Human Nature: It's Up to Us

A Brief Analysis of Capitalism vs. Socialism

March 1st, 2015 — by Nik Dobrinsky

The subject of human nature has been endlessly debated since people have had the ability to speak and think critically. Many political and philosophical discussions, when stripped down to the essence of the arguments, end up hinging on one's perspective of what the term human nature means, and what kinds of human behaviours can be attributed to being most aligned with our nature. Ideologically, two opposing perspectives have commonly emerged throughout history: the capitalist view and the socialist view. Believers in capitalism tend to hold the view that it's human nature to be primarily greedy, self-interested, and competitive, while the opposing socialist view is commonly that human nature is to be primarily group-oriented, compassionate, and cooperative. Beholding either view then justifies human behaviour as being in accordance with each respective system; one who believes in capitalism as the best system for humankind can justify its competitive, individualistic design with the claim that it's aligned with our nature, just as one who believes in socialism as the best system for humankind can justify its cooperative, community-focused design with the claim that it's likewise aligned with our nature. But these are just two extremes of a discussion that includes variant elements and degrees of both perspectives.

Perhaps because it's difficult to precisely define, human nature is in fact something in a state of continuous evolution, is not static, not clearly one way or another but rather embodies elements of the two aforementioned ideologies and encapsulates other variables as well. Upon examination and comparison of each respective argument, the socialist view of human nature emerges as far more desirable, and reasonable, than the capitalist perspective. But essentially human nature is something very complex and includes elements of both ideologies, resulting in a conclusion that perhaps human nature is ultimately flexible, swayable, and constantly in flux. Perhaps what fundamentally sets human beings apart from any other species of living creature on earth is that we can willfully change our own behaviour, consciously and with purpose, despite whatever other natural tendencies we may have.

In addition to the capitalist claim that it's the system best aligned with the natural behaviour of humankind, that is self-interest, a traditional aspect of the ideology is that it favours personal material wealth over compassion and sympathy for others. Such a philosophy is often accompanied by rationalizing the suffering of the disenfranchised by claiming it's due to their own inferiority, that marginalized people lack the competitive skills by which to succeed within a naturally competitive world. It's an oppressive, discriminatory view that neglects historical context and ignores political factors of marginalization, whereby the wealthy can then justify their own privilege with a sense of entitlement. Socialists would tend to agree that capitalism is not conducive to showing/feeling compassion. However the socialist view is that this disregard for others is not human nature, and that a different, more group-oriented system would support and encourage people to behave in a more cooperative, helpful manner towards one another, as truly is our nature.

Some capitalists may recognize that this ruthless attitude of disregard for fellow humans in exchange for self-benefit is less than ideal, but most take the stance that it cannot be helped, that nature itself is ruthless, and so be it. One can easily see how beholders of this view would then be justified in their own minds to behave in a fashion that results in prosperity for self only, despite, or perhaps dependent on, the lack of prosperity for others. Similarly, beholders of the socialist view would be justified in their own minds to behave in a fashion that results in the prosperity and well being of all, or as many as possible, if they think that this is our nature. Since there is a multitude of evidence to support either ideology's perspective, depending on how or where one wanted to look, is it not reasonable then to choose the socialist position on human nature? By doing so, by assuming that it is our nature to be compassionate and supportive of one another, we give ourselves permission to behave accordingly. This seems a much more rational, civilized perspective than the capitalist position which encourages and rewards greedy, competitive, self-centered behaviour.

This capitalist claim that it's human nature to be primarily self-interested can be seen in numerous works throughout history. Adam Smith, considered to be a pioneer of modern capitalist and economic thought, emphasizes the role of self-interest in his famous work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). Many subsequent proponents of capitalism have used Smith's ideas to support theories that people are self-interested foremost, yet Smith himself also acknowledges the existence and importance of sympathy for others in another work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). In this work, Smith writes, "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him" (Endnote #1). Smith's emphasis on sympathy for others has remained largely unacknowledged from the capitalist perspective, but even he, so highly regarded as a forefather of capitalist thought, placed utmost significance on this aspect of human nature—compassion—which actually seems more aligned with a socialist sensibility.

