What part of the HOOMAN NAYTUR argument makes you the most enraged?

its just human nature to completely devastate the enviroment, to idle in cars, heck.. we been doin it since the stone age!
I just hate when people turn down the solution to an immediate problem with assuming that everyone else is too dumb, so why should I bother to do my part?

The thing about this that really blows my mind is what they're really saying if you unpack the statement.
They are arguing that the middleman is what's necessary in the process, not the inherent drive going on. The fucking crazy paradox here is that this reasoning convinces some people, because we're all good at channeling our drive to fulfill our needs into something productive. We forget about why we do what we do and just pursue that goal. So society tells us that all we need is enough money and the drive to acquire money gets ingrained and the entire point - that money is a token to allow access to what we need - fades into the subconscious so we can put more of our brainpower into the work we do to get the money.

It is in the proletarian's interest to abolish capitalism. Communism does not rely on human altruism any more than capitalism does.

People get fucked up obsessing over this. It's okay to debate someone on their terms when you can fuck them up on the terms they want the debate, you can even say that you're doing this to stop them gaining ground. If humans are naturally selfish, why would they not act in their self interest when capitalism starts to collapse and the shelves are no longer being stacked?

Humans are naturally lazy and terrified of everything. They do not however want to be dominated. They just want to be safe. Thus why the state is necessary during the early stages of socialism. We have to coax the proletariat out of their psychological retreat so that they can seize the future for themselves. Also we need to get rid of the imperialists.

A completely egalitarian communist society can't ever last because eventually some group of people will gain enough power to make themselves into elites. Or at least, can't ever last unless society became so utterly wealthy and abundant that everyone could live the life of a modern billionaire without it causing any problems.

I agree that if I thought Marxism would lead to an eventual communist utopia, it would make perfect sense to support it selfishly. But I don't see any sort of actual complely egalitarian society lasting, if we could even get close. Capitalism is utterly messed up as it currently is, I just don't see the goals of Marxism is being realisable.

Gain enough "power" how? Is power some kind of essence that you can absorb by existing over time?

"Democracy can't last because eventually some group of people will gain enough power to make themselves into feudal barons"

that people believe it exists

Power is simply the means by which a minority rules over a majority. People can come to power by all sorts of ways.

What's your point exactly? Democracy is based on hierarchy just as feudalism is, just as all long lasting Marxist inspired societies have been. The elites may take different forms but they've never disappeared.

if there's no tyranny of the minority then there is no class

Hobbes is the GOAT liberal

I don't really see that happening

Communism simply means the negation of capitalism (the value form, commodity production, markets, etc.). The abolition of capitalism will mean the forms of government that exist today (Democracy, capitalist dictatorships, etc.) will not be able to exist anymore.

What government will look like under communism, who can say? In all likelihood, there will still be 'hierarchy' in the way you're thinking of it. There will probably still be officials in charge of this or that. Communism won't mean everyone will be equal in literally every way.

Most people in America are religious as fuck. The entire idea of Christianity is to reject your sinful human nature and to strive to be more than it. The entire notion that you can't do communism because of human nature shouldn't be a meaningful retort in their own head, like, at all.

This. Christianity is the most communist religion. The first communists in America were evangelical christian farmers.

Why does the concept of an inherent human nature trigger Leftists so much?

It seems like a bit of a stretch to believe that evolution stops at the neck

Are those officials going to be so well intentioned as to not try to enrich themselves? Certainly not all people are equally bad, I could imagine scenarios which are much better than current Western capitalism, but not ones in which there is ever a lack of a well off ruling class of some sort.

Enrich themselves with what?

There won't be currency, so it's not like they can embezzle.

I guess the guy in charge of refrigerator distribution in x commune can horde some extra refrigerators for himself, but I don't really see this being a massive society-wide problem.

No one (well, some might, but ignore them) says communism will be a perfect utopia. Human folly will still exist, of course.

the part where people dont read the german ideology by carl marks

We didn't evolve capitalism, it is not in our DNA.

Memes do evolve though. Historical materialism is like the darwinism of memes.

