Thank you for that, I want my posts to not just be me saying stuff but also offering resources people can follow up on to learn more about the topic at hand. It makes it more time-consuming but I'm glad it's appreciated.
I feel like a quick way to disprove the "human nature" discourse is simply to look at indigenous peoples: they typically have an entirely different relationship to nature, production and ownership, and seem largely "immune" to a lot of the ills that are so prevalent in capitalist societies—even if they are in contact with these societies to various degrees. And one does not even need to go back in time; this is easily observable in the present.
Thank you for the kind words, glad you liked the piece! And yes, Bowles and Gintis mention this in their work as well and it demonstrates conclusively that human nature is variable and not static, and fundamentally shaped by one's material and social context. But I didn't lead with it here because from experience discussing this issue with apolitical normie types they instinctively resort to something like "yeah ok but that's not how most people in modern society live so that's irrelevant" to wave it away. So instead I tried to lead with how human nature as a concept itself cannot be static and unchangeable, and then give some concrete examples for everyday life that normies are intimately familiar with themselves and so can't just easily dismiss, as they're inclined to do given the force of capitalist propaganda.
Thanks for this. I’m glad I moved beyond Twitter and started following you here! I’m fascinated by the rise of information technology (internet, social media, etc.) and how “human nature” might change because of it. Friendship, dating, work, and other areas have changed dramatically since I grew up in the 70s/80s. I wish there was a Marxist analysis of this.
There is some interesting work on the subject by scholars who aren't strictly Marxist but nevertheless deal with the subject in a materialist manner critical of capitalism. Shoshana Zuboff's "Age of Surveillance Capitalism" and other work comes to mind, and she is featured in the documentary The Social Dilemma which is worth checking out as well on this subject. Graeber has some good insights that touch on this as well, like this one: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit
We're within sight of the capability to remake ourselves structurally, let alone psychologically or culturally, yet some will insist that no matter what we become, and no matter what we invent to shore up our flaws, we are and will remain selfish forever.
Finally reading Marx I was shocked how 99% (zero exaggeration) of people who talk about him have clearly not even read the first chapter of Capital or the Communist Manifesto.
Love this writing. It's a good way to capture different mode of social relations and its implications for our day to day lives. I would probably add the "messiness" in-between mode; that rational mode of relationship and the altruistic kind of relationship is not mutually exclusive in the sense that there's clear demarcation between the two, adding more to the idea that there's no fixed human nature, coming especially from anthropology.
I also love how you add that human nature is our own making. I think adding this is crucial, even among leftists since I think there are quite significant leftists that still hold the economic determinism idea; the somewhat pre-Marxist materialism you mentioned. Yes, the specific material and social conditions shape our lives and nature, but the specific material and social conditions are also our own making; making a room for possibilities of our social conditions (not stuck in a kind of economic nihilism that capitalism is the end and there's no way out). Although you talk solely about Marx here, I think it's intriguing to add some anarchist thinker such as Kropotkin that also argue in the same line; that there's different mode of relations, not just the rational and exchange type.
Thank you for the kind words, and I agree with everything you've said here. Here's a good essay on Kropotkin's contributions to this line of thinking by the great Stephen Jay Gould: https://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.htm. Graeber has written very well on this too drawing on the tradition going back to Kropotkin and other anarchist and left-communist thinkers. His latest book, The Dawn of Everything, is focused on it and it's on my to-read list.
Thank you for that, I want my posts to not just be me saying stuff but also offering resources people can follow up on to learn more about the topic at hand. It makes it more time-consuming but I'm glad it's appreciated.
Great piece, Squirrel, thanks for sharing.
I feel like a quick way to disprove the "human nature" discourse is simply to look at indigenous peoples: they typically have an entirely different relationship to nature, production and ownership, and seem largely "immune" to a lot of the ills that are so prevalent in capitalist societies—even if they are in contact with these societies to various degrees. And one does not even need to go back in time; this is easily observable in the present.
Thank you for the kind words, glad you liked the piece! And yes, Bowles and Gintis mention this in their work as well and it demonstrates conclusively that human nature is variable and not static, and fundamentally shaped by one's material and social context. But I didn't lead with it here because from experience discussing this issue with apolitical normie types they instinctively resort to something like "yeah ok but that's not how most people in modern society live so that's irrelevant" to wave it away. So instead I tried to lead with how human nature as a concept itself cannot be static and unchangeable, and then give some concrete examples for everyday life that normies are intimately familiar with themselves and so can't just easily dismiss, as they're inclined to do given the force of capitalist propaganda.
This is a great piece and I love reading your philosophical writings
Thanks for this. I’m glad I moved beyond Twitter and started following you here! I’m fascinated by the rise of information technology (internet, social media, etc.) and how “human nature” might change because of it. Friendship, dating, work, and other areas have changed dramatically since I grew up in the 70s/80s. I wish there was a Marxist analysis of this.
There is some interesting work on the subject by scholars who aren't strictly Marxist but nevertheless deal with the subject in a materialist manner critical of capitalism. Shoshana Zuboff's "Age of Surveillance Capitalism" and other work comes to mind, and she is featured in the documentary The Social Dilemma which is worth checking out as well on this subject. Graeber has some good insights that touch on this as well, like this one: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit
There's also a lot of interesting materialist, Marxian work on Silicon valley, big tech and how it has transformed social, economic and cultural life, like this one: http://www.imaginaryfutures.net/2007/04/17/the-californian-ideology-2/. You can find more of the author's work linked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Barbrook
I also find Jaron Lanier also to be insightful on this: https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-digital-maoism-the-hazards-of-the-new-online-collectivism
Thank you. I will definitely read these things!
One of your best.
We're within sight of the capability to remake ourselves structurally, let alone psychologically or culturally, yet some will insist that no matter what we become, and no matter what we invent to shore up our flaws, we are and will remain selfish forever.
Finally reading Marx I was shocked how 99% (zero exaggeration) of people who talk about him have clearly not even read the first chapter of Capital or the Communist Manifesto.
Love this writing. It's a good way to capture different mode of social relations and its implications for our day to day lives. I would probably add the "messiness" in-between mode; that rational mode of relationship and the altruistic kind of relationship is not mutually exclusive in the sense that there's clear demarcation between the two, adding more to the idea that there's no fixed human nature, coming especially from anthropology.
I also love how you add that human nature is our own making. I think adding this is crucial, even among leftists since I think there are quite significant leftists that still hold the economic determinism idea; the somewhat pre-Marxist materialism you mentioned. Yes, the specific material and social conditions shape our lives and nature, but the specific material and social conditions are also our own making; making a room for possibilities of our social conditions (not stuck in a kind of economic nihilism that capitalism is the end and there's no way out). Although you talk solely about Marx here, I think it's intriguing to add some anarchist thinker such as Kropotkin that also argue in the same line; that there's different mode of relations, not just the rational and exchange type.
Thank you for writing this!
Thank you for the kind words, and I agree with everything you've said here. Here's a good essay on Kropotkin's contributions to this line of thinking by the great Stephen Jay Gould: https://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.htm. Graeber has written very well on this too drawing on the tradition going back to Kropotkin and other anarchist and left-communist thinkers. His latest book, The Dawn of Everything, is focused on it and it's on my to-read list.
Very interesting and thought-provoking. Thank you