*which would explain why you believe self-interest is the driving force behind human nature*

Not so Poirot. If you still believe in the old tabula raza
theory, then you are way out of date. We understand far
more about human behaviour today, then Marx at that time ever did.

Both genes and environment affect our behaviour. But if you really
want to learn more, evolutionary biology and primatology will
teach you far more about these things, then Marx could even
dream of.

People do in fact, act out of enlightened self interest. No matter
how much you try with your re education policy, you will never
convince them all, that they should not.

That is exactly why all attempts at socialism have so far failed.

Or as Horus points out, a simple utube clip kind of sums it up.

"Not so Poirot, If you still believe in the old tabula raza theory, then you are way out of date. We understand far more about human behaviour today, then Marx at that time ever did."

From what I've read, Marx didn't believe that man at birth was an entirely blank entity, however, he recognised a difference between "human nature in general" and that part of his nature which is modified by the experience of history unfolding. He termed the appetites which are not innate to general human nature as "relative"- and these would include the excessive and often superfluous "needs and desires" inherent in capitalist societies, which have been heightened by increased production practices.

Poirot:

Yabby isn't really interested in the truth -- he's interested in making anti-communist propaganda. He doesn't really care what Marx actually understood about anything: just how he can conceivably twist it against the socialist cause.

Dear Poirot,
I agree with Grok, you're wasting your time, just as I've been wasting mine. It's too easy to mock something when you don't have the faintest idea. Like GH's original article, the stuff put up for the other side here doesn't even constitute a straw man---you have to have some slight notion of a thing to parody it.
Yabby et al. I'll save you a lot of time---that is if you have any interest in dispelling your ignorance---and advise you what to read. The best essay I've ever come across that elucidates dialectics (and human "essence"), classical, Hegelian and materialist, is "The Concept of Essence" by Herbert Marcuse.
It's difficult reading, but only about 50 pages. Go away and read it (take notes), and then we can discuss the matter in a more useful manner?

Dear Horus,
loved the little red hen! but I think you miss-attribute the parable. The "rat" btw is a mouse.

Anybody who actually still wants to discuss dialectical-materialism -- even how it differs from hegelian idealist dialectics -- is welcome to put something forward. Even clueless questions about the history of the past 150 years are welcome -- if asked in good faith.

Bad faith we will leave to the french existentialists.

I like the discussion about human nature. It is very much on topic; depending on what we believe about human nature, we will structure our society accordingly. If we believe that we are essentially motivated by empathy and moral virtue, then we will believe in the possibilities of anarcho-communistic societies, where we will all live in mutually supportive communes, pursuing the common good together.

If we believe that we are essentially self-interested however,(motivated by sensual pleasure and away from fear?!), then we will wish to harness positive outcomes that arise from people pursuing their own interests and to control divisive elements from the top down.

The belief about the nature of human nature will tend to swing from one extreme to the other, as well as to sometimes find balance (in other words in what I am defining as a dialectic sense), in the same way as the institutions of the society will swing between being too focussed on the individual, too focussed on the collective, or balanced between the two.

Realistically I think that we are both self-interested and benevolent, competitive and cooperative etc.

Yabby,

"If you ..... help that little old lady across the street, did
you do it because you are so selfless, or did you do it because
afterwards you can pat yourself on the back, tell yourself what
a kind fellow you are and your brain chemstry rewards you with
feel good endorphins? I can tell you, you would not do it, if it made you feel bad."

Don't sell yourself short Yabby. You can claim your love just like you can claim your power. As for evolutionary biology, if you are interested, OLO is putting up another article of mine probably on Tuesday titled 'The Dual Drivers of Evolution' looking at competition and cooperation in the context of evolution.