Human nature

[darkened day 92]

Marxists believe that there is no such thing as human nature. i have to disagree there is a somewhat ligitmite generlisation that can be put on humans. I believe because so many people commited similar reactions throughout history when put under same conditions. Forexample riots of races, revolution of the working class. you can not simply dismiss the fact that people have similar thoughts and a simlar way of carrying things out. The biggest prove to that was that Marx was not the first one that was against property many people before him which he makes refrence to also didn't belive that.
In school they make us read "The Lord of the Flies" it's a book about how human nature is evil and that it will eventually kill the good or haunt it down like a pig. In this book i see a strong political statement a propaganda one that tells you, you're in nature evil so you need to be controled relentlessly and i think in that there grows a sense of humanity were we as humans don't deserve a good leader because we are bad. Sinful in nature, blood thirsty in the genes and i totally believe the oppossite. Though my freinds all see me as pessemist but i believe that humans are good but weak and that weakness is what could be transformed to evil.
Also thinking that there is no such a thing as human nature makes natural partitions this world in a sort of fairy tale manner the good guys VS the bad guys since all human nature is different then there must be a good guy and a bad guy! But that can't be right all bad people have good in them and al good people have bad in them that leads me again to the philosphy that humans are good but weak and easily expolited.

What do you think?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DD, this has been discussed here (and in Theory) many times.

For example:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-t68061/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/hell-human-nature-t60878/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-t52110/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-human-nature-t71366/index.html

[careyprice31]

Marxists believe that there is no such thing as human nature. i have to disagree there is a somewhat ligitmite generlisation that can be put on humans. I believe because so many people commited similar reactions throughout history when put under same conditions. Forexample riots of races, revolution of the working class. you can not simply dismiss the fact that people have similar thoughts and a simlar way of carrying things out. The biggest prove to that was that Marx was not the first one that was against property many people before him which he makes refrence to also didn't belive that.
In school they make us read "The Lord of the Flies" it's a book about how human nature is evil and that it will eventually kill the good or haunt it down like a pig. In this book i see a strong political statement a propaganda one that tells you, you're in nature evil so you need to be controled relentlessly and i think in that there grows a sense of humanity were we as humans don't deserve a good leader because we are bad. Sinful in nature, blood thirsty in the genes and i totally believe the oppossite. Though my freinds all see me as pessemist but i believe that humans are good but weak and that weakness is what could be transformed to evil.
Also thinking that there is no such a thing as human nature makes natural partitions this world in a sort of fairy tale manner the good guys VS the bad guys since all human nature is different then there must be a good guy and a bad guy! But that can't be right all bad people have good in them and al good people have bad in them that leads me again to the philosphy that humans are good but weak and easily expolited.

What do you think?

I tell people when they say we can't have socialism because it goes against human nature, that it is not that human nature won't change, it is US. People don't want to change, so they blame it on 'human nature'

an excuse, if you will.

[darkened day 92]

I tell people when they say we can't have socialism because it goes against human nature, that it is not that human nature won't change, it is US. People don't want to change, so they blame it on 'human nature'

an excuse, if you will.
I completely agree with u. But you know if you really think about it most tribes were socialists and religions that preach equality are socialists so thats what really contradicts their argument i don't see socialism as something radical because really ppl lived under socialism for years. But i believe that all humans have special tendencies. Eventhough american government distorts it and over rates the distorted image

[careyprice31]

I completely agree with u. But you know if you really think about it most tribes were socialists and religions that preach equality are socialists so thats what really contradicts their argument i don't see socialism as something radical because really ppl lived under socialism for years. But i believe that all humans have special tendencies. Eventhough american government distorts it and over rates the distorted image

That is true. In fact you say religions that preach equality,, when Karl Marx talked about 'religion being an opiate'

I often wondered if he was referring to Jesus christ per se or what religions were in his, Marx's, time (and earlier and today as a matter of fact) since most of the ideas supposedly preached by jesus, are indeed quite socialist in aspect.

