Life in East Germany under Uncle Joe!!

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Anyway Stockwell pete hmm..the idea we where somehow civilised and loved everyone back in pre history seems odd considering all evidence points to us wiping out the Neanderthals. Yes we got on within our own small group of what around 30 people..coming together around once a year with other groups to find new mates which was away of curbing interbreeding they think one or two would leave the group to "marry" someone in another small tribe and they'd also take someone in again to mix up the gene pool. On the whole though I'm sure to god we have fought back then also strong evidence of cannibalism aswell. We are a violent species and our closest cousins the chimpanzees are a very violent ape aswell. If communism was going to work it would already have happened. Each time it was tried greed and lust for power got in the way and you ended up with a Dictatorship that really had nothing todo with Socialism at all.

Well, in pre-history humankind definitely had a very different type of civilisation from what it has now and surely the "mentalities" (i.e. peoples' outlook and their ideas of "common-sense") were very, very different also. It is unlikely that homo sapiens wiped out the Neanderthals as you are suggesting. The latest thinking from some anthropologists suggests that homo sapiens were much more socially integrated than neanderthals and collectively were better able to resist climate change in their time that saw Europe get much colder quite suddenly.

The only point that I have made so far is to suggest that human nature is not fixed or innate - and that human beings are capable of a wide range of behaviours. If you are someone who wants to insist that human nature is fixed then surely it would be fixed as the human nature that was appropriate for the first human societies i.e. hunter-gatherers. After all, these first societies lasted for tens of thousands of years while capitalism has only been around for a few hundred years - a mere pimple on the backside of human existence, in fact.

And if we are hard-wired for war as you seem to be suggesting, why is it that new recruits into the army have to undergo months of de-humanising training before they are deemed ready to kill another human being? And why is it the case that more American soldiers have died from suicide than enemy fire in recent times? Why are they suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in large numbers if it is natural for humans to kill?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

No more so than your overly broad allegations about human inherent tendencies that are socially programmed to share everything. Utter rubbish. If we can share the good in ourselves, then we can certainly share the bad in equal parcels.

But I didn't say that at all, did I? I wrote,

"So, given that the first human societies were egalitarian and lasted longer than any other social system, then if it is true that we have an "innate human nature"it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything. This would help to explain why capitalism makes so many of us unhappy and ill. But I don't actually think there is such a thing as "innate human nature". I think we all learn our behaviours from the world that we live in (i.e. from our environment, from the people around us, school, TV etc). And because modern capitalism emphasises competition and materialism (buying and owning stuff), most of us grow up thinking this is normal and it has always really been the case - and socialist ideas sound either highly undesirable or completely unattainable to most people."

It should be clear from this that I am saying that human beings are capable of a wide range of behaviours and attitudes and that we are not hard-wired to be co-operative any more than we are hard-wired to be competitive. It all depends on what type of social environment we grow up in - that is my point.

Sorry, of the numerous qualifiers in your previous post, I overlooked the one 'if' you indicated there that completely changed the meaning of your post and obscured your point altogether. I think your conflation of 'innate human nature' with early social structures misses the point. Innate human nature: greed, love, egalitarianism, hatred are just that. Social structures, mores, laws and civilizations are not equivalent. No civilization, political system or other construct of modernity is equivalent to an innate human nature.

So:

"So, given that the first human societies were egalitarian and lasted longer than any other social system

OK. Perhaps this was true. But these perfectly egalitarian systems fell by the wayside in modernity, typically in the presence of plenty / surplus. A perfectly reasonable counter could be that these perfectly egalitarian systems were not useful in larger populations or civilizations and that other governmental systems needed to 'grow'.

Just because a governmental system has the historical footprint doesn't mean it's in any way comparable to modernity. We could argue about the benefits of bronze metalwork, but the truth is that we (as a species) are past that. We're past the bronze age with its technologies or lack thereof and its systems. We've advanced as a species. No going back to what may have been popular 20,000 years ago.

, then if it is true that we have an "innate human nature"

I think we'd all agree that we have many innate human natures. None of which can be directly translated to a system of governance.

it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything.

