The Confucian philosopher Xunzi argued that humans are inherently bad, but it’s precisely the inherent badness of humans that we should put immense thought and care into our ethical and social systems so that the few good parts of humans are cultivated and humans become good. This is what’s fundamentally missing in your analysis. Whether humans are inherently good or not is a different question from how humans can become good and what responsibilities humans have with each other and with the rest of the world. Nothing is static, and as conscious actors, we have the power to shape our environment, including ourselves.

No human should die from malnutrition and starvation. This is a goal humanity ought to achieve. Human nature only factors in to predict how easy it is to accomplish the goal. If humans are inherently good, feeding every single human is largely an agricultural and logistical problem with an agricultural and logistical solution. If humans are inherently bad, then feeding every single human becomes a long and arduous struggle to root out callous apathy and malevolent actors. But the war against hunger still has to be waged, even if the fight is too hard to be won.

I noticed you said idealism was a major part of what inspired you to think a better world is possible when you were younger, but that your opinion changed as your idealism faded; you will likely be interested to know that Marxism firmly rejects idealism, so much so that a large body of Marx and Engels’ work is dedicated to BTFOing earlier idealist conceptions of socialism.

The first part of Marx’s A Critique of the German Ideology is a good piece of theory on how society comes to be a certain way and evolves into other forms. Here’s an excerpt that captures the point pretty well (emphasis mine):

Feuerbach’s conception of the sensuous world is confined on the one hand to mere contemplation of it, and on the other to mere feeling; he says “Man” instead of “real historical man.” “Man” is really “the German.” In the first case, the contemplation of the sensuous world, he necessarily lights on things which contradict his consciousness and feeling, which disturb the harmony he presupposes, the harmony of all parts of the sensuous world and especially of man and nature. To remove this disturbance, he must take refuge in a double perception, a profane one which only perceives the “flatly obvious” and a higher, philosophical, one which perceives the “true essence” of things. He does not see how the sensuous world around him is, not a thing given direct from all eternity, remaining ever the same, but the product of industry and of the state of society; and, indeed, in the sense that it is an historical product, the result of the activity of a whole succession of generations, each standing on the shoulders of the preceding one, developing its industry and its intercourse, modifying its social system according to the changed needs. Even the objects of the simplest “sensuous certainty” are only given him through social development, industry and commercial intercourse. The cherry-tree, like almost all fruit-trees, was, as is well known, only a few centuries ago transplanted by commerce into our zone, and therefore only by this action of a definite society in a definite age it has become “sensuous certainty” for Feuerbach.

“Human nature” is a fake concept, especially one that is considered “essential” and eternal of humans. If human nature is anything, then over our 100K year history as anatomical humans it’s our nature to live in communitarian tribes with no personal property.

Human behavior and incentives emerge from the economic base - NOT IN AN OVERDETERMINED MANNER, meaning it’s not inevitable that all who live under capitalist wage relationships seek to become exploiters and greedy. But what is incentives and rewarded is greedy, shitty, alienating behavior in the absence of true and proper solidarity. When people act the way you suggest they’re doing so rationally, now it’s true that they would more to gain if they take the proverbial leap of faith and taking part in a socialist revolution but that prospect is scary because it implies a potential loss without gain and things aren’t bad enough for enough people for them to feel the risk is worth the reward yet.

In my day to day encounters with people, I’m reminded of the enduring power of love and small acts of kindness and solidarity that power our daily lives even in this hellworld.

For future reference, this is more of a post for /c/askchapo@hexbear.net, but I’ll go ahead and leave it up. :)

Someone will have a more thought-out answer than me, as I am not a communist (I have not decided what I am anyway other than generally left… I have a rather distaste for labels anyway.). But, I do recognise your human nature argument, which is a common one, but inherently flawed. So much so, that it is even in this FAQ. See: https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/socialism_faq.md#what-about-human-nature

Basically, a tl;dr version is that humans will act in accordance within the systems they set themselves in. They can be greedy, generous, violent, kind, or anywhere on a grand spectrum of the tapestry of options. If you set up the system to encourage greed, such as we have now, you reap what you sow. It is important to remember that we have not always lived in this way and have the option to change things for better or worse. How we do so is another matter and is one of the reasons why the left is always infighting.

For an example of how these systems work in practice, when done correctly, check out: https://dessalines.github.io/essays/capitalism_doesnt_work.html (read the full thing to see why it is relevant)

There are some arguments, I’ve come across, that suggested that the US might have needed the USSR so that they had a competition to keep standards for their citizens up (to keep them loyal, etc.), however, that is debatable but a fun thought experiment.

PS, if you want a great read on this theme, well, sort-of-kind-of, check out: https://archive.org/details/graeber-wengrow-dawn/David Graeber%2C David Wengrow - The Dawn of Everything_ A New History of Humanity-Farrar%2C Straus and Giroux (2021)/ As with anything, having a simple source to blame such as “human nature” never really tells the full story.

Edits: Many and lots, flowing with my thoughts. Deal with it.