Tfw no good retort for the "muh human nature argument"

Fuck. They always get us with this shit. Have you come up with any comebacks?

Other urls found in this thread:

Fucking read mutual aid

Because it's not a matter of having a retort, proper discussion isn't a battle of rhetoricians memorizing witticisms and snappy remarks. If you've no concept of how an appeal to a sort of higher empiricism through humor by an opponent could be intellectually disingenuous, I'd recommend reading
It's a short discussion of Hegel' theory on the development of religious consciousness as a superimposed base to societal life (no trinity, or much dialectical discussion involved) - it touches on the development of the ideological pretexts upon which religious orthodoxy was founded, and ends with the split in Hegelian ecclesiastical philosophy - which would later develop under the secular conditions of expanding capital and receding traditional social imperatives to become the ontology for modern capitalist "realist" arguments.
Unless you're Holla Forums - in which case pics related

I was gonna post it but then I realized I don't have the pdf. Anybody got it?

Human nature isn't an argument.


Ask them to define human nature.

It's a damned spook, son.
"Human nature" has changed and morphed time and time again across the aeons. Most of its history mankind has spent as hunter-gatherers, as family and village centered societies without private property or anything alike what we have today. Does "human nature" therefore justify that we should all embrace full-retard primitivism and abandon all the apparent technology and progress we seem to have created and gained since then?
Hogwash! The nature of man a fluid thing that is in large part born and shaped from societal and environmental conditions surrounding the individual, not some hard-coded and sacred entity we must abide by by any means necessary. Even if it was the latter, wouldn't it be exceptionally human and liberty-frenzied to rebel against it, to aim to shatter these invisible chains?

Human nature highly depends on who owns the modes of production. In a capitalist society, material condition prompt a few to hoard capital to stay in power. Thus a society that rewards greed will breed greedy people. In a society where the modes of production are owned by workers, we can see that through material conditions that "human nature" would be radically different depending on the economic system that is used.

That's a much more apt metaphor than you intended fgt.

you can contest the definition
if they go on the "hurr durr greed" line just ask why it is in the interest of the greedy worker to give so much of the fruit of his work away

My thing on Hegel is only seventeen pages and I wholly encapsulated it and what its relation was to the argument at hand. This, of course, means nothing as I assume you've no intention of being intellectually honest, at least per your asinine response.

Human nature (as if it has anything to do with humans) is precisely why systems with classes whose interests are fundamentally opposed invariably have people within those classes that fight for their own class interests.

in a sentence? Self interest is strong mutually beneficial relationships. That is my argument. Humans live in societies not as isolated individuals. We are social animals, the key difference between us and other animals is our super evolved ability to communicate, which allows us to combine in more effective ways. Human nature is, generally, to help people, particularly people you are close to, with no thought of reward beyond knowing that their strength is yours and when it comes to it they will have your back

Nobody important really likes having shit they worked for stolen from them so that niggers and single moms can live better than them. No amount of semantic sorcery will change this. The left can never admit mistakes, which is why you get owned whenever someone brings up human nature. Dealing with human nature would actually mean conceding that most of the shit the left defends is really fucking stupid. Sasuga leftypol.

Agreed, that's why we need to abolish capitalism and stop the extraction of surplus value

completely arbitrary. I bet you think Bill Gates is important
and? for the last time welfare isn't fucking communism. taxes aren't communism. it's a mode of production, not fucking social security
if you don't want niggers and single moms to live better than you then don't give shit to them.
how does this defy communism?
describe human nature. describe the left. describe communism. you can't do anything of these things.
such as what?

exacly, comrade
I'll see you at the barricades, together we'll topple the bourgeois!

Literally whatever a human does is human nature.
Humans try and create communism, hence communism is human nature.

That aside, the "human nature" argument, is just another form of the naturalistic fallacy. It could be used for almost anything.

That is why I'm a communist. But I guess its ok when porky does it as long as they're white and rich.


Now you are just abusing terms. The exception does not disprove the rule, which is why you people are ok with letting hordes of CONSERVATIVE muslims into white countries despite terrorism.

Its not a naturalistic fallacy, it is acknowledging the reality that most people won't be on board with what you propose. Therefore, in order to get people "on board", you must coerce them. Communism therefore is always authoritarian because it tries to suppress natural human behavior. Please expunge your moralism; this is a Marxist board, not a liberal board.

For example, who the fuck likes giving free shit to strangers who don't appreciate it? Most people do not. Especially if they are violent. Especially to niggers. So good luck convincing people we need to live with niggers as our equal.

like CEOs? you're damn right, welcome to the movement comrade


Why do you care so much about CEO's but always defend niggers leaching off of welfare?Why do we blame CEO's but always absolve the nigger?


because unlike Nazis I understand math

because "niggers" take an extremely small part of the pie. CEOs gorge themselves on our surplus value and nobody bats an eye. but some single mother getting food stamps OH NO YOUVE GONE TOO FAR!

