Marx forgot human nature

File: 1484037867888.png (362KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 450x450px

Not really, Marx wrote a bit about his concept of Human Nature. Marx believed in "human nature in general" and "human nature as modified" within each historical period. Some are fixed such as sexual drive while others are relative to social relations. So for example the need for money is a real need but one created within a money economy at a historical time.

Marx at his most humanist thought man had an eternal creative drive of productivity and passion, that is labour or self-activity. But Marx thought capitalism alienated man from man, man from nature, via commodification of labour and private property. He thought private property was the negation of human self-activity. Proles became dependent on the bourgeois (and vice versa) turning humanity into a "crippled monstrosity" for the sake of capital. Wherein capital has more individuality than the people creating it.

>"the whole of what is called world history is nothing but the creation of man by human labor, and the emergence of nature for man; he therefore has the evident and irrefutable proof of his self-creation, of his own origins."

Communism for Marx wasn't about redistribution of wealth or solely about giving the proles what the bourgeois had. It was about the emancipation of labour and the emancipation of human nature.

>>2698717
Marxism's flawed teachings should have died with the death of the industrial revolution.

>>2698761
>Implying that industrial revolution is not an ongoing trend.

>>2698780
>tfw I will never be this stupid

File: 1485390032782.jpg (98KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1000x800px

>>2698785
You forgot pic

I got a question
How does Marx think about other ape species? Does he think it's part of human history?

>>2698535
>Marx is a good theorist
For all of you who believe this read Leszek Kołakowski.