^^^ CB: To the extent that my statement might be interpreted to mean there was absolutely no conflict in the Garden of Eden, I stand corrected.
But the point is one of what is the direction of the shape of human society when compared with the society of the "missing link" species out of which we emerged ? What are the characteristics that distinguish us from homo erectus or pithecanthropines, etc. ? My statement is implicitly comparative between species , not absolute.
Those "missing link" species had territoriality and aggression( intra-species aggression) too. The idea is that the human revolution increased the sociality _in comparison_ with prior species, not that intra-species conflict and attention to individual self-interest was eliminated altogether among humans.
So, yes there is human nature. There is "missing link" species nature, too. The claim I am making is that human nature is more communist than "missing link" species nature. "Missing link" nature was more like what the bourgeoisie, EP and SB think human nature is like - selfish, territorial and aggressive. The traits that the EP and SB people feature - selfishness, intra-species aggression , whatever - are not what characterize human nature in comparison with other species nature. They are the opposite of what characterize human nature _in comparison_ with other species behavior IN THE ERA OF THE EARLY HUMANS. And humans adapted better than the missing link species because they were more cooperative and social than the missing-link species, not because they were more intra-species aggressive and territorial than the missing-link species.
So, EP and SB should look for the roots of any uniquely human territorality and aggression not in human nature, but in its malleable quality that you mention. The characteristics that we have that might appropriately called HUMAN nature, in the sense of our natures that are different from our precursor species, are being more cooperative and social. The characteristics of the our societies that are more anti-social and intraspecies aggressive are attributable not to our natures , but to our cultures, especially the culture developed in the class divided society phase of human history
Also, the real qualitative leap in sociality is the intergenerational sociality especially between dead and living generations.
If a human invents the wheel, she can pass it on to the next generation through culture - language, rituals,et al. After this genius is dead, her ancestors have a "social" link with her because they don't have to reinvent the wheel. They also have the wheel.
A chimp genius might invent the wheel. But, she can't pass it on, because she doesn't have culture. Each new generation of chimps must reinvent the wheel if they are to have it. So gradually humans accumulated a lot more forms of adaptation than ape species. Many of the inventions are forms of organization, such as a method of group hunting or defense,not material objects,like a wheel.
The point I am making is that this intergenerational sociality is not so much "all peace and harmony". It is just an objective fact that ,first, is the key distinguishing difference between humans and other species. Secondly, it is the basis for humans having so much adaptationaly and population growth success compared to all other primates and , I think most mammals, especially large mammals.
Today, in many ways, this "sociality" serves the type of disharmony and intra-human species conflict you refer to, because the cultural inheritance has been turned into its opposite and used to build up weaponry and war. But this turning into its opposite occurred long after the establishment of our uniquely human natural qualities. The atomic bomb does not have to be reinvented for it to exist, unfortunately. In this regard, the adaptive advantage of culture has turned into its opposite, potentially a species self-extinguishing opposite.
What say you ?