• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Human Nature Make Socialism / Communism / Pacifist Anarchism Impossible?

The consent of the people being governed. That is, all of humanity.



Yes. They are representatives chosen by the communities from which they originate, and they have the skills and knowledge necessary to make sound decisions.



Such as? This is not intended to be an oligarchic system.



Not by force. Any individual person or community has the right to ignore its' recommendations, as long as they do not pursue violent or exploitative action.



Authority -- defined as the ability to forcefully implement one's will -- does not exist on my view. Each individual person has the freedom to perform whatever act she chooses, so long as it does not exploit or do violence to any conscious creature. The international advisory body is there for the "big picture." Its' purview is issues that are capable of affecting all of humanity, for instance, climate change, global resource allocation, inter-regional disputes, and so on.

Then your view has left reality and is therefore no longer valid, can you really think that people, every single person, will all together choose to never use force in any respect?
 
Communism can exist in communities only. For example, 1 million people is not a community, it's 1 million people.

Yes, communism can only work in a community, but I don't see any reason to place a numerical limit on the size of a community. Humankind is one big community. We all, at base, have the same needs and desires -- food, shelter, safety, education, love -- and we all are capable of working together to meet those needs desires.

Community is where everybody knows everybody else.

This seems arbitrary. Would you mind elaborating on this?

Wrong! This fallacy is easily debunked as peoples needs are either practically endless (if I want a Ferrari, who should provide? How about a skyscraper?),

No one needs a Ferrari or a skyscraper (such things only exist because of exploitation, anyway). Society should supply everyone's needs, not everyone's greeds.

The right principle is "from each according to her ability, to each according to her merits". :)

How do you define merits? Each person has her or his own strengths and weaknesses. Person A might be really good at leadership, but might struggle with interpersonal communication. Person B might be an excellent communicator, but know nothing about farming. Person C might be a good farmer, but not so good at science. Person D might be an excellent scientist, but might be aloof and cold. Person E might excel at kindness, friendship, and love, but have low intelligence and technical aptitude.

Which person has more merit? Why?
 
Then your view has left reality and is therefore no longer valid, can you really think that people, every single person, will all together choose to never use force in any respect?

I should have been clearer and said "authority is the ability to justifiably or legitimately forcefully implement one's will . . .". I apologize for not making that clearer.

Yes, the occasional person may choose to use force, but his community will condemn his actions and sanction him (with an eye toward rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, not just retribution).
 
When discussing my political views in "real life," one of the most common criticisms I get is that communism* is impossible because it is inconsistent with human nature.

These people say that we people are naturally, biologically driven to be selfish, lazy, greedy, devious, xenophobic, and hateful, and that a strong state, exploitative economic system (such as capitalism), and profit motive is necessary to keep people in line. I take the opposite view, that our current system of social relations (capitalism) conditions people to have the "human nature" be selfish, greedy, etc., and that people can be trained to be generous, compassionate, kind, and unselfish under another, less-oppressive set of social relations.

For those who take the former position, please provide a logical argument as to why you feel communism* is incompatible with human nature and to why you feel an exploitative system of social relations (like capitalism) is necessary to control human nature.

* I define "communism" as a peaceful global society in which there are no states, markets, money, weapons, or wars. All people contribute to society through their talents and freely take whatever they need from society's pool of resources. The saying "from each according to her ability, to each according to her need" is the guiding principle of such a society

This is rediculous,

First of all human nature is not static it changes with the social structure and conditions.

Second all studies show altruism and cooperative working to be more "natural"

Third if it WAS true that people were naturally selfish, Greedy, lazy, then why on earth would you want to have capitalism? Where Capitalists control the resources that are vastly important for the survival of society? Would'nt you want democratic accountability, i.e. checks and balances?
 
This seems arbitrary. Would you mind elaborating on this?

I referred to the classical distinction of Ferdinand Tönnies but I might be wrong.
Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one needs a Ferrari or a skyscraper (such things only exist because of exploitation, anyway). Society should supply everyone's needs, not everyone's greeds.

See, that's what I meant - you already determined my needs. :) And tomorrow the party leader or the bureaucrat will determine yours regardless of you might actually need.

How do you define merits?

OK, may be not the most appropriate word. How about "contributions"? :)
 
The consent of the people being governed. That is, all of humanity.



Yes. They are representatives chosen by the communities from which they originate, and they have the social scientific education, administrative and interpersonal skills, and life experience and general knowledge necessary to make sound decisions about how to best orchestrate society.



Such as? This is not intended to be an oligarchic system.