Pitiful, Holla Forums. You are just as hysterical as the liberals and just as prejudiced as the fascists. You are all quite similar at the end of the day. You even produced a graph that doesn't even have any numbers or sources. Congrats!

Reading comprehension is not your strong point. Why do people say this board reads? It is clearly beyond its capacity to do so.

Because getting rid of the so-called "welfare leeches" doesn't fix the part where capitalism exists and creates the conditions for the existence of those "welfare leeches" in the first place (welfare as an appeasement mechanism/concession to defuse tension, etc.). You, on the other hand, seem fine with being fucked in the ass as long as the guy on top is white.

give me a fucking break


Actually a pretty good image.

page from Paul Cockshott's Towards a New Socialism

So prejudiced. For all you know, I could be an exception!

Human nature isn't whatever people think you retard. Human nature is a set of behaviors that transcends society. Human nature is what is similar between a human from Ancient Greece and a human from Modern Japan. If you actually paid attention to how people used the term, you might have picked up on that.

A basic outline of human nature would include ingroup preference, response to incentives and the pleasure principle.

The term is inherently abusive and misleading.
Thinking only "x think I like is human nature, but y isn't", is fallacious as it stands.
Even if that were the case, doing the popular thing doesn't make it "natural". One, if that were the case, you would have no reason to reject communism, as it has become very popular at certain points in history. Two, sometimes doing the unpopular deviating from the norm is also part of nature.
Bitch, I'm a Stirnerist. You're the one believing we must most follow some arbitrary script according to what is "natural". The difference between you and a hippy soccer mom who's afraid to vaccinate her kids because it goes against what is "natural" is 0.

I don't see how that contradicts communism.


We've only had capitalism for 300 or so years. It's not part of "human nature." Per Hobbes, Humans are naturally lazy and fearful. That's about it.

anthropologists, ( you know, people who actually study human nature unlike you ) have raised zero refutations for

Yes, I'm aware that people chose a set of arbitrary characteristics that they believe are human nature. Are you?

And just about every important economist agrees that communism would lead to disaster. Lots of historians as well.

Read your sentence again. You clearly imply that human nature (according to you)refers to popular collective ideas. Communism is human nature because it is popular! Lets cut aside this ridiculous point and return to the matter at hand.

Do you dispute that there are certain patterns of human behavior that are found in the majority of the population across history and geography?

Well, you can dispute whether certain characteristics belong under the label of human nature, but do you deny that the characteristics I listed are near universal to humans? Did the ancient Greeks display no ingroup preference, or adherence to the pleasure principle?

name one.

Milton Friedman, Steve Keen

ah, so your definition of "economist" is anybody who reads basic economics and think neoliberal economics won't physically destroy any country it sets foot in.

and what does Steve Keen have to say about communism?



No, my definition is someone who is recognized by academia as a high authority on economics. Since you originally started out with an argument from authority

surely you ought not to object to me bringing up authority figures of my own. To say Friedman is influential is a gross understatement.

Milton Friedman isn't "authority", he's a fucking character and corporate-funded hack who's unwilling to accept the fact that neoclassical principles have zero scientific foundation.
what you're doing is the equivalent of calling Bill Nye an argument from authority.


Which is it bud.

Ingroup preferences are flexible, that is why its called ingroup preferences, not something more concrete. We must firmly establish that some basic human nature exists before we can proceed (otherwise leftypol will claim it never believed in it in the first place)

And are you saying that 80% isn't strongly shared? Pretty strange definition of strong. Not that you have any stats to back that up. Meanwhile, history is littered with tribal conflict. It is why we have organized ourselves along familial and ethnic lines ever since the dawn of man, and why we continue to do so today.

Of course, if you are upset from arguing we could always delay this till tomorrow.

Not an argument.


If a nobel prize is not authority, then academia is not an authority. You therefore cannot use anthropologists as an argument. Checkmate.

Also, Keynes, despite him being leftish, did not believe in communism in any way, shape or form. There is no influential economist who believes in communism. I am not sure why this is such a point of contention in the first place.


The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is not a Nobel Prize, it has no affiliation to the Nobel Prize committees at all.

Fucking Obama won the Nobel Peace prize while being the president of a country bombing 7 countries.

there is no influential person who believes in communism. you need wealth (that you dearly wish to protect) in order to have influence.
again, Friedman is a television personality which directly led to his popularity. now, let's think about who owns television?

this is what I mean by dishonest arguing; what I am doing is accepting your premise dialectially for the sake of an argument, not taking it as a foundation itself
so the ingroup is arbitrary, and we completely agree that nationalism and racialism is malleable according to need, irrational and pointless
I'll see you at the barricades tomorrow, comrade
I'm saying that you need a new word for it if 80% is enough. Human nature historically and philosophically carries the connotation of something shared between all humans, the totality of human experience. "80% prefer blondes" isn't species-essence.
History is also littered with class conflict, and we continue to do so today. Your arguments are terrible.

