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.
When we make a statement like “profit motive isnt a part of human nature”, I think we need to distinguish between human instincts that are a product of isolated individual academic instincts and introspecions vs the kind of instincts and motive that are inspired in an individual by a system that takes a grand scale.
I say that because it is quite obvious by empirical means that a profit motive does exist in the human occupational pursuit, whatever the source of its existence may be, and hence i believe that its existence and its association to capitalism and other forms of economic system need to be considered and realized as an axiom before developing a dialogue on the issue.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying. But profit is a result of producing commodities. No commodities, no profit. No profit, no profit motive.
Im speaking from a psychological perspective, even if a motive is a result of a sociological condition, it still exists and has a legitimate psychological base for its existence. Which directly implies that its part of the human nature and nothing alien to it.
We can make an argument that it is an immoral part of the human nature, but denying its very existence and association serves no purpose.
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.