Marx Vs Human Nature

1464 Words 6 Pages
According to the capitalist, human beings are in essence gluttonous, self-interested beings who can only be forced to act with the assurance of financial gain. This understanding has it that free market capitalism is a natural side effect of this avarice, this social-Darwinist hunger for supremacy and materialism, and that any system that disregards this imperative “human nature” is censured to proletariat misery. When we remove the capitalist industrialist lenses, Marx says that we can examine and distinguish that there is something, in fact, in human nature and the natural world itself that makes us believe that there is more to the human condition than just rapacity. Human nature, to Marx, was the means by which people change and adapt themselves to meeting their distinct necessities. Marx was not convinced that there was a set, eternal human nature. He understood that the human essence or in other words, human condition, was not chosen for people by God or by our biological heritage. Alternatively, he was adamant that we, human beings, have constructed our nature ourselves over the course of our lifetimes. As natural beings, we have needs, which originate from our innate make-up. In the …show more content…
Marx says that nature is the inorganic body of man that he lives in. In the Manuscripts, Marx explains, “man lives on nature, means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous intercourse if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to the nature means that nature is simply linked to him.” (Manuscripts, Pg. 75) For human beings, work gives us purpose. The process of altering inorganic matter to produce things is the motive to learn of our human identity. A person learns about their identity based on their activities. However, in the capitalist society where private ownership and the division of labor are centralized, the worker is alienated from the essential roots of identity and human

Related Documents