sc94597 said:
This is the faulty premise. There is no single universal human nature. There are billions (many billions throughout history) of human natures which manifest themselves differently based on the social dynamics and norms of a society. Just compare our two closest relatives: Bonobos and Chimpanzees and see how different they are merely by changing the environment they lived in and forming different societies based on that. Some of the differences are genetic (through millions of years of isolated selection) but much are also social and environmental. The Bonobos are egalitarian and spend most of their days having sex. The chimpanzees are aggressive and dominating fighting and killing one another. But if you put a baby Bonobo into a Chimp tribe (and the tribe somehow accepted it) it would likely adopt the norms of conduct of the chimps to some degree, and to a lesser degree if you did the opposite the Chimp wouldn't be as aggressive as it would've been with a Chimp tribe. Humans are even more complex than this because we've developed in so many different environments and have formed so many different cultures based on our more complex patterns of thinking and our language. There is no single human nature, just many individual ones, and even within ourselves we have different competing goals and urges. |
I agree with you, there is no single "human nature" that applies for all of us. But, at least for me, the huge majority shares some behaviours and desires that can be put in the same basket. And for me, socialism does not allow it to happen.
Most people want to have a house for themselves, that they can expand, change or do whatever they want. Has been like this since forever. Most people want to make plans for the future, maybe because they are cautious, hence saving money in whatever form it exist. Some people have a lot of energy and just want to work 12 hours per day to aquire more stuff if they want, for whatever reason. A lot of people are just assholes or evil, therefore I think we will always need to have a form of police. Also I think a higher authority will always be necessary to organize the society and be the judge when problems appear. Unfortunately, the state is necessary and deep inside I think most people want to have someone to ask for help when problems or injusticies appear.
I could write a lot more stuff but those are maybe the main reasons why I think socialism is Idealistic (as you corrected me, instead of utopic). I think it can never work, either state socialism or anarch capitalism (what is the correct name anyway?).
Also, usually when people defend socialism, they do not address those questions above, they just keep repeating the same sentences that seem to be out of a communist book. When I read words like proletariat or burgoinese it just makes me cringe.
By the way I like your argumentation 
very far from the same old classic rich vs poor speeches.
