The communist evolution

[Igopogo]

A few years ago in talking with young adults, I realized that much of a whole generation has never spent a dime for music, (and find the whole idea perverse). I proposed a (mostly tongue in cheek) theory to my friends that we're heading for a "communist evolution" when "generation-net" become the majority. The last couple years, however, make me wonder if perhaps we will have more socialism thrust upon us over time by necessity in conforming to realities brought on by the understated power of the internet. I'm talking mostly about media (the business of printing newspapers, for instance makes about as much sense these days as selling encyclopedias door to door), but could spread wider by necessity. There's my crack-pot theory for the day. Viva la evolution!

[shadron]

Being a librul, I see nothing wrong in tinkering with gold plated economic theory. Sometimes it might even get improved in the process; or, at least, peeling a little of the plating off and selling it on the side might get the gubmint angry enough to get out and polish the old jalopy up some.

[lightfire22000]

You've got it backwards Igopogo. It's capitalism and free markets that drive the internet and the low cost/free entertainment that comes with it. Things such as Wikipedia and Youtube are only possible through free market capitalism and cannot come about through central planning. Since there's competition in a free market society, businesses will try to make goods cheaper and cheaper. In fact, Jimmy Wales considers Hayek to be a major inspiration for Wikipedia.

Communism cannot succeed as it is a violation of Godelian incompleteness. Man made institutions cannot centrally plan effectively since they, like man, was created through natural forces.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Bill Gates called the open source movement a type of socialism too.

But Free and Open Source Software has been thriving. That's where I see the communism.

[lightfire22000]

Open source is the result of capitalism, not socialism. It is natural for prices to get lower and lower and for more things to be available for free in a competitive, capitalist society. In a communist society, the government tells people what to do so there is no motivation to produce code efficiently.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Open source is the result of capitalism, not socialism. It is natural for prices to get lower and lower and for more things to be available for free in a competitive, capitalist society. In a communist society, the government tells people what to do so there is no motivation to produce code efficiently.

... No.

Open Source is the resulting product of communal activity made without profit interest.

Doesn't have anything to do with prices getting lower or capitalism.

[lightfire22000]

... No.

Open Source is the resulting product of communal activity made without profit interest.

Doesn't have anything to do with prices getting lower or capitalism.

Then why are the only good open source products done in a free market atmosphere like wikipedia. Supposedly "communal activity" is not necessarily Communist. Coerced "communal activity" or collectivism is Communist. Everything is done for a sense of profit of some kind whether it is new friends, family, respect, experience, or a more exchangeable currency. No one willingly acts if he doesn't think the act is the good thing to do.

It has everything to do with prices getting lower. At zero price, demand outweighs supply generally so open source is employed to attract customers. Communists seek to destroy an significance attached to human life and enslave everybody. Capitalists recognize that nobody is perfect and the need for all individuals to improve themselves.

Open source is the natural extension of tangible private property. People cooperate with others for their own gain in one way or another so the abolition of the corrupt notion of "virtual" or "intellectual" property is the most complete manifestation of real property. That is, people work on open source because they can own more stuff.

[GreyICE]

Then why are the only good open source products done in a free market atmosphere like wikipedia. Supposedly "communal activity" is not necessarily Communist. Coerced "communal activity" or collectivism is Communist. Everything is done for a sense of profit of some kind whether it is new friends, family, respect, experience, or a more exchangeable currency. No one willingly acts if he doesn't think the act is the good thing to do. What?

You're using definitions that appear odd, or at least arguable.

Wikipedia by definition is not a free market - there's no exchange. No exchange is no free market, free market requires the existence of a market. One would imagine this nearly goes without saying, but it appears to have slid by.

Respect, admiration, and experience cannot be considered free market goods because they cannot be exchanged. For instance I may respect 20 posters on this board, or 200, or 2. My respect cannot be transferred - a poster I respect cannot make me respect another, unrelated poster. My respect cannot be spent - I may respect a person more if they ask me for help, or I may respect them less, depending on the reasons.

Experience, similarly, cannot be considered a free market good because it cannot be traded, spent, or consumed.

There has been some posits as to how a respect-based economic system might work, but suffice to say it does not resemble classic free market capitalism.

