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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very much appreciate the direct urls to reading material
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!
Very interesting and thought-provoking. Thank you