|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:36 am
I consider this a in need of revising so revise to your heart's contempt.
*********
*********
*********
The most common argument (besides that apparently we subvert the freedoms of the individual to the government) against Communism is Human nature. It’s a common argument and I think now the latest smear from Anti-Communists now that the Post Cold-War years are ending and a new century has dawned. The common “Communism is Evil!” argument is no longer going to cut it as an effect reason of why Communism won’t work or shouldn’t be established as more and more people realize it’s not. The argument now that Communism is unrealistic has now suddenly appeared which would be fine if not for the fact that most of these arguments sound almost exactly the same as every other.
The argument is usually something along the lines of “Human Nature is what prevents Communism” and is usually left at that, as if it’s some type of fact that everyone should quickly and easily understand or already know. A few that have delved deeper have said how exactly human nature get’s in the way. The argument is that Humans are provided no incentive to work because of how things are provided. That because they receive what they need without having to do anything and in turn become lazy and cripple the society and cause it to fail. However how this is Human Nature is something I don’t understand.
Humans are working beings. We were designed to work and our bodies are designed to accommodate to what work we do. That to me seems more like human nature than the other version presented to us. To think all humans would suddenly bypass the fact that they seem to be built to work to become lazy in a strange thing think. Further we seem many times a human that receives nothing for something will feel guilty because of it, even more so if before they worked hard at there job and received something.
And of course we come to the fact that many humans like to work, even if provided enough without needing to work. Many people enjoy the things they do and just would like to continue doing it regardless of what they get out of it. Many people like to cook so they cook. Many people like to work with Computers, so they work with Computers and become experts on them. Many people like Science and enjoy thinking up new scientific theories. Many people like to devise new inventions and make certain tasks easier with these inventions. To think this people will suddenly stop working at jobs the love and enjoy simply because there is no money incentive is ridiculous.
Lastly we have those that have enough sense to realize society will suffer some if they don’t work. That if enough of them stop working the hurt society, and in turn hurt themselves indirectly. That because of their selfish action at some point they will feel the effects of it. Because they don’t help society this much, society in turn won’t be able to help them that much.
With all these thoughts there is certainly some very good points brought against the human nature argument. The thought that the majority of humanity would become lethargic and do absolutely no work once a Communist society was created is a little less than a ridiculous thought. Scientific Socialism was made to be an alternative and more plausible ideal then Anarchy and Utopian Socialism. It should be somewhat apparent that it would take Human Nature in account and it does. And it is my hope that this is made clear to the people who often bring the Human Nature argument.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:38 pm
My corrections or comments will appear in red, the original text will appear in italics. Portions I like will be bolded. Things that should be expanded in my mind, will be underlined. The most common argument (besides that apparently we subvert the freedoms of the individual to the government) against Communism is Human nature. It’s a common argument and I think now the latest smear from Anti-Communists now that the Post Cold-War years are ending and a new century has dawned. The common “Communism is Evil!” argument is no longer going to cut it as an effect reason of why Communism won’t work or shouldn’t be established as more and more people realize it’s not. The argument now that Communism is unrealistic has now suddenly appeared which would be fine if not for the fact that most of these arguments sound almost exactly the same as every other. The argument is usually something along the lines of “Human Nature is what prevents Communism” and is usually left at that, as if it’s some type of fact that everyone should quickly and easily understand or already know (any reasons why you think they'd think like this?). A few that have delved deeper have said how exactly human nature get’s in the way. The argument is that Humans are provided no incentive to work because of how things are provided. That because they receive what they need without having to do anything and in turn become lazy and cripple the society and cause it to fail. However how this is Human Nature is something I don’t understand. Humans are working beings. We were designed to work and our bodies are designed to accommodate to what work we do. That to me seems more like human nature than the other version presented to us. To think all humans would suddenly bypass the fact that they seem to be built to work to become lazy in a strange thing think. Further we seem many times a human that receives nothing for something will feel guilty because of it, even more so if before they worked hard at there job and received something. ( Perhaps history should be incorporated into your examples) And of course we come to the fact that many humans like to work, even if provided enough without needing to work. Many people enjoy the things they do and just would like to continue doing it regardless of what they get out of it. Many people like to cook so they cook. Many people like to work with Computers, so they work with Computers and become experts on them. Many people like Science and enjoy thinking up new scientific theories. Many people like to devise new inventions and make certain tasks easier with these inventions. To think this people will suddenly stop working at jobs the love and enjoy simply because there is no money incentive is ridiculous. Lastly we have those that have enough sense to realize society will suffer some if they don’t work. That if enough of them stop working the hurt society, and in turn hurt themselves indirectly. That because of their selfish action at some point they will feel the effects of it. Because they don’t help society this much, society in turn won’t be able to help them that much. With all these thoughts there is certainly some very good points brought against the human nature argument. The thought that the majority of humanity would become lethargic and do absolutely no work once a Communist society was created is a little less than a ridiculous thought. Scientific Socialism was made to be an alternative and more plausible ideal then Anarchy and Utopian Socialism. It should be somewhat apparent that it would take Human Nature in account and it does. And it is my hope that this is made clear to the people who often bring the Human Nature argument.Also I would like to point out a few things, firstly I do understand your logic, you do need to do some spell check and grammar look overs you may also want to fortify your scenarios with material examples. For instance, "doing what you love" what about the Kalishnikov? How about the guy that made the internet? As for Utopian vs Scientific point out why scientific socialism is more plausible, but do so without going off topic. I would change the word "designed" in your bit about being built a certain way to "predisposed". On the whole you find you way. Now I'm going to give my last bit of advice before becoming socratic on you. I had an english teacher who put it this way.
