Human nature
ONE
OF THE PRINCIPAL objections to Socialism is the frequently expressed
claim that human nature is such that people as a whole have never
acted, and will never act, in an entirely co-operative manner; that for
instance, greed, ambition, cruelty and the like are fundamental human
traits. It is argued that each human being will do whatever is to his
own immediate advantage, regardless of the effect his actions may have
upon others and, ultimately, the effect they may have upon himself.
Some contemporary illustrations, some guesswork about the past and some
misconceptions about the future, are then put forward as evidence in
support of the contention. As soon as this evidence is examined it
becomes plain that the case against Socialism on this ground, is built
upon practices that are uncritically accepted as if essential for all
time.
That such views should be widespread amongst all sections
of the population, no matter the class or the occupation of the holders
is a striking commentary on the nature of the education most people
receive. It leaves them completely unaware of the significance of the
changes in ideas that have occurred in the recent past, and even in the
lifetime of their own generation. It should be apparent that ideas
which were taken for granted as universally true not very long ago
would now be laughed at; ideas such as the divine right of kings; that
women were incapable of taking part in social affairs along with men;
that working men were incapable of taking part in government: that the
British Empire was invulnerable; and so on. Yet in spite of this, and
in spite of the vast accumulation of information to the contrary,
resulting from the investigations of anthropologists and historians, it
is still widely accepted that the acquisition of property is the only
course for mankind. That social existence is impossible without money,
wages, profits, the State, frontiers, wars and all the other
paraphernalia that drive us to distraction today.
When we
examine the meaning usually attributed to the term 'human nature' we
find that the objectors lump together under this heading acts that are
today regarded as anti-social. Human nature is looked upon as
fundamentally bad (a carry-over from the theological dogma of original
sin), and it is assumed that people commit anti-social acts because
'they are born that way'. Many of those who put forward this view
contradict it by urging that the growth of religion, or 'civilising
influences', will help eradicate 'evil' conduct. However, the main
things people are born to do are to eat, drink, keep warm, imitate,
copulate and learn. The relations they enter into with each other at a
given time to accomplish these ends set the pattern for the social
outlook and the social code. Those who depart from this accepted code,
although they may start the movement for a new pattern, are considered
to be anti-social or criminal in great or small degree. In the course
of history humanity has moved from relative simplicity in the social
arrangements. It has moved from a world of isolated communities into a
world of large interconnected industrial complexes. But through all the
changes the fundamental characteristics of humanity have remained the
same; the spur to action has been the probing and planning based on
these fundamental characteristics. What people think and how they act
is not the result of fundamental ineradicable instincts, but is the
result of customs, regulations and inhibitions that spring from the
social environment in which people of succeeding centuries have had to
solve the problem of living. In other words, that people are able to
think and act is a fact of biological and social development, but how
they think and act is the result of social conditions. Since private
property came into existence, the pursuit of riches has bred murder,
cruelty, fraud, enmity and other anti-social behaviour.
The
thoughts and actions of human beings are influenced by their
surroundings, which include customary traditions, the education they
have received, their living conditions and the other people they have
met. The present social arrangements and outlooks are only temporary
and are associated with social conditions that can be changed. The duke
and the dustman, the millionaire and the mechanic, the tycoon and the
counter-hand, the oil king and the labourer; all are separated by
barriers that are artificial social barriers that have grown up during
centuries of the development of property society.
Ideas are not
just a mechanical reflection of technological processes. In doing
things in a certain way men, over a long or short period, see methods
of changing these ways that are better, or that they think are better,
and it is this that leads to changes in the technological processes. In
other words, the process of history is the result of an interchange
between man and his environment. It is man who makes the changes; but
he can only make them out of the material that is at hand and part of
this material, in the form of traditions from the past, slows the pace
of change.
There has been little discernible change in the
fundamental make-up of man yet there have been considerable changes in
social conduct corresponding to the changes in social conditions.
Changed social conditions have been responsible for the changes in
attitude towards acts that are identical. For example, stealing today
is looked upon as a criminal act whereas in the ancient Greek city
state of Sparta stealing was a virtue and was taught to the young.
A
brief glance at history will reveal how great has been the change in
social attitudes towards people. In the days of classical antiquity one
section of mankind, the slaves, were chattels, and in the much-lauded
democracies of those days they were left entirely out of account. In
the Middle Ages land was the great source of riches and money-lending
was frowned on. The serf was no longer a chattel, but he was tied to
the land and to his lord, and if he ran away he could be forcibly
brought back. In our day money is the hallmark of social standing and
will buy almost everything — beauty, honour, titles and position, yet
as late as Jane Austen's day, to be engaged in a trade, put a man
outside the circle of gentlemen: and who, in Victorian times, would
have dreamt of a miner or a boilermaker rising to the eminence of a
knighthood or the House of Lords, or a relative of a royal family
serving in a shop or a fashion house?
The objector will often
readily agree that Socialism is a desirable system but he argues that
it will be impossible to achieve because of the 'human nature' barrier.
(We rarely encounter the objector who considers his own 'human nature'
standing in the way of Socialism — almost always it is other people's.)
It is urged that it will be impossible to get people as a whole to work
together to their mutual advantage because man is selfish by nature,
and each individual wants to get the better of the other, to get the
lion's share of whatever is going. As to the assumption of selfishness,
we would point to the thousands of people who give selfless devotion in
all manner of voluntary effort including work for political parties.
Let us, however, look at the matter from another aspect. In a socialist
society where each would be free to take what he needs there will be no
point in anyone trying to get more.
The very people who argue
that the fundamental and ineradicable nature of human characteristics
make Socialism impossible, are themselves often engaged in propagating
reforms the object of which is to remove conditions that are believed
to be responsible for certain forms of objectionable conduct — thus
their own actions refute their claim that Socialism is impossible.
Finally,
man's curiosity and humanity make him an essentially reasonable being:
when he is free of artificial barriers he readily works in harmony with
his fellows. Even within the limits of the present social order there
are innumerable examples of the extent to which men are prepared to
make sacrifices, even of liberty and life, in the effort to help their
fellows.
The selfish, cruel, anti-social conduct that is laid at
the door of human nature is really only conduct that is the outcome of
systems based on private property, which compel people to engage in
predatory conduct in order to survive. What else can be expected in the
present social system where one section of the population monopolises
the means for producing the things that are needed by all, while
another section is forced to work for the privileged minority in order
to obtain the necessities of life?
Once class monopoly is
abolished and replaced by the common ownership of the means of living,
that is, when all that is in and on the earth becomes the common
possession of all mankind, people will willingly co-operate in
harmonious association for their mutual benefit just because it is
'human nature' to seek that which contributes to personal wellbeing.
|
 |
|