It has everything to do with prices getting lower. At zero price, demand outweighs supply generally so open source is employed to attract customers. Communists seek to destroy an significance attached to human life and enslave everybody. Capitalists recognize that nobody is perfect and the need for all individuals to improve themselves.
Okay, this has degenerated into 'communists bad, capitalists good.' I submit that you are being a bit wrongheaded here. Very few people operate under the goal of 'enslave the entire world.'

I further submit that you aren't going to get very far in discussion if you insist one group is seeking to enslave the entire world.


Open source is the natural extension of tangible private property. People cooperate with others for their own gain in one way or another so the abolition of the corrupt notion of "virtual" or "intellectual" property is the most complete manifestation of real property. That is, people work on open source because they can own more stuff.
No. No significant coder in an open source movement gets out of the open source program material time savings related to the program use sufficient to justify the time spent on programming the open source product.

[quarky]

Not to sound like an evil commie, but isn't it too soon to say what systems have failed or succeeded? If anything, flexibility of beliefs and systems is what got us this far.

[Igopogo]

You've got it backwards Igopogo. It's capitalism and free markets that drive the internet and the low cost/free entertainment that comes with it. Things such as Wikipedia and Youtube are only possible through free market capitalism and cannot come about through central planning.

It doesn't matter how the internet came about, it's the end result that's important - how we live has to shift to whatever the realities of the new paradigm are. It would be ironic if the raw forces of capitalism make it necessary for society to take on a certain level of socialism by necessity, but it wouldn't be the first time it happened has it - The industrial revolution touted to make life easier caused the economic turmoil of 19th century England, (lead to Marx's theories). The assembly line lead to the over-production that brought on the great depression, (and subsequent social measures). Globalization lead to much of the havoc in the financial system today, (requiring a not unsubstantial level of socialization of industry - started by one of the most right-wing, pro free market governments we've seen). I'm sure you can think of a couple other examples off the top of your head.

The reason I'm referring to a communist 'evolution', is that it could be an almost imperceivable change over time. Maybe it even started back with the industrial revolution, (or even earlier - the printing press? agriculture?). For instance, now GM is a partly state run enterprise. It's hardly the 'Lada', but what is it in reality? There's a commercial now for GM you may have seen, (GM isn't going down, it's getting stronger). Is it free enterprise advertising, or state propaganda? There's arguments for either - the lines get blurry. The GM/government arrangement could be a short-term deal, or it could be a sign of things to come. One things for certain, it isn't laissez-faire.

It's true that some are making a lot of money off the internet, but what is it all drifting towards? A company like craigslist is doing well, but they post for free what used to be a piece of income for every newspaper - everywhere. One company gutted a good piece of the free market. It's reality, it has to happen, but where's it headed?

All I know is for the industry I work in, (small time audio-visual media), many of us have been scratching our heads for some time now as to how we keep making a living in the 'free' market environment. We're surviving, but it's hasn't been getting any easy or any clearer.

[corplinx]

In communism, the workers own the means of production. Open source is more like anarchy. Since I have patches in the several large open source projects, I approve.

[lightfire22000]

It would be ironic if the raw forces of capitalism make it necessary for society to take on a certain level of socialism by necessity, but it wouldn't be the first time it happened has it - The industrial revolution touted to make life easier caused the economic turmoil of 19th century England, (lead to Marx's theories). The assembly line lead to the over-production that brought on the great depression, (and subsequent social measures). Globalization lead to much of the havoc in the financial system today, (requiring a not unsubstantial level of socialization of industry - started by one of the most right-wing, pro free market governments we've seen). I'm sure you can think of a couple other examples off the top of your head.

I disagree with almost all of that. Anachronistic Tory mercantilism coupled with absurd imperialism caused economic turmoil in 19th century Great Britain. The assembly line did not lead to overproduction at all. There was still underproduction at the onset of the Great Depression. There was demand for automobiles but not enough supply. In fact, the stock market crash had relatively little to do with the Great Depression(most Americans didn't own any stock then and most stock market crashes do not cause depressions even remotely that severe.) The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve excessively expanding and manipulating the money supply in the 1920s to promote poor investment practices such as buying lots of stocks on margin. The crash was truly made into a depression when the Federal Reserve contracted the money supply. Overproduction had nothing to do with it. No market system would ever result in people starving because too much food was produced.