Minor detail. But still.

This has nothing to do with the original definition of authority you used, which was obviously academic. Stop moving the goalposts, it makes you look pathetic.

"Middle Class" Americans already pay little to no tax, and the taxes that they pay go to paying old (mostly white) boomer's healthcare, pensions, as well as the military, not muh welfare qweens. This doesn't mean you have to be a Communist now but you as a random user have nothing to gain by promoting Republican policy and talking points.
If you want to whine about niggers talk about crime or Autism Level or KFC or something that matters in the real world.

Good god, you can't possibly be this unironically moronic.

Wrong. The existence of ingroup preferences is not up for question. Racism may or may not be malleable, but it is unquestionably less malleable than class. Which is why, despite over a century of agitation, it is still easier to be a racist than a classist.

Furthermore,tribal conflict is not exclusionary to class conflict, and whether it is or isn't has nothing to do with the existence of human nature. The only one making terrible arguments here is you, since you have to invent positions I never took in order to appear to win.

Not an argument.

You realize that Marx is considered one of the most influential economists of all time, even by non-Marxian economists right?

I greentexted and said "lel"
when did I say that, just because I quoted you doesn't mean I negated you. Take your meds
Only by means of advancement of a civilization, citizens in developed countries wouldn't have the behaviors of say the Sentinelese, due to them not needing to use materials in that manner. Using the argument of human nature, in comparison to civilized societies, is pointless, due to the sheer amount of time humanity has been under hunter-gatherer modes of living, in comparison to the more recent systems of living, like capitalism

There's nothing to rebut. The Nobel Memorial Prize being equal to academic consensus is a condition you pulled out of your ass.

Actually race is FAR more malleable than class since it is a made up concept that changes drastically from place to place and across time. An Ancient Greek would have killed a neo-Nazi for suggesting that Northern European barbarians are the same race as Greeks. But a slave in Ancient Greece is still a slave, just like a slave in the Arab Caliphate, a slave in the Aztec Empire, a slave in the American South, or a slave in the Mongol Empire. They are all unquestionably slaves and unquestionably the same class.

Class is an objective reality, race is not, at least in terms of definite categories.

Marx is not relevant since he is not an academic. I was responding to his use of academic authority to shut me down (a fallacy in its own right).

Wrong. The primitives and civilized still follow basic behavioral patterns such as ingroup preference and the pleasure principle. None of what you said disputes this. You should try harder next time. Maybe take two hours instead of one to come up with a response.

Seriously guys, you people are spending more time trying to argue against something so self evident instead of figuring out a way to work around it. Maybe if you put a fraction of this energy into something theoretically productive, you could get somewhere.

Bill gates, like lasaalle, is a Jewish nigger

He was literally an Oxford professor, and today there are countless Marxists in academia.

You know you can just admit you are wrong.

Class is also a made up concept that changes accordingly. That is a consequence of changing the mode of production. And if class were truly more politically visible than race , then we should have seen more class struggles than race struggles. OF course, I make no moral judgments about one over the other. But since we have already firmly established that human nature exists, you cannot neglect one over the other. You cannot dismiss race as "made up bullshit" that is "irrelevant" because ingroup preference is a thing shared by most people.

Literature professors do not count as economists.

Also, quads confirm that Marxists have infiltrated academia aka cultural Marxism is a thing.

Obvious false flag.

Jewish nigger begone, behead thyself
Where my /nazbolniggas/ at back me up niggas

Class is literally not malleable; it is not a question of identity. Concepts of race or nationality are formed arbitrarily and more or less consciously by different authorities.
what the fuck does this even mean? what do you think 'classist' means? what do you think socialism means for the record?
If tribal conflict across ages is proof of its necessity by 'human nature', then so is that of class conflict by 'human nature' - your 'volksgemeinshaft' is literally against your human nature
I reiterate: if it doesn't apply to humanity as a whole, it isn't human nature - this is by definition. 80% or whatever doesn't meet the requirements.
Ignore arguments you can't answer, consistently argue in bad faith - yeah.

this whole post proves the level of dishonest arguing we are dealing with here, I'm not sure if I'll find it amusing enough to even answer beyond this point

One, the pleasure principle only part of the id. We rebel against it all the time. Two, deviating from in group behavior is also a trend in humans. Your myopic focus on a handful of characteristics, putting them on a pedestal, and making them rules to live by "because dude, nature" is as farcical as it is fallacious.

If it was a false flag, why did you guys admit human nature is real?

You ignored my point about how it's useless to use human nature as a concept in a modern comparison. Also, it isn't even sensible to compare in-group favoritism to modern times as well, considering it isn't specifically realized in theory, as is the evolutionary models for it's existence. To base in-group favoritism as a whole of human nature is shortsighted, due to no extensive study showing it as a constant without change. It is more reasonable to suggest that the pattern changes by the conditions one would live in.