Further examples of the capitalist view of human nature, of self-interest as being the fundamental characteristic of humankind, are evident in the works of writer Ayn Rand. She claims: "The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does… but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival…and that its ruling principle is: justice" (Endnote #2).

The truth to Rand's assertion is a matter of perspective. Socialists would say that there is a lack of real justice in the world due to the system of capitalism, which inevitably results in the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands and unlimited exploitation of natural resources on a finite planet. This isn't an unreasonable claim considering that capitalism is a system based on economic competition in which only a few can "win", and therefore it's not the best way "to achieve the common good" (Endnote #3) but rather the opposite. That is, capitalism may be the best way to achieve some good for a minority of the earth's population, while dismissing the rest—hence an actual lack of justice.

Furthermore, Rand's claim that capitalism "is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival" (Endnote #4) is easily disputable as well. Let's dissect this claim on a hypothetical, basic level. If one were to examine two groups of people, Group 1 being believers in the capitalist philosophy of human nature, and Group 2 being believers in the socialist philosophy of human nature, and each were to undergo a massive threat to their survival, which philosophy would allow the group members to behave in a fashion that would maximize the survival of the most members of the group? The Group 1 members, as followers of the self-interest view of human nature, would do whatever they could to ensure their own individual survival, at the disregard for and/or expense of the others in their group, likely resulting in few, if any, survivors. Group 2 members, on the other hand, being followers of the group-interest view of human nature, would do whatever they could to ensure not only their own individual survival but the survival of as many of their other fellow group members as well, likely resulting in a much larger number of survivors as each individual's efforts would be pooled together for the mutual benefit of all. In this respect, the socialist view of human nature is much more inclusive and expansive than the capitalist view because it embodies elements of self-interest but with regard to and in context of the greater good of the group's welfare, not self-interest at the expense of the group's welfare. From this perspective, it's clear that Rand's claim, and indeed the capitalist attitude of self-interest as a fundamental aspect of human nature that is conducive to survival, is inherently flawed.

What Rand did have right is that the element of survival is a prominent aspect of human nature. One could argue that survival is, in fact, the most fundamental element of our nature and that all life on earth is essentially geared toward survival, self-preservation, and extension of existence. But self-preservation need not mean destruction and oppression of others. In fact, from a global tribal socialist mentality, harm of another is harm to a part of self. Relationships, sex and reproduction, working, growing food, earning and saving money—these human behaviours are extensions of the individual's basic need to survive, by having children and accumulating the wealth to take care of, and expand, the family. In this respect, again, it's much more reasonable to assume that seeking help from fellow human beings and conversely giving help to fellow human beings is far more conducive to survival than strictly selfish behaviour.

Political scientist Lyman Tower Sargent expands on the various views of human nature held by different ideologies. He writes: "In Marxism, democracy, anarchism, and feminism we find the position that human beings are capable of a high degree of community spirit and good feeling toward other humans. Hate and fear are stressed in fascism… Also underlying much of Marxism, democracy, and anarchism is a belief that humans are fundamentally rational. This is not found in nationalism, fascism… instead our irrational side is stressed" (Endnote #5).

Sargent makes no mention here of capitalism, but assuming that it's in opposition to Marxism, democracy, anarchism, and feminism, one must assume that capitalism is, therefore, more aligned with the values of nationalism and fascism, and is therefore "irrational". Later in this same passage, Sargent goes on to list other ideologies—namely feminism, Liberation Theology, Islam, and the Green Movement—that have mixed views of human nature and recognize humankind's potential for doing both good and evil (Endnote #6).

Albert Einstein, a professed socialist and certified genius, writes of this view of human nature as being mixed in his article "Why Socialism?" In this essay he argues that people are both self-interested and group-interested, by nature, but that the system of capitalism promotes the selfish side. He says that the essence of a person is shaped by life, and is not innate, but rather that people are inherently adaptable and will conform to whatever system they are governed by. So, if people are shaped by life and life is shaped by a greed-perpetuating system of capitalism, then people will be inclined to behave in a manner in accordance with that system (Endnote #7).

