Edit: /j

top 87 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 68 points 1 year ago

Human nature on its deathbed when it realizes it forgot to account for Karl Marx

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Welcome to todays episode of criticizing things you haven't read:

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It's in Human Nature to be violent, which I why I've made sure to arm my kindergarten class with knives. Because otherwise I would not be accounting for Human Nature.

    (note: this is sarcastic, I did not arm a kindergarten class with knives)

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    you armed them with knives in a gun fight?!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    In some ancient text I read it talks about how the ancient Greeks had stopped wearing swords all the time for protection, but there were still some primitive areas where they did. Civilization reduces the necessity and the rate of return on individual violence it would seem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 80 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    You know that humans lived in communal societies for a long fuckin time before all the bullshit we know today, right?

    Human nature is not greed. That's capitalism.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] [S] 24 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Yeah of course, this meme is meant to be making fun of the idea that "human nature" (whatever that may be lol) in any way disproves communist or anticapitalist theory

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    But have humans have never had a non-hierarchical large scaled society?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • This is kind of the elephant in the room that every large scale political/economic model like to ignore.

    While I don't agree with a lot of what he writes about, Murray Bookchin makes some pretty persuasive arguments about how hierarchical structures themselves are an issue no matter what system theyre found.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (16 children)

    And slavery isn't capitalism? Or is that cooperative because the slaveholder says "I have a knife and will kill you" and the slave says "I don't want to die" so it's mutual collaboration where the slave doesn't die but also is a slave?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    Debt and slavery are not the same thing. Debt can be used to functionally enslave as capitalism does enslaving us to our wages so we can afford to exist, but again that is a feature of the coercive nature of capitalism and debt is just the enforcement mechanism in this instance. Debt and capitalism are two independent things that intersect in interesting ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (9 children)

    Where did I say debt and slavery are the same thing?

    I saw a half dozen messages in this thread about how humans used to be good or some bullshit, with no backing. I'm responding to that.

    Prove your point with historical data or don't, but don't argue about some unrelated topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    Apologies I responded to the wrong convo thinking it was the response to another comment. I think you are trying to make the point that modern day civilization is slavery due to the exploitation of capitalism but I'm not really sure of the point you are trying to make beyond that. Slavery is bad. Capitalism is slavery. Capitalism is bad.

    I think we are agreeing unless you think I'm taking the position that slavery is good. Or are you trying to make the point that I am wrong because human beings have employed slavery in the past (and still do today)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (7 children)

    My point was simply that humans have been doing slavery for...pretty much as long as we have records. And that is in conflict with your view.

    You said:

    You know that humans lived in communal societies for a long fuckin time before all the bullshit we know today, right?

    So what I'm saying is that for pretty much all of recorded human history we have documented proof that humans enslaved each other. Ie not communal. Slaveholding.

    You then implied the ills of today's society are tied to capitalism, an invention which came several tens of thousands of years after we invented slavery. Ie humans were shit to each other and abused each other in horrible ways long in advance of capitalism coming onto the scene.

    There may not be capitalism in human nature, but enslaving people we view ourselves as being inferior to us is pretty much as human as apple pie.

    Hopefully this makes more sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    When you look at why people did the enslaving you will inevitably find someone who is creating hierarchies by abusing some facet of the material conditions of the time. Slavery is not a part of human nature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    So you will always find a person who is doing the enslaving but enslaving isn't human nature? I dont know how to follow that logic.

    Let's take another class of slaves: domesticated animals. We've been doing that for a looooong time. We like them, but we don't consider them our equals and will in general readily murder them or sacrifice them to meet our needs. Most of what you eat has about the intelligence of a toddler. Cats and dogs we enslave as our emotional support are also intelligent creatures.

    Since resources are always finite all creatures default to exploitation as a survival system. Humans are good at making up stories for why it's ok actually, but that doesn't mean it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Finding an exception to the rule and then claiming that exception is the rule is kinda wild. The vast vast vast vast majority of human beings do NOT engage in exploitation of each other. As such I do not believe exploitation is a part of human nature but is rather a manifestation of anti social behavior intersecting with the material conditions of the time. Humans are egalitarian and communal by nature, things that pull us from that are aberrations to our nature not pillars of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    At this point it sounds like you're saying "I don't have proof but under everything I think people are Good and every counter example is actually something else."

