Debating cUcks

youtu.be/hhE5-zBlmcw
I've noticed there's some confusion too around the term itself. My friend thought human nature just referred to 'broad universally shared human desires' like wanting safety, freedom, well-being, happiness, etc. and that it is natural for humans to want these things regardless of what culture they came from.

Aside from human nature being a spook, most of the time it's just a soft version of the naturalistic fallacy, and you can safely discount it.

do you have assburgers? :DDDD

It's fallacious to announce the fallaciousness of an argument as a way to disprove a statement. Not to mention that pointing out fallacies never helps in discourse and winning hearts.

Interestingly anything outside of burgiouse/worker roleplay is a spook.

Sure, there isn't a definitive "human nature", but there surely are proven psychological effects and our brains are pre-wired to a certain extent.

There's zero to believe it isn't a spook. The majority of the time, It's just taking human tendencies, and making them iron laws of nature.

It's not wrong because it's fallacious, it's fallacious because it's wrong. It's helpful if you want to understand how to deconstruct an argument, which apparently what this thread is about.

If you were to put the worker on an altar, you might have a point. Luckily, Marxism doesn't rely on that dynamic to make its argument, probably because he actually read Stirner.

Yes there is, humans have instincts and follow them. Marx and Engels acknowledged it. That's different from saying that capitalism/feudalism/socialism/anarchism/whatever is human nature.

Yes, and I don't disagree but a lot of people tend to think that human nature is set in stone when we are still scratching the surface of what makes us human. I do not want to imply that there are no instincts but a catch all term like human nature is foolish at our current stage of science.

Sure there are plenty of flaws in trying to determine human nature but dismiss the whole concept of human nature is just as flawed as dogmatically upholding that we know everything about human nature. There are several things that seem like they might be instinctively inherent to human beings. For example Noam Chomsky talked about studies that show that human beings are naturally wired to acquire language. Though one must take into account that there is still debate around this idea, one should not dismiss such research. In fact, if Karl Marx lived into Freud's day he probably would've taken a very big interest in psychology/psychiatry/psychoanalysis and he probably would have taken it into account in any works he would've written if he lived in such a time. Otherwise, he wouldn't have made claims about alienation which is inherently a psychological claim about what capitalism does to workers.

Attached: Noam_Chomsky,_2004.jpg (220x294, 17.41K)

instincts don't denote human nature, though. Human nature encompasses more than instinct. It's supposed to be the essence of what being human means.

It's not Marxist, but Polanyi's "The Great Transformation" does a really thorough job of refuting the whole "dude people have been trading things since teh stone age they said so in high school econ, capitalism is just human nature" and narrating how capitalism was constructed through coercion and state action, and how any attempts to de-regulate it have resulted in social catastrophe. His chapter on enclosure is short and encapsulates this well.

Past a certain age they can't learn language, though. It's only particular to a certain age range. There are nurturing caveats to all these things that are supposedly "natural". We can point to instincts and predilections all day, but without some corresponding force to bolster them, they are useless. It's funny how everything is considered human nature, except human malleability.

Marx was more technical about what he meant when it came to alienation. It was state in which the worker was deprived of determining the direction of production and his labor. It didn't necessarily meant the worker would feel alienated. It's why some workers are total classcucks, and others aren't.

debates are for cucks therefore uncucking someone through debating is impossible

First ask them to describe and define human nature. Otherwise, their "muh human nature argument" is no more than a fancy "nuh uh!". Human nature is not a specific constant that delineates our behaviour and capabilities. It's a complex relation of our psychology and neurochemistry along with environmental and social factors.

Attached: 0565a477e3a872ef04707e86fb7ddf89fcb91dd4b8923cbf5f80181fa03c4de1.png (774x809, 585.88K)

Don’t just punch them. Make them bleed and cry. Once I saw one of them walking down the block and my fucking fist buries his FUCKING face into the wall, brain and bones splattering all over the wall and stuff. Was NASTY and then the police came and I ran wasy

1. "human nature is bad" ("egoism"-argument)
this would be an argument against capitalism and in favor of socialism, actually, if it had any substance to it, which it doesn't
2. "human nature is good" ("charity"-argument)
again, completely baseless and plain wrong, can easily be turned against itself and into favoring socialism

argue that "human nature" is adapting, that is also to a persons class interest, which turns bourgeois people towards developing antisocial disorders
in reality, "human nature" as an argument always favors socialism

also:
capitalism "advocates" (retards riding a bandwagon because they can't question ready made simpleton slogans themself) ignore the absolute majority of human history or distort it completely to argue "human nature" to be in favor of capitalism
the opposite is the case
people are social animals and worked cooperative for most of their time, especially the longest era that was the "hunter gatherer society"
you could argue that capitalism is "against human nature" and that antisocial disorders that develop within the capitalist class (and also lumpen) is proof of this

reciprocal altruism
youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (800x800, 61.28K)

Key word here being reciprocal.

If they say that human nature is innately competitive, point out to them that the record of human evolution contradicts this - humans are social creatures, and especially when in times of scarcity or crisis, humans who band together and cooperate are much more likely to be successful, and this is what most people will do according to studies:
proutglobe.org/2012/10/is-human-nature-competitive-or-cooperative/

If they say that human nature is self-interested or "greedy", simply state that collective ownership of production and distribution of resources according to need is actually more aligned to the self-interest of the vast majority of the human population that the expropriation under wage labour.