[Red_or_Dead]

Marxists believe that there is no such thing as human nature. i have to disagree there is a somewhat ligitmite generlisation that can be put on humans. I believe because so many people commited similar reactions throughout history when put under same conditions. Forexample riots of races, revolution of the working class. you can not simply dismiss the fact that people have similar thoughts and a simlar way of carrying things out. The biggest prove to that was that Marx was not the first one that was against property many people before him which he makes refrence to also didn't belive that.
In school they make us read "The Lord of the Flies" it's a book about how human nature is evil and that it will eventually kill the good or haunt it down like a pig. In this book i see a strong political statement a propaganda one that tells you, you're in nature evil so you need to be controled relentlessly and i think in that there grows a sense of humanity were we as humans don't deserve a good leader because we are bad. Sinful in nature, blood thirsty in the genes and i totally believe the oppossite. Though my freinds all see me as pessemist but i believe that humans are good but weak and that weakness is what could be transformed to evil.
Also thinking that there is no such a thing as human nature makes natural partitions this world in a sort of fairy tale manner the good guys VS the bad guys since all human nature is different then there must be a good guy and a bad guy! But that can't be right all bad people have good in them and al good people have bad in them that leads me again to the philosphy that humans are good but weak and easily expolited.

What do you think?


I actualy agree with the statement that there is no human nature. Im guessing (partly from the experience of transition from socialism to capitalism in my country) that in a future socialist/communist society we will be able to change the "current human nature" (for want of a better expression, by abolishing certain aspects of capitalism. Like replacing competition with cooperation. I think that much of greed, selfishness and power lust in todays world comes from the fact that in capitalism we are forced to compete on practicly anything in our lives.

Than there is the changing of the "right and wrong". Every society has its ideas on what is right and wrong, that are accepted and practiced by the wast majority of people. Ancient Aztecs thought that they had to sacrifice people to their gods. To them murder was good in some cases. In todays world, murder is unjustifiable (unless youre at war or anything like that). That was an extreme example of course, but it has its equivalent in todays world. If we can achieve that people will see private ownership over the means of production (the cause of exploatation) as bad, than we will win a very important battle.


That is true. In fact you say religions that preach equality,, when Karl Marx talked about 'religion being an opiate'

I often wondered if he was referring to Jesus christ per se or what religions were in his, Marx's, time (and earlier and today as a matter of fact) since most of the ideas supposedly preached by jesus, are indeed quite socialist in aspect.

Most of them (appart from the faith part) were. I read that many of his earliest followers lived in places very similar to hippie communes, too.

[darkened day 92]

How can you change nature of the tendencies of humans by a system i do not agree with the capitalists definition of human nature it was made on the basis to keep people under control. In fact i believe quite the oppissite ya people are diffrent but somehow they are bound by similar choises.
I understand the idea of the variation of the definitions of right and wrong but still if there was no theory that binds us all then in every society there will be a ceartin pure good guy and an evil bad guy depending on their belifs at the time. But the idea that we are all somewhat similar in thoughts proves that in any society there is no pure evil or pure good or in other words good and evil have a common ground

[Faux Real]

Marx did not believe in a single universal human nature, and aside from most basic instincts/characteristics that are indicative of animals (eat, sleep, reproduction, etc.), are created through social conditions and social relations under a given society. Marxists do not believe in concepts like an "evil" or "definite good" coz they're immaterial words, devoid of objectiveness or any kind of proof other than subjective human morals/ethics and emotions defining it. People may do what popular society or culture consider "evil" but the reason behind it is largely if not entirely determined by their social environment, as are the conditions that lead people to commit such acts.

[Red_or_Dead]

How can you change nature of the tendencies of humans by a system i do not agree with the capitalists definition of human nature it was made on the basis to keep people under control. In fact i believe quite the oppissite ya people are diffrent but somehow they are bound by similar choises.
I understand the idea of the variation of the definitions of right and wrong but still if there was no theory that binds us all then in every society there will be a ceartin pure good guy and an evil bad guy depending on their belifs at the time. But the idea that we are all somewhat similar in thoughts proves that in any society there is no pure evil or pure good or in other words good and evil have a common ground

I agree that there is no good or evil, but we have to keep in mind that people do reckgonize whats good or bad for them, at least most of the time and in most obvious situations. We have to portray capitalism as bad, thats the point I was trying to make, and I dont think that bit should be all that difficult, if we clearly show to the people that they are giving more than recieveing under capitalism, and that communism can solve that.