Not by force. Any individual person or community has the right to ignore its' recommendations, as long as they do not pursue violent or exploitative action.



Authority -- defined as the ability to forcefully implement one's will -- does not exist on my view. Each individual person has the freedom to perform whatever act she chooses, so long as it does not exploit or do violence to any conscious creature. The international advisory body is there for the "big picture." Its' purview is issues that are capable of affecting all of humanity, for instance, climate change, global resource allocation, inter-regional disputes, and so on.

The consent of the people being governed. That is, all of humanity.

And you think that the people...all of humanity is all going to agree on these decisions? You're going to encounter a wide variety of cultural views on what a moral society looks like.

That leaves a lot of moral questions to resolve I think. Such as? This is not intended to be an oligarchic system.

You're almost suggesting a unanamous view on how this society should function. That's not likely going to happen for a variety of views on what a moral structure looks like? There are no universal values. You can't demonstrate values as true so under what authority is a final decision on how the society is to function come into play?

Not by force. Any individual person or community has the right to ignore its' recommendations, as long as they do not pursue violent or exploitative action.

And if they do? What authority overseas that kind of thing? Would a person have the right to ignore the recommendation of stopping at a traffic light since he's not pursuing violence or exploiting anybody.

Authority -- defined as the ability to forcefully implement one's will -- does not exist on my view.

Actually I would define authority as the law established by the people on some kind of document that supports the concept and defines what it means to violate that law. I think it sounds very interesting but what I'd offer is a few simple truths. Man is fallible. A fallible man cannot create in infallible idea. Infallible ideas do not flow from fallible sources. Looking to form the perfect society is a fools errend. It'll never be there. Glenn Beck has offered a country in some mythical location (Oooze Beckistan maybe) The Great and Wonderful Oz would decide on what kind of businesses could be there, and what kind of books would be read. Another place is called the Citidel.. for right wingers with lots of guns. Like a retirment home for white people that feel threatened by the change in our demographics. With all its flaws I've kind of gotten used to our way of doing things.
 
OK, may be not the most appropriate word. How about "contributions"? :)

The same principle applies. How do you decide who contributes more?

Kindness said:
Each person has her or his own strengths and weaknesses. Person A might be really good at leadership, but might struggle with interpersonal communication. Person B might be an excellent communicator, but know nothing about farming. Person C might be a good farmer, but not so good at science. Person D might be an excellent scientist, but might be aloof and cold. Person E might excel at kindness, friendship, and love, but have low intelligence and technical aptitude

RGacky3 said:
This is rediculous,

First of all human nature is not static it changes with the social structure and conditions.

Second all studies show altruism and cooperative working to be more "natural"

Third if it WAS true that people were naturally selfish, Greedy, lazy, then why on earth would you want to have capitalism? Where Capitalists control the resources that are vastly important for the survival of society? Would'nt you want democratic accountability, i.e. checks and balances?

I think you misunderstood my post. I'm a communist, arguing against conservative objections that communism couldn't work due to human nature. I agree with you :).
 
The same principle applies. How do you decide who contributes more?

By the work they do, duh. :) If you laid 500 bricks today you get half as much as the one who laid 1000.

Now, intellectual work will be quite tricky to estimate but not impossible.
 
The problem with "from each according to their abilities" is that the system seems unachievable in which you will maximize one's ability in a self-satisfying way. What I mean is maybe a musician can be an ubber efficient machine operator, but they are not going to be happy unless they are playing music but society may not need another musician so the poor dude is stuck running the machine. Likewise, it is the perceived needs of society that dictate what is produced more than things that are luxuries and the market becomes static and stagnant. Communism would, for better or worse, never have produced the Chia pet.
 
When discussing my political views in "real life," one of the most common criticisms I get is that communism* is impossible because it is inconsistent with human nature.

These people say that we people are naturally, biologically driven to be selfish, lazy, greedy, devious, xenophobic, and hateful, and that a strong state, exploitative economic system (such as capitalism), and profit motive is necessary to keep people in line. I take the opposite view, that our current system of social relations (capitalism) conditions people to have the "human nature" be selfish, greedy, etc., and that people can be trained to be generous, compassionate, kind, and unselfish under another, less-oppressive set of social relations.

For those who take the former position, please provide a logical argument as to why you feel communism* is incompatible with human nature and to why you feel an exploitative system of social relations (like capitalism) is necessary to control human nature.

* I define "communism" as a peaceful global society in which there are no states, markets, money, weapons, or wars. All people contribute to society through their talents and freely take whatever they need from society's pool of resources. The saying "from each according to her ability, to each according to her need" is the guiding principle of such a society

Yes, and it also makes so called capitalism and the so called free market impossible.
 
