Marx proposes that a society in its ideal state is one where all people work together toward one common goal. For this society to be possible, he makes the claim that enlightenment understanding of human nature is wrong. In other words, man is not competitive but instinctually is programmed for cooperation. I personally disagree. No where in the natural world does any species human or not, act in the ultimate interests of others. To argue that they essentially throws out the idea of Darwinism, instead saying that everything works as one without competition. The fact is that it is natural for beings of any type to seek a greater share of resources for themselves. Look at the various scavenging animals that store food in case of shortage, look at any number of animals from all areas that will consume food to the point of vomiting and then go back for more. In all of these cases these beings are acting on the natural tendency to assume that resources are limited and inevitably will be scarce at times. In the same way a human being seeks to acquire wealth in order to be able to survive when wealth is scarce.
This phenomena is what Marx ignores. Marx assumes that people will only take what they need and what they need should be enough. But as I have said the natural world tells us that from an animalistic stance, there is an instinct to preserve for the future. This is the idea of creating some level of security in life. Under the Marxist method mankind lacks all security, which again is a basic need. I don't think anyone would argue that it is not instinctual to seek safety, so why is this any different? If a person relies entirely on the assumption that each day they will be fed, then on the day that they are not they starve. In the same way that the animal collects food so that it may survive on the days it is not fed, mankind strives to accumulate wealth for the times when it is scarce.
The world is only so large and only contains so many resources. Competition for those resources is inevitable. Mankind's nature is to compete as it is nature which forces competition. Marx in his theory is attempting to change what is impossible to change. He strives to remove the natural force which is finite resources from society so thus society is non competitive. This, however, goes against all that is nature. It is impossible for there to truly be unlimited resources which is why all beings are born with the instinct to hoard. Something that is not a decision but rather an instinct in the quest for security.
When I was reading Marx and we were discussing it in class, I too found it hard to believe that people would only take what they need and nothing more. If we get down to our animalistic natures, like you have stated, it is our instinct to take more than we need. I think somewhere, deep down, our animalistic nature is afraid of starving, is afraid that while there is food today and I only took what I need, if someone comes along and takes everything, what will I eat tomorrow? However, it got me wondering if these instincts are something that has existed forever or if it just because, in some way, we have always lived in some for of a capitalist society. One part of me believes that it is our nature to compete. In nature, we see animals hoarding their food, saving up for winter, and like you said eating so much until they vomit and eating again. Thus, since humans evolved from animals, it makes me believe that it is our instinct to be competitive, to accumulate wealth, to try and be the best, so we aren’t the ones starving at the end of the day. However, on the other hand, I want to believe that we are “good-beings” that this idea that competition is a natural instinct evolved because we needed to survive. That if Marx had been around in the “beginning” perhaps we could have all lived in a cooperative state. But, like you said, I don’t think I can imagine a world with infinite resources where people shared everything. In order for this to work, everyone across the board, in every city, state, country, would have to adopt this lifestyle. However, in the world we live in today where we disagreements lead to government shutdowns, its hard to imagine a world where we could all agree to share everything and only take what we need. Therefore, perhaps capitalism isn’t the best economic idea, but I don’t think Marx has offered up an alternative that is much better.
ReplyDeleteI actually disagree that human nature can be so simply categorized as self-interested. Take for example, the communal unit that is prevalent throughout the animal kingdom: the family. Almost wherever you look in nature, parents care for their offspring, so much that by doing so they often deny themselves for the benefit of their children. If in fact the natural state of humans or any other being were as you described, parents would reject their young in order to benefit themselves. While this by no means proves that humans are selfless creatures, it does leave the possibility that humans may be able to put the whole in front of the self.
ReplyDeleteIn which case, Rosemary’s idea seems quite intriguing. Are we by nature selfish, or do we become selfish creatures by participating in a capitalist society? If the former is true, then communism cannot work, for the greed and self-interest of the individual would prevent the eradication of private property. However, if society imposes our values upon us rather than human nature, then perhaps communism could mold humans into becoming rational, autonomous, and selfless people who may function together without private property or the estrangement of labor.
A key point Marx is making is that man is not like other animals. We do not need to compete to survive. We do not risk dying if we do not stuff ourselves with more than we need each time we eat. We are different in that we are capable of free conscious activity. An activity that can only be obtained because we have more than we need. In looking at it from Darwinism only proves that animals compete when it is necessary to survive. Not that it is in their nature. No one is arguing that self preservation is not in our nature. But self preservation doesnt not imply competition. As an example people dont hoard resources they believe are plentiful. Such as we dont steal/compete for water with each other because there isnt a need for it.
ReplyDeleteYou also completely ignored animals that do not act solely in their self interest but in the interest of the whole. Take bees for example. The colony only functions as a result of their cooperation and not their competition. They gather for the whole and sacrifice themselves instinctively for the whole. The concept of hoarding wealth and that people are selfish by nature does not hold definitive evidence according to Marx and at the very least Man is cooperative more so than competitive otherwise society wouldnt have formed. This nature would appear to be a biased axiom derived from a capitalistic upbringing.
I've always heard that though Marx's society sounds like a "good idea" it is an impossible state to achieve. I suppose the reason why Marx's society is too foreign for us to imagine is because we have a very different culture from other communist countries, such as North Korea or Vietnam. As a country that runs on democracy and meritocracy, our mindset as one society is to always advance in our social status through hard work, intellectual talent, and demonstrated achievement in specific fields which we orient our hard work into. Immigrants who come from other countries are drawn to the American Dream of United States because it offers hope to achieve beyond others, and attain an upward social mobility. I agree with Nick on the argument that our country clearly demonstrates too much contradiction to Marx's theory: humans are not competitive in nature, but innately programmed for cooperation. However, I disagree with the case that human nature is competitive in similarity to how animals collects food so that it may survive. While animals scavenge, collect, and gather food, they do it strictly in self-interest. Class divisions do not arise from animal groups - rather a food chain only exists (what is capable of eating what, or what is more efficient in escaping and populating). If human beings were only innately competitive, there would only be individualism and self-interest. Human beings are so competitive, in free market for instance, such that class divisions arise, and the poor seems to only be serving the wealthier and better off people. Marx calls these people, the proleterate (workers and producers that only serve the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie) While I believe that a Marx's society is not an ideal society I would want to live in, I can see his point. Perhaps he sees too much competitvity in free market that it creates different classes and an unfair division where one group of people will always receive the less benefit.
ReplyDelete