As for human tendecies changing with system: they dont. What we have to achieve is simply to make people prefer our system to the current one. We have to achieve that most people will see communism as good and capitalism as bad (as right now it is exactly the opposite, mainly because of the "communism dont work" and "communism killed million of people" propaganda).


but still if there was no theory that binds us all then in every society there will be a ceartin pure good guy and an evil bad guy depending on their belifs at the time.

If I got this right, you are saying that in every society there are people that dont agree with how things are, right? Im guessing that there will be plenty of dissidents after the revolution and in a socialist society as well. A transparent and a very anti-revisionistic stance is the best way to fight it, imo.

[INDK]

This has been discussed over, and over, and over. I'll keep it brief - Human Nature, especially that conflicting with political progression, is bullshit because humans are compelled by the external and situational factors around them. People are misjudged as inherently greedy as if they are not economically agressive they will succumb to the monstrous Capitalist market. Human Nature is completely adaptable, humans are changeable beings that learn how to survive in the socio-economic structure surrounding it.

[Awful Reality]

The "human nature" argument is bunk because the simple fact is that up for the majority of post-neolithic human culture, we have lived in what are essentially communist governments (not precisely, but look at places like Native America). And anyone who asserts that human nature has evolved in a way so great as to define our concept of property, a major factor in societal construct, is an idiot.

[AGITprop]

Simply put,

Material conditions determine consciousness.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In that case, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky were petty-bourgeois intellectuals who introduced ruling-class ideas into Marxism.

[AGITprop]

In that case, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky were petty-bourgeois intellectuals who introduced ruling-class ideas into Marxism.

No, because they had class consciousness. They very much may have been petit-bourgeois but it doesnt mean that they enforced ruling class ideas. There is a difference between being a product of your material conditions and understanding them, though understanding them is also a result of them as well.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

So, material conditions determine consciousness for all of humanity except these three blessed souls?

They had 'immaculate concepts'...

[AGITprop]

So, material conditions determine consciousness for all of humanity except these three blessed souls?

They had 'immaculate concepts'...

No , you fail to realize that understanding material conditions which these people and other Marxists do, is also a product of material conditions.

By the way, no one appreciates your sarcasm.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

GG:


No , you fail to realize that understanding material conditions which these people and other Marxists do, is also a product of material conditions.

So, once more, they were the only human beings in the whole of history to rise above their material conditions --, and Marx was wrong.

He should perhaps have said "Social being determines consciousness for 99.99% of humanity".



By the way, no one appreciates your sarcasm.



Where is my sarcasm? I am being deadly serious.

[Red_or_Dead]

This has been discussed over, and over, and over. I'll keep it brief - Human Nature, especially that conflicting with political progression, is bullshit because humans are compelled by the external and situational factors around them. People are misjudged as inherently greedy as if they are not economically agressive they will succumb to the monstrous Capitalist market. Human Nature is completely adaptable, humans are changeable beings that learn how to survive in the socio-economic structure surrounding it.


Yeah, and I think that further emphasises the point I was trying to make. We are taught to be greedy and competitive by the system we live in. If we replace competition with cooperation, then people will adapt to it.



I do not agree, tho, that only material conditions determine consciousness. They certainly do to a large extent, but that doesnt mean that there cannot be exceptions.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The point is that socio-economic conditions have massive effect on your 'nature' not that they are it's sole determinant. In a socio-economic system that encourages selfishness, we're more likely to be selfish. It's easy enough to "step out" of your material conditions and see that we could co-operate instead, and indeed co-operation occurs even in capitalism, because it is only a primary factor in determining consciousness, not the be-all and end-all.

-Alex

[Led Zeppelin]

As I said in the other thread; Human nature doesn't exist because existence precedes essence:

Whereas previous methods of philosophical thought held that "essence precedes existence", a concept which dates back to Avicenna and Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi, Sartre flips this around arguing that for humans, existence precedes essence. In the former mode of thought, there is some creator who conceives of an idea or purpose of an object, say a knife for example, and then creates it with the essence of the object already present. The essence of what the knife will be exists before the actual knife itself.

For Sartre, who did not believe in God as the creator of humanity, believed that if there is no God to have conceived of our essence or nature, then we must come into existence first, and then create our own essence out of interaction with our surroundings and ourselves. With this comes serious implications of self-responsibility over who we become and who we are. There is no longer, for Sartre, some universal "human nature".

