Idk much about anthropology, but tragedy of the commons is idealist nonsense. There literally was the commons in England that was used by yeoman farmers for centuries without over grazing and the only tragedy that ever happened to it was its appropriation, enclosure by the capitalist. There is bourgeois nature which infects us all to varying degrees, but that is a product of the mode of production we live under and to assume it is inherent is blatantly ahistorical, never mind anti-dialectical. Did the feudal peasant think any man could become a lord if they just worked hard enough just as so many bourgeois ideologues think they can become wealthy if they work hard enough? No of course not. The peasant thought the lord was ordained by god (or the smarter among them recognized they were ordained by force of arms). The peasant would never be ordained by god to be a lord, he was made to be a serf and so he should behave as a serf. This simple fact proves that bourgeois ideology (so called "human nature") is not universal, merely an artifact of our current time. Human nature changes!
So what then, will change our bourgeois conscious to something egalitarian? Idk. maybe revolutionary struggle and the massive expansion of the means of production so as to adequately meet everyone's needs. The abolition of the value-form (money), along with the end of commodity production, the end of production of goods for exchange to be replaced by production of goods for use might bring about this change.
Of course you only have to look at historical precedent to see that without such a massive surplus of labor-power for sale on the market and division of labor, generalized commodity production did not take place. Did the Mohawk catch all the fish to sell to the Seneca? No. Did the Mongols breed horses to sell to the Chinese? No. If it were human nature to maximize profit then these peoples should have done these things!
"Collectivism" is too broad of an abstraction to mount a defense of. The capitalist state is a collective with a military, infrastructure, postal service, police, and fire departments owned in common. The social division of labor forces a collective approach to the maintenance of society, for if I bake bread, I must trade with the farmer for grain. If I wish to live near someone else without warring against them, then we must adhere to a common set of rules and norms known as a social contract which is developed collectively.
Idk much about anthropology, but tragedy of the commons is idealist nonsense. There literally was the commons in England that was used by yeoman farmers for centuries without over grazing and the only tragedy that ever happened to it was its appropriation, enclosure by the capitalist. There is bourgeois nature which infects us all to varying degrees, but that is a product of the mode of production we live under and to assume it is inherent is blatantly ahistorical, never mind anti-dialectical. Did the feudal peasant think any man could become a lord if they just worked hard enough just as so many bourgeois ideologues think they can become wealthy if they work hard enough? No of course not. The peasant thought the lord was ordained by god (or the smarter among them recognized they were ordained by force of arms). The peasant would never be ordained by god to be a lord, he was made to be a serf and so he should behave as a serf. This simple fact proves that bourgeois ideology (so called "human nature") is not universal, merely an artifact of our current time. Human nature changes!
So what then, will change our bourgeois conscious to something egalitarian? Idk. maybe revolutionary struggle and the massive expansion of the means of production so as to adequately meet everyone's needs. The abolition of the value-form (money), along with the end of commodity production, the end of production of goods for exchange to be replaced by production of goods for use might bring about this change.
Of course you only have to look at historical precedent to see that without such a massive surplus of labor-power for sale on the market and division of labor, generalized commodity production did not take place. Did the Mohawk catch all the fish to sell to the Seneca? No. Did the Mongols breed horses to sell to the Chinese? No. If it were human nature to maximize profit then these peoples should have done these things!
"Collectivism" is too broad of an abstraction to mount a defense of. The capitalist state is a collective with a military, infrastructure, postal service, police, and fire departments owned in common. The social division of labor forces a collective approach to the maintenance of society, for if I bake bread, I must trade with the farmer for grain. If I wish to live near someone else without warring against them, then we must adhere to a common set of rules and norms known as a social contract which is developed collectively.