Daily reminder that you will never escape Natural Law and Human nature

Unironically read Hobbes. Human nature is incredibly limited and only gives us tendencies towards certain behaviors, none of which are inherently capitalist/monarchist/etc. Also stop being a liberal.

...

So this is the power of rightism.

Something that logically must exist but also something that we don't fully understand.

By your retarded logic there's no genetic basis for intelligence because we don't know 100% of the genes responsible.

Attached: 1.jpg (793x564, 84.63K)

>Human nature must exist but we dont fully read: at all understand it
>But my personal view that corresponds to my retard politics of it is 100% correct and if you deny it youre fake news

Be more concrete and stop deflecting. What do you think human nature is.

Attached: lame.jpg (244x380, 31.41K)

Dumbass! Human nature is to reject the impossible and kick reason to the curb! Your monkey ass doesn't know the first thing about humanity!

Attached: 00659eca80b4c0251c7e791f10d8cdf433cff726v2_00.jpg (512x512, 74.61K)

Daily reminder you're a spooked nerd.

Attached: 15073329_1254600564600495_4031094766398947160_n.jpg (867x766, 60.29K)

essentially true. Most traditions and the moral systems that enforce it are "adaptive", i.e. they improve group survival & reproduction. For this reason, a tendency to favor traditional norms is hardwired to some extent. There is some truth to the charge that Trotskyite and capitalist initiatives to destroy tradition amount to a "revolt against nature".

Embrace the turd position and revolt against Capitalism and Communism.

Embrace humanity.

You mean like those protesters at tianamen square escaped natural law and human nature?

I've never actually heard a reasonable explaination as to exactly just what human nature is. Only that it most certainly exists, and it means we can't have communism. The best I've seen is the claim that "humans are competitive and that's why we can't just share (communism)"

What nonsense are you talking about? Money is real, I'm holding it in my hands right now. You Marxists are idealists! that's one of my favorite things to read

Nothing technology and a few "tweaks" to the brain can't fix, faggot.

This is a good meme

Attached: Anti-Spiral_Suspended_Animation.png (314x177, 76.72K)

OP is a brainlet not here to argue in good faith, or to argue at all. If his proposition were correct (communism is against human nature) communism wouldn't exist as an ideology in the first place, and certainly would have never existed as a mass movement. As a general rule, you shouldn't put more effort into a conversation than the other guy, and so the mods wouldn't be wrong to let this thread disappear or sink below the more productive ones.

Attached: endgame-of-traditionalism.png (2052x1156, 243.69K)

Beyond incredible

based and tankpilled

ok but about that:

human nature is that which has been reinforced by hundreds/thousands of generations of evolutionary pressure.

Deep ancestral instincts that you find when you scan people's brains and see activity in their amygdala.

If you define "communism" as a social-engineering project then yes it is doomed, but if you work with human nature then it's possible.

traditional norms and the moral technology to enforce them emerged separately around the world - to some extent they are a function of evolutionary processes, i.e. "that's what works".

People are innately predisposed to cooperation and altruistic behaviors (more for some races less for others) but there are limits you run into, such as tribalism and psych modules that appear to help people recognize human "types".

Having to cooperate to kill other groups was part of why we're cooperative.

Of course neoliberal globalism attempts to re-engineer humanity away from its nature as well, but whereas communists attempt this out of idealism, the neoliberal global project is probably more about a strategy of tension.

I feel like you're trying to be charitable or reasonable here but I still think this is really reductive, the social-engineering project was literally realized to a limited extent in places like East Germany. Looking past stasi complaints etc. there are many accounts I've read of East Germans mentioning one thing they miss being the sense of camraderie and equality, that no one felt insecure or less than anyone else innately because nobody was clearly of a different class than anyone else. Animosity and resentment was always more around normal petty social hierarchies, like if someone was more talented or more popular, but they have nostalgia for that feeling of everybody having a shared identity as simply East German workers living similar modes of life. There was an actual connection there, whereas in our society there is a series of disconnections that are systemic and quickly recognizable based on income and class.

