The “human nature” is not as easy to dismiss as you would like. We may not be “wired” to be greedy but it is a integral part of humanity. You say, “humans are capable of all sorts of behaviors.” This seems to suggest we can just choose our own behavior. To blame our societal structures and institutions is just too convenient. You ask, “What might we say about “human nature” in a society founded on cooperation instead of survival-of-the-fittest?”. Aren’t there a hundred or more countries that have attempted various models of socialism? Isn’t the premise of socialism addressing the needs of people first? If we would, ‘likely have an entirely different view of “human nature”,’ why have so many countries thrown in the towel on socialism? This supposes that there was no, or at least much less, greed, murder and inequality in hunter gatherer societies or in Cuba, or in the USSR, or in Venezuela. I would be pleasantly surprised to find less corruption in any of these countries. Admittedly, there are impressive references in Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Netherlands. I have to ask though, are these true Socialist countries? Or are they a good mix of Socialism and Capitalism? I mean after all they are touted as examples based on their GDP. That seems like a very Capitalist way to rank a Socialist country.

To clear up what “we” mean by “works” it is means, that it is the most successful model on earth, used by the majority of first world nations to some degree or another, even China. 80% of the world does not live in a Capitalist society so this is irrelevant. 1 Many countries are under the control of Monarchs or war lords or even military governments. Granted some of this (ok a lot) can be attributed to western imperialist doctrine, but that is where an anarchist should blame the people for allowing themselves to be ruled by the government of another country…not Capitalism. We produce enough food to feed everyone in the world yet one in seven goes hungry eh? 2 Is there a point to this? Are you suggesting that we actually could just feed everyone? If so the premise is ludicrous. Imagine the needed processing plants, preservatives required, boats, planes, semis, fuel, machinery maintenance and man power that would be required to distribute it. This crisis isn’t new in Socialism either, socialism is prone to periodic crises as well. This crisis isn’t directly attributable to Capitalism and thus far you have supplied no evidence to support that it is. Yes there are gross excesses and waste but what is your suggested alternative? Two world wars is the fault of Capitalism? I seem to remember something about Nazi’s. CONSTANT GROWTH? WOO HOO we can agree on something! This is a much more likely culprit than Capitalism. It is a much more likely source of, “the destruction of landbases, the regular extinction of entire species, decreasing biodiversity, global warming,” and, “unequal, unethical, horrific institutional arrangements.” Now do you really think you can feed everyone (even if it was possible, which it isn’t) without accelerating the very growth which is, more than likely, the real cause of everything you decry in this article?

Yes we agree again! Media needs to be at least 50% controlled by the populace.

Hi Deric! : )