Not an argument.

Also, class conflict is not exclusive of tribal conflict. Indeed, class identity is a form of ingroup preference: the workers prefer other workers who are like them to the bourgeoisie. Please keep talking, you keep making my case for me.

So you admit the pleasure principle is innate in humans. We fight it, but also follow it all the time. Again, proving my point.

We haven't even gotten to this part m8. But I would like to live in your fantasy world where you can just neglect the behaviors of the population for your utopian vision. Must be nice.


Nice strawman. Don't waste my time with this again.


Can OP be any more of a brainlet?

goes against your point, actually.
Since your hyperfocus on these aspects of human behavior only shows how myopic your understanding is.

Because people neglect the popular behaviors within their in-group all the time in favor of other behaviors. Deviant behavior is "human nature".

goes against your point, actually.
Since you hyperfocus on these aspects of human behavior only shows how myopic your understanding is.

Because people neglect the popular behaviors within their in-group all the time in favor of other behaviors. Deviant behavior is "human nature".>>2112261

goes against your point, actually.
Since you hyperfocus on these aspects of human behavior only shows how myopic your understanding is. We don't "follow" the id, as much as we follow the shit we take after eating. We don't form an ideology around shitting.

Because people neglect the popular behaviors within their in-group all the time in favor of other behaviors. Deviant behavior is "human nature".

it isn't because it isn't based on subjective evaluation but a position in an abstract, static construction of society - the meta-level of a person's relation to the means of production is constant
This isn't relevant to marxism or class politics; they are done on basis of shared interest, not identity
stop dodging challenges you have no answers to


Wrong. Class changes all the time. That is the whole point of historical materialism. Also, you don't get to cast something as subjective just because you don't like it.

Racial identity forms around shared interest.Your distinction ignores the reason any identity forms in the first place. The only one dodging challenges here is you.

Actually, I gave several examples. If you wish to add to the list, feel free.

Stop being contradictory. If we fight the id, then it exerts some influence on our behavior, which means we are following it some of the time. And unlike shitting, we absolutely do form ideologies around that we hate and love. It is amazing how you compare a banal bodily function to an integral part of our psyche. This post exists to disprove the notion that leftists are intelligent.

If most people did not follow the popular behavior, it wouldn't be popular. Any political program that neglects popular behavior is utopian. The left's denial of human nature is utopianism at its finest and it is why it never wins.The exception does not disprove the rule.

Keynes didnt support capitalism orfacism either. He supported social democracy.

The position of a person in relation to the means of production does not change, however. An entity sustaining their existence by working for a wage in generalised commodity production is forever and eternally a proletarian regardless of literally any other factors.
Well, dear dishonestnazi-user, fortunately I never do establish identities as subjective because 'I don't like it'. Since as always on 8ch this discussion is about race, lets take the example of American vs European concept of race, or even more concretely the impossible purity spirals even a Yank-dominated racialist board like Holla Forums can't overcome.
You are claiming that identity forms because of interest? Substantiate. It is not in the interest of a worker to die in imperialist wars in the name of 'King', 'Nation', or 'Race'.
saying it doesn't make it true, dishonestnazianon

Shitting influences our behavior. I don't "follow" shitting. Your argument comes down to shitting outdoors vs shitting indoors.

There's nothing banal about how excete, considering it's complex process. That aside, a function of the psyche also a constant.

wow, such intellect

Except deviancy from popular behavior is how any change has happened through out history.

Thinking you can stay in one failing mode of production for all time and not be forced into a position to change is way more utopian.

Human nature doesn't need to be a universal essence though, just inborn enough that "organic" society should be at very least a weighted dialectical configuration around the standard distribution.

You could say the nature of life is reproduction, does that make the infertile and homosexual etc dead?

What if it were to hold for 99.999% of all people? Where's the threshold?

humans lived within communism for about 95% of human history

Already wrong.

Wrong. No definition is ever set in stone. Just look at the various definitions of communism. Everyone practically has their own, making communism as subjective as race. Your definitions are not safe from the subjectivity of language just because it makes you feel good.

Actually, if other races, kings or nations are bombing your house it is in "the workers" interest to fight for King and Country, because those things will give him the greatest chance to get revenge. It is why in times of crises/invasion (such as 9/11) patriotism flares up and consumes the nation. It is not a moral question, but an empirically observable phenomena that has happened time and time again.

Its your loss if you ignore this you know. Its a very simple explanation for why the left always loses, but I suppose you really don't want to win, do you?

Actually, you do in some ways. You either shit or you die. People prefer to shit because they like living (human nature); the ones who don't remove themselves from political consideration for us.

