[Marxism] Do you agree or disagree with the following proposition

James Daly james.irldaly at ntlworld.com
Mon Mar 27 10:16:10 MST 2006

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles Brown" <cbrown at michiganlegal.org>
To: <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 5:58 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Do you agree or disagree with the following 

Charles wrote:

Do you agree [that]... Marx and Engels are looking for _necessity_ to 
put historical materialism on a scientific basis. In human biology 
there is necessity, things that must be done.


Could I approach the controversial topic from another angle? My 
approach is partly based on the brilliant insights of Lucio Colletti, 
summarised in his invaluable introduction to the Penguin Early 
Writings (but rejecting his attack on dialectics, which led him to 
social democracy).

As he points out, Marx credited Feuerbach with having:

founded true materialism and real science by making the social 
relations of "man-to-man" [the "I-Thou" relationship, community, 
species being, universality - JD] the basic principle of his theory. 
(EW 381).

What Marx meant by *materialism* was the rejection of the *idealist* 
premise that (really existing, bourgeois social) reality is 
intelligible, whether in the sense of "natural" (in the empiricist 
Robinsonade version from Hobbes to Adam Smith), or in that of 
"required by reason" (by the Idea, in Hegel's version; Hegel, by the 
way, accepts the Hobbesian basis of an individualist "state of 
nature" -- as Marx argues, absolute idealism succumbs to gross 
empiricism: see Colletti's introduction to the Early Writings).

The emphasis on a biological base to human existence is a rejection of 
the Hegelian Germanic Christian divorce of nature and spirit, and its 
bias towards the intellectual and religious as the essence of history.

Marx called his position "humanism or naturalism", and characterised 
it as neither idealism nor materialism but the unifying truth of both:

Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as 
fully developed humanism equals naturalism. (EW 348).

Here we see how consistent naturalism or humanism differs both from 
idealism and materialism and is at the same time their unifying truth. 
(EW 389).

The human essence of nature exists only for social man [i.e. in 
communism - JD]; for only here does nature exist for him as a bond 
with other men, as his existence for others and their existence for 
him, as the vital element of human reality; only here does it exist as 
the basis of his own human existence. Only here has his natural 
existence become his human existence and nature become man for him. 
Society is therefore the perfected unity in essence of man with 
nature, the true resurrection of nature, the realised naturalism of 
man and the realised humanism of nature. (EW 349-50).

Marx's idea of human nature is not Hobbesian but Aristotelian. As he 
says in the introduction to the Grundrisse, there is no individualist 
state of nature; man is a Zoon politicon (Aristotle), only able to 
become an individual through community.

It has been widely argued, and I think successfully, that Marxist 
notion of necessity is not the empiricist and positivist one of causal 
determinism or laws of history, but of realist natural or essential 
necessity; an example would be the necessity to capitalism of the 
extraction of surplus labour through the wages system. The first leads 
to inhuman moral relativism and the justification of inhumanity in the 
name of progress. The second puts human values back into science, from 
which they have been banished by the bourgeois divorce of fact and 
value, is and ought, of morality and realpolitik, political economy 
and alienated "economics".

More information about the Marxism mailing list