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 Primitiv...