    I don't think this can be argued against because it's just a closely held belief. That is, you can't logic someone out of a belief they didn't logic themselves into. Therefore I am stopping here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    My man we are both arguing opinions here lol you dont get to pretend like your opinion is correct because you like your logic and I don't lol

    We just disagree on this its not as deep as you're trying to make it out to be with this weird self aggrandizing attitude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    You can have slavery under global capitalism (we do) and our last few thousands of years have been very bad for a lot of humans, but it seems like we weren't always oppressing each other and on the contrary we have been egalitarian most of the time anatomical humans existed, hence why the human nature argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    When was this? How good are the records from this time? Seems like for at least the last 12000 years (biblical era) we were for the most part miserable, diseased, and exploitative

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Look into anthropology and such, obviously that falls squarely before history and written records.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    But it's still our best guess at something we think we can prove.

    I can vaguely recall several stories of fossilized remains which indicate all sorts of horrible things being performed on humans or related by tool users, which seems to imply in pre-history humans were still shit to each other.

    So are there counter-examples?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yeah, there are. While human groups sometimes fought each other due to competition for scarce resources, within groups we seem to have been very communitarian, taking care of our wounded and elderly even when conditions were harsh.

    Look at this example.

    We're social animals, we would have never survived extinction if it weren't for traits like empathy and cooperation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Greed isn't inescapably "human nature", but results from it under some basic conditions. The nature of enjoyment and suffering means the pursuit of enjoyment and avoidance of suffering as a biological imperative. Desperation, lack of cultural/learned empathy, cultural normalization of disparity, etc., can quickly allow unchecked greed. The same thing, with different conditions, can be said for... not sure there's a single word for it, but behavior motivated by empathy promoting equality and sharing and so on. The conditions actually kind of close to being the inverse of those for greed - some combination of not having desperation, having cultural/learned empathy, cultural normalization of economic equality, etc. Both types of thinking are just basically pro-social or anti-social thought with regard to material/economic gain, depending on what influences individual thinking.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Humans were constrained by their material conditions. Now that those material conditions have changed, their behaviors have changed to match. This is not a fixed state of affairs. Humans continue to transition between stages just like every other living being.

    Greed is as much a part of modern human nature as fear and love. And it is the product of a social condition that rewards growth, punishes disobedience, and requires a larger community to reproduce itself. It is a consequence of social conditioning executed iteratively from parent to child. And a consequence of statistical survival and prosperity played out over populations.

    What defines human action is not the basic libidinal impulse, but the interplay between people and their environments over lifetimes and generations. That's not socialism or capitalism at its root. Socialism and capitalism are simply fruits grown from the post-industrial branches of the tree of human history.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Mesopotamians tracked agricultural debt on clay tablets in 3000 BC

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Per David Graeber in "Debt: The First 5000 Years", people used to record debt with "Tally Sticks". You'd notch the debt you owed at the end of a branch. Then you'd bend it in half. Creditor would get one end. Debtor the other. When you wanted to call in your debt, you'd hold the sticks up together to confirm they matched and that's what was owed. This practice goes back to the Paleolithic Era.

    Incidentally, the Tally Stick would often be longer on the creditor's end. This was the stock of the stick and thus designated its recipient the "stock holder".

    But assignment and collection of debts isn't the same thing as assignment and collection of rents and interest, which is at the center of the capitalist economic system.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago

    Sure, but we freely traded with each other.

    No matter how many wish communism to work and devote themselves to it, it will fail. They can hold back agorism indefinitely by great effort, but when they let go, the ‘flow’ or ‘Invisible Hand’ or ‘tides of history’ or ‘profit incentive’ or ‘doing what comes naturally’ or ‘spontaneity’ will carry society inexorably closer to the pure agora.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Marx didn't forgot such thing he refuted it. No such thing as " human nature "

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 60 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Observing humans in capitalism and assuming greed is just human nature is like observing humans on the Titanic and assuming drowning is human nature.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's just rejecting your responsibility in the way you behave. "It's not me, it's the nature"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Anyone ever commenting "human nature" should be forced to explain how: (a) some behavior is an inevitable result of brain physiology, and, (b) why examples of people who don't exhibit that behavior exist. The absence of those explanations disprove like 95%+ of "human nature" arguments. Like, "oh, religion is human nature, we must believe in a higher power because we crave meaning" - which part of the brain mandates that thought, and why do atheists and agnostics exist then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Tbf religion scholars believe we do tend towards religious behavior, which isn't to say humans must be religious or believe in the supernatural, but patriotism is analogous to civil religion, and fandoms can also be very similar to religious communities.

