Questions for "Real" Socialists

Recently whenever I ask you folks a question related to human nature, you most of you guys would deny or down play the violent and chaotic parts of human nature.

So my question to you guys is this, which of these two books in your opinion, most closely represents reality, Lord Of The Flies or The Coral Island? And why?

define what you mean by human nature you gay faggot

Shit taste, pleb. Read this.

Why the hostility?

Neither. Island by Aldous Huxley

Oops wrong screen shot.

So they equally misrepresent reality?

No, I want you to define it, in your own words.

That is the book I would pick.

the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans.

So is that a yes?

later, ultranigger

The problem with human nature arguments isn't that there is no human nature; it's that humans exist in a social context and you can't just make assumptions about what people do because of context and what they do because it's their nature. A lot of people assume that if they see humans doing something, that is human nature.

nigga please

So both those works of fiction equally misrepresent reality?

Whenever you look at something in a vacuum you get a one sided analysis. When try to analyze money in a vacuum you atribute social power to green peices of paper not the society that gives them power. Likewise when you look at a human in a vacuum outside of any social context he appears to be naturally greedy or naturally cruel when really its society that shapes humans to be the way they are.

The fallacy of many a Holla Forumstard is that the shit traits of humanity are completely unavoidable and therefore to be tolerated.

Why does your flag keep changing? Did you just become a gay nigger? Are you looking for a fashy daddy now?

Island represents my idea of realistic utopia. Too bad he was anti-communist to save face. Surprised to hear this from a trot.


user I know you're a retard but you have to realize those are not just works of fiction but the only reason they're somewhat believable at all is because they take people completely outside of any social context. We don't know what human nature is like, unless you wanna run an experiment like that.
You should stop looking at fiction and instead look at how things actually work.

Clearly capitalism is a force of nature that we evolved like our vision, facial muscles and lip-plates The Flintstones is non-fiction.


This. Most leftists don't deny the existence of human nature, just that the way it's described by rightists is extremely limited and shortsighted. They essentially take the characteristics of modern society and simply say that this is human nature, when people's behaviours and attitudes were drastically different even just a few hundred years ago.

Reminder that there was a time when "it's the nature of black people to be slaves" was an argument that people seriously advanced in public discourse.

Human nature is so complex and contradictory you can practically use it for any argument, while people who point to it often commit a naturalistic fallacy with it (this system/idea is good because it follows human nature), or they try to use it to support contemporary ideas or system like it's a fact of nature (Capitalism exists and will always exist because it's human nature to be greedy and selfish, it's impossible to destroy it). It's just an extremely lazy and arbitrary argument to make.

Also this.

Neither do, they both equally reflect the culture of the authors more than any sort of reality. Learn history if you want to understand human nature.

Why don't deny any of that, what we reject is the blanket unelaborated declarations of human nature as an argument.

I see your fiction books and raise you Engel's Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State and Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution

Basically this as a psychology student I can confirm this is definitely true because while there does seem to be biological aspects of our behavior, human itself is actually a very complex system of factors that are not completely understood. So, it's foolish for any political ideology to make any appeals to human nature as there is still much to be found.


and all of this
now read a book and come back in a month

I agree, that and you take one person and put them into a situation, record their reaction, then take another and their reaction can be completely different.
The idea that we are biological robots that are hardcore programmed to react a certain way is ludicrous. There are statistically significant behaivors but almost always outliers, and even then nothing is written in stone either. And furthermore behaivor is highly influenced by context, set and setting, so there is virtually no way to predict with total certainty exactly how one will respond in any given situation.
OP human nature is such a vague term that it has virtually no real significance.

Well we are meat robots but as far as innate programming goes, everyone has different DNA so you can't define something as innately human because anybody could mutate and lose that trait. The problem with thinking of people as robots isn't that it's technically wrong; the problem is that we carry a bunch of associations with the metaphor, e.g. the association of robots with mass-production of identical objects. Humans are very much not that, even though we are ultimately very complex computers running on biological hardware.


I'm glad they revoked this.

"Human nature" is neither chaotic nor orderly, nor is it violent or peaceful.

"Human nature" is one of adaptation. It is precisely what it needs to be given the social circumstances and material conditions a human is born into. This is part of the reason why we need to overthrow capitalism in its entirety instead of forming our own little communes. People will ultimately adapt to the realities of the greater capitalist system rather that adhering to the ideals of the commune.

Reality is closest to reality. Fiction books are fiction. They can say interesting things and bring up interesting points, but ultimately they shouldn't play a role in your conception of really existing social and material conditions. This is the mistake so many reactionary ideologies make.

Human nature is malleable.

No, poltards believe we should purge those traits out of our society.

No, I like having a flag that can offend just about everyone.

So fiction can never tell us how some aspects of reality work?

Why are you trying to use works of fiction to represent reality anyways? Just read actual history instead of generalizing the context of the social situations using Lord of the Flies as your backbone (a great representation of the malleable nature of humans to their conditions). Are you using it for an analougue to a vastly different context of material conditions that is modern society; in that we are secretly greedy and self interested at heart? Read Kropotkin for a denial of that idea, or Stirner for an acceptance and development of our "selfishness."

I'd say yes.
And is good too.