Is capitalism human nature? Yes and no

Are all systems of redistribution doomed to fail because of our basic animal natures? It’s complicated.

Human nature does have a valid role in the conversation but not like many think.

I’d concede that Soviet-style socialism is counter to human nature. However, I don’t think Scandinavian style social democracy is counter to human nature.

The truth is that we have two major competing factors in our brain, one for cooperation and one for competition — the VM and DL PFCs, and so there’s a spectrum of natures on our predilections. (This is a simplification, to be sure, but the general point stands.)

The variable dominance of these parts, plus how the anterior cingulate cortex makes sense of the VM and DL, provides some biological basis for why we might feel more competitive or cooperative in a given instance. But as always, nature is not the only factor.

Sorry for mentioning all those fancy names of brain parts. I don’t know anything about neuroscience other than that the state of our neural hardware is at least partially behind how we form thoughts, feelings, values, and decisions.

To confuse things more, there are external factors (nurture) that could push us in one or the other direction; I’m stating the obvious.

What may not be obvious to all is that in extreme circumstances we ALL can become competitive more than cooperative. If things get dicey enough, we all have an animal inside us waiting to pounce, ready to tear and maul its way toward survival.

So, what to do?

In calm, sober moments we can agree that a worthy goal is to keep the world from ever getting so extreme; if we succeed, it will be easier for more of us to get in touch with our cooperative sides.

So we’re dealing with multiple continuums and whether a person is aligned fiercely with the underlying values inherent to laissez faire capitalism, or whether they are aligned with the sharing impulses that lean toward social safety net programs, is a mixed bag dependent on the old cliche of nature and nurture. You already probably know this, but many still don’t, and that’s a problem. Here’s why:

In an ideal world, once we really do have the means to create abundance and offer UBI; a world with no hunger, where everyone has the basics plus education and healthcare, we really should take the opportunity to eliminate poverty and lacking in those areas.

We’ve arguably reached that moment but we’re not doing the right things. Instead we are allowing suffering to persist and making dumb excuses for it, including the reductionist claim that it’s “human nature” to have some of us suffer, and that trying to fight that nature will only “make things it worse.”

While it certainly could make things worse — as evidenced by various disastrous socialist experiments that led to totalitarianism — we should still be making sincere efforts to reduce suffering while maintaining innovation and incentives, and we actually already do this to some degree, and to great results.

But the fact that hundreds of millions if not billions still suffer needlessly means we ought to do more if we can.

We should have the intellectual honesty and critical thinking skills to see that pursuing reduced suffering where possible is consistent with most of our stated values and thus should be done hastily, to reduce squalor and increase wellbeing, without stifling innovation or wealth.

The heart of the matter is this: Let’s KEEP the right to property and the right to profit and wealth, but LOSE the suffering and deprivation at the lower end of the spectrum. We can and must do BOTH if we want to be consistent with most of our cherished stated values.

And to be very clear, YES we can do this without being like Soviet Russia.

The pushback is a problem. There’s a cacophony of deflection, obfuscation, red herrings, all to avert progress in this area based on some primitive commitment to survival of the fittest and “tough love.”

The phrase “Just World Fallacy” is trending and that’s a good sign. It means we’re getting closer to pinpointing the precise cognitive bias behind some of the more stridently incoherent and heartless rationalizations for keeping certain types of needless suffering around long after we have the capacity to eliminate it with little sacrifice. “Little” sacrifice is subjective which is why we need a functioning democracy. And this perhaps hints at why democracy is currently under attack by some. (You know who you are.)