Which isn't to say that social-engineering should be a primary directive, since whatever the ideal is can probably never be sufficiently realized, but it comes with the territory of fundamentally changing the social order. Similarly you should work within "human nature", which I think is real but much broader than capitalist apologists would like to believe. What they focus on often is that simple drive to benefit one's self and immediate friends/family out of normal altruistic social feeling for people in the inner circle. I don't think that can be fully extinguished, and it will always be a source of social conflict, and it's normal, but it doesn't need to be elevated to the stratification of billionaires and prestigious political families across from endemic poverty, and all of the social ills that result.

Literally anything humans do is "human nature". "Human nature" is the SJW gender politics of the right, it can mean anything and there is a billion different interpretations of what is the "correct" human nature. It's nebulous bullshit and lacks any form of a coherent concrete understanding. And the even more bizzare thing is, even if we we're to assume what we call human nature is simply form of primitive instinct or impulse you then assume we should indulge in those things, something that would be seen as reprehensible by most modern societies. It implies we should degenerate, that we should be like our extremely primitive ancestors acting on every sexual and violent impulse that we experience. It's subhuman garbage and it's not shocking that those who follow such ideas act as subhumans.

it's hilarious how anime nerds with no friends think they know anything about humans, especially since most anime I've seen has the most comical, parodical, unrealistic depiction of humans I've ever seen in my life.

gibberish
You either have instincts or you don't.
Adding words like "deep" and "ancestral" doesn't elevate the term in anyway. Capitalism itself was considered a social engineering project in it's time. The liberation of slaves was considered a social engineering project in its time. All we're doing is going one step further and liberating the workers from wage slavery. Every century we're forced to entertain goal post moving from from a new batch of idiots who would have us stagnate in the quagmire of history than let it move to its next stage. It's equivocal to upholding the divine right of kings, but made human for the 21st century.

I think I agree. I mean, the world we live in, especially post industrial revolution, is very different than our natural evolutionary environments. It's all engineering, on some level.

But compare the "unnatural" engineering policies (almost a kind of cultural shock therapy) of early Bolsheviks with somewhere like East Germany where they (arguably) strengthened natural tendencies towards altruism and solidarity. There are limits, and there are some innate qualities, some essence, that needs to be understood and respected - that's all I'm saying.

With this old problem of tribalism-groupishness-identity, there are interesting studies of altruism and social welfare which appear to show that going too far engineering multi-ethnic societies is counter-productive:
amazon.com/Welfare-Ethnicity-Altruism-Evolutionary-Nationalism/dp/0714683523

lol no, not all instincts equal! Some are "deeper" than others, because they evolved earlier and were reinforced through stronger selective pressures. We can see this when we look at the architecture of the brain in different scenarios. fMRI scans are useful.

Communists are materialists and base their theory on the strict material conditions of society and historical necessity. You on the other hand are literally arguing feel>reals and that we should base society on our feeling on it.

okay, "idealism" not the perfect word choice, I should say their motives were idealistic, rather than cynical. They were not attempting to create more conflict within society but (evenually) less.

Every communist is cynical when it comes to capitalism, though.
So were the original capitalist.They were far more Utopian, as well.

wow what an interesting opinion you're smart

idk the current neoliberal global project appears to hinge on a strategy of tension as a long-term management strategy.

Why does this matter exactly?

because you're gay and didn't seem to understand what I was saying

OK big brain Macgyver, break it down for me.

I love asking “muh hyooman nachur” fags what exactly they mean when they say that.

*big think emoji*

It's instincts but they're deep, but we can't just call them deep instincts, they have to be some iron law of nature which we all most bow our head and pray to whenever we try something new.

This is still wrong. Communists, specifically Marxists, aren't motivated towards communism because of an ideal (Marx even warns against such ideal seeking) but out of historical materialism. Marxist look at history and see a series of class conflicts and observe how such conflict progresses history forward. They then see, based on underlying workings of capitalism and the inevitable consequences of such mechanisms, the emergence of communism from capitalism, in which the conflict between the current classes (the proletariat and the bourgeoisie) is resolved. The end of class conflict wasn't the goal, it was just something that corresponded with societies material progression and occurred as a consequence.

yes thank you professor wikipedia. I'm using the term "idealism" in a more colloquial way. Of course I know the early Bolsheviks (excluding the proto-Trotskyite fifth column) were motivated by Marx's deterministic dialectical model of history. Marx was wrong about that, and other things.

nice word salad

How is it deterministic, when it's simply observing cause and effect?