The fact that is actually life's nature, fucking Human supremacists who neglect an universal concept.

Take off that flag.

Kropotkin's theories are not nearly as well developed as Marx's. Darwinism is probably the most well-developed scientific theory period. Both Marxism and Darwinism are imperfect.

Is this one of those things where Leftists pretend that the "socialism" of a small hunter-gatherer band can be easily applied to societies with a population in the tens of millions?

Something something Inca Empire

not so! I protest hooman nature is dictated by principles such as dunbars number and kin selection and the like!

pls explain

seriously though the issue with human nature and utopianism is that our form is based upon an incongruity between the slow to adapt biological base and the rapidly mutating memetic peak.

Depends…can right wingers realize they live in a bubble called "city" and that one day they will all discover you can't eat money?

GATTUNGSWESEN
A
T
T
U
N
G
S
W
E
S
E
N

That some anons on here seem to mistake "communism can work with human nature" and "human nature doesn't exist". I'm more sick of anti-science hippie anfems who are angry testosterone exists than with clueless bourgs who have been brainwashed their entire lives against communism and simply parrot a stock phrase they've been taught.

Will Leftist sociology ever advance beyond what laudanum-addled 19th century fags thought about society?

I am not opposed to the notion that there are innate human drives, but a society and socialization can also do much to curve them. I refuse to sit on my lorels and accept that the world is shitty because people are shitty, people can shape the fuck up if we put pressure on them.

The fact that its true

Thats wealth redistribution out, those people weren't Christians.

This

Its because they believe in original sin and that material desires are sin. If man were left to his own devices he would naturally be a fat glutton that rapes, murders and stuffs his face because humans are selfish animals.

The "human nature" argument is a projection of how they view themselves within a Christian framework.

What they are really saying is that the only reason THEY don't sit on their ass all day is because THEY cannot imagine working without a stick and prod and therefor everyone else is just as awful as them.

Its similar to the dunning-kruger all-my-accomplishments-are-my-own all-other-peoples-accomplishments-are-luck.

Its basically the whole justification for slavery and exploitation of labor package in one. Poor people are poor because they lack virtue and need to be controlled.

every time

Hobbes was one of the first liberal political theorists and was the originator of the social contract. Out of all the liberal philosophers his ideas were the least spooked because he acknowledged the fact that republics were just monarchies with more monarchs and that in the end only the ability to coerce people mattered in liberal statecraft.

the fact that its right

democracy = tyranny of the majority

It's ironic how capitalists think that communism is against human nature because people are naturally power hungry, yet they, not only themselves advocate for heirarchy, think that every leftist is an authoritarian Stalinist

Dunbar's number if used to argue against the viability of socialism works just as well as an argument against the viability of the nation state or any other large-scale community.

Humans are not naturally selfish, otherwise we would have Communism, humans are very easily indoctrinated, manipulated and subjected that's why we've had class societies since pre-history.

Everyone else has the interest of keeping them from getting that power, and taking it away from them if they get it, that's how an egoist society would work, but again, human nature is to be sheeple.
Marxism doesn't "lead" to anything, it is a theory of history and economics. Revolution leads places and can occur in hundreds of different ways.

Also by saying that you prefer the peace and stability of your exploitation than a leap of faith into freedom you prove humans are not really that selfish but quite contempt.

The fact that it's an argumentative dead-end, fallacious (i.e., naturalistic fallacy & begging the question), is never backed up with evidence, and is so vague as to be meaningless. For every claim to "human nature," there will always be a plethora of alternative explanations or exceptions because, surprise, human beings are a little more complex than ignorant platitudes and assumptions could sufficiently capture.

But what REALLY makes my blood boil isn't anything mentioned above. What I hate more than anything is the smug self-satisfaction that these claims are always delivered with along with the complete lack of self-awareness. Of course it's unsurprising considering the level of arrogance and self-importance necessary to make such broad, senseless universal claims about something you don't know a thing about. It's one thing to be ignorant, but being proud about it is a whole new level of stupid.