• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    What “Human Nature” goes against the idea of sharing tools, rather than letting wealthy people hold dictatorial control over them?

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      Why do chimps kill chimps from other groups that come into their territory? Why do some chimps use aggression against other chimps to manipulate them, while other chimps use grooming?

      A certain degree of sharing is part of our human / animal nature, but so is a certain degree of claiming ownership over things, and certain individuals have more sway over decisions than others. Flat hierarchies with nobody in command seem to work in theory, but in practice it’s different.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s the Naturalistic fallacy at work, though. We aren’t chimps, nor is doing what humans did in the past necessarily better than what we do now. By that chain, you would be an Anarcho-primitivist.

          • Gabu@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            You’re a mammal, a rat is a mammal - should we just consider you the same as a rat?

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            But we aren’t chimps, and you shouldn’t judge the effectiveness of economic structures on what chimps do.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              8 months ago

              Nor should you pretend that we’re not apes, and that ape behaviour has no relevance to humans.

              • Gabu@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                It has about as much relevance as the behavior of any other mammal, circling back to my comment about rats.

              • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                We could study what various apes do, and try to use that to guess at possible human behaviour - or we could literally just look at human behaviour directly. Surely the direct observations of what humans do is going to give us a more accurate and useful model of human behaviour compared to observations of other species.

                • merc@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  or we could literally just look at human behaviour directly.

                  And when we do, we’ll discover that in many ways it’s similar to how other apes behave.

                  Surely knowing that the behaviour is so ingrained that it’s also how apes behave makes it clear that it’s not some easy thing to change.

    • Rinox@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      8 months ago

      As humans, we are greedy by nature. Not always, but when push comes to shove, we are.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        What part of that goes against sharing tools, rather than letting wealthy people hold dictatorial control over them? Doesn’t your point mean that we shouldn’t have Capitalism at all?

        • AaronMaria@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Exactly, this argument is so weird, even if the assumption was true. “People are naturally greedy so we should have a system that allows them to do as much damage as possible”

          • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            I don’t think the poster who was down voted meant anything of the sort. They were just elaborating on their view of human nature.

        • Rinox@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          In any society, some people will be leaders, some will be followers, this is natural. You cannot have a society without someone organizing the work and setting the course.

          Of those who are naturally leaders, some will be much greedier than most. Some will also be ambitious, corrupt, two faced etc.

          These people will do their best to gather wealth and power for themselves, be it in a capitalist or communist system. In the capitalist system they’ll become entrepreneurs if they also have good business acumen. In the communist system they’ll become managers and state officials if they can also navigate politics well.

          At the end of the day, the same people will get to power and will hold dictatorial control over the means of production. In communist countries a literal dictatorship seems inevitable, while capitalist ones usually favor democracy (can be better for business) but they can also descend into dictatorship.

          If you disagree, show me an example where all this is not the case. I’m honestly curious

          • J Lou@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Capitalism is the opposite of democracy. In a capitalist firm, the managers are not accountable to the governed (i.e. workers). The employer is not a delegate of the workers. They manage the company in their own name not in the workers’ name. Managers do not have to have dictatorial control. It is entirely possible to have management be democratically accountable to the workers they govern as in a worker cooperative.

            Capitalism v. Communism is a false dilemma. There are other options.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Capitalists aren’t leaders, but owners.

            Secondly, you are just tying Socialism and Communism with dictatorship without proving why you think it’s necessary. It’s purely vibes for you.

            Tell me this: why do you think a system where Workers have no say, only Capitalists do and serve as mini dictators, is more democratic than a system where Workers vote on how to run production?

      • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        This is nonsense. Communal sharing and common property was absolutely vital for survival for most of human history.