[Fwd: Re: anarchism]

[Brett Knowlton]

Katha wrote:
>That human nature is "essentially benevolent, cooperative and social"
>(if social means something other than "unlike cats and tigers,live
>together in groups") seems to me pure speculation. How odd that we can
>bash the idea that WOMEN are 'essentially benevolent" (peaceful,
>child-oriented, cooperative etc) -- but accept the idea that all human
>beings are so!

I agree with Katha that anyone who claims to understand human nature in any
detail is dealing in speculation.  But I also think Miles got it right when
he asked and answered his own question:


>Is human nature malleable enough to create more peaceful societies than the
>one we're living in?  Yes, the anthropological evidence on that is
>pretty clear.

This is the crucial point.  Humans have the capacity for cooperation and
mutually beneficial social interaction.  They are also clearly capable of
horrible cruelty and extreme selfishness.  The form a society takes, its
institutions and the incentives they present to individuals, can greatly
influence which tendencies get expressed.

Capitalism rewards selfishness, so people behave selfishly.  Socialism
rewards cooperation and solidarity, which is how I think people would
behave in a socialist setting.

Brett