No, it must not be the case. Being a co-operative species in our ancient past is not applicable to extension in the present. Helping our bronze-age neighbors harvest a crop or birth some yak may have been done out of a sense of self-help, co-operation or other communal good. But it's not applicable to sending food aid in the present to a country one hasn't seen (or heard of) for 'the greater good'.

We aren't programmed to share everything. We are programmed to do what needs must to preserve ourselves and our own. Sometimes that involves helping others-particularly if you get something out of the deal.

When there is no personal 'good' derived from personnel sharing, we generally don't do it. All systems of modern governance are this way. Socialism and communism moreso than most.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Sorry, of the numerous qualifiers in your previous post, I overlooked the one 'if' you indicated there that completely changed the meaning of your post and obscured your point altogether. I think your conflation of 'innate human nature' with early social structures misses the point. Innate human nature: greed, love, egalitarianism, hatred are just that. Social structures, mores, laws and civilizations are not equivalent. No civilization, political system or other construct of modernity is equivalent to an innate human nature.

But I haven't said that i think that there is any such thing as "innate human behaviour" - in fact, I am arguing the complete opposite.

OK. Perhaps this was true. But these perfectly egalitarian systems fell by the wayside in modernity, typically in the presence of plenty / surplus. A perfectly reasonable counter could be that these perfectly egalitarian systems were not useful in larger populations or civilizations and that other governmental systems needed to 'grow'.

Just because a governmental system has the historical footprint doesn't mean it's in any way comparable to modernity. We could argue about the benefits of bronze metalwork, but the truth is that we (as a species) are past that. We're past the bronze age with its technologies or lack thereof and its systems. We've advanced as a species. No going back to what may have been popular 20,000 years ago.

Yes, OK. I accept most of this argument. But I was responding to people here who were saying that socialism is an unviable system because of innate human nature - in opposition to this view I think we are both accepting that human nature is a product of specific social (historical) circumstances.

The point about society producing a surplus is this - at first, the surpluses were small and only a few people could benefit from them (chiefs, warriors, priests, administrators perhaps), but as humankind has progressed through history (from ancient slave societies to feudalism and now capitalism) the surplus has rapidly increased in size so that now it would be possible to provide everyone on the planet with enough food, shelter, education, leisure etc if only things were shared out more fairly. Capitalism has been the most economically progressive form of human society - but it has certain drawbacks. It is inherently crisis prone (i.e. booms and slumps); it is based on competition that regularly leads to war (just think how many wargames there are! lol); it is destroying the planet (global warming); a small minority of people are very rich while much greater numbers starve to death unnecessarily or die from simply treated diseases; and so on and so forth. The question is - can humankind do better than this?

"it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything."

No, it must not be the case. Being a co-operative species in our ancient past is not applicable to extension in the present.

I am sorry but you have lopped off the second part of my sentence from the first part and thereby you have destroyed its meaning. I actually wrote . . . then if it is true that we have an "innate human nature" it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything."

My point was that if people are going to insist that there is "innate human behaviour" (I am not one of those people who would do this) then the most likely form that "innate human behaviour is going to take is the co-operative form that generally existed in the first type of human society (i.e. the hunter-gatherers). These societies lasted for tens of thousands of years whereas capitalism has only existed for a few hundred years as a global system. Do you see what I mean?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete
Do you see what I mean?

Yes. I think so.

I appreciate the reasoned argument and clarification stockwellpete. We're (mostly) in agreement then.

As for whether this is 'the best humanity can do'? Who knows? I know we can do worse. A whole lot worse. Socialism, Maoism and Marxist-Leninist Communism and their ideological equivalents are examples IMO. None of them answer the very real concerns that you raise for the planet, and they also introduce additional the instability of non-representative forms of governance into the equation.

I look at this like Maslow's Heirarchy. Early forms of governance were built upon self-susenance: food, water, shelter, safety. Later forms moved through comparatively advanced individual (and social) needs. Empathy, altruism, and other 'higher order functions' can be found in many different governmental representatives, depending on the society they reflect.

Churchill said it well. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time."

[stockwellpete]

Latest ideas on demise of Neanderthals . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21759233