We hear the argument all the time: “This is against human nature.” And it completely shuts down the discussion. As a leftist, I hear this argument all the time. “Communism can’t work because of human nature!” or “It only works on paper!” Usually I hear these from liberals that cannot counter my arguments with anything else but a nebulous grasp at a concept such as human nature. It’s the religious wildcard of “God moves in mysterious ways,” but made by a secular person. It’s not an argument, it’s a conversation killer, an insult. They’ve been argued into a corner, and don’t want to admit that liberalism and capitalism are deeply flawed. And so, they throw out this statement that they think you are unable to argue. Well, I will dispute this statement. This platitude prevents people from critically thinking, and hopefully, the next time someone says this to you or me, we’ll be better prepared to counter it.
So, what is “human nature”? Well, according to Wikipedia’s article on Human Nature:
Human nature is a concept that denotes the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally. The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind, or what it ‘means’ to be human.
Perfectly vague, but taking this definition as true, we can see that it is the dispositions of humanity and is related with the concept of what it means to be human. What does it mean to be human? Scientifically, it means you are part of the species of Homo sapiens, a primate or more specifically, a great ape. There were other human species, such as Homo erectus and Neanderthals, but they have either gone extinct, evolved or interbred with us Homo sapiens. So, taking the literal definition of human nature: it’s a genetic thing, and anything that happens because of our shared human genes is “human nature.” In which case, what has our species evolved to do? Simple: continue. The whole point of life is to continue itself. Not every individual organism needs to beget more life, but on average, the population must increase over time. So, there is absolutely nothing in that which says we can’t do communism. In fact, if you think there are finite resources, and we need to distribute them as efficiently as possible, we MUST have communism, as we overproduce in capitalism and do not distribute all the resources to where they need to be.
Okay, so you don’t buy the scientific argument. I don’t either, it’s too simplistic and the thing on my mind from day to day isn’t the continued survival of the human species and I’m not just my genes right? Okay, so what is human nature then?
Well I don’t know! I’m just some weirdo on the internet. Here’s my guess though. What makes humans distinct from animals. It’s not anything scientific, because we are animals, scientifically. Well, we explore, we invent and we create. Other animals do this stuff to a limited extent, but our capacity for this is high. However, when I say “we” do these things, I really mean “we.” I do not explore, invent or create to any great capacity. I did not walk on the moon, invent the telephone or create any great work of art (my capacity for art is quite lacking in fact). I’m reminded of the scene from the 2004 movie “I, Robot” based on some Issac Asimov story, where Will Smith is interviewing a robot and asks if it can write a symphony or turn a canvas into a masterpiece, and the robot responds with a question: “Can you?”
The fact that I cannot do these things (yet) doesn’t mean that I will never be able to, nor does it mean that I am not human. The fact is that I do not or cannot do these things that are considered human endeavors, but WE can, collectively. Everything that humans have accomplished has come from us working together, directly or indirectly. The scientist that discovers a cure for a disease would have died long before if someone else did not do the labor to grow their food. The farmer that is able to feed hundreds would not have been able to had it not for farming equipment that was invented by engineers. The labor of billions of humans that have lived their lives before us have accumulated to create the society we live in today. Human nature has always been one of cooperation for the greater good. Together, we make our discoveries, our inventions and our art. No one lives in a vacuum.
But, I might hear you asking: what about greed? There is a famous quotation by Andrew Collier, in his book: “Marx: A Beginner’s Guide” that says:
To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism is like looking at people in a factory where the pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that is is human nature to cough.
Greed is what is incentivized by capitalism. You cannot conclude that human nature is greed if there is a systematic incentive to acting greedy. The human “disposition” of greed may be a direct result of the system that was constructed. And even under capitalism, you can find plenty of examples of average people, that aren’t at the top, doing kind things that go against self-interest. When I see this, I see that human nature may be strong enough such that it can even contradict the system that much of humanity exists in. This is also an assumption that human nature is static and cannot change, but I don’t know if I buy this. And if human nature is malleable, there is no reason why it cannot change to suit a better society.
But capitalism is man-made, why would humans make capitalism if it goes against their nature? Well, I can’t explain all the historical pressures that formed capitalism, but I’m sure Marx has something interesting to say about historical materialism. But I would contend that capitalism was not made by humans, but by a relatively small portion of humans, and that it replaced feudalism relatively recently, compared to human history. The capitalists want you to think it’s been around since the first humans walked the earth and that it’s the only way to live, but if you actually see historical evidence: the first humans probably lived in a system a lot closer to communism.
Whenever I hear the “human nature” argument, I am reminded of another argument style called “constructing a public,” in which you invent a public that agrees with you and reference it. For example, if we are having an argument about waffles and pancakes, and which is better and I say: “A lot of people out there think that waffles are way better than pancakes, and that pancakes are just soggy deflated waffles,” I am constructing a public that likes waffles. It may be the case that 90% of people actually like waffles better, but I am not citing a statistic, I just made a claim that the public agrees with me. The “human nature” argument is very similar, in which they are claiming that since some humans are greedy in capitalism, then it must be the case that humans as a whole are greedy and that is human nature. By the way, I don’t even think that greed is a problem for communism, but that’s another essay entirely.
So, wrapping all of this up. Human nature is a far more complex thing than just “self-interest” and the use of it as an argument tactic without any actual though is a conversation killer. If someone uses that argument, call them out on their bullshit. Say: “Let’s talk about human nature and how you’ve apparently solved something that scientists and philosophers have argued for millennia. “ And hopefully, I have given you some food for thought that maybe, human nature is compatible with communism.