Existence precedes Essence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:



The point is that socio-economic conditions have massive effect on your 'nature' not that they are it's sole determinant. In a socio-economic system that encourages selfishness, we're more likely to be selfish. It's easy enough to "step out" of your material conditions and see that we could co-operate instead, and indeed co-operation occurs even in capitalism, because it is only a primary factor in determining consciousness, not the be-all and end-all.



Sorry, Burn, but that makes you an idealist.



I do not agree, tho, that only material conditions determine consciousness. They certainly do to a large extent, but that doesnt mean that there cannot be exceptions.


Then Marx was wrong...

[Red_or_Dead]

Then Marx was wrong...

I guess so. I havent read what he has to say about it himself, or I dont remeber reading it, but just material conditions do not determine conciousness. The examples of famous communists that came from petit-bourgeoise families alone are good enough evidence to me. Not to mention masses of people who vote, support, or even join reactionary parties, even tho they are proletarians themselves.

[AGITprop]

I guess so. I havent read what he has to say about it himself, or I dont remeber reading it, but just material conditions do not determine conciousness. The examples of famous communists that came from petit-bourgeoise families alone are good enough evidence to me. Not to mention masses of people who vote, support, or even join reactionary parties, even tho they are proletarians themselves.

Just because one is a proletarian does not mean one will automatically become a Marxist. If this was so we would have a World Socialist Federation by now.

Marx did not come from a petit-bourgeois family. Engels on the other hand did.

People join reactionary parties because it seems like the most radical solution a the time when right now people are looking for radical answers. Because they do not have access to real Marxist organizations does not prove that material conditions do not determine consciousness.

I would suggest you begin to actually read Marx and Engels.

[Hit The North]

The point is that socio-economic conditions have massive effect on your 'nature' not that they are it's sole determinant. In a socio-economic system that encourages selfishness, we're more likely to be selfish. It's easy enough to "step out" of your material conditions and see that we could co-operate instead, and indeed co-operation occurs even in capitalism, because it is only a primary factor in determining consciousness, not the be-all and end-all.

-Alex

I think it's worth noting that our material conditions do not face us as a monolithic set of unchanging relations based on selfishness and competition, but also includes the possibility and actuality of cooperative relations.

Capitalism may be based on relations of competition and exploitation, and the role of a selfish human nature may be its preferred ideological justification, but the reality of production is that it is based on the technical integration and cooperation of labour.

Socialism only becomes a possibility within capitalism due to the conscious realization among workers that their material conditions are advanced through cooperative endeavors which necessitate solidarity (the first step in this being the emergence of trade union consciousness).

Thus, it's not the case that we need to "step out" of our material conditions in order to advance class consciousness, but that we properly analyze our place within those conditions in order to intervene practically.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red or dead:



I guess so. I havent read what he has to say about it himself, or I dont remeber reading it, but just material conditions do not determine conciousness. The examples of famous communists that came from petit-bourgeoise families alone are good enough evidence to me. Not to mention masses of people who vote, support, or even join reactionary parties, even tho they are proletarians themselves.


The point is of course that such petty-bourgeois revolutionaries brought with them ideas invented by the ruling-class which have helped cripple our movement.

These individuals were not superhuman beings, and so could not rise above their class position, and their 'consciousness' was determined by that class position.

The fact that they were revolutionaries should win our admiration, not our worship.

Sure, proletarians can be won over by all manner of reactionary ideas, because they seem to address their material interests, or feed into prejudices created by their alienated condition.

The same is true of the great marxist revolutionaries. Unless we see that, we are in danger of becoming disciples not revolutionaries.

Far too many of us Marxists accept as dogma what we have read in the holy books.

[Red_or_Dead]

Red or dead:



The point is of course that such petty-bourgeois revolutionaries brought with them ideas invented by the ruling-class which have helped cripple our movement.

These individuals were not superhuman beings, and so could not rise above their class position, and their 'consciousness' was determined by that class position.

The fact that they were revolutionaries should win our admiration, not our worship.

Sure, proletarians can be won over by all manner of reactionary ideas, because they seem to address their material interests, or feed into prejudices created by their alienated condition.

The same is true of the great marxist revolutionaries. Unless we see that, we are in danger of becoming disciples not revolutionaries.

