Debate: Capitalism VS Communism
Side: Capitalism

Do you believe that it is in humans’ nature to be greedy or competitive or whatever? Or do you think it’s in our nature to react to a situation in order to survive. If the former, than I can see why you would think human nature is the cause of the systems failure. If the latter, I find it hard to see how that would be a cause to the failure but rather a symptom to something more fundamental within the system itself.Our nature is what causes societies, governments, etc. to function as they do. If our nature were different than our societies would be different. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution dictating which views/behaviors in society best survive trumps that, over the last few thousand years or so, a handful of humans (compared to total populations) have realized that by changing, or at least understanding and controlling, our nature could theoretically lead to better societies for the whole. The idea that governments and societies are somehow the driving force, and can so easily be changed in their nature, is an illusion. We collectively presently are bound by our loose pack/tribal nature. Bury in communism, democracy, feudilism, combined with any system for the exchanging of goods and services, and you have the same individualism clashing with pack instinct which makes us what we are.That is not to say some systems don't have better results for the whole. What it does mean, basically, is society is what it is because of us, we are not what we are because of society.I don’t think anyone is suggesting a “utopian” change to anything, just a more productive/ethical change to the system that is currently in effect. I don’t believe we will ever be perfect, but there’s no sense in trying to submit to a system that doesn’t work or that only benefits a select few when there are far better methods.So, say you are a caveman and basically it's a family unit where the strongest male rapes and steals whatever he likes, and since we're human and cannot survive on our own in the wild, what with mamoths and saber tooth tigers, we still stick around despite the inherent injustice of our lot in life (unless you should happen to be the biggest strongest male). If you are a lucky caveman tribe there are several "strongest" males so the power is somewhat balanced hopefully making things a little more fair, but it still likely sucks by todays standards for all but them.Okay, our society would seem utopian to that caveman. However, their nature deemed that utopian change in society impossible. It has been through our long development that the strongest male raping and pilaging has become less advantageous to our survival. I'd argue "Some utopian change in human nature" is not only possible, but our natural tendency. It's just that it takes hundreds of thousands of years for us to naturally develop in that direction. So, not sure what my point was. But I actually do argue for utopian change. I just feel it takes so long that the time we get there it does not seem so drastic or utopian.Indeed, scarcity is the issue. And it’s even scarcity that creates some of those undesirable jobs. At any rate, and this is just my opinion, I believe technology is the method for bringing about such a change. That, and a drastic change in incentive and fellowship.Agreed. And I think technology has accelerated the perceived change. Technolgoy is natural though, despite its designation otherwise. It was inevitable form the time the first caveman used a rock to break a nut, that some day if we survived we'd have airplanes, supercomputers, and smart phones. It is innevitable that if we survive, in a hundred thousand years we will have technologies that make smart phones, airplanes, and supercomputers look like a caveman using a rock to crack open a nut. And our societies will look just as primitive, brutal, and unfair to those future people as cavemen look to us today.