Hooman Nature

I agree that justifying the continuing existence of capitalism with "human nature" is a dumb argument. But doesn't denying the very existence of human nature going too far? Doesn't this premise incentivize would-be social engineers to try and "reshape" humanity to their liking?

I mean, there are certain things that are undoubtedly part of our experience as human beings regardless of historical context. There are of course purely physiological needs like food, water, clean air, shelter, healthcare and so forth. But then we also crave social interactions — solitary confinement is known to basically fuck up your brain. And we also seek meaning, self-accomplishment and validation — lest we kill ourselves or become school shooters.

What do you think?

I love Planet of the Apes.

But I don't deny the existence of human nature user. I dismiss the handwavy "human nature" of people who think capitalism is eternal because of our innate biology, and "communism can't work because human nature is selfish" as if that is an actual argument. Of course there is a human nature. Humans are by nature eucariots, vertebrates, mammals, primates. Humans are by nature social creature. Non-social humans represent a pathological state of some kind. Humans by nature require food, oxygen and water etc etc.

Communism does not deny it at all. In fact, it relies on a notion that human nature exists, because if it did not, you wouldn't be able to make a claim that communism is natural and final stage of development of society.

Communism is neither "natural" nor the "final stage" of anything.

Saying [Insert any ideology] is "human nature" is nothing but pure ideology.

Of course there is a human nature, as material beings humans have a "nature" just like any other organism that exists in nature; what are those "animal spirits" Marx mentions so often in Capital if not another phrase for human nature?

We shall see about that. Seeing that literally billions of people find it appealing, it clearly has some connection with the human nature on some level at least - and has very good chances to actually become the final stage of everything.

So do capitalism or nationalism, that doesn't make them "natural" in the least

No, it doesn't. What makes you believe history will suddenly stop unfolding once we reach communism? This is just Fukuyama-tier nonsense with a red coat.

Well it does have the possibility of being the end, just like capitalism, but this has more to do with the fact that we are getting to close to our extinction rather than them being the end of history in a social sense.

what contradictions do you see possible in communism? Unless there is a reason for some sort of new mode of production to arise and a new societal structure I can't see it.

But there may actually be something to say about robots and trans humanism in the future.

Read this, section 5. (no harm in reading the whole thing too).
Of course capitalism and nationalism are natural, why wouldn't they be?
It is, indeed, an open question, and it may go either way.

The problem isn’t human nature, the problem is that capitalist apologists don’t understand human nature. Hunter-gatherers were not atomized individuals in a marketplace of commodities, they were collectivists living in a symbolic and totemic world of spirits

Capitalism has only been around for a few hundred years, how could it possibly be ‘innate’ to us?

The major difference between primitive tribal societies and communist ideologies is that the former was VOLUNTARILY collectivist, unlike the later which tries to impose an all-encompassing order that threatens violence against those refusing to give away control over their possessions.

Fair enough, the concept of society being ruled by markets and money and the veneration of wealth has its inception in the industrial revolution, but some of the basic attributes which make up capitalism - the freedom to trade your goods and labour, and the freedom to defend and ascertain ownership over your property - date back to the dawn of humanity itself.

The problem with muh human nature is that no attempt is made to address what actual human nature might be, instead substituting whatever that political theory assumes human nature to be (e.g. Economic Man).

This is either a very bad case of reification, or you're redefining "natural" to the extent that it barely even means anything anymore.

Human nature is ideology. Never base any social theory on human nature - mature marx knew this after the break

What break?

I doubt anyone using the human nature argument to support capitalism can even define what they mean by "human nature"


This. "Human nature" is inevitably used to try to justify the most inhumane and unnatural things.

I've seen people say on the internet that capitalism has existed throughtout history ever since humans started trading.

You can't prove human nature tho. Look
That's impossible to prove. We are more or less all raised in socieites surrounded with people. We literally have boxes on the wall that show people. We take pictures of people and put them around where we live. We are almost all taught that familial bonds are of utmost importance. It is considered necessary by most to have a phone on you at all times, because social interaction is a modern day necessity (not to imply it wasn't in the past).
Here's a study suggesting that antisocial personality disorder risk is likely connect to abuse and neglect. This suggests that if people are not nurtured into social relations, they don't care for them.
Eh. I guess this is "human nature" but means nothing for anything outside of "Hey if people don't want this they won't want to do it".

It is well documented among anthropologists, psycho-sociologists, etc that human beings are social creatures. I can't think of a single era in mankind's story that didn't involve human beings living as a group — family, village, etc.

Abuse and neglect presupposes social relations — just, terrible ones.

How so? Do you know anything about those primitive tribal societies?

Private property and "possessions" i.e. personal property are not the same thing.

Actually, it has its inception in the enclosures of the English countryside of the 17th century. Capitalism was agrarian before it was industrial.

Those aren't "basic attributes of capitalism". Besides, the freedom to trade your goods and labor is still fairly recent (since it requires involved actors to be free and equal) and the freedom to ascertain ownership over property was for most of history reserved to a tiny elite of landowners.

what if now, just as then, working together is better than being some sort of meme-tier lone wolf

read some theory you gigantic faggot