Your bit on globalization is partly true, but globalization doesn’t have a specific definition. There are really two types. One type seeks to allow people to interact and trade across the world freely. Another type, like the WTO, seeks to regulate and police the entire world. The former kind is the good kind. Globalization of the first type built America, not the hyper McKinley protectionism. Also, globalization had nothing to do with many Americans living in debt up to their eyeballs.

In communism, the workers own the means of production. Open source is more like anarchy. Since I have patches in the several large open source projects, I approve.
I agree on open source. I probably wouldn’t call it anarchy, but I agree. Open source is like “anarcho-capitalism.” There are laws governing open source, but those are natural laws of science.

[lightfire22000]

All I know is for the industry I work in, (small time audio-visual media), many of us have been scratching our heads for some time now as to how we keep making a living in the 'free' market environment. We're surviving, but it's hasn't been getting any easy or any clearer.

My family was in garment manufacturing. It was a rough business. That's why I promote autodidacts, self learning, unschooling, and alternative learning methods. We need more education, and we need it in an affordable and timely fashion. The market is the best way to go there.

I hardly stand alone here. People much more prominent in the Open Source Movement(currently, maybe I'll be there someday) feel the same way. Take Eric S. Raymond. Then, there's Jimmy Wales(a self-identified objectivist,) Finally, there's the captain of open source, Linus Torvalds. Here's what he had to say about Linux:

"I don't think five-year planned economies work, and I don't think it works when you do software design, either. Linux development has always been a kind of open market, where the development direction gets set by customer demand, together with obviously a lot of what I simply call good taste - the avoidance of things that are obviously going to be problematic in the long run."http://lwn.net/Articles/196288/

That is not the rhetoric of a socialist. It is the rhetoric of Open Source's Ruthian magnate. The evolution is towards a realization of the free market.

[Igopogo]

I disagree with almost all of that. Anachronistic Tory mercantilism coupled with absurd imperialism caused economic turmoil in 19th century Great Britain. The assembly line did not lead to overproduction at all. There was still underproduction at the onset of the Great Depression.

I don't know where you're getting any of this. Are you saying that the industrial revolution caused no economic turmoil? That flies in the face of all the histories I've read. Also the Great Depression as I've learned it was mostly caused by overproduction (particularly in the automobile sector). Even a cursive googling of "great depression automobile" gives abundant references to this. Generally accepted histories do have their flaws, but man still landed on the moon.

[Igopogo]

That is not the rhetoric of a socialist. It is the rhetoric of Open Source's Ruthian magnate.

Yes, but what is the end result of people contributing for free, and everything being given away for free?

I agree that education is important, I work mostly in the post-secondary trade school industry. There's a relative boom in education now, (not quite as good as it was, comparitively not bad to other industries) as people are taking time during the recession to re-train. I don't expect the mini education boom to last, as it depends on how many people can get hired in an industry in flux. Also emerging free education over the internet takes away some business as well.

The evolution is towards a realization of the free market.

I don't think that reality backs this claim up, as most industrial nations (including the US) incorporate more and more socialist programs over time.

[lightfire22000]

I don't know where you're getting any of this. Are you saying that the industrial revolution caused no economic turmoil? That flies in the face of all the histories I've read. Also the Great Depression as I've learned it was mostly caused by overproduction (particularly in the automobile sector). Even a cursive googling of "great depression automobile" gives abundant references to this. Generally accepted histories do have their flaws, but man still landed on the moon.

A cursory goggling of “great depression automobile[the words are without quotes in the search engine]” gives references to that, but they’re wrong. Free markets have never caused overproduction. If the generally accepted history stated that the US hoaxed the moon landing, it would still be wrong. I’m using logic and utilitarianism(John Stuart Mill,) but I’m largely drawing on Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises. In a free market system, people only make what is in demand. Overproduction is quickly corrected. How could there be overproduction of automobiles when lots of people wanted cars but did not have them? There couldn’t have been. Although I firmly believe that credentials should never be used to qualify a person to engage in any business what so ever, I think they can be important and function as big endorsements. If you’re looking for credentials, Friedman and Hayek both won Nobel Memorial Prizes in Economic Sciences(it’s informally called the Nobel Prize in Economics, but technically it isn’t). Since this is awarded by the Royal Sweedish Academy of Sciences, a part of the typically hyper socialist Sweedish government, I’d consider it more than legitimizing.

Yes, but what is the end result of people contributing for free, and everything being given away for free?