Only when deviancy became popular, and only if said deviancy follows basic human nature. There are psychopaths who believe that everything should be ran from the government. This is clearly a deviation, and it will never get popular because people love their autonomy.

Likewise, people really love living, so any deviant movement that centers around mass suicide will never become popular. Again, because of human nature.

How do you expect to be taken seriously if you compare the will to life with shitting? Why are you such sore losers that you have to resort to this?

This guy gets it. Who cares about the outliers if they are not politically relevant? You can't speak categorically about anything if you allow the 1% to disprove the 99%.

sure is getting retarded in here rn fam

we kill humans duhhh

what are classless, stateless societies…

then it isn't really human nature as the phrase was historically and philosophically used
you'll have to put this in plain english for non-native brainlets like me
as in that which is more common should be considered more 'human nature' for the purposes of society forming? averages define standards and basic foundations?
I would say the idea of reproduction being reducible to simple biological reproduction is wildly reductive.

it appears you have forgotten to actually flesh out any kind of argument here
Well user, for the purposes of the argument I define the proletariat as Marx did.
Fuck off back to your PoMo board, Holla Forums. Go bother your fellow identitarians on tumblr or some shit if you want to engage in Derridean wankery.
and this revenge is in the worker's interest in what way? Osama being dead does not help the laid off industrial worker in any way.
This is called false consciousness. It is nurtured by capital interests to protect its status. If you weren't a brainlet too busy to unleash their hot takes on the world instead of actually educating yourself you would know this. If you want to argue marxists at least understand the basics of marxist theory.
Indeed, the deliberate nurturing of national and ethnic feeling for political purposes is an empirically observable process. The interest of the ruling class is conflated with the interest of the subservient class, thus making them more willing to work against their interests. In reality co-operation among the proletariat across ethnic and cultural divides would avoid them getting killed in useless capitalist wars and would bring them freedom and fulfilment.

shit or explode is not an ideology, though. It's something that happens regardless of what you think of it.

Except humans also don't like living and kill themselves, or are you still coming at this one sided approach of what is human and nature?

Make up your mind. Is human nature what's popular or something innate?
If it's what is popular, then deviant behavior wouldn't be following it to begin with, even if it suddenly does become popular.
If it's innate, then like I've said, then the human tendency to deviate is also "human nature", and my argument stands.
If it's both, then you still you still have to contend with the fact that what is unpopular or what isn't innate consistently springs forth throughout human history. Humans don't innately know math, science, and how to drive a car out of the womb. They aren't popular at one time, either. Yet, these things become so prevalent throughout human societies, that even if you say human nature is "what is popular", then you also have to admit that at one time these behaviors weren't "human nature".

Autonomy from what, though?
Only people with fixed ideas about autonomy are for autonomy from everyone and everything. There are people who can make themselves a complete island onto themselves, but that's not everyone. We also don't have autonomy from the whims of the capitalist, but that doesn't seem to bother you at all.

Depends on the situation. There is such a thing as suicide pacts. We've also never reached a situation where the whole of humanity has faced a difficulty that causes them to kill themselves en masse.

instead of agitating for a political idea of any variety, consider that the greatest gift you, personally, could ever hope to give humanity is removing yourself from it.

you're considering human nature as a universal trait of isolated individuals, rather than a distribution of traits that will always gravitate towards societal structures (where too much deviation would cause extinction of that way of living), which then impress onto individuals general patterns of belief and behavior. indisputably, there are near universal traits as well, the existence of rare focal lesions in the brain that affect thought significantly (the explanation I believe for most of Holla Forums's users) are irrelevant to any reasonable discussion of the good or even possible societies.

Don't be so triggered user. Just calm down and accept reality.

Fuck off back to your PoMo board, Holla Forums. Go bother your fellow identitarians on tumblr or some shit if you want to engage in Derridean wankery.

You are not applying the same standard to race and nation. If we just used one random guy's definition of race, we would have an equal level of objectivity as class. But that muh privilege is only afforded to your favored side, making your entire post nothing more than a hypocritical spiel. Please do me a favor and have some standards, because responding to this is really quite below me.

Well, it makes him happier and removes a threat to his security. Of course, you probably don't value those things because you have too much of them, but who knows, right?
Not an argument, since you never refuted my point but asserted your own definition. Try again.

The ruling class chooses nationalism because it builds upon human nature, making it more efficient than methods not based on human nature. You fail to see that dimension in your analysis.

shit or explode is not an ideology, though. It's something that happens regardless of what you think of it.

So you are saying you don't control when you shit? Do you just let go in the middle of a street or something? No wonder you try to deny human nature, since we will naturally view you as fucking disgusting.

If it's what is popular, then deviant behavior wouldn't be following it to begin with, even if it suddenly does become popular.
If it's innate, then like I've said, then the human tendency to deviate is also "human nature", and my argument stands.