Einstein's point is an important one as it frees us from a rigid "black and white" or "one extreme or the other" kind of mentality in regards to human nature. More so than any specific type of behaviour, be it associated with capitalist ideals or socialist ideals, the history of humankind has repeatedly shown a wide spectrum of behaviours, as beings simultaneously capable of acts of immense compassion, love, and beauty as well as acts of extreme hatred, violence, and grotesqueness. Therefore our nature is not fixed one way or another, but rather is malleable and in a constant state of evolution, making us complex, contradictory beings resulting in much self-analysis as a species. Einstein's perspective that human beings are largely shaped by the structure of the system within which they are required to conduct themselves invokes the thought that people can therefore shape their own behaviour, can consciously will themselves to change, despite the structure of the system in which they live. And in turn we can change the system. It's all up to us. But are all of us up to it?

There have been numerous historical examples of individuals who have undergone radical changes in thought and behaviour. Joel Bakan writes of one such example in his book The Corporation (Endnote #8). In this critique of corporate capitalism, Bakan interviews a number of experts including successful businessman Ray Anderson. Anderson was founder and chairman of the world's largest commercial carpet manufacturer, who earlier in his career had no regard for the negative environmental impact of the toxic chemical waste that his company was producing. But he had a late-career epiphany which led to a profound transformation, and subsequently created a task force to investigate his company's environmental effects (Endnote #9). He began speaking in support of renewability and sustainability at numerous environmental forums and proceeded to reduce his company's negative environmental impact with the ultimate goal of eventually making it completely sustainable. Anderson also wrote books detailing his company's journey towards eliminating any negative environmental impact through the redesign of processes and products, the pioneering of new technologies, and efforts to eliminate waste and harmful emissions while increasing the use of renewable materials and energy sources. His story is an example of humankind's tremendous potential for change in ideology, values, and behaviour. He could no doubt have ignored his conscience, and carried on with his profitable business as it was, but for some reason Ray Anderson, despite the structure of the system which he had benefited from up to that point, decided to change.

Another profound example of human beings' immense capability to change is the story of the metamorphosis of Malcolm X. He was a man who underwent several radical personality transformations throughout his life and career as a political and spiritual leader. There were three significant and distinct stages of his adult life, each which embodied a new psychological and philosophical transformation as a progression from the previous, culminating with the third and final stage, of a heightened state of spiritual awakening and self-realization. In each successive stage, Malcolm overcame some of the social and historical factors that shaped his identity, which in his case as an African American primarily involved the history of slavery in the United States and the subsequent racial, socioeconomic and psychological aftereffects. In his convictions and expression of his ideals, no matter how flawed they might have been at each stage, Malcolm X showed an unusual fearlessness and commitment to each of his present realities: as a criminal outcast in the underside of America's capitalist system, to a prison inmate and devout follower of Elijah Muhammed and The Nation of Islam, and finally to an independent thinker, teacher, and political leader.

The teachings of The Nation of Islam, although positive in many respects, were based on an essentially racist philosophy, stating that all white people were inherently evil. In this stage of his life, Malcolm fervently supported this philosophy and preached on its behalf. He also spoke of separation as the primary solution to the racial problems in America—that is the willful dissociation of black people from white, either by returning to Africa or by creating a geographically separate, blacks-only, self-sufficient nation within America. Eventually Malcolm split from The Nation of Islam and began to form broader, more inclusive views. His new outlook encompassed a global perspective of racial problems, rejecting segregration as well as his formerly endorsed concept of separation, as he now embraced a philosophy that incorporated working with people of all colours and nations, even whites. He had broken free from all previous political and historical shackles and abandoned his old vision in exchange for a new, more progressive and holistic one, becoming an inspiring leader of self-actualization—primarily for African Americans at first, and in the arena of Islam, but then for people of any race or religion. Thus he showed a rare courage in taking the risk to speak out against not only opposing political ideas, but also against beliefs which he himself had previously endorsed and been indoctrinated with.