    I believe skeptics have always existed, even Cicero included skeptics when writing about Roman religion before the Common Era, but we engage in behaviors that are analogous to religious behavior regardless of our beliefs, so from that point of view our nature includes worship, imo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Well, notice how you're using the word "tend". Religious ideas only come from attempts to derive explanations for what we experience. The latter is the basically intrinsic part of human nature, the former isn't. I'm talking about what is an absolute, unchangeable part of human nature, versus what's variable and just "something that humans do sometimes".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    One has to wonder how capitalism arose, if the traits which gave rise to it aren’t part of human nature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

    Capitalism arose from European feudalism. Which in turn arose from Christianity. Which in turn became mandated by the Roman Empire right before it totally coincidentally collapsed. The decisions behind this progression were limited to a tiny subset of the local human population, the ruling class which back then was basically seen as a completely different (superior) race compared to the commoners and peasants, to the point they chose to breed with their own relatives instead of polluting their blood with that of the people below them. Therefore, they absolutely did not represent the wishes of most humans at the time and certainly did not represent the "nature" of most humans, just the ones most corrupted by power and exceptionalism in a system they created specifically to keep themselves in power and separate from the masses. They're not human nature, they're the societal cancer that actively rejected and suppressed real human nature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    So the ruling class, with all the wealth and power and ability to do whatever they wanted acted against their own natures to create a system which would create in humans the desire to hoard wealth and power?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    Yes. When your rule is based on seizing wealth and power you'll keep doing that perpetually so you don't lose your place in the ruling class. The fact that they did that is more consistent with the Marxist notion that human "nature" is shaped by the material conditions they're born into.

    Meanwhile, the vast majority of peasants of that time fully accepted and even embraced their position due to all the religious brainwashing. Most had no real aspirations of power (supposedly despite their nature to desire power) because they've been taught their whole life that it's better for that to be taken care of by someone else that "God" supposedly chose. If anything, our uncritical acceptance of our place within capitalism is closer to what the serfs thought.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    So then it’s not capitalism which causes in humans the desire to hoard wealth and power?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Any system predicated on obtaining as much wealth or power as possible will see people fixating on that and eventually divorcing the wealth/power itself from the material conditions that they arose from. Why do you think so many corporations turn into death spirals where they try to increase profits at all costs, abandoning their actual products and customers, and then act all shocked when they inevetably go bankrupt due to no longer having a customer base because they alienated everyone with their shitty profit oriented practices? The only way to solve this is to change the system people live under.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    If it’s not in human nature to hoard wealth and power, then how do systems arise which are predicated on obtaining as much wealth or power as possible?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Because humans experiment with societal rules as societies were developing and get into self reinforcing loops that go on long after everyone's forgotten why it happened in the first place.

    Human nature is to form societies. What happens in those societies and how they are structured are the result of chaotic interactions and competing thought that, again, are the result of material conditions those humans find themselves in.

    There are plenty of societies that don't strictly follow the Roman/European system of power. Japan for example had their emperor reduced to a symbolic position long before European contact, but even though the emperor had most of his real power taken away, everyone still called him emperor and worshipped him because he was so important to their culture, power or not. Meanwhile, in what would be modern day India, multiple different religions arose based on selfless sacrifice for others and rejection of indulgence and pleasure in favor of self reflection and simple living, with many people throughout history in the region (princes, heirs of family fortunes, etc) fully rejecting their very privileged lifestyles to embrace aestheticism. Same with ancient Greek stoic and cynic philosophers many of which came from rich and powerful families yet deliberately choose to reject all of it. That all seems pretty against "human nature" no? Then you had the Indigenous tribes of the world who practiced small egalitarian societal groups and did perfectly fine until Europeans intervened.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So the first person who acquired wealth and/or power got no pleasure from it, because that’s not in their nature, but nonetheless kept it and passed it down to their children, who also derived no pleasure from it but also kept it and passed it down, until it had become ingrained tradition, and then people started to acquire the desire for the wealth and power they had had for generations?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Yes. Because it benefited them over others. Humans are capable of choosing to do things that benefit them and it has nothing to do with their "nature". Human nature is to not die and in the ages when humans could barely produce enough food for their own survival, it was beneficial to be in a position of power because it let you control the resources, ensuring you had enough for yourself and maybe some of your subjects as an afterthought. Marxism does not reject the notion that power benefits the people who have then, in fact that's a core fact that Marxism is based on, and it calls out the fact that feudal/monarchist/capitalist power benefits the ruling class by subjugating and exploiting the working class, and proposes that fully collective control of resources will benefit everyone much more equally than the current system. I don't think you have to agree with Marxism's proposed solution to this to recognize the problem it points out. It asserts that because we have lived in such systems our whole lives, we think it's human nature when in reality a person born and living in some other system (Marxist or otherwise) will think their system is human nature, because in reality no system is and they're all abstract inventions with nothing to do with our neurobiology or evolution.

    For a non political example, I write code all day because it benefits me and I think it's the most normal and intuitive thing ever, even though I doubt programming was something humans evolved to do, we figured it out ourselves and it had nothing to do with our nature. You literally have to learn and practice abstract computational thinking while learning to program because it's very unintuitive at times compared to how humans think by default, yet people learn it just fine and once you do, it becomes your nature.

