The Internal Metabolic Rift

“Marx and Human Nature:  Refutation of a Legend,” by Norman Geras 2016

This book is a tightly-argued, logical rejection of the idea by some Marxists, like the idealist Maoist Louis Althusser, that Marx did not believe humans had any ‘innate nature.’  It is a somewhat Talmudic exegesis until you realize how basic the idea of ‘human nature’ is to right-wing arguments – and also surprisingly how fundamental it is to historical materialism and socialism.

Geras bases his analysis on the 6^th thesis from the “Theses on Feurbach” - notes written by Marx in 1848 which are used as the ‘proof’ by those who believe Marx dissolved human nature completely into social conditions.  Marx was arguing against Feurbach’s view that religion was innate in human beings.  Althusser, Istvan Meszaros, Sidney Hook, Robert Tucker and a number of other Marxists, liberals and anti-communists interpreted the exact text to mean that Marx discounted humans having ANY innate characteristics.  When I read the 3 points of the 6^th thesis, it clearly does not maintain that, but then I’m no errant philosopher, thank god.

Geras points out at length that the 3 points can be interpreted in several different ways, so without context they remain semi-ambiguous.  He discusses whether human nature is influenced by or manifested in social relations or is totally determined by or dissolved into ‘the ensemble of social relations’.  

Geras then brings in the works written by Marx before and after the Theses on Feurbach – the earlier The Holy Family and the later The German Ideology.  The latter was the first introduction to historical materialism.  Both these works explicitly discuss human nature as something separate from social or economic conditions and any method of production.  In a sense, Marx understood that nature was not just external to humans but INTERNAL to humans.  The sex drive, the need for food and water, the need for warmth and shelter, the reality of birth, death and disease, the requirements of community and especially what separates humans from animals – labor and the ability to create, communicate and produce.  This led to historic systems of production.  All of this seems quite commonsensical.  In a way Althusser & Co. brought the metabolic rift between humanity and nature into the human body.  Theirs is an idealist approach alienating humans from their own biologic and social needs - much as Christian ideology attempts to do.

No room for conservative hermits

Conservatives allege that social Darwinism – ‘red in tooth and claw’ – is the basis of human nature.  They identify ‘human nature’ with every negative characteristic displayed by humans in certain societies.  Ricardo and Smith did something similar, basing their whole philosophy on individualism.  For conservatives, each predator preys on those lower on the food chain – and so do humans.  In a sense it is the beginning philosophy of barbarism. Marx and Engels postulated that actually labor and community created humanity and that the basic human need for a sufficient material and cultural life are paramount.  In other words the rogue individual in the tribe is either shunned, cast out or killed.  Those who do not work for the collective wealth are relegated to lower social status – except under class societies, where they congregate in the upper reaches!  Present anthropologists generally agree. 

On the other hand, the fascist ‘philosophy’ is one of identity – encouraging ‘tribes’ to war against tribes, nations versus nations, ethnicity versus ethnicity, religions versus religions, skin colors versus skin colors, etc. These divisions actually come from the survival needs of class structures and ruling classes, not from the proletariat or humanity in general.  This is full-bore barbarism. In this context, the idea of ‘socialist man’ or ‘the new human’ is flawed, as Marx contended that socialism’s attributes are already contained in human beings, and have only to be supported and freed from material want and alienated labor.

Geras posits that while conservatives use the corrupt characteristics of humans in certain societies as a club, Marx understood real, organic human needs are the basis for historical materialism.  The Theses on Feurbach is an example of Marx rejecting religion as part of ‘human nature.’ Certainly many people have gotten along without religion quite easily!  Religion in this case is really an imprint of the specific society and mode of production, i.e. a social product. Marx’s polemic against Jeremy Bentham rejected the “English petit-bourgeois” as the model of human nature.  And so on.  Instead the cooperative needs of labor to satisfy human needs define human society - which Marx maintained also went to issues of play, happiness, cultural production and the like.  In a sense, Althusser & Co. believe there was some kind of definitive break between the young Marx and the mature Marx.  Geras proves there was always a consistent evolution, citing Capital’s continuing references to a certain kind of human nature.   

What is stunning about reading Marxist analyses like this is that other ‘philosophies’ pale in comparison, depth and scope.  Libertarianism, atheism, anarchism, positivism, liberalism, humanism, pragmatism, feminism, nationalism, idealism, Catholicism, utilitarianism, religion etc. – all are partial, irrational or deeply misleading approaches as to how individuals, society and nature actually function.

Other prior reviews on the subject of Marx, use blog search box upper left:  “Marx and the Earth,” “Old Gods, New Enigmas – Marx’s Lost Theory,” “The Young Karl Marx,” “Ecological Revolution,” “Marxism and the Oppression of Women,” “Ecology & Marxism,” “A Marxist Education,” “Marxism is Abolitionism,” “Beyond Liberal Egalitarianism – Marx and Normative Social Theory…” “Witty Lightweight Attacks Marxism.”  Etc.

And I bought it at May Day Books!

Red Frog

March 23, 2020