[Originally published January 15, 2007]

This essay has been written as a response to a similar essay from the socialist perspective that has been widely circulated and can be found at:

Is socialism against "human nature"?

As anyone who has seen the essay floating about over the past couple of years knows, one of the arguments that drives socialists/Marxists truly crazy is the notion that socialism is inherently contrary to human nature. So, is socialism against human nature? There’s only one possible answer to this: “Without question!”

WHAT IS HUMAN NATURE?

The fundamental basis for socialism as envisioned by Marx, Engels, et al (the purpose of this essay is to discuss this specific form of socialism unless stated otherwise; whether the reader wishes to refer to it as total socialism, communism – distinct from those regimes that have adopted the term - or historical structuralism is irrelevant to the issues under discussion – there is no difference) conflicts with the most basic aspect of human nature. I’ll get to the specifics momentarily, but it is necessary to address the meaning of the term “human nature” before proceeding. This is because recent attempts to argue that socialism does not create such a conflict have misapplied the term in order to either deal with certain symptoms of human endeavor (i.e. war, “greed”, racism, misogyny, etc.) or have skirted the issue entirely.

The nature of anything is that which is inherent in the subject which does not change. The nature of lead for example is that it is a metal with a given set of chemical properties. You can change its state by melting it or manipulate it into different shapes but these aspects do not change – hence they are part of its nature. Human beings obviously are subject to far more variables than lead – radically diverse beliefs, abilities, limitations, behaviors, etc., but there are certain aspects of humanity that do not change. We are all mortal; we share certain vulnerabilities; and there are certain behaviors/motivations that in their essence are common to all human beings. These are the things that comprise “human nature”. It matters not whether these behaviors are genetic, as socio-biologists might argue, “part of our design” as evolutionary psychologists may posit or subject to some other explanation. All that is necessary for the definition to be met is that it describes an aspect of humanity that can be shown to be universal or that, after thousands of years of human history, cannot be undermined.

A common counterargument to the assertion that socialism is against human nature attempts to make its point with straw men: “War? It's human nature to fight. Racism? It's human nature to fear ‘outsiders.’ Women's oppression? Men and women are ‘naturally different.’” The problem, of course, is that these are not aspects of human nature. War occurs because of human nature, but it is a symptom rather than the nature itself. It is an aspect of human nature (a survival mechanism engrained in the species) to view that which is “different” with more suspicion than that which is familiar, but that is a far cry from a need to “fear outsiders”. And while it is an inescapable fact that there are inherent differences between men and women both physically and behaviorally, it does not naturally follow that women must be “oppressed”. Beyond that, these are not merely straw man arguments because they attempt to classify human nature as something other than it really is, but, in the context of whether or not socialism is viable, the assumption is that the underlying causes of these behaviors can be suddenly ignored so that socialism can effectively take root as if they are the result of the aspects of a non-socialist society rather than something much more basic. This assumption is absurd on its face.

So what is the nature of humans that has led to warfare and distrust of that which is different and the adoption of different roles for the sexes? What, for that matter, is the nature of humans that has resulted in entrepreneurship, competition, conformity, avarice and charity? What can be said about the underlying behavior that explains these activities? Put simply:

Human beings invariably act in what they perceive to be their own self interest.

That would seem to be a sufficiently straightforward proposition but, because its implications conflict with what some people, including socialists by definition, would like reality to be (rather than what it is), there have been a number of unsubstantiated attacks upon it. Let’s examine each of them in turn.

HISORICAL AND SOCIETAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Marxist theory argues that human nature depends upon the historical and social circumstances in which people live. The problem with this position is that it is not an evaluation of human nature at all, but, rather, an observation about human adaptability. Certainly, it is true that human behavior depends on the circumstances present at any given time, but that is entirely beside the point. Consider the example of lead again. While its shape and state may change radically depending upon the temperature and the degree of forces exerted upon it, it will always be a metal with a given set of chemical properties. Likewise, human beings may exhibit radically different behaviors depending upon the nature and degree of the forces exerted upon them, but they will still be human beings with certain definable characteristics – including the adherence to perceived self interest.

The nature of those societal and environmental forces has changed radically over time. In an effort to undermine the assertion that warfare is a function of that self interest in action, socialists have recently cited the work of Rutgers anthropologist R. Brian Ferguson in an effort to argue that warfare, as we know it, has not existed for as long there have been modern humans (a period of as much as 100,000 years), but “is largely a development of the past 10,000 years.” If that is so and we accept the premise that warfare is an aspect of human nature, then we must further accept the socialist argument that human nature is changeable and the utopian socialist model is not out of reach on the grounds that human nature is constant.

Set aside for a moment, the (obvious) point that finding evidence of warfare in the last 10,000 years (even with Neolithic implements) is easier by several orders of magnitude when there are permanent settlements around which to search than finding evidence of warfare in earlier times when human societies were overwhelmingly nomadic. Even if Ferguson’s (debatable) conclusion is accurate, it is still completely consistent with the position that human nature is constant and that self-interest is an aspect of that nature.

The entire human population 10,000 years ago was approximately 1 million people (some estimates go as high as 5 million). And, as Ferguson notes, this was the period during which human beings began creating the first permanent human settlements (the oldest date back no more than 12,000 years). It isn’t that the nature of self interest changed, but rather that the interests themselves changed radically. A population that is both relatively small (about 0.02% of the current population) – thus considerably less likely to need to compete with others for resources - and nomadic in nature – thus without need to defend any given location - has little reason to engage in open warfare. It wasn’t until the formation of permanent settlements that the interests of the group were in concert to defend the resources that they had accumulated. Warfare is the violent clash between large groups. In order to exist, therefore, there must be sufficiently large groups with sufficiently common interests for it to take place. Even Ferguson does not argue that examples of smaller clashes, banditry, selfishness, etc. did not exist previously – only warfare.

Socialists argue that it was the creation of a social hierarchy, an “elite” if you will, pressing its own agenda at the expense of the rest of society, that caused this “sudden appearance” of warfare. There is, of course, no evidence to support this conclusion – no indication that warfare was not deemed to be in the interests of the group as a whole and no basis for the assertion that this was some new phenomenon. Hierarchical structures are not necessarily linked to the creation of permanent settlements as an examination of nomadic societies both historical and contemporary demonstrates. On the other hand, there is evidence of societal and possibly religious hierarchies at least as early as the late Pleistocene.