This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marx's theory of human nature article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Marx's theory of human nature. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Marx's theory of human nature at the Reference desk.

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Capitalism (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Capitalism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CapitalismWikipedia:WikiProject CapitalismTemplate:WikiProject CapitalismCapitalism articles

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Utilitarianism#Karl Marx's criticisms|critiquing utilitarianism]] The anchor (#Karl Marx's criticisms) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Gattungswesen

Gattungswesen is not identical to human nature, and Marx of course criticized the conception of an eternal and universal human nature (concerning reversal of recent edits). Regards, Santa Sangre 22:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you can't extrapolate from Norman Geras' book (no matter how good it is) and claim that's all that can be said. It is not generally admitted that Marx conceived of an eternal & universal nature! Santa Sangre 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems like a better title for this article would be "Marx's theory on species-being" or "on gattungswesen", although I'd be inclined to go with the english translation, since this is an english site, and that is the translation that is most likely to be searched.AnieHall (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removed text

I removed this paragraph from the "Humans as free, purposive producers" section:

Can Marx's claims be substantiated? Allen Wood wrote that 'Marx gives no real argument for identifying labour or production as the most basic or essential human function' but that ‘human history (on Marx’s theory) is best made intelligible in terms of [the assumption that there is something such as] the fundamental human aspiration to develop and exercise the productive powers of society. Consequently, we have good evidence for regarding this as the fundamental or chief human good’. This claim seems to rely on the premise that the expansion of the productive forces in history can be attributed to the creative nature of humans. It's debatable whether this characterisation should be allowed though - see the below section on historical materialism. However, many of Marx's contentions are fairly strong intuitions for many people. It does seem to be characteristic of humans to make plans for what they build and what they do. And it does seem that humans do have a tendency to create which transcends the manufacture of what is necessary for survival.

It seemed to me that this was more critical analysis/discussion than encyclopaedic explanation, so I was bold and took it out. I was a little unsure about removing such a large block of text, however, so I'm putting this here. --superioridad ^(discusión) 02:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay

This reads like an essay, not a bad one, but not an encyclopedic article. It needs to be more inclusive of a variety of opinions (and not just in a polemical way).--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

opinions such as?AnieHall (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essay stolen?

During my search on Marx's work, I stumbled on this essay, which looks like a complete copy of the article. I am unsure as to which one came first, but someone mentionned the essay format of the article, so I figured I would point it out. I'm not sure what to make of this, any idea?

66.130.19.93 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Valentin Castonguay-Harvey, December 2011[reply]

Hmm... I looked at the essay, and they are for the most part the same. but the wikipedia article is older than the essay. it looks more like this article was copied and posted on that website, perhaps by the main author? tough to say.AnieHall (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

on closer inspection, at the bottom of the above link, it provides the link to the Wikipedia page that it is from.AnieHall (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bullsht marxism

Aside from the fact that analytical Marxism has been widely discredited and ignored by major theorists, why are some of the words in caps in Cohen's so called 'criticism' (to call it that is to give it more credit than it deserves, i mean really..):

Consequently, Cohen believes, 'A person does need to develop and ENJOY his POWERS, he needs to gain and gain until he is the best and no one else can overpower him, people are BAD" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the point of the above comment is. Are you suggesting that the only theorist cited in for criticisms should be removed? If you have a good source that criticises the criticism, that could be included as well? although it might be better included on the analytical Marxism page if it isn't already? If some words are incorrectly capitalised, you could fix that... ? I don't think the section on Cohen's criticism was intended to be a propaganda piece, but if it reads like that, perhaps more neutral wording could be suggested, or added where obvious?

On another note, the citations are unclear -- I think foot notes would be easier to follow. It also appears that uncited material may have been added at some point in time.AnieHall (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've deleted the following:

Consequently, Cohen believes, 'A person does need to develop and ENJOY his POWERS, he needs to gain and gain until he is the best and no one else can overpower him, people are BAD" ^{[citation needed]}He must, as Hegel saw, find something outside himself which he did not create, and to which something inside himself corresponds, because of the social process that created him' (p156).

I've highlighted in red the confusing areas, and where there should be a citation and isn't... seems like it could be re-included, but it is a mess, and I don't know where the periods and quotation marks belong, so can't fix it.AnieHall (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature

Remarkable fact that the editors have neglected to discuss Marx's doctoral dissertation, where Marx presents his first appreciation of the concept of nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marx's theory of human nature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Loan

What is the evidence this text is authored by Marx? This is unsourced Hugeprostate (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Ruccio moved from article

According to David Ruccio, a transhistorical concept of "human nature" would be eschewed by Marx who wouldn't accept any transhistorical or transcultural "human nature." much in the same way as in Marxian critique of political economy.^[1]

References

^ "Toward a critique of political economy | MR Online". mronline.org. 2020-12-10. Retrieved 2021-09-20. Second, Marx's concern is always with social and historical specificity, as against looking for or finding what others would consider to be given and universal. Thus, for example, Marx eschews any notion of a transhistorical or transcultural "human nature." Instead, in his view, different human natures are both the condition and consequence of particular social and historical circumstances. Much the same holds for his method of engaging economic issues.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

That extra dot has been here forever, indicating that no-one has ever properly reviewed this old contribution.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marx's_theory_of_human_nature&oldid=1045409701 — from 20 September 2021

Not being much of a Marxist, I don't understand this assertion. It's not clear whether Ruccio is a source we should be giving this much prominence. I don't know why we've wandered into a sideline about "transhistoricism" whatever that might possibly be. I have no idea what "much in the same way" is intended to convey, as I have no mental reference on 'sameness' in this discipline.

All this leads me to doubt this should be in the lead at all, but clearly I'm unfit to judge, since I came here to learn from the page, rather than critique it from a lofty pre-understanding. — MaxEnt 20:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Marx and race" section

The Marx and race section has nothing to do with Marx's position on human nature. Strongly suspect anti-communist POV. Might be a worthy subject for a (less biased) article of its own. I strongly considered just removing it but am looking for input from others. Shama From MySpace (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's undoubtably POV and it's in bad faith. Marx was not a theoretician of race, and his theories of human nature did not emphasize heredity, appearance, biological essentialism or any of the concepts bound up in "race" as we know it. The section has been deleted and restored repeatedly by different accounts with the same text each time, indicating an effort between multiple people, or at the very least, editors are copy-pasting the section from old revisions. This is a recurring issue. The decontextualized racist statements only add to the article the implication that Marx's theory of human nature is overall, misanthropic. You're right that it could form an interesting article on its own Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 10:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talk • contribs) [reply]

[1] "Toward a critique of political economy | MR Online". mronline.org. 2020-12-10. Retrieved 2021-09-20. Second, Marx's concern is always with social and historical specificity, as against looking for or finding what others would consider to be given and universal. Thus, for example, Marx eschews any notion of a transhistorical or transcultural "human nature." Instead, in his view, different human natures are both the condition and consequence of particular social and historical circumstances. Much the same holds for his method of engaging economic issues.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[1]