Figure out the body of your paper by making out a detailed outline, don't just sit down and write it with an idea in mind. Indeed, if you bake a cake, you won't just sit down and rumage around the house and attempt to bake a cake with whatever is just around. You will use a recipe and you may just have to go to the store (research) to pick up stuff you don't have laying around. Secondly, once you've got your cake baked you want to put something on it don't you? Spice up your writting with quotes, examples, jokes, and literary device. This is like putting the icing on the cake- cause' who wants to eat plain old cake? Then thirdly, if you have really mastered your cake you put sprinkles and designs on it- these are much like especially striking literary devices (metaphor etc). That should help you a bit :p
1. Should one, when talking about human nature, differentiate between what may be innately human and what is merely conditioned responses to stimuli.
2. Could one use history to prove that certain responses are either conditioned or innate?
3. Is any stage of society "pure" enough to say that every response in innate?
4. Is such a "pure" place only pure idealism?
5. Could the junior high or elementary school (secondary school included) curriculum contribute to the peoples opinion on communism?
6. Did/does yours? And here is an obligatory Marx quote from The Communist Manifesto relating to a point in your text biggrin Quote: "It has been objected, that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will over take us. aAcording to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness, for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work..." From the chapter: Proletarians and Communists
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:06 pm
Thank you for the comments and know my writing does need improvement. I will look at making some of the changes you made on it and making some I feel it needs and make a re-write with these.
And what reccommendations for a few Histroical events to help back my points up. So far I've just been coming from a Psychological view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:15 pm
A few superficial corrections. Original The most common argument (besides that apparently we subvert the freedoms of the individual to the government) against Communism is Human nature. Revised The most common argument against Communism, besides that we subvert the freedoms of the individual to the government, is that of "human nature." Quote: It’s a common argument and I think now the latest smear from Anti-Communists now that the Post Cold-War years are ending and a new century has dawned. The common “Communism is Evil!” argument is no longer going to cut it as an effect reason of why Communism won’t work or shouldn’t be established as more and more people realize it’s not. The argument now that Communism is unrealistic has now suddenly appeared , which would be fine either a dash (--) or a comma (,) if not for the fact that most of these arguments sound almost exactly the same as every other. Could you elaborate on why this is such a bad thing? I think I understand what you're saying, but someone more hostile to your point of view might dismiss this.The argument is usually something along the lines of “Human Nature is what prevents Communism” and is usually left at that, as if it’s some type of fact that everyone should quickly and easily understand or already know. How about "..., as if it's a fact that everyone should either easily understand, or already know." A few that have delved deeper How about "elaborated further"? have said how exactly human nature gets no apostrophe, it's not a possessive or a contraction in the way. The argument is that humans again, no capitalization are provided no incentive to work because of how things are provided. That because they receive what they need without having to do anything and in turn become lazy and cripple the society and cause it to fail. However how this is Human Nature is something I don’t understand. Humans are working beings. We were designed to work and our bodies are designed to accommodate to what work we do. That to me seems more like human nature than the other version presented to us. To think all humans would suddenly bypass the fact that they seem to be built to work to become lazy in a strange thing think. Did you mean "... is a strange thing to think." ? Further we see many times a human thatwho receives nothing for something will feel guilty because of it, even more so if before they worked hard at there job and received something. This whole paragraph needs expanding, I get the impression that you were trying to say something on the lines of the quote from Marx that the previous poster provided. You could even include this quote if you wanted, provided of course that you cite it.And of course we come to the fact that many humans like to work, even if provided enough without needing to work. Many people enjoy the things they do and just would like to continue doing it regardless of what they get out of it. Many people like to cook so they cook. Many people like to work with computers, so they work with computers and become experts on them. Many people like science and enjoy thinking up new scientific theories. Many people like to devise new inventions and make certain tasks easier with these inventions. To think this people will suddenly stop working at jobs the love and enjoy simply because there is no money incentive is ridiculous. Lastly we have those that have enough sense to realize society will suffer some if they don’t work. That if enough of them stop working the hurt society, and in turn hurt themselves indirectly. That because of their selfish action at some point they will feel the effects of it. Because they don’t help society this much, society in turn won’t be able to help them that much. With all these thoughts there is certainly some very good points brought against the human nature argument. The thought that the majority of humanity would become lethargic and do absolutely no work once a Communist society was created is a little less than a ridiculous thought. Scientific Socialism was made to be an alternative and more plausible ideal then Anarchy and Utopian Socialism. It should be somewhat apparent that it would take Human Nature in account and it does. And it is my hope that this is made clear to the people who often bring the Human Nature argument. Overall some good points, and a good basic defense of Communism. However my opinion is that you need to expand and further clarify many of your points. Don't be afraid to be angry or sarcastic, Marx wasn't. Keep in mind that my revisions, aside from the purely punctuational ones, are not meant in any way to be authoritative; if you don't like the way I rephrased something you certainly don't have to change it! ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:42 pm
Yes, because if human nature, being lazy or greedy, were enough to make communism fail, capitalism would have failed from everyone being to alzy to work for nothing, or from destroying the market from all being equally greedy. Of course, neither are the case, each are actually learned traits, much as everything we as human do are learned, not innate, and if they are innate, they are surely suppressible with drive and initiative. (Which human would have in capitalism anyways)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
