man and nature

[jaycee]

I posted this a while ago, while i was a resticted member now that I'm not a resricted member I thought I might try again.

What is humanities real essence, and what is humanitys relationship with the natural world?

i started this discussion in the Buddhism thread but i would like to develope it more here.

Marx said that communism will see 'the reintergration of man into himself, the supercession of mans self estrangement (alienation).' This is showing that without alienation man will return to a more 'natural state', this is what i think Marx was refering to when he claimed that communism is the begining of 'mans real history.' engels reffered to the develoment of class society and civilisation (marx refers to the 'sewage of civilisation') in particular as a 'fall' for humanity, he did this not because he was a primitavist and wanted to return to primitive comunism, but because he recognised that in progressing from primitive communism to class society (a move which was completely necessary and unavoidable) we lost much of the freedom and equality which these primtive societys offered. Most importantly the move into class society was the beginning of our fall into alienation and repression. This has reached its most extreme levels under capitalist society. This is why Marx saw communism as 'fully developed naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature, and between man and man, the true resolution of of the conflict between existence and being, between freedom and necessity between individual and species.'


Marx saw that under private property mans connection with nature has been reduced to natures 'utility' for humanity and is increasingly viewed as just anothr commodity. Marx saw that ' the supercession of private property is therefore the emanicipation of all human senses...Need or enjoyment have therefore lost there egoistic nature, and nature has lost its mere utlity in the sense that its use has become human use (rather than use for commodity production).'


I think that under communism humainty will abolish alienating labour, and will greatly lessen the weight of mental repression. This will mean all the human needs and desires will be fulfilled and humanity will return to a more authenticly human existence.

[hoopla]

From BBs (Not reading Marx) the essence of humanity is in the social: so I see communism as a return to a more natural way of relating to poeple.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:02 pm
From BBs (Not reading Marx) the essence of humanity is in the social: so I see communism as a return to a more natural way of relating to poeple.
Not more 'natural' but more human. I don't think Marx is arguing a biblical-style circular process where we are, at the end of our journey, reunited with our essential true selves and recover our lost attributes (like returning to the Garden of Eden). I think a marxist notion of the human essence, one which sees labour as our most essential feature, is one which views the human as an on-going project. We are essentially social in our nature but a full human sociability has not been historically possible because of the distorting impact of both scarcity and social class.

Communism isn't a return, therefore, to a natural state of human association, but it is the establishment of the conditions for a full sociability - constructed by humans not by nature.

[hoopla]

I mean natural as in implicit, not return.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:57 pm
I mean natural as in implicit, not return.
Yeah, I know. But I'm saying it's possible not implicit. If its implicit then it's like an instinct.

[hoopla]

If its a possibility where is it located? If it is implied, then it exists in the relationships we now have.

[jaycee]

I think that it is in some ways a return but a return at a 'higher level'. THis means it is a return which keeps all the advances made by humanity since the emergence of class society. Marx caleed it a 'return made conscious'.

How can it be more human without being more natural, it seems you simply don't want to sound religious or primitivist because it is in essence the same thing. Humanity is a part of nature and its essence is a natural essence, albeit one which changes its environment to suit itself. As you say communism is a society constructed by man, not nature but nature 'constructed us' and it's because of our nature that communism is the most human way of life. This is why throughout history there have been visions of a communist future (most of the time with religious overtones, but communism none the less) which have been impossible to reach until now, as a result of capititalism.

I think that the Biblical vision (and all religions in general) therefore has wisdom in it, although it is confused, by its religious nature. Communism is not a return to humanitys true essence it is fully developed discovery of it. The Fall is a myth common to all human societies and religions, this reflects a fundamental truth that humanity has become estranged from nature and our true selves.

With regards to whether or not this truly human state is attainable now, under capitalism, I would say it is, but only on an individual basis. Much like I belive that Buddhist monks have been able to reach a truer understanding of the world. However they only acheived it by escaping from society and therefoe relied on other people's exploitation to support them and their monastries etc.

[Hit The North]

Humanity is a part of nature and its essence is a natural essence

According to Marx our essence is social, not natural.

Human beings are beings of praxis: i.e. we change nature and change ourselves in the process.

In his critique of Feuerbach, Marx argues:


Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual.

In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.

Cited Here (http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm)

[manic expression]

I think that humans are naturally social. I would agree that communism is a return to a "natural" way of relating to people.

Do humans really change nature? We can change the way we behave, the way we think, the way we work, the way we relate; however, I don't think this has an effect on "nature".

[Alf]

Those early quotes by Marx about man's relationship to nature in communism are certainly among the most inspired and inspiring he ever wrote. I think they show that for Marx there is no absolute separation between the social and the natural. Man is indeed part of nature, but is alo a unique species who has the capacity to transform nature, both external and internal.

The concept of a "return become conscious" is indeed a key element of the dialectical view of history. From this point of view, historical evolution is not linear, but more like a spiral which goes through both regressions and 'returns at a higher level'.

The study of myth can be very important to understanding the subjective side of this process. The point is not to simply take the myth on its own terms, but to see what truths can be contained within it - to turn it on its head, as Marx said of Hegel's idealist world-view. In this case, Jaycee's first post raises an important, and unsolved question. There seems little doubt that in part the myth of a 'fall' from an original golden age is partly a nostalgia for the primitive community replaced by the advent of class society. And yet, contrary to the idealisation of the primitivists, the primitives themselves almost unversally have their own 'lost paradise', typified by the Australian notion of the 'dream time'. If, as Jaycee says, the myth of the fall reflects a wish to overcome alienation and repression, then these must also to some degree have existed in primitive society, before the rise of class exploitation. This question seems to open up very wide vistas of reseach and discussion. Marx's theory of alienation provides us with an approach to the question, but it is very far from being a complete theory.

[hoopla]

I guess, that human essence must apply universally. If the eence of humanity applies to all people, is it that it is a potential cultivated by the working-class-moevemnt-that-will become-universal, or universally implicit and an eplanation of why the working class movement will be/become universal?