#which is not an ultimatum or a ransom but just a fact of human nature

[aethersea]

the question of fic comments is very straightforward actually. readers do not owe writers comments. writers do not owe readers fic. there is no bargain, no transaction, no debt.

fic is a gift. comments are a gift. gifts are exchanged between friends, out of love, not out of obligation.

I write for myself. I post it for others, as a gift, because their joy brings me joy. I read for myself. I comment for the author, as a gift, because their joy brings me joy. perhaps we were not friends before, but we are now, however fleetingly, because we have given each other gifts out of love.

[alines7777]

just a little picture of myself holding my copy of "the conquest of bread" and then i'll get started with what i would like to talk a bit about in regards to "human nature", and why it sounds silly to use it as justification for capitalism, or as detraction against communism.

there. now then, let's get started.

first of all, it's misanthropic. you don't see me talking shit about people i've never met as a faceless abstract blob called "humanity".

and i can say pretty confidently that most people don't like being made to live hand-to-mouth. most people don't like seeing food being feeding the cockroaches FOR FREE in garbage dumps, rather than feeding people. why is it human nature when a small class resorts to subterfuge, hiding misdeeds and lying for profit, but not human nature for all others to despise profits for that class at their expense?

and in one of my conversations with a small business owner online, they told that "poverty isn't such a big deal, just go through austerity for a little while like me and you can have your own business."

bold of them to assert that i'm not in austerity already, and that i want to monopolize capital, but moving on, if poverty "isn't such a big deal," then why should i want to become rich in the first place? besides that, how does going through austerity make me entitled to hold the livelihoods and needs of others as ransom? how does voluntarily enduring austerity on my own make me fit to decide how others get to live? some number and the exchange of papers. frankly, i don't find that very natural or compelling.

another aspect of the human nature argument is that it posits that everyone just wants more and more and more. more like they wish we did, because the facts that even liberal economists recognize show that isn't the case

(law of diminishing marginal utility, as an observation of the human condition, illustrating the falling rate of desire and satisfaction as more is acquired, and if we aren't wanting, we aren't buying, which is bad for business)

i understand and acknowledge that it is in our capacity as humans to lie others into servitude for our own benefit, but it is also in our capacity to debunk those lies and to liberate ourselves from servitude under the pretexts of falsehoods, and to defend our autonomy. so i ask again, why is the former called human nature, but not the latter? because the former vindicates the irrationalities of capitalism while the latter aims to condemn them.

it is in our capacity to want for ourselves, but also to want for others. if we as mere individuals could assist every person in finding their calling and supplying them with the material means of providing themselves with a livelihood congruent to their calling, then their wants will diminish, and so too will the cost of eliminating poverty, which will empower us further to fulfill our own personal needs. we as individuals would be doing that regardless of whether or not a state commands it of us and regardless of whether or not we have employers to pay us to do so, so why should it be human nature for us to require one or the other or both? in the real world it is human activity that eradicates poverty, not decrees or wages. if we can understand that we'd be better off if we do so, regardless of why, then why should we need anyone forcing or paying us?

the more we examine their theory of human nature, the more it sounds like capitalists ascribing the follies of their own views and desires to the differing views and desires of others, as simply a given, and the less congruence with external reality this superstition of theirs holds.

of course, why shouldn't a landlord think it's reasonable to assume that i would hold a stable roof as ransom to make others bear the cost of the mortgage to keep the tenants still in perpetual debt?

but even if it is simply a given, as they claim, why should that be held as reasoning to avert our eyes away from acts that we know to cause others suffering? why should it be so blithely taken as reasoning to just accept the ultimatum to cause others to suffer or to go on suffering? because they want us to believe it's impossible, that way we wouldn't bother raising objections to their hoarding of obscene wealth as many of us starve and freeze.

'human nature" boils to them baselessly asserting that you can't go on without your capitalist and statist masters.

even a glance at the most trivial of facts regarding our own nature shows that NONE OF WHAT THEY SAY IS TRUE