I don't think that reality backs this claim up, as most industrial nations (including the US) incorporate more and more socialist programs over time.

Yes, you’re absolutely correct with one exception, you’re use of the term “industrial.” Most so called “industrial” nations have incorporated more and more socialist programs over time. You, and apparently most of the world, have forgotten one thing. Those nations have become less and less industrial. “Formerly” industrial nations is a more accurate designation.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I’m using logic and utilitarianism(John Stuart Mill,) but I’m largely drawing on Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises.

Well there's your problem :p !

In a free market system, people only make what is in demand. Overproduction is quickly corrected. How could there be overproduction of automobiles when lots of people wanted cars but did not have them?

Because people can't afford them?

Anyway, this feels like derail.

Anarchism is a socio-political ideology. Whether there is or is not anarchy is irrelevant to whether FOSS is capitalist or communist, which has to do with economy.

The open source community is not a capitalist free market. Everything is free, people can make whatever they want, modify whatever others make, and join to make things with others with no payment system. A capitalist free market depends on profit to determine proper supply and demand. Indeed, in the user feedback in a free market is whether you make a profit with your product. In FOSS, users and creaters coexist. There is no profit. People produce because they want to, share because they want to. That is communism.

[lightfire22000]

In response to me sharing my influences and asking why people didn’t have cars if there was automobile overproduction, Well there's your problem :p !
…

Because people can't afford them?

If people couldn’t afford automobiles, how was there any overproduction? Natural resource scarcity did not apply, and even if it did it’s not a great argument. Making more automobiles makes them more affordable.


The open source community is not a capitalist free market. Everything is free, people can make whatever they want, modify whatever others make, and join to make things with others with no payment system. A capitalist free market depends on profit to determine proper supply and demand. Indeed, in the user feedback in a free market is whether you make a profit with your product. In FOSS, users and creaters coexist. There is no profit. People produce because they want to, share because they want to. That is communism.

I confess that I think you’re both thinking and writing well right here, but you’re still wrong. You’re fairly accurate until you write:
In FOSS, users and creaters coexist. There is no profit. People produce because they want to, share because they want to. That is communism.

Who’s to say what constitutes profit? Acknowledging that “free will” is applied pragmatically, if someone willfully chooses to do something, he must choose what he thinks is the choice that is good for him. He cannot act otherwise. Even if he willfully gives up his life to save another life, he still chooses to do so because he considers it good for him. There are many profitable pursuits that are only made available through FOSS.


People produce because they want to, share because they want to. That is communism.
No, that’s capitalism. In communism, people produce because they’re told to and share because they have to do so.

[corplinx]

Trying to align the open source development model with a political system is just silliness. As represented by Buddha's painful logic and wishful thinking.

That's is why I said "more like anarchy". However, calling it communism is just silliness brought on by one's own desires to align the world to their view.

[lightfire22000]

Trying to align the open source development model with a political system is just silliness. ...

That's is why I said "more like anarchy".
I agree. It's a natural development of technology.

[D'rok]

In communism, people produce because they’re told to and share because they have to do so.

Communism is predicated on the end of politics and the dissolution of the state. So who is telling who to share what?

Now, if you said "in Soviet Russia, Open Source shares you", you might have a point. In other words, communism in practice is different than communism in theory - but you are mixing up your arguments. You are arguing from capitalist theory against communist practice.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Trying to align the open source development model with a political system is just silliness. As represented by Buddha's painful logic and wishful thinking.

That's is why I said "more like anarchy". However, calling it communism is just silliness brought on by one's own desires to align the world to their view.

Um, anarchy is a political system. Communism, capitalism, free market, etc. are all about economics of production.

And I don't recall writing all that being painful, I just don't see how FOSS in any way resembles a capitalist free market unless you ignore what those words mean.

lightfire22000, I think we should to put off the great depression and overproduction for a new thread.

I confess that I think you’re both thinking and writing well right here, but you’re still wrong. You’re fairly accurate until you write:Well, I did take Composition 101 instead of Economics 101 :p .

Who’s to say what constitutes profit? Acknowledging that “free will” is applied pragmatically, if someone willfully chooses to do something, he must choose what he thinks is the choice that is good for him. He cannot act otherwise. Even if he willfully gives up his life to save another life, he still chooses to do so because he considers it good for him. There are many profitable pursuits that are only made available through FOSS.
Hm, well now we are getting somewhere. Profit is revenue minus opportunity cost of inputs. I have never seen this used in a non-monetary sense... mostly because you can't have a capitalist free market without exchange of money. Without a price system, supply and demand are irrelevant, and there is no efficiency. It is not a capitalist free market.

