• GalaxyBrain [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    A lot of people in power who have pretty strong motives against us set this narrative. People irl are way more chill about your communism if you are being a good communist and helping them out. My co-workers trust me to the extent a couple have said if I were a dictator they’d be kinds stoked. Its not a hard sell if you live it

  • confusedwiseman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Why can’t we build on history, science, and philosophy as a species?

    We all know there’s enough resources for everyone. No one should have to go hungry, unsheltered, or without medical care.

    However, we as a species are pretty, panicky, and cruel. I believe we have the science, technology, math, and philosophy to identify, understand, and know how to solve for all of these types of problems.

    We just can’t overcome human nature as there’s a system in place that beckons to the worst in us.

    We could save ourselves if it weren’t for us…

    Editing only at the end of my post. I’m not responding to each, but y’all took this somewhere not within my intent of shared thought. It’s ok, you do you if it makes you happy.

    I’ve no idea who I’ve been purported to be paraphrasing, or how I’m telling on myself. I’ll accept I have ignorances, biases, and blind spots. It’s quite likely you all do too.

    Homelessness for example doesn’t need to exist. Take the US for example, there’s 20-30 empty homes per homeless person.

    There’s ways to solve these problems without turning into hippy communes or whatever derogatory view of societal approach used to help those that have it harder. (Likely a result of their own poor choices)

    Some people are weak (physically or mentally) and won’t be of much value to society. Should we not be in a timeline where we just send them off into the woods to die as to not deal with the burden?

    Some people are drawn to lead, others not. To a degree we’re all a bit lazy, or we’ve found a way to lean into one trait that allows compensation for another.

    We are all the minimally acceptable versions of ourselves. Otherwise, you’d change.

    Tl;dr; life doesn’t have to be the way it is and it could/should be better, but it isn’t.

    • LeninWeave [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      5 days ago

      We just can’t overcome human nature

      Human nature is collaborative, not competitive. We never would have succeeded as a species otherwise. This is capitalist realism, the idea that capitalism is simply the natural order of things.

        • LeninWeave [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          It seems reasonable to assume that whatever aspect of human behavior might be born of “nature” rather than environment would be collaborative. Otherwise no society would have gotten off the ground. “Human nature” in this case is just shorthand for that idea.

          I certainly wouldn’t call any “human nature” immutable, since we’ve seen that environmental effects can make people do almost anything. My statement in the previous comment would have made no sense if I was referring to “human nature” as immutable, since we’ve all agreed that the environment of capitalist society causes humans to behave in competitive ways even when they lead to negative outcomes.

          • Marxism_Sympathizer [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            5 days ago

            yes like i said i understand the argument and agree with it outside the context of someone using “human nature” in a comment idk it’s one of my petveeves that libs tend to use to argue that communism is impossible “it’s against human nature!” and i prefer to attack the very idea of human nature itself.

            idk if that makes any sense

            • LeninWeave [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              idk if that makes any sense

              Yeah, I see what you mean, actually. I wasn’t saying “human nature” was immutable, but the person I was replying to was. And you make a good point that I should have attacked that explicitly in my reply, actually. I’ll keep that in mind of next time I run into this (depressingly common) “humans are naturally bad” argument. rat-salute-2

    • miz [any, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      5 days ago

      human nature

      gee I wonder if we are shaped by MATERIAL CONDITIONS or just innately profit-driven shitheads? what a mystery! retire this flaccid excuse please

    • RedSturgeon [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 days ago

      Your assumptions you make on “human natur” is pure ideology. It’s not based on material understanding.

      You just look at how dysfunctional the world is and try to spin a narrative that will confirm your beliefs. This is fundamentally no different than assuming if people in a certain region are poor and they speak a different dialect, that it’s the dialect that makes them poor.

      Do you refuse to challenge your beliefs because you didn’t know or do you intentionally avoid challenging them, because it makes you uncomfortable? It’s much easier to become a nihilist who thinks majority of the people are just “naturally cruel” and give up.

      Like what do you think communism even is? The “good guys” keeping “the masses” in check? 1984

    • confusedwiseman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      5 days ago

      To that end, everyone basic needs should — MUST be met. There’s always something more that could be acquired or worked for, but why is it so hard for us to make a society where the bottom rungs on Maslow’s hierarchy can be given to all humans.

    • vegeta1 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 days ago

      Listen I’m as cynical as they come but even if its human nature we should not build a system that rewards the worst impulses of humans as you say. Its been shown time and time again that humans have struggled against slavery, kings, despots fascism all throughout history kinda goes against it being innately human nature. Many have sacrificed themselves to do this. Those are the best of us and should be the representative of what it means to be human. I get you feel this is a losing battle, I feel like this most days. But take strength from these people and others who do want a better way

    • Sleepless One@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Putting aside the fact that human nature is a BS concept invented to pacify people into not overthrowing their society (the other comments have already hammered this in enough), it appears to me that you even recognize this on some level.

      We just can’t overcome human nature as there’s a system in place that beckons to the worst in us.

      Clearly this system is at least having an affect on how “human nature” is expressed. It’s not much of a leap to conclude that this system affects what is even considered “human nature”.

      • Moidialectica [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        Sometimes I feel like

        ::: rant It’s just reflecting and they know they’re bad people or something and instead of acknowledging it they dive into cognitive dissonance to make it common so they can say they’re ‘better than most’ :::