When discussing my political views in "real life," one of the most common criticisms I get is that communism* is impossible because it is inconsistent with human nature.

These people say that we people are naturally, biologically driven to be selfish, lazy, greedy, devious, xenophobic, and hateful, and that a strong state, exploitative economic system (such as capitalism), and profit motive is necessary to keep people in line. I take the opposite view, that our current system of social relations (capitalism) conditions people to have the "human nature" be selfish, greedy, etc., and that people can be trained to be generous, compassionate, kind, and unselfish under another, less-oppressive set of social relations.

For those who take the former position, please provide a logical argument as to why you feel communism* is incompatible with human nature and to why you feel an exploitative system of social relations (like capitalism) is necessary to control human nature.

* I define "communism" as a peaceful global society in which there are no states, markets, money, weapons, or wars. All people contribute to society through their talents and freely take whatever they need from society's pool of resources. The saying "from each according to her ability, to each according to her need" is the guiding principle of such a society

Human nature is multifaceted and particular ideologies appeal to one or another aspect of it. The problem occurs when whole bits of human nature are ignored. That is when an ideology fails. (And consequently why most free societies tend to gravitate towards a moderate government). More extreme philosophies such as communism or libertarianism ignore whole sides of human nature and thus are never able to be implemented very well in reality, only on paper and in the minds of philosophers.
 
communism doesn't work for the same reason that laissez faire capitalism fails : human greed.

in my opinion, the ideal balance lies somewhere in between.
 
There seems to be two different issues which we need to decide whether they are possible or not:

1) Whether humans can live peacefully together for the greater good and overcome greed: Doesn't look great
2) Whether a communist economic system is viable either on a national or global scale: Possibly in the future
 
Yes, and it also makes so called capitalism and the so called free market impossible.

A free market is impossible, save perhaps a short period of time in a brand new place, until someone gets a capital advantage and uses it enhance the advantage.

Capitalism is of course possible since it is simply an economic system based on using capital to create wealth.

Capitalism allows for the most freedom and productivity, but it is also rife with potential for abuses. That is where democratic society comes into play, to try and mitigate the abuses that capital applies for the benefit of capital. Unfettered capitalism would quickly devolve into an oligarchy, and that is really the road we are heading down now. Wealth concentration is the benefit capital seeks, and wealth concentration is the situation that democracy usually tries to avoid. We had about 20% of all private wealth in the hands of the top 1% for most of the last century, fairly consisently around 20%. Since the supply side policies of the 80's that has increased to almost 45%.

People like to say that our economy is not a zero sum game, that the rich can get massively richer and everyone else can do well too. Perhaps that is possibly, but the actual facts indicate that is not what has happened here. While wealth has concentrated, everyone else has seen buying power stagnate or go down.

I wish I could convince people to look at what is actually happening. It is not that taxes are too high now, or that government spending is too, or that the government is giving away too much money to poor people. We had done much more of that historically and still saw incredible economic growth. What happened was that despite the protests of capital, democratic policies empowered workers to demand greater compensation relative to productivity and profits. That is no longer the case. I firmly believe that the basic business principal, that a business that is not growing is dying, applies to the American middle class. Capital is being used to suck more and more out of the economy into the hands of the few and the result is basically a cannibal economy. The middle class is the milk cow, and it had created the highest standard of living ever seen in the history of man, but the supply-side policies that have been in place for the last 30 years have created a situation where the cow is not only being milked, but steaks are being cut out of it. How long before the cow falls over? Five years, twenty years, I don't know, but the current policy is unsustainable.

But capital and business has gone global, so America is not nearly as important as the next quarterly report, and when our economy falls, they will just pick and move on to the next market. Unfettered capitalism with the ability to capture and define government policy works like the aliens in Independence Day, set up shop, pick the market clean, leave it dead and move on to the next market. Only citizens can change the policies that allow this to happen, and only if they understand the problem. Unfortunately, there are 50,000 PR professionals in this country and only 10,000 journalists, so the information we get is more designed to make us think our problems are democrat versus republican instead of the real problem, policy bought with profits from our spending versus the American people.
 
Socialism /communism fails for the same reason capitalsm succeeds . Humans ,being humans, genearlly act in their self interest.
 
Socialism /communism fails for the same reason capitalsm succeeds . Humans ,being humans, genearlly act in their self interest.

Acting for the good of one's community and humanity as a whole is within one's self interest.
 