    The cool thing about humans is we're not bound to natural instincts and can choose to live however we want. I think we should leverage this ability instead of using it as a justification for maintaining the same broken systems that have let us down over and over again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It’s human nature to survive, but doing things which enable you to survive is not part of human nature?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Define "doing things which enable you to survive." In my definition, that doesn't involve being king or exploiting others to hoard more wealth than you could ever hope to spend. You need some minimum amount of resources to survive but hoarding many times more than you need doesn't help you survive and only harms others.

    "If a monkey hoards more bananas than it can eat, causing its peers to starve while most of the bananas rot in its pile, scientists will study its brain to find out what the hell is wrong with it. But when a human does it, they get celebrated under capitalism."

    Also, it was once human nature to flee from fire, but once we learned to control it, it became an integral part of our lives. Human "nature" changes over time because your brain is pretty much a blank slate when you're born and doesn't fully finish structuring itself until your 20s. Your entire childhood is spent developing your "nature" that you'll have for your adult life (and even then you can change it at will even in adulthood if you change your living conditions), which is why we're more influenced by the conditions we grow up in than any sort of innate biology. What "nature" was best for hunter gatherer or even medieval times are totally obsolete in our modern day, so they stop being our default "nature" due to children no longer growing up in those conditions.

    The idea that your nature is influenced by your conditions isn't even unique to humans. Most animals are the same, a house cat or dog will learn from a very young age how to beg for food from their owners while a feral cat/dog won't because that's not beneficial for their survival when they're not a pet. Hell, house cats keep making kitten sounds because their owners keep treating them like kittens, while feral cats stop meowing once they leave their parents. Animals born and raised in captivity in general often show completely different behaviors and personality compared to wild animals of the same species, because their brains are literally structured differently due to growing up in different conditions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    You can argue that human cognition allows for the world we see around us, but that doesn't mean this was necessarily unavoidable, or that we're naturally selfish, or whatever else. It's also very self-defeating as an argument because we can point to countless examples of cooperation, both past and present, including people saving someone from drowning for no monetary gain. And I don't know you personally, but I try my best to be a good person out of love for humanity, rather than expecting a reward.

    But let's say that it is human nature to be selfish. It's still a silly argument against socialism though, since we could still build systems that don't reward our worst Impulses, but rather function with checks and balances to prevent them.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    Capitalism doesn't work, and it's for the same reason.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Even if you assume human nature is greed, it's also human nature to have their babies eaten by wolves but I don't see anyone suggesting we should center our society on baby tossin' wolf pits.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Killing people who don't worship the same Gods as you, taking slaves from the neighboring city state, and having a harem of sex slaves "wives" are all "human nature" that have all been done since before we had the technology to record them all the way up to today. Should those be tolerated in modern society too? Hell no.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (20 children)
  • [–] [S] 22 points 1 year ago

    Common refrain from capitalism fans is that communism can never work because humans are inherently selfish/greedy as proven by their observation that humans are selfish and greedy in the system that rewards selfishness and greed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -16 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    OP is selfish and can't imagine why people would want to be nice to one another.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] [S] 17 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Begging you to click on my profile this is meant to be a joke 😭

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    I think you need to go to HR for an hour long meeting about what jokes are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 16 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    I guess it gets understood a little different when it is not posted in explicitly communist spaces :/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    even so. it isn't a joke and more a reflection of what you think. at least that what it sounds like. don't blame the audience for the way your joke is interpreted

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago (14 children)
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    I just don't get how saying a statement you believe is wrong without any indication of it as a joke.

    Seems more reminiscent to people who say something shitty, then when they get complaints say "it was a joke, bro".

    And I personally have no patience for that. Also, there is no punchline, it is just a BS quote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    You can't just say something with no tone indicator (I do not mean "/s", I mean any indication that it is sarcasm LiKe ThIs, or a clear exaggeration, or an obvious reference....)

    I can't just say "Socialism is wrong because people are cunts." and be like, it is clearly sarcasm. that is at best being a Schrodinger's asshole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Then how is everyone else getting the joke?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You are on a meme board. Sarcasm and jokes should be your default assumption.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    my rule of thumb, if that meme can be posted on a maga site and they will take it as genuine, then it's either shitty sarcasm, or not sarcasm

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    I just don’t get how saying a statement you believe is wrong without any indication of it as a joke.

    Friend, have you ever heard about irony?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    yhea, unless otherwise indicated, irony vanishes in text format

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't know if I agree. Poe's law aside, we're talking about this in a memes community, which means a lot of what is said here is tongue-in-cheek. Context matters, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›