The following adds my voice to yours.
Humans and their conceptual understanding of the world are social
constructions. This means that particular views of how human beings and
their relations are naturally constituted are constructed by human
beings. In societies with differential power arrangements, these
constructions are not arrived at consensually, rather they are
constructed and distributed by a power elite who have interests in
the status quo or the transformation of society in a certain direction: the
form that benefits them or fulfills a societal conception they hold. In
order to maintain social control over the powerless majority, it is the
task of the hegemonic institutions, controlled by the powerful, to
naturalize social relations, thus placing them beyond question and change or
resistance for the majority. Ideology which naturalizes historically
contingent relations mystifies differential power relations. This is
the strength of theologies and philosophies: their ability to make
contemporary contexts appear timeless and universal. But of course,
historical reality is not timeless and universal.
Since humans do not have a nature, and their behavioral and attitudinal
constitutions are socially constructed and mediated, and conditioned by
productive forces, then the questions are "In what sort of society do you
want to live?" and "What type of people do you want this society to
produce?" The answer is clear (allow me to polarize it for analytical
purposes): If you want selfish, freedom-stealing, and self-destructive
humans, then I recommend choosing a capitalist mode of production. If you
want cooperative, loving, and creative humans, then I suggest choosing a
communist mode of production. The capitalist tells you "I realize that
the second choice is marvelous, but human nature will not permit it." A
capitalist would say this. The goal here is to convince the powerless
majority that the goal they seek is not possible because of powers beyond
their control: God and/or nature. But because human being is a social
product, and since we can change society, then we know we can change
human being. So choice *does* exists--we are not bound by human nature to
exist in inequal social orders--and it is a choice that must be
made; for to not make this choice is to allow others to make it for you.
One more thing, the human nature argument is an attempt to objectify a
concept, permitting the powerful who control the definition of the
concept to be seen as advancing an objective and neutral argument. But
objectivity is impossible, and neutrality is not desirable. Therefore
these arguments about where we ought to go, or in what sort of society
shall we live, are value judgments. If the goal is communism, then we
ought to set about achieving the goal. If the goal is capitalism, then
the only argument I see supporting such an exploitative and self-
destructive productive mode is appeal to either God or nature. But
we can see through this now.
Andy