I completely agree.
Human nature tends to be that way

wew

That's what determinism means.
Of course it's not how things progressed in the 20th century, and as a model of history it's wrong.

lol no, brainet. I ~said the neoliberal order appears to understand human nature to the extent it engineers internal conflicts for the purpose of control

No shit, Sherlock.

That's still just as stupid.

and yet it's true and as observes, not exactly a mindblowing observation

Because liberalism thrives on conflicts to maintain power, you're preaching to the choir and you don't realize it. You're not showing how this is specifically innate to humans, but rather a part of historical trend of liberalism to deal with class antagonisms.

...

Then how are we supposed to make value judgments about it?
We literally do not care. Tabula rasa is irrelevant to communism. Go bug some liberals if you want to argue.

Human nature exists, but it's an argument for communism, not capitalism. If you read The Fatal Conceit you'll find that even Hayek was aware of this.

Marx's point was about the tendencies of certain occurrences due to cause and effect, not unbreakable deterministic laws. If anything, that's what you're doing with "muh human nature"

I just said "human nature" exists and ought to be observed. Tbh that's one of the reasons the liberal gangsters have been more successful.

It's not about class antagonisms for the capitalists, though. It's about ANY antagonism. This is one of the ways the multiculturalists, open borders faggots and trotskyites play into capitalism's hands.

Attached: i have given up.jpg (377x321, 62.07K)

Name one that isn't at least tacitly related to class

let me guess, this is the part where you tell me that ethnicity and religion are actually class issues?

Tell us what that natural law is then, especially since literally every society in history has had a different idea of what it is.

Depends on what you mean.
Ethnicity and religion aren't classes themselves, no.

I doubt if you asked a liberal, they wouldn't even know what that means.
If you're willing to conflate crowd psychology with human nature, I might be able to see where you're coming from, but even that I wouldn't call human nature.

I doubt if you asked most liberals, they would even know what human nature means. If you're willing to conflate crowd psychology with human nature, I might be able to see where you're coming from.

Ethnicity and religion are by themselves not class, but conflict between those things usually originate from the base economic and material conditions of society and class. Not all, but most conflict is derived from that of the economic.

I'm floored to be honest. I have absolutely no idea how to seriously respond.
A constant motion, figurative and literal, and the interplay between an immeasureable multitude of things and, with humans, ideas. This, a vast generalization, but something mankind, in a great number of wildly different cultures, has studied for centuries.
Don't exists lol. What in the everloving fuck.

Its just, what i like vs what i dont like. Just a subjective spook people adhere to. In case of the op, its probably some chad vs the virgin meme teir bullshit.

What is it?

Attached: thonkpocalypse.gif (480x264, 1.88M)

itd help

discord.gg/PKmKtv

Attached: 49276633_1259195387538382_6257560135279837184_n.png (618x611, 365.36K)

This isn't science, this a bunch of word-salad spiritual mumbo jumbo. It's no different then arguing some big JuJu pushes the river or that there exists mystical nature essence that connects the trees with the birds with the people and whatever.

Read Kropotkin
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution

Later faggot

Humans and all of their works exist within nature rather than outside of it.

All of these things are part of nature since humans made them and humans are part of nature.

What do you mean, we can't go against human nature? We have genetic engineering, you know.

More than half of this board is brain dead, but the same thing can be said about Zig Forums. I don't necessarily think that human nature itself prevents a communist society, but that constructing such a system is against human nature, what I mean by this is that there are so many opportunities along the way for someone charismatic to take control and lead it in a wrong direction, and even when we get there, there's still many opportunities to fuck up the system. The point is that is if someone can take advantage, some will. Sure, you can create a communist style system with a few hundred people if you're selective, but once you try to build that from a modern society with millions, then it gets a bit more difficult. But whatever, happy new years, who the fuck ever you are.

Attached: 5b9d62682a3794a9438864d05d4c8c92a114f8a995165e6cca584c53ba593776.jpg (900x1283, 1.47M)