>This assumes a "human nature" substrate or foundation upon which is
>political and social relations must be built. I think it's much more
>useful to take the (Marxist) view that human nature is a product
>of social relations, not simply a precondition for social relations.
>I make this claim not just because I'm an optimist about human
>potential but because research clearly demonstrates that humans
>adapt to and effectively function in a bewildering variety of
>social contexts, from hunting and gathering societies to
>"postindustrial" societies. For the most part, when people
>say "Given human nature, X is unrealistic" (X = socialism,
>world peace, eliminating poverty, whatever), it means that
>human nature as conceived and produced in a given society is
>inconsistent with X, not that X is beyond humans' capacity.
>
There are two issues that ought to be mentioned here. The first is that
the above is a tad close to the utterly untenable position that there is
no "human nature" _at all_, beyond that imposed by social relations.
Miles is not asserting something so extreme, but I felt that I should
caution people about it. Yes, humans can adapt-- but we're not without
basic or unchanging elements. The second is that the notion of a basic
"human nature" is not incompatible with socialist ideals. Why not argue
that socialist ideals are better suited to human nature than the
constraints and incentives offered by capitalism?
The problem Miles describes arises not from the notion of human nature, but the amazing eagerness of ideologues to claim that they actually _know_ what human nature is, to such an extent that they can predict which institutions are tenable and which aren't.