ETA: Hm, well perhaps a barter system? But that would still involve exchange and a sort of pricing...

[Igopogo]

If people couldn’t afford automobiles, how was there any overproduction? Natural resource scarcity did not apply, and even if it did it’s not a great argument. Making more automobiles makes them more affordable.

There's a lot of people who would like to buy a house in the US, but can't, even though there's a glut of houses on the market.

There was a boom in automobile sales before the last Great Depression, spurred on by people buying on credit. I recall reading in a book about the Fords years ago that Henry Ford had a goal of driving (pardon the pun) the price of a car down to $300, (which I understand is about 4,000 in today's dollars). He relentlessly pushed the efficiency of the assembly line until he achieved it - that was before the stock market crash. After the crash, the market for cars collapsed, for cheap Fords as well as everyone else due to overproduction and people being unable to afford to run them let alone buy one. In essence, supply was supporting an unaffordable bubble of demand. On a positive note, the cheapness of Model T's meant that Hollywood could destroy them in silent comedies at a knee slapping rate.

[lightfire22000]

I'll make a new thread.

[quarky]

Communism is like a symptom of capitalism losing its sense. When the very few have too much of the pie, the peasants revolt. That can be expensive, yet predictable.

[GreyICE]

Trying to align the open source development model with a political system is just silliness. As represented by Buddha's painful logic and wishful thinking.

That's is why I said "more like anarchy". However, calling it communism is just silliness brought on by one's own desires to align the world to their view.

Ditto for suggesting it's a free market.

[elbe]

A few years ago in talking with young adults, I realized that much of a whole generation has never spent a dime for music, (and find the whole idea perverse). I proposed a (mostly tongue in cheek) theory to my friends that we're heading for a "communist evolution" when "generation-net" become the majority. The last couple years, however, make me wonder if perhaps we will have more socialism thrust upon us over time by necessity in conforming to realities brought on by the understated power of the internet. I'm talking mostly about media (the business of printing newspapers, for instance makes about as much sense these days as selling encyclopedias door to door), but could spread wider by necessity. There's my crack-pot theory for the day. Viva la evolution!

I tend to view it more as a pro public domain movement than a communist movement. Works being available on the internet freely or "freely" may drive the youth of today toward thinking that certain types of works should always be free, but not that everything should be - though I'm sure that there are many people who would enjoy getting everything they want for free.

[Francesca R]

Open source is the result of capitalism, not socialism.I don't think it is a result of either -ism. Nor, particularly, do I think it originates in altruism.

As some have alluded to, provision of non-revenue earning public goods in this sense merely requires the attachment of benefits that can't easily be contracted, and which, accordingly, can't easily be usurped by deception or force.

You can sometimes quantify those benefits with money; you just can't so easily trade them.

[G-K-4]

A few years ago in talking with young adults, I realized that much of a whole generation has never spent a dime for music, (and find the whole idea perverse). I proposed a (mostly tongue in cheek) theory to my friends that we're heading for a "communist evolution" when "generation-net" become the majority.

Yesterday I read an interesting blog post (http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2004/05/trouble-in-libertopia.html) that relates to this discussion. It is by Dale Carrico, a college professor and blogger who writes about the intersection of society and new technologies. He reviews and critiques some other articles about peer-to-peer networks and tech-geeks with free time, and how the things they create relate to politics. (Not partisan politics, but politics as it exists in the wider society.)

The first part of the post critiques the kinds of high-tech libertarians who are common around the Internet. lightfire22000 should read it. But the second part, "Spontaneous Order on the Left", is more relevant to Igopogo's original post here.

Carrico reviews a late-2001 essay by Cory Doctorow (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2001/12/21/2002.html), and a 2003 opinion piece by Alex Steffen (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/149006_techbloom20.html) of Worldchanging. Doctorow's comments about the rise and fall of Napster make me wish I could tell him, "Wait until you see what happens next!" One general point by all three writers is that p2p can allow some new things to happen that don't fit into old economic paradigms.

