I think that it’s right and good for those suffering from hardship and strife should band together in socialist behavior, because misery does love company, and so when the poor work together, it makes things easier on them.
As for competition, humans compete and humans cooperate. Underregulated business sectors often lead to monopolies, often leading in turn to nationalisation.
The fact is that whatever humans do is natural, as are we. Therefore there is nothing more natural about competition than collective behaviour. Otherwise there wouldn’t be laws against, for example, sympathetic strike action by trade unions. At the other end of the scale we have price-fixing regulations. There aren’t really any laws, possibly other than taxes, which force people to act in a collectivist, non-competitive way, but there are a lot designed to stop people working collectively.
Seriously, you think it’s just the poor that band together in socialist behavior? THere was a wonderful piece on autism recently that noted that our ability to collaborate on projects is what makes civilization possible, and that many autistic folks, for all their other skills and talents, lack the ability to lead projects; a species that couldn’t cooperate effectively couldn’t do much of anything.
Of course, maybe you mean something different by “socialism,” but Ruminator will get all sad if I ask you to explain what you mean by “socialism,” so I’ll continue to use the word the way I think I should, since that’s what’s certainly going to move the discussion forward.
It’s the Triple Crown of bad OPs.
I hate to go back to my Philosophy 101 class but… Rape is natural. So what? Natural is not “good” (morally speaking). Natural is, most often, bad. Humans spend much of their time and effort to avoid nature.
I agree with other posters that property is somewhat invented. Sure, ancient hunter-gatherers had some sense of “mine”… but only in the sense of what they could hold in their hands at any one time. If it wasn’t in their hands, it was probably in someone else’s with or without their knowledge.
It’s our civilization/society that has created an “artificial” system that allows (aka gives permission to) people to amass more wealth than they would have been able to even just 100 years ago. Our present definition of property is vastly different than what we had 10,000 years ago. Anthropology would suggest that most things were shared amongst the tribe, just the way many families share things today.
The comment on hidden capitalism, and emacknight’s response is an interesting one. Not everyone has everything they want, so naturally they will try to share/barter/bribe/sweet-talk others into giving them what they want. Similarly, they also help their families, no questions asked.
But what if we abolished the concept of private property all together. Then what? How would you barter something that isn’t yours to barter? As long as people are allowed to possess capital, there will be ‘capitalism’.
Natural selection, at this present time, seems to favour the dumb and the poor. If you’re smart, well-educated, rich, etc… then natural selection is out to get you, and your genes will not make it very far!
I’m reminded of this *great *clip from the intro of *Idiocracy *about the future of human evolution. If you haven’t seen this, I highly recommend it! 
“Weak” and “strong” are words we made up. What we consider “weak”, evolution considers “strong”.
link with better audio sync: - YouTube
I always love this notion that comes up from time to time.
Ok, exactly who is going to abolish private property? You need someone in charge to carry that out and enforce it, right? Those people that are “in charge” of such a decree will end up having “private property.” Please don’t be naive about it.
Oh, they just won’t label it “private property” – they’ll call it some government doublespeak such as “government business car” or “official purpose Humvee.”
Given that humans have to be the ones making this happen, please explain how this could possibly happen fairly?
Intelligent Robots.
“Idiocracy” isn’t a documentary.
Did someone say that it was?
Capitalism does not exist as such. It’s a perjorative applied by Communists. Capital formation is a subset of free markets, though partly enabled by legal protection; it allows higher levels of, and more efficient, investments (owing to the fact that it allows hands-off investment so that owners are not personally on the hook and don’t have to directly manage).
However, it is natural. Given reasonable and honest laws, capital will tend to concentrate for greater returns. And this has been the cause of immense human benefits and improvements in our daily lives, even within the last generation. I can (very distantly - age 4) recall getting a home computer. That was something people just didn’t have, unless their parents were nerds (Mom kinda was 
). That would not have happened without heavy capital formation.
Are you confusing socialism with communism?
You have about as weird a notion of capital as it is used in capitalism as Emack has of risk as it is used in investment.
Allright sir. The challenge for you (if you decide to accept it) is to define “capital” in the most appropriate way possible. Hmmm… what exactly is “capital”??? Please, sir, explain to us exactly what it is.
I’ll even give you some help… some wikipedia articles: Capital - Wikipedia
Specifically, look over the 3 articles “capital (economics)” “human capital” and “financial capital”
Challenge #1: explain how my descriptions of basic “capital” are inconsistent with those articles.
Challenge #2: after formulating your ultra precise definition and enlightening all of us, please show how it substantially changes the arguments in this thread.
Points are deducted if you reference “money” or “currency.”
Its kind of tough to read your mind. Are you talking about property rights or the notion that people are selfish? The second is “natural” and the other is less so.
They are willing to kill and die in some parts. What risk are they not willing to take that they CAN take?
When you talk about capital in a sentence where you use the terms capitalism and socialism, this seems to be the appropriate definition of capitalism. Things like “access to vagina” capital, “climb coconut tree capital” and “remember where animals roam” capital are not capital in the economic sense. They are not means of production. Capitalism is an economic system that rewards the wealthy for being wealthy. It may not be ideal but its better than what we used to do…rewarding nobles for being nobles. It turns out that the incentives work better.
I think you can argue there is “access to vagina” capital–the product is sex, and the means of producing it is making the vagina available.
Similarly, with coconut tree climbing (which I assume means climbing a tree to get coconuts?) the product is, simply, coconuts. The means of producing it is–climbing the tree to get the coconuts.
Not a terrible history but terrible conclusions. The fact that pseudo-capitalist societies have fallen apart gives no indication that capitalism is inherently unstable. Since no human society has gone more than ~1,000 to my knowledge without some sort of event that a neutral party would identify as a “collapse” it’s safe to say all forms of societal organization and all economic systems known to man have proven impossible to continue forever.
We can ponder if that is a failure of systems or just a natural cycle that societies go through (i.e., collapse isn’t sign of anything bad about the system just as natural death isn’t a sign that the human biological system is a failure, some systems naturally expire.)