Acting for the good of one's community and humanity as a whole is within one's self interest.

Great concept, but unfortunately, not reality.
 
When discussing my political views in "real life," one of the most common criticisms I get is that communism* is impossible because it is inconsistent with human nature.

These people say that we people are naturally, biologically driven to be selfish, lazy, greedy, devious, xenophobic, and hateful, and that a strong state, exploitative economic system (such as capitalism), and profit motive is necessary to keep people in line. I take the opposite view, that our current system of social relations (capitalism) conditions people to have the "human nature" be selfish, greedy, etc., and that people can be trained to be generous, compassionate, kind, and unselfish under another, less-oppressive set of social relations.

For those who take the former position, please provide a logical argument as to why you feel communism* is incompatible with human nature and to why you feel an exploitative system of social relations (like capitalism) is necessary to control human nature.

* I define "communism" as a peaceful global society in which there are no states, markets, money, weapons, or wars. All people contribute to society through their talents and freely take whatever they need from society's pool of resources. The saying "from each according to her ability, to each according to her need" is the guiding principle of such a society

People by nature are good natured, but tribal.

In a tribe there is an element of "socialism" (using your definition), organized government members are typically some level of malevolent, and aim to use that "socialist" tendency to push for greater controls over society that it (as an overall entity) sells as your definition of socialism.
 
Capitalism, feudalism, and slavery are fairly new on the human scene, only appearing in the past 10,000 years or so. Before that, humans lived in moneyless, more-or-less communistic societies without much hierarchy or systemized exploitation. Yes, there were armed conflicts, but nothing on the scale of the wars of the 20th and 21st centuries.

On a more modern level, peaceful, communist* communities exist around the world, including in the United States. Check out Twin Oaks in Virginia, for instance.

10,000 years ago is also when modern(ish) civilization began. It is because of the things you listed that such civilizations have been possible, allowing human kind to flourish, resulting in this very debate, on computers.
 
Acting for the good of one's community and humanity as a whole is within one's self interest.

times exist when your self interest and society's self interest conflict. you know this to be true, yet you posted the above.
 
Even if 90% of humanity was selfless, peaceful, and unwilling to subjugate others, it only takes that 10% to **** it all up.

That's the problem. People think "human nature" is a claim about all humans. It's not. Most humans just want to muddle through their lives as best possible. Maybe get married, squeeze out a few rugrats, generally enjoy their lives as much as possible, that's it.

Some humans want to have power over others, though. They are willing to do a lot more to attain that power than the average person is willing to do in order to keep them from attaining it. You might have a few people willing to put forth as much effort to deny them that power as there are people who seek it will put forth in attaining it, but there are fewer of these people around. And if the people in power can cow the majority who just want to muddle along (by making their lives at least moderately comfortable according to that societies standards), there is never going to be enough manpower to thwart the power seekers.

And, of course, if the peace love and harmony folks do not maintain that same level of comfort for the majority, they will actually assist the power seekers in taking control.

Not to mention nobody in their right mind would become a garbage man or other terribly ****ty job in any form of socialistic society. That's why the socialistic systems often appeal to people with the ****tiest, most necessary jobs.

All political systems have the design flaw that they will get used by the 10% to attain power. There will always be some sort of exploitation in society because it is a necessary component to society.
 
All political systems have the design flaw that they will get used by the 10% to attain power. There will always be some sort of exploitation in society because it is a necessary component to society.

And one of the hallmarks of modern socialist theory is specifically to prevent that as much as possible. Some of it is rooted in American (and English) democratic ideals. Capitalism, especially American capitalism, is actually very bad at this. It creates just as much of an aristocracy as the English system it opposed did. It is even mainly hereditary. The only difference is the requirements for admission into the aristocracy. Socialism actively attempts to prevent an aristocracy from forming.

Otherwise, your take on human nature is much better than the "humans are all selfish" position that is used to justify lessez faire capitalism.
 
Education, starting from early childhood. Schools would train kids to respect each other, work for the good of their communities and the planet, and hate violence, aggression, and exploitation. This training would continue through university level, and would be reinforced in workplaces and through the media.



No dispute here.

It will never happen but if it did we would be screwed if ever meet an hostile alien force since we wouldn't know how to fight anymore.
 
yes l believe humans are selfish enough to avoid sharing anything they own with the others..l am just social democrat because of this fact.
:mrgreen:
 
Families which practice socialism with their offspring at least up to a certain age usually around puberty, tend to produce what we and most criminal justice systems consider to be the healthiest and least dysfunctional offspring.
 
Back
Top Bottom