I was merely arguing along your lines. I already made this clear in my previous posts. Popularity is an expression of human nature, it is not identical to it.

Only people with fixed ideas about autonomy are for autonomy from everyone and everything. There are people who can make themselves a complete island onto themselves, but that's not everyone. We also don't have autonomy from the whims of the capitalist, but that doesn't seem to bother you at all.

You are thinking too much into this m8. Would you like the government giving you a designated shitting time? Most people won't because most people like having freedom.

And based on what we know of human nature, we can safely predict that we never will face such a situation.

I said it happens regardless of what you think of it. Read it again, and maybe it will make sense this time.
The same goes for the id. However you interpret the id and what you do with it, it still happens. That's the principle, at least.

Then doing what is unpopular would be an expression of human nature, if we are following my "line" of reasoning.

Thinking too much about something is not an argument. I suggest you do more thinking, actually.

[citation needed]
Considering we've seen instances like Jonestown, I'd say that it's not a stretch that a combination of mass delusions, and say it's not outside the realm of possibility. Also, humans like living when places are habitable and the environments isn't harsh. If you throw off that equilibrium, anything could happen. Considering humans do consistently kill themselves and that's a problem that never resolves itself, you could say it's human nature to commit suicide as well.

"freedom from what and for whom", is the key question here.

Again, you miss the point. I am not "free" from capitalism, but that's completely fine for you. These are just more fixed ideas. It's like you can't stop yourself.

delusions implying against the natural organization of the mind.
it's human nature to entertain the possibility and follow through with it in a subset of the population. absolutely not in generality.

your whole argument is completely nonsensical, not least of which because you consider the existence of a Freudian psychodynamic/topographic structure as inborn a foregone conclusion.

That's beautifully simplistic and historically naive. Self interest is served in a wide variety of ways, it's often very complex in a world of competing self interests, and requires some cooperation, some cruelty, some backstabbing, some exploitation of others, some voluntary submission to others, a mixture of honesty and dishonesty, tribalism when it's convenient and anti-tribalism when it's not - all to serve one's own perceived self-interest, which further complicates the issue as differing minds will have different perceptions as to what is the best interest of the self and those around them. I find it amazing when some are so well versed in theory and then come up with a concept of "self-interest" that sounds like it came out of the mouth of an innocent child. Naivete on this subject doesn't serve the advancement of leftism at all.

Using a similar phrase as my communist friends usually use, that was not TRUE self-interest.

spooked people cannot really act in their own self-interest

I can't read your mind about what you might mean by 'human nature' user, so I use the notion of human nature as generally used in philosophy
so finally after throwing around random statements you have given your definition of 'human nature'
now give us these traits in concrete form and then say why and how these traits are in contradiction with socialism in general
also before you go even that far define the socialism your 'human nature' contradicts
no u

I have many reasons to be triggered, dishonestnazi-user. Here I am again, on my precious free time, stuck in an eristic with some ignorant Holla Forumsyp instead of actually reading books or doing some other productive work. That's the reality I accept.
Class is defined in the Marxist sense strictly by relation to the means of production. It is a pure abstraction in the same sense as mathematics is. This is why it has an universality incomparable to concepts of 'race' or 'nation'. You can remove this concept from the subjectivity of Marx as a thinker and it is still equally and exactly the same concept applicable in all the same contexts and in every conception of any economic system.
honestly even calling you a pseud is charitable
Shooting heroin makes him happier, user. It does not improve his material reality. As for security, the aforementioned opiates are far more dangerous in the real world for our worker than any scary scary terrorist. Instead of fighting the society and system that drives him to the real dangers of alienation and deprivation he cheers when 'his' abstract enemy, 'the Osama' is killed. False consciousness.
What point was there to refute, dishonestnazianon? I simply explained what marxists think of these constructed identitites and struggles based on them. I refuted that it is in the interest of the 'worker' to have his 'nation' exact revenge on some 'enemy'.
Or is it perhaps you who fails to see the contingency and arbitrariness of such concepts like 'nation' and then decides it is the immutable nature of humanity? Perhaps it is you who doesn't see where in history imagined communities are built up for the purposes of class rule? Read Benedict Anderson, if you are a honest nationalist who wants to understand their own ideology and its internal logic.

Delusions do spring about naturally, though.
If it weren't the case, psychologist would be out of a job. Disorganized thought patterns are common place. The natural organization of the mind produces them on occasion. We can see this in children who produce imaginary friends, pareidolia, etc.

Generally people do kill themselves, though. Regardless of whether it's a popular or not. Or are you really going to go back to saying "what isn't popular isn't human nature", again?

You've failed to demonstrate how.

You're the one who brought up the pleasure principle, not me. One is inextricably tied to the other.

actually, you're just an idiot lol

Also, this is false.
Plenty of people across demographics kill themselves. Also, oddly enough, rich people like to as well, despite having almost everything provided to them materially.

