Influences of Assumptions on Human Nature

Your Name
Instructor Name
Course Number
Date
Influences of Assumptions on Human Nature on the Pursuit of Either Communist or Capitalist Social Organizations
In the modern world, public discourse fronts capitalism and communism as two opposing forces in which the critic of one must be compared to the other. Capitalism, for instance, is the most prevalent economic and political system in which private ownership and freedom of the market are central to what is perceived as development. Critics of capitalism are often challenged to propose a better system, and fronting communism is rarely the best answer. It, therefore, appears as though that when individuals criticize capitalism, they are advocating for communism. However, this is a false perception. In order to help shape such conversations, it is essential to understand the assumptions on human nature that support or oppose such systems in the first place. Thus, it is critical to compare the underlying assumptions that drive a society to choose one between the two systems instead of comparing the systems. The current paper looks at different authors and their assumptions on human nature and how they shape the pursuit of an ideal political and economic system.
Key Assumptions on Human Nature
Karl Marx, James Hammond, and Robespierre are the focus of the current paper. Three authors held different perceptions on human nature that led to the choice of either historical or current political and economic systems. These assumptions underpinned the thinking behind the laws and regulations that encompassed issues of labor and production.
All People Are Not Equal
Consistent across the three authors is that all people are not equal. This does not necessarily mean that all the authors support this notion. Both Karl Marx and Robespierre reject while Hammond appears to support the idea. According to Karl Marx, history shows that there have been two types of people: the frugal elite considered diligent and intelligent, and the other lazy rascals. In any society, since medieval times, the former has accumulated wealth on the backs of the latter. Karl Marx argues that this assumption explains why the poverty of the great majority, despite the labor it holds, has, up to today, nothing to sell but itself. This assumption also features in Robespierre’s work. According to him, it was the great, the ministers (in churches), and the rich who wrote the laws on how people should be governed2. The majority, who languish in poverty, have no alternative but to adhere to this government structure. Like Karl Marx, Robespierre divides society into two classes of people who are not equal by any means except for the color of blood that flows through them. Hammond, on the other hand, takes a rather radical approach to this assumption. In his arguments, he asserts that there must be a class to do the menial duties and to perform the drudgery of life in any society and all social systems. Additionally, there must be another class in which leader’s progress, civilization, and refinement.. Therefore, the assumption on the extent to which people are equal in any society forms the first pillar of the ideal political and economic system that is likely to be adopted.[Karl Marx, On Primitive Accumulation, (1867) Marxist.org, 1] [Robespierre, On Subsistence of Goods (1988) Marxist.org, 5] [Hammond, The Admission of Kansas Under the Lecompton Constitution (1858), 7]
Personal Labor is for Personal Gain as is for Societal Wellbeing
Another profound assumption from the three texts is that labor is equally for personal gain as it is for the wellbeing of society. Based on the assumption that not all people are equal, a section of society benefits more from the labor of another section of society. Robespierre articulates this assumption more accurately. He argues that labor is the most sacred obligation of each individual in society. This is as true in a capitalist economy as it is in a communist economy. In the former, labor determines social status and the possibility of the social climb. In the latter, while resources are held communally, people can only enjoy the extent to which their labor capabilities allow them. In other words, they enjoy resources more if they provide more valuable labor. In both cases, it is clear that individual labor benefits the self and the rest of society. Hammond takes a similar view as well. He assumes that while society is divided into two classes, each class plays a role in terms of labor contribution to society. Thus, each individual's labor determines their social class and role in society. The only difference between Hammond and Robespierre is that the former advocates for some types of labor that a particular class of people should not perform.[Robespierre, On Subsistence of Goods (1988) Marxist.org, 6] [Hammond, The Admission of Kansas Under the Lecompton Constitution (1858), 8]
Humans are the Cause of their Predicaments
Regardless of the economic and political system that people live in, a fundamental assumption is that people, either directly or indirectly, cause the problems they. This is either through greed or underlying systems of governance. Robespierre points out that in a country where nature furnishes man's needs with prodigality, shortages in the circulation of goods or capital can only be attributed to the laws and the people that hold public offices4. Essentially, bad laws and bad administrations are the source of bad morals and bad principles. Wh...