Far too many of us Marxists accept as dogma what we have read in the holy books.


I dont accept it as a dogma, infact, its non-dogmatic aproach was one of the things that got me into it.

I agree with pretty much all you said (specialy with the admiration instead of worship part), but Im not sure about the first paragraph. What were those ideas, and how did they harm our movement?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Or Dead:



I dont accept it as a dogma, infact, its non-dogmatic aproach was one of the things that got me into it.



Well, why the use of the word 'revisionism', the talk of 'tradition' and of 'orthodoxy', why the emphasis on a scriptural approach to the holy books (where disputes are settled by quoting a passage or two), the widespread cult of the personality, the sectarianism, the irrational and emotional defence of the sacred dialectic...?

[Red_or_Dead]

Red Or Dead:



Well, why the use of the word 'revisionism', the talk of 'tradition' and of 'orthodoxy', why the emphasis on a scriptural approach to the holy books (where disputes are settled by quoting a passage or two), the widespread cult of the personality, the sectarianism, the irrational and emotional defence of the sacred dialectic...?

Im a bit confused as who are you refering to here, me or the petty-bourgeois revolutionaries? I certainly dont support any of the above mentioned, except pointing out revisionism, where it occurs.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red or Dead:



"Im a bit confused as who are you refering to here, me or the petty-bourgeois revolutionaries?"


Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Luxembourg, Bukharin, Tito, Hoxha, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, Gramsci, Grant, Pablo, Mandel, Healey, Lambert, Avakian, Roberston..., and many of their followers.

[Red_or_Dead]

Red or Dead:

"Im a bit confused as who are you refering to here, me or the petty-bourgeois revolutionaries?"

Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Luxembourg, Bukharin, Tito, Hoxha, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, Gramsci, Grant, Pablo, Mandel, Healey, Lambert, Avakian, Roberston..., and many of their followers.

Ok, I was just confused because of the part of my post that you quted, anyway thats cleared up.

In that case, I agree, at least in general, since (except maybe for Tito, about whom I learned a lot in school) I only generaly know what ideas others have advocated.

But what about Engels? He was imo one of the "founding fathers" of modern communism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sure, but Engels was also a capitalist.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Sorry, Burn, but that makes you an idealist.


Alright then.:laugh:



Thus, it's not the case that we need to "step out" of our material conditions in order to advance class consciousness, but that we properly analyze our place within those conditions in order to intervene practically.


I agree, 'step out' was probably the wrong phrase to use. But certainly it's easy to get beyond the surface of material conditions (Work hard and get rich) and into deeper materialist analysis (Work hard and get nowhere).

-Alex

[BIG BROTHER]

I belive humans do indeed have a certain nature, but I think its greatly modified and transformed by their society and conditions.

[JDHURF]

Marxists believe that there is no such thing as human nature. i have to disagree there is a somewhat ligitmite generlisation that can be put on humans.
What do you think?
I didn't make it past reading this portion of your post due to the fact that it is false. You can read Marx's conception of human nature in both his Philosophic and Economic manuscripts and in Capital, he certainly posited an innate human nature, although he rightly recognized that it is to a degree malleable, fluid and existing along a rather varied continuum.

Marx’s concept of human nature called for a distinction between “human nature in general” and “human nature as modified in each historical epoch.” (Karl Marx, Capital 1, p. 668) Marx understood human nature as a “given potential, a set of conditions, the human raw material, as it were, which as such cannot be changed.”(Erich Fromm, Beyond the Chains of Illusion: My Encounter With Marx and Freud, p.22) Such an intrinsic human nature, consisting of innate capacities which have the potential to either flourish or to be repressed, is modified in each historical epoch. Thus the resulting manifestation of human nature in general is determined, shaped and influenced by the material conditions wherein the human nature develops.

One difficulty that many people experience regarding the subject of human nature, especially as it is manifested within the capitalist system, is one which in many ways descends from Hobbes vulgar work on human nature. Marx explains that when coming to an understanding of society a major difficulty is that society has already undergone a considerable development before the attempt to analyze it is made: “Man’s reflections on the forms of social life and consequently, also, his scientific analysis of those forms, take a course directly opposite to that of their actual historical development. He begins, post festum, with the results of the process of development ready to hand before him.” As Nick Beams further explains: “In other words, analysis begins with categories and forms of thought already at hand, under conditions where the historical processes which gave rise to these forms is obscured from view. Hence these forms of thought are not understood as the product of historical processes, but seem to spring from the ‘inner nature’ of man himself.”

