans have instincts? I believe that the one instinct people are born with is the instinct to keep oneself alive. exactly, and to make ones life as good as possible, and the best way for talented people(who control society, unfortunately) to achieve that is by using capitalism Yes, however I said that the individual who is part of society will reap benefit of the society to which he contributes. I can't help but notice that the main distinction between the arguments most people are presenting, is weather people will put themselves before the community or not. And as stated by Comrade Kotka, a lot of our social philosophy comes from the society in which we wear born. Comrade Kotka What human nature IS is extremely flexible and highly dependent on its social (and of course economic) environment. This is why going straight from capitalist society to a stateless society would not make sense, and the withering away of the state must occur over time. Think about the stuff Marx says about socialism emerging from the womb of capitalist society: capitalist ideas and mindsets are still present, but they will fade. Some of these attitudes that will fade are exactly what a lot of people now like to claim are 'human nature'. One growing up in a capitalist society would most likely put them self before the good of the community whereas one born in a communist society, with different values, would have more concern for society. The latter would be concerned with maintaining the life of the community .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:56 am
I believe humans have certain basic instincts that will take thousands of years to evolve out of. Instincts like self preservation, Flee or Fight and such. But for the most part, human nature is defined by society's expectation of the individual. Change the society, change the individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:47 am
Comrade Kotka We are, are we? C'mooon, you'd get in trouble if you used this in an essay. It's not acceptable to use 'man' to represent all people any more. *ahem* Some of the rest of the stuff is okay, but I am NOT a relativist in the sense that I don't say something like 'well hey, they want to perform clitorodectomies that's okay, that's just their culture,' or something. I think that small pedant that feminists bring up is curious and misplaced. I have always taken 'man' as colloquial for 'human', not a reference to the male gender or anything of the sort. Naturally, since I view it that way, I would never use such a term in a formal essay unless in a quote. In sum; 'Human', 'Mankind', all are references to the entire race, not penises, and 'man' is short for it.
Edit: Besides 'man' being one syllable is far more poetic, and grandiose, don't you think? I was being a little strange when I wrote that paragraph, maybe I should go do some poems or something to wear it out.I apologise if I offended you though. I should try to adjust and conform to the norm because like this it often causes misunderstandings, I don't intend on single-handedly having to change the stereotypical social interpretation of a word. And yeah, I too draw a line. Only the craziest of isolationists would not draw a line. My line is at consent, at least socially, I think there is room for some coercion economically (IE, taxes). I think it is fair to say that, for all the cultural relativities and individual nuances one might fairly discover, once you're imposing something on someone against their will, it is something that should be at the very least arbitrated, but ideally, something to be combated entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:18 am
The Curse Comrade Rob It is often said that Human nature is the number one problem facing the success of communism. The belief I hold is that humans have no instincts or compulsions other than hunger that isnt determined by material circumstances. I am passing the question to you comrades. Do you believe humans have instincts? Is it all deterministic? Do humans have a set of behaviors that will be with us no matter what economic system we are in? POST SOME ******** ANSWERS! This is a moralistic question, I shall address it as such. We are born men, but are men who were bore of animals, and animals are beings that thrive solely on instinct. We are no better excepting our intelligence. Therefore; it is the triumph of man to discipline itself, to decide what instinct is good, what is bad, and to control its own activities, not to be the soulless slave to ones own whims. Therefore, Humans can thrive under any economic system, but it takes much change in philosophy, and many ideas must take effect above the old ones, in order for people to embrace instincts formerly rejected, and to reject those formerly embraced. This ultimately means shying away from any system on the basis of it being against 'human nature' is simply lazy, meanwhile, demanding change take effect for the same reason is desperate. In my view, a system should be taken on merit alone. Thus; I am a relativist. However, having said that, like any other being, I have my own morals. The difference between relativists and universalists, morally at least, is that a relativist senses a dichotomy between what they value and what others do, and they do not resent that difference, but accept it. Or at the very least, they tolerate it. A universalist does not, and instead seeks its purge. Alright Curse. I have to say, this is garbage. Here's why: We may have impulses and urges but instincts are compulsive acts that require no rationalization. Actually, it would be more correct to say an instinct is the action that takes place do to a lack of capability to rationalize. We as Humans have the ability to overcome 'urges' through rationalization which is what differs us from animals. Let us take for example a rapist. The rapist rapes to satisfy his urges. Now what differs the rapist from the animal is that the animal procreates in order to advance its species. The animal does not consider this fact it just aims for the closest open orifice. The Human however has with him a curse to the instinct: Morality- a morality imposed by the society to which he came from. Now our rapist considers "Having sex with this women is wrong, however to satisfy my urges I will proceed anyway" Then he commits the despicable act. But because he first considered it shows that the man is not bound by instinct. The only instincts Humans carry are hunger and and self-preservation. But even those can be overcome by thought. Now if you put the human child into the wild, there is no question it will die. Why? because the child has no compulsions, no knowledge of survival. This to me further proves that humans retain no instincts. Finally in regards to your relativist s**t. If you are okay with the fact that people in this world are exploited, raped, etc then fine your desire to accept it as an immutable fact , fine. But as for me, I see it as an intolerable reality and i seek to as you say 'purge' it from existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
