Karl Marx And The Marxist Theory Of Human Nature

Karl Marx was born in Prussia in 1818. Later in his life he became a newspaper editor and his writings ended up getting him expelled by the Prussian authorities for its radicalism and atheism (Perry 195). He then met Fredrich Engels and together they produced The Communist Manifesto in 1848, for the Communist League. This piece of writing basically laid out Marx’s theory of history in short form (Coffin 623). The Communist Manifesto is mainly revolved around how society was split up into two sides, the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. I do believe that the ideas of the Communist Manifesto did indeed look educated on paper but due to the lessons of history communism is doomed to fail in the past, present, and future. Communism did not prevail in many different countries, two of them being Berlin and the Soviet Union.

The notion of man as a ‘species-being’ for Marx meant the recognition of man’s human essence as a member of a species. A species which takes part in a process of conscious production whereby we produce as human beings for one another; Marx perceived this to be the process of mans ‘active species life’ (Bottomore; 1963 ). Marx specifically used the term ‘species being’ as a method to distinguish human life from animal life; where production is more a consequence of ‘blind instinct’ rather than conscious productive labour. The recognition of man as a ‘species’ becomes eminent to the theory of Alienation, which is central to Marx’s work and vital in reiterating the human essence of man.

Marx’s conception of society has its grounds in a theory of action: as he put it, human beings make their own history. But Marx goes on to argue that they do this is circumstances which are not of their own choosing, and he develops an analysis of how action is organized by these circumstances as material conditions of production which structure and determine the social relationship that are primarily generated by the particular material forces of production utilized, which include not only raw materials but also the technology which is used to extract and work them into products (Jenks 15).

The importance of the views of Karl Marx and Abraham Kuyper are detrimental to the growth in society. When looking at two different ideas, people are able to pick up more information and better solutions. This is where the saying two brains is greater than one comes to play. While looking at different views people can come up with different ideas on how to solve a problem. The main purpose is to look at Marx’s and Kuyper’s ideas of human nature, main causes of social inequality and economic hardship, the solution, assumptions that come with the solutions, and if their ideas hold up in the twenty-first century.

Every member of society is ‘socially pre-destined’ to conform to their set of norms and expectations. The World Controllers state “For Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons had been to some extent conditioned to associate corporeal mass with social superiority. Wheels must turn steadily but cannot turn untended. There must be men to tend to them, men as steady as the wheels upon their axles, sane men, obedient men, stable in contentment”(Huxley). Every member of each of the social classes know their position in society and look down unfavorably on members of the classes lower than theirs, as a result of the Pavlovian conditioning everyone in the World State receives. “And if they cannot tend the wheels…The corpses of a thousand thousand thousand men and women would be hard to bury or burn” (Huxley)., this quote demonstrates the expendability of members of society, they are mere commodities to benefit society. In spite of this, Marx affirms “The same men who establish their social relations in conformity with their material productivity, also produce principles, ideas, and categories, in conformity with their social relations. Thus, these ideas, these categories, are as eternal as the relations they express. They are historical and transitory products”

One of the greatest debates of all time has been regarding the issue of the freedom of mankind. The one determining factor, for Marx, it that freedom is linked with class conflict. As a historian, Karl Marx traced the history of mankind by the ways in which the economy operated and the role of classes within the economy. For Marx, the biggest question that needed to be answered was “Who owns freedom?” With this in mind, Marx gives us a solution to both the issues of freedom and class conflict in his critique of capitalism and theory of communism, which is the ideal society for Marx. His theory of communism is based on the “ultimate end of human history” because there will be freedom for all humankind.

In the Communist Manifesto, a document that first proclaimed the ideology of communism itself, Marx declared that the “history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels). As a man who spurred resentment of governments and inspired revolutionaries, Karl Marx is often regarded as a man who led to the rise of 20th century tyrannical dictators such as Stalin and Mao to take power. His ideas are regarded as failures and, by some, are seen as pure evil. However, the ideas of Marx were not evil and did not solely bring about the rise of dictators. Rather, Karl Marx dedicated his life to bring economic equality to Europe and wanted to bring an end to the corrupt inequality that the

The philosophy of Karl Marx begins with the belief that humans are inherently cooperative with common characteristics and shared ends. To human beings, life is considered an object and therefore, humans make their “life-activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness” (Tucker 76). In other words, humans are able to think, imagine, and “produce even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom” (p. 76). It exemplifies that idea that humans not only have the capability to create things for survival but express themselves in what they produce, within the standards of the human race or universally. When capitalist wage-labor enters the picture, it forces these shared ends and the freedom of expression in human production to cease, causing a rise of competitiveness among

Question: what do you make of Karl Marx’s contributions to sociology? What perceptions of Marx have you been exposed to in your society, and how do those perceptions influence your views.

This essay argues that the propositions put forth by Karl Marx in his political essay “Estranged Labour” presents a nuanced and logically sounder theory behind his concept of human nature than Hobbes does in his essay “The natural condition of Mankind”. Marx’s perception was that man’s labour is intrinsically a part of his human nature, and the alienation of this labour drastically negates what it means to be man. Whereas Thomas Hobbes presents that man’s natural state is one of conflict, and that this conflict can only be overcome through rules set forth by the sovereign, only then can men live in peace with each other.

Marx’s (1987) “materialist conception of history” (p. 146) provides an outline through which he presents the intimate connection between society and the provision of material need through the ages. His theory begins with the pre-modern individual, whose existence consists only of productive actions vital to only his own survival, such as gathering food and building shelter. Marx considers this

Karl Marx, also a philosopher was popularly known for his theories that best explained society, its social structure, as well as the social relationships. Karl Marx placed so much emphasis on the economic structure and how it influenced the rest of the social structure from a materialistic point of view. Human societies progress through a dialectic of class struggle, this means that the three aspects that make up the dialectic come into play, which are the thesis, antithesis and the synthesis (Avineri, 1980: 66-69). As a result of these, Marx suggests that in order for change to come about, a class struggle has to first take place. That is, the struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist class, the class that controls

Marx examines human beings from the perspective of social practices and social relationships. In his view, human nature incorporates both natural attributes and social attributes, and human characters are not solely shaped by natural attributes but are shaped by the unity of individuals and social activities, which refers to the effect of the interrelationships between human themselves and social activities.

There can be no doubt over the wide-ranging influence of Karl Marx’s theories on sociology and political thought. His concept of communism overcoming the socioeconomic pitfalls of capitalism has not been a theory that has seen the light of day in the way that he may have hypothesised. There have been many throughout history that have misrepresented Marx’s writing, which begs the question, if pure communism in the original Marxist sense is at all possible given that humanity appears to have an innate ‘need’ for hierarchy and a thirst for power.

Though Marx views the communist revolution as an unavoidable outcome of capitalism, his theory stipulates that the proletariat must first develop class consciousness, or an understanding of its place within the economic superstructure. If this universal character of the proletariat does not take shape, then the revolution cannot be accomplished (1846: 192). This necessary condition does not pose a problem within Marx’s theoretical framework, as the formation of class consciousness is inevitable in Marx’s model of society. His writings focus on the idea that economic production determines the social and political structure (1846, 1859). For Marx, social class represents a person’s relation to the means of production, a relation that he believes is independent of