Thus is the problem, as I see it, with the conception that human nature as solely constituted by the worst of human instincts while ignoring the role played by the historical process and the socio-political environment.
The problem being, that rather than understanding the various causes which has given rise to the current situation one immediately ascribes the situation to a static and base “human nature.”

[JDHURF]

Rosa:

What you wrote in response to Burn is incorrect. Pointing out that the social environment within which one develops and lives has an impact upon the development of the individual is simply an observation of the obvious, it is referred to by serious people, specifically, psychologists, as epigenetic theory; it certainly does not make Burn's an idealist. Marx's conception of human nature, as I pointed out in my previous post, is fundamentally correct.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JD:



What you wrote in response to Burn is incorrect. Pointing out that the social environment within which one develops and lives has an impact upon the development of the individual is simply an observation of the obvious, it is referred to by serious people, specifically, psychologists, as epigenetic theory; it certainly does not make Burn's an idealist. Marx's conception of human nature, as I pointed out in my previous post, is fundamentally correct.


In that case, you reject Marx's claim that social being determines consciousness, and you are an idealist, too.

[JDHURF]

JD:



In that case, you reject Marx's claim that social being determines consciousness, and you are an idealist, too.
I get the impression you’ve never actually read Marx. You surely didn’t read my post. That you are under the impression that anything in either of my posts constitutes a rejection of Marx's observation that social being determines consciousness suggests that you never actually read my posts. You also don’t seem to understand idealism, which is the philosophy that all of existence is an idea or thought, that the basis of reality is an idea or thought, rather than physical material or mass-energy. In either case here regarding human nature, idealism has nothing to do with anything. The dispute is about whether there is an innate human nature, which Marx rightly argued that there was, but that it develops and is influenced by the surrounding social matrix of society, the environment within which one finds themselves.
Again, Marx’s concept of human nature called for a distinction between “human nature in general” and “human nature as modified in each historical epoch.” (Karl Marx, Capital 1, p. 668) Marx understood human nature as a “given potential, a set of conditions, the human raw material, as it were, which as such cannot be changed.”(Erich Fromm, Beyond the Chains of Illusion: My Encounter With Marx and Freud, p.22) Such an intrinsic human nature, consisting of innate capacities which have the potential to either flourish or to be repressed, is modified in each historical epoch. Thus the resulting manifestation of human nature in general is determined, shaped and influenced by the material conditions wherein the human nature develops.

[Volderbeek]

In that case, you reject Marx's claim that social being determines consciousness, and you are an idealist, too.

Oh, but I thought "being" was a meaningless term invented by Greek mystics or something.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


Oh, but I thought "being" was a meaningless term invented by Greek mystics or something.

Indeed, but I am quite happy to use it against you mystics.

[Volderbeek]

Marxists believe that there is no such thing as human nature.

While not technically a Marxist, I would agree with that sentiment. As Chomsky points out, human nature is usually vaguely defined by those invoking it, and even when it is defined, supports the far left perspective much more than they'd hoped.


i have to disagree there is a somewhat ligitmite generlisation that can be put on humans.Yes, but you can't be sloppy with those generalizations. They should be as fundamental and abstract as possible.


In school they make us read "The Lord of the Flies" it's a book about how human nature is evil and that it will eventually kill the good or haunt it down like a pig. In this book i see a strong political statement a propaganda one that tells you, you're in nature evil so you need to be controled relentlessly and i think in that there grows a sense of humanity were we as humans don't deserve a good leader because we are bad.Indeed, that's why they make you read it. The number of anti-communists that invoke human nature speaks to this propaganda's effectiveness.

Somehow though, I got the opposite message from it. I took it to mean that power struggles are a corrupting force. :lol:


But that can't be right all bad people have good in them and al good people have bad in them that leads me again to the philosphy that humans are good but weak and easily expolited.You have to keep in mind that there is no objective good or evil. From a humanist perspective however, power hierarchies bring out the worst in people.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JD:



I get the impression you’ve never actually read Marx.


I was reading it probably before you were born (if you are under 30).