Thread by @Kavaeric

So amidst our current multitude of social crises, it's somewhat upsetting to see a number of my peers express the belief that humans are inherently greedy, competitive, uncooperative, and awful, and I'd like to take some time to kind of just explain why I don't subscribe to that

Most of what I'm going to say derives from my anthropology/sociology studies in university as well as a number of YouTube video essays, namely this one, "Wall-E as Sociological Storytelling"

If you call yourself a socialist or even state you have "liberal" ideals to any extent, it is worth a watch because it lays bare a myth pervasive in Western thought that has allowed society to maintain structures of capitalism, authoritarianism, feudalism, and fascism

The myth is that humans are something of free agents, individuals who ultimately all have the capacity to make free, usually incredibly rational choices independent of their environment

This is true to some extent, of course, we're not robots, and we can make choices. But it completely misses another critical factor in human decision making: sociology

This factor is so critical we've named an entire field of science dedicated to this

Sociologist Allan G Johnson, in his book The Forest and the Trees, writes about how these external factors manipulate us into behaving in certain ways.

For a simple example, he uses the board game Monopoly.

Games offer controlled environments of mini-systems defined by rules, basically, micro-simulations of societies and the mores/norms we set by them. A game like Monopoly is even better since we all know what its deal is

Like society, games have rules. Like society, they have norms and strategies that work well. And, like humans in society, we have the capacity to choose between any strategy we like.

Like humans in society, you can decide to completely ignore society's rules and norms, but society shall react accordingly.

If you cheat in Monopoly, you will be reprimanded by your fellow players, remove you from the game, or at least begin treating you far more harshly.

Effectively, in a rules-based system like Monopoly, there is an incentive that drives the players towards what are called Paths of Least Resistance (PLRs). PLRs are closely related to what "success" looks like in a system. Cheaters never win, as you know

The Path of Least Resistance (and the path to success) in Monopoly is to follow the rules, simple as that.

And the thing is, we also know what success is in Monopoly, and subsequently where those paths lead us: complete monopolistic domination over your opponents.

The ultimate conclusion of Monopoly is that someone will take everything of value from everyone else.

Everyone playing Monopoly who wins does so by being the most selfish, greedy, uncooperative, most competitive individual they can be.

However, Johnson notes something important:

Most people who play (and win) at Monopoly do not act in those ways when they are not playing Monopoly.

Monopoly shows that everyone has the ability to act in these ruthlessly greedy manners, but that outside of Monopoly, they don't.

If your friend whom you deem selfless and friendly beats you in Monopoly by being ruthlessly greedy, does that mean they are ruthlessly greedy?

What Johnson points out is that Monopoly, through its rules and PLRs, encourages ruthless greed as part of success in the game.

Ruthless greed is not just incentivised from its players, it is mandated.

Consider what the findings of sociologists like Johnson say when we point to history when as proof that humans are inherently greedy. Consider what that means when we examine humans interacting in a system called capitalism that is founded upon success through ruthless greed.

When you get someone to play a game of Monopoly, it kind of does not matter who that person is, the outcome and behaviour is the same.

Your closest loved ones and friends will still act in ruthlessly greedy ways when playing a game of Monopoly.

What does this have to do with the myth of individualism and capitalism?

Well, it's because the belief that humans are greedy is substantiated with evidence of humans acting in ruthlessly greedy ways...in systems that reward ruthless greed.

People act in ruthlessly greedy ways, of course, because the system we've collectively built for them rewards that kind of behaviour. And this extends well beyond capitalism!

Take Japan, for example.

In the late 19th century, Japan as a society made the decision to transform themselves into a western-style nation, mostly in the vein of Germany at the time. This modelling off of western states would ultimately be the motivating factor in adopting western imperialism.

One might say that's because the Japanese, like all humans, are inherently greedy, and that's why they annexed Manchuria, but that would completely discount the past thousands of years of history where they, well, didn't do that.

People don't act for no reason.

So what changed in the late 19th century?

Well, it was that the West forced their ports open, and suddenly Japan found itself playing a new (Western) game, with rules and norms that pushed for certain behaviours and defined a Western definition of success.

This is absolutely not to give a "I was following orders" excuse for Imperial Japan, because what they (we) did was horrible and should be condemned, by the way

Rather, it serves as an example as to how humans will adhere to the rules set forth by a power structure, no matter their character.

China didn't do what Japan did at the time. The system ultimately punished them for it.

https://twitter.com/ThePublicHorse/status/1280564931570667520

And there's the rub about "humans are selfish":

You cannot come to the conclusion that humans are selfish, without first ruling out that they are only acting in that manner because the system they participate in mandates such behaviour.

Think about what that means when we continue to use evidence of humans operating under feudalism, authoritarianism, and capitalism as proof that we are irredeemably, ruthlessly greedy and uncooperative.

Think about those at the top who benefit the most in feudalism, authoritarianism, and capitalism who reinforce these beliefs, and why it's in their interest to convince us of it regardless of its truth, merit, or evidence.

To claim humans are somehow inherently flawed, and that we will be forever condemned to this cycle of violence, is anti-science. It is the actions of a conspiracy theorist, who has believes in a predetermined conclusion and seeks or reads only the evidence that allows them to

To claim humans are inherently ruthlessly greedy is to discount the "blitz spirit" following strategic bombing in WWII, or New Yorkers after 9/11, or the six Tongan boys who were marooned on a Pacific island for 15 months that disproved the Lord of the Flies

It is to dismiss the efforts of charity organisers, BLM protestors who put their bodies on the line, or the millions of software developers who donate their time and energy to create things for no direct reward, not even name recognition

It is to fall prey to the same dogma that has led us here, that no, western nationalistic capitalism is the best we can do, and that we as a society are incapable of creating anything better, and that we should roll over and accept it

It is to insist that evil - Nazis, Imperial Japan, racism, transphobia - does not stem from systemic incentives but is something you are born with or without, and that therefore we are immune from it because we aren't "born evil"

Because our societies and systems are things we built; so too are they things we can control, modify, dismantle, and abolish.

Yes, we are players in service to a game that controls us, but as players, we must recognise that we can always choose to, collectively, stop playing.

(also, that line of thinking presumes that criminals and poor black americans are bad/lazy people inherently and that their behaviour does not stem from the circumstances they find themselves in, and I sincerely hope that if you have "BLM" in your name you do not believe this)