But Carrico's larger point, more concisely expressed here (http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2004/05/new-technology-loosens-controls-over.html), is that this is not inevitable or "natural" to these new tools and techniques. What gets done and how it is done and for what ends are still political questions. His bottom line is that these new technologies are not inherently democratic or socialistic. They could be bent toward the goals of private feifdoms and corporate command economies. But, like anything else, "it is only politics and its interminable reconciliation of contending aspirations that gives you a world".

------------

Meanwhile, I'm with Tsukasa Buddha on the definitional questions. Nevertheless...

We will keep talking past each other if we use words that have multiple definitions, but keep implicitly citing different, contradictory parts of these sets of definitions. How do we bridge that gap in these conversations? Use the definition phrases instead of the loaded words?

[Igopogo]

thanks G-K-4, interesting reading


We will keep talking past each other if we use words that have multiple definitions, but keep implicitly citing different, contradictory parts of these sets of definitions. How do we bridge that gap in these conversations? Use the definition phrases instead of the loaded words?

So true. This is the unfortunate thing about language, it only approximates reality. Are there any words without multiple definitions? (Lawyers would be out of work if there were). Who owns the definition of the word 'communism'? Karl Marx? Kim Jong Il? a hippy on a commune? They're equally valid. - I suggest the idea is bigger than the loaded definition, (though I admit it doesn't help using some loaded terminology like 'communist evolution').

How do we stop talking past each other? I notice that if we want to understand another point of view - see the ideas behind the language and don't get so hung up on definitions. We're all capable of it when speaking with someone who isn't fluent in our language. However, if you're not interested in hearing what the other has to say, you get out the dictionary and lay down the law. For example, my (hyper)religious brother asked to debate me through emails. I at first agreed, but soon realized he routinely 'straw-manned' anything I said into nonsense by choosing what my words mean instead of looking for the idea. (I don't bother 'debating' him anymore).

[Earthborn]

There aren't very many different definitions of "communism" though. The definition used primarily by opponents of communism who can't be bothered to read up on the thing they claim to be against, is: "The political system as it existed in countries ruled by communist parties". The other definition, used by the people who don't mind that advocates of a political philosophy define what the terms within the political philosophy mean, is: "The stateless near-utopian end result of societal evolution, in which people are no longer selfish and all work for the benefit of all."

It is the latter definition that was seen as hopelessly naive and "against human nature" by those advocating capitalism. They argued that humans are "selfish", have infinite desire for more and more material wealth, and would only work if it benefits themselves. The Open Source movement, "Web2.0" aka crowdsourcing test those assumptions. Secure in their livelihood, it appears that many people are willing to work (and in some cases work hard) purely for the benefit of others, without pay or being explicitly credited. As soon as people no longer need to be selfish to survive, they won't be; just as the commies have said. When that happens, the concept of property becomes problematic and disappears, which is what seems to be happening with intellectual property at least.

Open Source is not communism in the sense of centralised government planning of an economy, but it does have characteristics of what communism was supposed to be like: stateless, massively decentralised, selfless sharing even with strangers instead of denying others to use something because it is one's "personal property". It is perhaps ironic (though not surprising) that it arose within capitalist societies.

[The_Animus]

Not to sound like an evil commie, but isn't it too soon to say what systems have failed or succeeded? If anything, flexibility of beliefs and systems is what got us this far.

Seconded. I'm don't like the "stay the course", and "it got us this far" axioms. There is nothing wrong with trying different approaches or even approaches that have already been tried.

[Francesca R]

There aren't very many different definitions [ . . . ]I like your answer to this question.

I would say though, that there is a lot of evidence against this being the general case:As soon as people no longer need to be selfish to survive, they won't be

Also I don't really believe personally that people work "purely for the benefit of others". Others may be the only ones to benefit in the realm of property.

Of course--allied to your post--saying something is "against human nature" is also largely a case of ipse dixit-ism. There ought to be a reason why it is against human nature, and why human nature cannot change.

With respect to the last part (and this is related to your "as soon as [ . . . ]" comment), there is a school of thought that social evolution simply takes time. In this school, kindness to complete strangers in a modern city is postulated to be a legacy of an earlier era where is was highly likely that most strangers you met would be kin, such that goodwill was the most competitive behaviour and became a social norm which has not yet "evolved" away. Thus, it is plausible that people in general do not instantly stop being selfish when in fact they no longer need to do so to survive. The revolution may be delayed. :)