We all know the argument that profit motive is part of human nature is false. Yet I’m still not sure why capital owners pursue profits. Is it the difference of self-interest vs collective interest? If so then wouldn’t that enforce the argument on human nature? Or am I missing a crucial aspect of the Capitalist system? I’m genuinely wondering.
Edit: Sorry for not being able to answer all of the comments, the blocklist of my instance sadly won’t let me see all of the comments.
Then I’m afraid we’re talking at cross purposes. I was talking about profit as a political economic category. I wasn’t making and moral claims when I said that the profit (and so the profit motive) only exists where commodities are produced.
I thought the OP was also asking about profit as a political economic category, because this is the sense in which the word would be used when asking, to paraphrase, ‘why do capitalists seek profit if the profit motive is not part of human nature?’
The issue begins when bringing in the “Human Nature” in the field and use it as a starting point to study capitalism. How do we assess the human nature if not psychologically? Whether it is philosophical or scientific psychology.
Do you agree that if something is part of human nature, then it will be present in some form in all human societies?
isnt an agreement to that exactly what im trying to represent?
I’m not sure. Possibly. But you also seem to be disagreeing with me, which suggests not.
I’m not starting an analysis of capitalism with human nature. Capitalism is the name of a particular political economy / mode of production that is based on producing commodities.
If capitalism has unique implications, which by definition only arise in capitalism, it stands to reason that those implications (being unique) do not arise in all human societies. If something only arises in specific era, and not in all human societies, it is specific to that era, and not part of human nature.
Edit: To add for clarity: within capitalism, seeking profit is a political economic necessity for capitalists. I’m not making any moral, psychological, or philosophical claims here.
Human beings produce society, and human beings are influenced by society, so it is all human beings that get into consideration.
for example, Patterns of fascism can be found everywhere around the world, even parts that had no significant itellectual interaction of sorts with each other, ideologies and its exercise such as that of fascism are also found throughout history, without two points in history to have been directly influenced by each other.
My point is that east, west: doesnt matter. If there exists a system inspired by people in one geography, it doesnt matter the geography per se, it can exist everywhere else upon the existence of similar environmental conditions that arent strictly and intentfully sociological.
The first line to my reply to the original post is an explicit evidence on where i stand.
Then we are talking at cross purposes.
I’m not sure what fascism, geography, the environment, or sociology have to do with it.
I agree that humans produce society. But if humans have produced societies that do not involve commodity production, then they have lived without profit and without a profit motive. This was the case for the majority of human existence, perhaps some 300,000 years.
If human societies have lived without a profit motive, then the profit motive cannot be part of human nature—it arises only when humans produce commodities (i.e. rather than because humans are involved).
To accept that the profit motive is part of human nature, one must also accept that it existed in all human societies. It did not. Something (e.g. the profit motive) cannot be part of human nature if it has only been an organising force in human society for 200–500 years.
Im very confused by your definition for the human nature, you’re distinguishing between positive traits of humans and negative traits in humans, or primitive traits in humans and evolutionary traits in humans and choosing one of them to represent the human nature while declining the other’s association with it, when in a conversation like all it does is deny the existence of empirical evidence and puts forward a virtuous proposition without studying the existing nature of human economy.
The grography, the environmrnt and sociology is precisely the deterministic factors that need to be taken into consideration while concersing on human nature, just as much as the consideration of nature of individual and isolated (if that is even possible) human agency is needed. Given that environmental factors inspire human instincts, and human instincts inspire social phenomenons.
Moral propositions are great to have but using them as an essentialist force to describe humans falls into a purist line of thinking that dissociates one’s self from the reality of the human condition. That reality which can be figured out through empirical and scientific study of the geneology of a particular human trait.
If there is something a human does or expresses, no matter where it came from, it is part of the human nature. There is no essence of human nature in the way that you propose, i dont see any evidence for such.
I’m not making any moral claims nor claiming that any trait is positive or negative. I am not proposing that there is an essence of human nature.
I’m saying that the profit motive is unique to commodity production. If there is no commodity production, there is no profit motive. I am also claiming that within a system of commodity production, only a small fraction of the people within that system seek profit. And in a system of commodity production, it is only the owners of the means of production who seek profit.
I am then claiming, which to me seems to follow logically, that if very few humans throughout history have sought profit, then seeking profit cannot be part of human nature.