Hi, Alan. Love the video. I am trying to plan an essay regarding the extent to which socialists have a common view of human nature. What would you recommend the 3 paragraphs be?
do: all are optimistic of human nature and believe it can be altered depending on the conditions and the society individuals experience don't: strong divides as to how they can change society and therefore human nature; revolution vs evolution don't: differences on just how plastic human nature is, crossland believes it is more rigid than strands such as revolutionary socialism I'm not him but hope it helps
Hi Alan, love your videos! Just a quick question. I am looking at agreements and disagreements within socialism about human nature. I am looking for one more disagreement point. i have already made the point that revolutionary socialists would want a revolution to restore human nature whereas third way socialists argue economic reforms within the current system can restore human nature through distribution of wealth. I cannot think of another disagreement within socialism! please help thank you
Webb argues that capitalism has damaged human nature but violent revolution would make things worse damaging it further. Marx argues that revolution will repair human nature. Whilst Marx and Engels argue that capitalism gives people a false sense of 'bourgeois values, Crosland argues that humans maintain a powerful belief in 'fairness' and naturally object to big inequalities of outcome. So Crossland doesn't think human nature is completely plastic whilst Marx does. Hope these help
Is the socialists view of human nature influenced by Locke’s blank slate and does this not create an internal divide as Marx did not agree with the blank slate?
Socialist view of human nature is that it is plastic and shaped by the society and the persons position in that society (Marx would then argue that the society is shaped by the economic system). Locke is a key liberal thinker and therefore unlikely to have directly influenced socialist thought. There are definitely divides on human nature between the different strands on socialism.
If everyone is given equal resources. Females will choose males physical phenotypes that are superior to other males, such as height, status, muscularity, facial features etc. Maximizing genetic preferences rather then males having to work their up the socioeconomic hierarchy which can offset the physical deficiencies. This gives males who are genetically gifted an huge advantage.
Hi, Alan. Love the video. I am trying to plan an essay regarding the extent to which socialists have a common view of human nature. What would you recommend the 3 paragraphs be?
do: all are optimistic of human nature and believe it can be altered depending on the conditions and the society individuals experience
don't: strong divides as to how they can change society and therefore human nature; revolution vs evolution
don't: differences on just how plastic human nature is, crossland believes it is more rigid than strands such as revolutionary socialism
I'm not him but hope it helps
Thanks, this was very helpful
Glad it helped!
Hello, Thanks for the video. Really helped me a lot in gaining a more clear understanding.
Great to hear!
Hi Alan, love your videos! Just a quick question. I am looking at agreements and disagreements within socialism about human nature. I am looking for one more disagreement point. i have already made the point that revolutionary socialists would want a revolution to restore human nature whereas third way socialists argue economic reforms within the current system can restore human nature through distribution of wealth. I cannot think of another disagreement within socialism! please help thank you
Webb argues that capitalism has damaged human nature but violent revolution would make things worse damaging it further. Marx argues that revolution will repair human nature.
Whilst Marx and Engels argue that capitalism gives people a false sense of 'bourgeois values, Crosland argues that humans maintain a powerful belief in 'fairness' and naturally object to big inequalities of outcome. So Crossland doesn't think human nature is completely plastic whilst Marx does.
Hope these help
Is the socialists view of human nature influenced by Locke’s blank slate and does this not create an internal divide as Marx did not agree with the blank slate?
Socialist view of human nature is that it is plastic and shaped by the society and the persons position in that society (Marx would then argue that the society is shaped by the economic system). Locke is a key liberal thinker and therefore unlikely to have directly influenced socialist thought. There are definitely divides on human nature between the different strands on socialism.
If everyone is given equal resources.
Females will choose males physical phenotypes that are superior to other males, such as height, status, muscularity, facial features etc. Maximizing genetic preferences rather then males having to work their up the socioeconomic hierarchy which can offset the physical deficiencies.
This gives males who are genetically gifted an huge advantage.