From a letter published in the November 1912 issue of International Socialist Review, we have an interesting and unusual rebuttal to the age-old claim that socialism is contrary to “human nature” (which seems to have arisen as a mere inversion of the claims of men like Hobbes and Hume, who argued that human nature is the basis of capitalist society and the capitalist state).
I protest. I hate to do it when so good a comrade as Robert Rives La Monte says so, but if I don’t it will be Frank Bohn and Big Bill who will admit next that we will change human nature before we get Socialism. The first law of nature, human and otherwise, is self-preservation, and it is that law that will force the workers to co-operate. It is natural, likewise, for the human family to co-operate. It is natural, likewise, for the human family to co-operate–self preservation made it so–until too much power was granted to some individuals in early in the days of cooperation and he headed the list of individuals, a list which is doomed to end with Rockefeller. Take another view of it and see if your mind does not conclude that the nature of the workers is to co-operate. Is it not a worker who always stands ready to assist, to the extent of his power, another worker who needs assistance? His heart is soft, too soft for his own welfare, and he is much concerned about Rockefeller when the Social Revolution occurs. Co-operation means brotherhood and the workers are naturally of a brotherly nature. When they strive one against the other the fault lies in the teaching of the capitalist system and not in the nature of the men and women who oppose one another. Consider the scab. Does he scab because he loves to scab? Give him all he desires and then ask him to scab, and would he? No. If we change human nature we will abolish the law of self-preservation and without that law we would not have Socialism. In fact, we would not need Socialism.
If you want to see it in context, here’s a link to the page on Google Books.