Also, inborn programming that affects your behavior is what I was trying to get at for ages. Top tier minds at work here.

Poor you. Would you like a cookie?

Nobody bases their political consciousness off of pure abstractions. They deal with reality, which is structured by groups, identity, and interest, not by mathematical abstractions. No wonder Marxism failed in the 20th century.

Doesn't matter. Its still what he perceives as his interest, which is really what matters for determining his behavior.

You are a laugh user. You tirelessly repeat that nationalism and racism are mere fictions while class is the real reality, yet here we are with nations and racism, while the best the class struggle can do is Bernie Sanders. Ingroup preference based on nation or race is simply stronger than class. You have no evidence for the opposite.

So are you saying that should America decide to genocide Mexico, then it would not be in the interest of the Mexican worker to fight America? Pretty chauvinist I say. Perhaps you are the real Nazi, since you seem hell bent on denying agency to the third world.

Human nature is not definite. It is subject to changes both natural and out of social pressures.

i wasn't arguing for the case that human nature contradicts socialism, although it does under any definition where socialism is taken to be identical with or the precursor to the marxian communist idea (which is what most of you mean, often cryptically as possible to avoid talking about it directly, unless you're a berniebro going on babby's first dictionary definition), just that the common leftist rhetorical denial of human nature altogether reeks of simplicity and lack of nuance and comes across altogether unconvincing and perhaps symptomatic of an anti-realistic idealism in the extreme. like below:

worthless and empty statement. why even bother to dribble this out? if doing so makes a mockery of your general claim to being sociologically and historiographically literate to an advanced degree? it's no more illuminating than the liberal who offers "human nature" without further detail as a rebuttal in the first place. perhaps they have learned like the pavlovian dog they are, that they need go little further than that because you mostly seem content to run yourselves in circles of incoherence when confronted with it.

If sociology or social engineering did not work, we would have given up on those sciences long time ago. Like you stated yourself, humans are subject to social conditioning.

here's a feature common to humanity: language. also sexuality. asexual mutes do not refute this. historical materialism entirely 100% depends on human nature: production and reproduction of means of subsistence and self-propagation in relation to our natural (and artificial - the fact it seeks to explain) habitats. saying some elements of our experience and behavior are mutable is the same as saying nothing at all, and certainly does not imply that therefore any positive construct meant by "socialism" works as intended, let alone "social democracy".

Both the sexuality and language are overwhelmingly influenced by your social environment instead of your sexuality. It is fair to say that modern social behavior is almost exclusively directed by our social conditioning and not by our evolutionary psychology.

futher "social democracy" within it already seems to concede aspects of capitalistic human nature as at the least now, if not eternally, irrevocable. perhaps human nature is dynamic and dialectical, but that doesn't mean it can't reach equilibria that have become generalized more or less irreversibly (marx's theory depends on this.)

language itself and sexuality itself as basic forms of human existence you goober. not their specific modes of appearance (which you provide no details on of course.)
no it isn't, unless you consider rehashing the dogma of a subset of an inherently bourgeois institution valid in your arguments against bourgeois society. it's again self refuting because then your ideas on all of this are merely socially conditioned or arbitrary fluctuations deviating from social conditioning themselves.

How is this different than humans shitting though?

well i'll concede your post here resembles shitting far more closely than it does language.

Process of learning languages does not come naturally to humans as we can see in example of wolf-children or children who have been abandoned to nature without human social interactions. This only proves that human interaction with society is required for these processes(language) to form and its completely dependent on human social conditions.

Our society does not have political conditioning nor is it absolute in the slightest, there is no standard of political thought nor even political conditioning in western society.

On the surface, it may seem like I'm being obtuse here, but so far you've only said humans do "x" , but you haven't given any reason why they must do "y". Despite history attesting to the fact they very well can do "y" if they choose to. You're trying to derive an ought from an is.
I mean, shitting is "basic" part of human existence, but we don't say human nature is too shit and put it on a pedestal.


Also, children do not speak "naturally".
They have acuity for it, but past a certain age, it becomes incredibly difficult.

wolf children could be damaged for a variety of reasons user. requiring society for language does not mean language itself is a mere social construct. the level of circularity required to think this is telling of your general disorder.

no i'm not. you on the other hand appear to be attempting to derive an ought from thin air.
further no one is seriously trying to design a society around the abolition of shitting. i'm not communicating to you through shit, nor do i think in shit, which apparently is a possibility worth examing for you. if you can't see the categorical difference between these i question what part of you is human enough to be qualified to make statements of any nature on it. and yes, attending to basic biological functions is human nature but not a particularly interesting aspect of it, shit-for-brains.

Neither are we, which is why the capitalism is human nature argument makes no sense.

i called you user but then i recalled you're a namefag. please pretend i didn't reply to you seriously.

