Any good reading refuting the le human nature argument?

I don't care if you believe it i was telling you that you should look to the southern baptists who deny evolution for arguments against human nature because thats probably the only place you can find any arguments.

Ask them what would be the main principles of "human nature".

Either they bring up social forms of interaction (the family the community what have you) that will give you leeway to make a case for socialism, or they will bring up self-preservation. If they bring up self-preservation, then all you have to do is talk about the many times when even a person's life was sacrificed or risked because that was what's expected for them culturally, particularly in militaristic societies. People have lost their lives in duels over bitches because if they didn't do it they'd be considered pussies, which seems hilarious to us now but is just how strong social conditioning is.

So culture, the ideas we're socialized into and the type social interaction we have are the real determinants of our behavior, not any physiological impulse.

Anyway, all you have to do is really read a little anthropology and you'll have endless material at your disposal to dispel the notion of biologically determined human behavior. We've had all fucking sorts of social, sexual and cultural values throughout history. You can even bring up primitive egalitarian societies.

Le human nature argument is almost always dismissible, as it fails to take in account how environment shapes behavior. A wolf (fascists love wolves) will act differently in captivity as opposed to in the free, or if it's alone as opposed to in a pack. Humans are unique in that we can contemplate and shape our environment, and so it's impossible to know what nature allows us to be.
More scientific versions of the argument, based in behaviorism are harder to refute, and should be given serious consideration, but again it's impossible to know what's environment (our current economic system) and what's nature.

Humans adapt,they dont have a specific nature.

You're not even willing to debate this. If anyone says anything other then what you believe already you'll just ignore it and keep spouting memes.

OP post

The everyday practical activity of tribesmen reproduces, or perpetuates, a tribe. This reproduction is not merely physical, but social as well. Through their daily activities the tribesmen do not merely reproduce a group of human beings; they reproduce a tribe, namely a particular social form within which this group of human beings performs specific activities in a specific manner. The specific activities of the tribesmen are not the outcome of “natural” characteristics of the men who perform them, the way the production of honey is an outcome of the “nature” of a bee. The daily life enacted and perpetuated by the tribesman is a specific social response to particular material and historical conditions.

The everyday activity of slaves reproduces slavery. Through their daily activities, slaves do not merely reproduce themselves and their masters physically; they also reproduce the instruments with which the master represses them, and their own habits of submission to the master’s authority. To men who live in a slave society, the master-slave relation seems like a natural and eternal relation. However, men are not born masters or slaves. Slavery is a specific social form, and men submit to it only in very particular material and historical conditions.

The practical everyday activity of wage-workers reproduces wage labor and capital. Through their daily activities, “modern” men, like tribesmen and slaves, reproduce the inhabitants, the social relations and the ideas of their society; they reproduce the social form of daily life. Like the tribe and the slave system, the capitalist system is neither the natural nor the final form of human society; like the earlier social forms, capitalism is a specific response to material and historical conditions.

Under capitalism, daily life consists of related activities which reproduce and expand the capitalist form of social activity. The sale of labor-time for a price (a wage), the embodiment of labor-time in commodities (salable goods, both tangible and intangible), the consumption of tangible and intangible commodities (such as consumer goods and spectacles) — these activities which characterize daily life under capitalism are not manifestations of “human nature,” nor are they imposed on men by forces beyond their control.

If it is held that man is “by nature” an uninventive tribesman and an inventive businessman, a submissive slave and a proud craftsman an independent hunter and a dependent wage-worker, then either man’s “nature” is an empty concept, or man’s “nature” depends on material and historical conditions, and is in fact a response to those conditions.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-the-reproduction-of-daily-life

Because it is meme.

All things have a nature, in that they have characteristics inherent to their existence. This includes humans as individuals, as groups, or as a category. Which of these are we talking about? Are we debating which characteristics are included, what standard there is for inclusion, and whether the number of characteristics is zero?

Y'all niggas seem to just be using words as symbols for "right" and "wrong" instead of as representative of material reality.

Isn't it human nature to be hunter-gatherers?

Am I on reddit?

No. We have done that in a while. But it may be human nature to live in community with one another.

Thanks for actually giving me some reading material comrade.

Read Althusser
Read Foucault
read zizek

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution

Literally any Marx.

Since you're an anarkiddie also pdf related.

Human nature is a result of material conditions. If the conditions change, so does the nature of the people.

then it isn't really nature as it is subject to change. Human nature implies something immutable and inherent in all humans which obviously does not exist.