Excerpted from one of Malcolm X’s later speeches: "We will work with anyone, with any group, no matter what their color is… no matter what their political, economic, or social philosophy is, as long as their aims and objectives are in the direction of destroying the vulturous system that has been sucking the blood of black people in this country" (Endnote #10). In another speech, to African heads of state, Malcolm said, "Our problem is your problem… a world problem; a problem for humanity. It is not a problem of civil rights but a problem of human rights" (Endnote #11). Malcolm had come a long way from his earlier days as a street hustler first, and then as a devout yet blinded preacher. Although his focus was initially from a racial standpoint, these speech excerpts reveal an essentially socialist philosophy. It was at the beginning of this later stage of his life, of heightened spiritual and political awakening and expression, in which he preached of a world-unifying ideology, when he was assassinated.

The stories of people like Ray Anderson and Malcolm X are not the only ones of their kind, inspiring as examples of individuals who have—willfully and consciously—radically changed their behaviours and attitudes despite centuries of historical, economic, and political influences which shaped their earlier positions, and despite immense social and political factors working against them. If some people can so dramatically reverse their positions on things within a political power structure that does not support them to do so, then conceivably there is great potential for all of humankind to do the same within the structure of a new system that does support people to progress in ideas and actions.

A capitalist may claim that it's us, humans, who have created this system, and therefore it's obviously our nature to be greedy, self-interested, and perhaps also self-destructive. And from a socialist perspective, this could be disputed by stating that this is the very proof that capitalism is contrary to our natural tendency to be cooperative and helpful with one another, hence the disastrous state of the world—because the reigning global system is counter to our nature. It's actually the nature of very few to be greedy—those few who are in power, at the top of a system which supports the position of those in power to remain so, and those without to subsist in a deprived, oppressed state.

When looking at a timeline of the existence of the planet Earth, the period of human existence might barely register as a tiny blip at the end. This indicates that we are very young as a species, in a cosmic scope, and have much room to grow and evolve. And while we've shown tendencies to be both extremely self-interested and extremely group-interested, with many degrees in between, we've also ultimately shown that we, unlike any other species on the planet, have an inherent ability to change our own behaviour, to change our own thinking, and to change the way we govern over ourselves and all other life on the planet. So if it's up to us, then it makes an incredible amount of sense to choose to be helpful to each other and have faith in the goodness of humankind, for these values will dictate our actions. If we can devise a system that supports the loving, compassionate, cooperative side of our nature, then we will maximize our potential to behave in accordance with these same principles.

ENDNOTES

1. Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759, ed. Robert L. Heilbroner (Markham, Ontario: Penguin, 1986), 65. 

2. The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z, ed. Harry Binswanger (New York: Meridian, 1986), 57.

3. Rand, Lexicon, 57.

4. Rand, Lexicon, 57.

5. Lyman Tower Sargent, Contemporary Political Ideologies: A Comparative Analysis, 11th ed.  (Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1999), 249.

6. Sargent, Contemporary, 249.

7. Albert Einstein, “Why Socialism?”  1949.  Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine. May 2009.

8. Joel Bakan, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (Toronto: Penguin, 2004), 71-73.

9. Bakan, Corporation, 71-73.

10. Malcolm X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements, ed. George Breitman (New York: Pathfinder, 1989), 70.

11. Malcolm X Speaks, 75.

WORKS CITED

Bakan, Joel. The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. Toronto: Penguin, 2004.

Einstein, Albert. “Why Socialism?” 1949. Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine. May 2009. <https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/>

Rand, Ayn. The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z. Edited by Harry Binswanger. New York: Meridian, 1986.

Sargent, Lyman Tower. Contemporary Political Ideologies: A Comparative Analysis, 11th ed. Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1999.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. 1776. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.       

Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. 1759. Edited by Robert L. Heilbroner. Markham, Ontario: Penguin, 1986.

X, Malcolm, and Alex Haley. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: Ballantine, 1965.

X, Malcolm. Malcolm X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements. Edited by George Breitman. New York: Pathfinder, 1989.