Sorry to tell you this but language if anything is social construct,since it fulfills the need for commutation between groups and individuals and is most definitely effected almost solely by society. Just look at the newest words that are adapted by languages and you can see correlation between society and language.

i could say the same for your argument. get it together. we're fighting capitalism it's not a game.

language is algebra?
hm. for someone who is this ineffective at parsing and communicating logical ideas in language it might behoove you to refrain from attempts to comment on it general.

What was even point of this response filled with non-arguments?

i'm mocking you, namefag. your post read like a madlib. i was implying you ought to clarify your drivel, but that would imply also you had a coherent enough thought behind it to be able to clarify. alas

You haven't provided a reason why it is, though.
Just humans, "do things, therefore capitalism".

no i haven't said this at all, critiquing poor leftist arguments is not the sole province of dogmatic capitalists.

you are saying there's no reason to put language or sexuality "on a pedestal" above defecating. i'm really giving you far more than you're worth.

Google Bookchin tbh

If they're obnoxious about it I congratulate them on solving the mystery of human nature and ask them when they'll be picking up their nobel prize.
Otherwise I believe that obviously greed and domination is a part of human nature, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Likewise is cooperation, free creation and mutual aid. The real question is what elements of human behaviour should our society promote and try to build around, and which should we shun?

What I said was that just because things exist in the natural world, that it doesn't necessarily follow that we must bend the knee to them, as if they have must dictate every aspect of our lives. Shitting is just one of those thing. It works just the same for speaking, as well. Speech exists, but I don't speak for the sake of speech. Just like I don't do other things for the sake of nature. It either exists or it doesn't. The fact I manipulate nature to my whims is, itself, a part of nature. Go ahead and play devil's advocate, but you're the last person to call out poor arguments, when the whole thing started with you rambling about human nature and single moms.

meant for

What is preventing you from becoming your own business and selling your labor at a price you determine?

entry costs
capital ain't cheap, and all your competitors got a head start. That's not a level playing field to compete on.

That is the point of categorical speaking though. You're making statements that are true (or false) for the entire category.

market saturation
brand effect, that's why franchising so popular
also if you're a small fish you can't be a price maker, you're only ever be a price taker
plus entry barriers, you need a good credit history

that wasn't me. for starters, all animals shit, we're not talking about animal nature. secondly, compared to speech, what would shitting just "for the sake of" shitting entail? what does "bending the knee" or "dictation" of ideas even mean in this context? are you an idealist? basically it's not surprising that all human activity for you is more or less comparable to squeezing out unpleasant wastes, it appears to be the sum of your ability. "naturalistic fallacy" isn't really a fallacy, it's just an argument many have accepted, but the gist of it is you can't derive morality from unqualified appeals to "naturalness", whereas stirner was arguably an amoralist altogether.

every study on social behaviour and class
"human nature" is adapting to your situation and conditioning by your social circle
rich people are antisocial and it's only logical since their wealth makes them feel independent of others while it also feeds their ego
on the other hand workers depend very much on each other
of course these are just general tendencies and there is more contradictions at play here but as a general rule the pricture is very clear


I can see it…

max hmmm gif.gif

All human nature is animal nature, though. Not that it matters, since the analogy works the same for behaviors specific to humans.

compulsory shitting because of social fixations about shitting, a complex ideology built around shitting, the cultural enshrinement of shitting, etc.

Allowing your autonomy to be subverted by fixations.

I lean pretty materialist, actually. I still find Stirner useful, though.

Everybody poops. There's no shame in it. It's human nature. Why are you so upset about it? Are you anally retentive?

True, but I don't see what this has to do with you resorting to the naturalistic fallacy.

joke, fam. Lighten up.

nice link, thanks

Tell them to back it up since they're the ones making that claim. Where the fuck are all the academic papers that support whatever dumb shit that guy is trying to say? If they can't, dismiss their claim outright. Hitchens' razor (yeah I know he was a fag, whatever).

99% of the time, muh human nature is a fallacy used specifically to try to justify the most inhumane and unnatural acts.

How much do you think it costs to start your own business? It isn't much. Many people work as 1099 contractors, effectively their own businesses. Sometimes they are taken advantage of, other times they have skills in demand and they can set their own price competitive price based on the current market value. I have worked for myself since mid 2011, it's not that hard, you just have to be diligent and pay attention to what is going on in your sphere of competency. If you need more skills, go learn them. You have the internet, the information is readily available.

It sounds more like you have a bad product, yourself. I started, ran, and sold my first business in my early 20s and to this day I still work for myself. The guy who maintains my lawn runs his own business. He and his son are competent and industrious enough to figure it out; I'm wondering why others can't and blame external forces. You can cut grass and trim hedges, right?


Human nature is not wanting to work eight to twelve hours a day for someone else's benefit. It is capital that demands the destruction of human nature more so than communism, which will in fact create a space for human flourishing liberated from much of the presently demanded toil.