Human nature

What does Holla Forums think of this video on human nature by anarchopac

youtube.com/watch?v=Qi4dyFp2FBw

It's pretty based tbqh

Here you go

Marx indeed talks about alienation in the Grundrisse, albeit NOT in a Hegelian form.

Humanism also implies a soul, which is odd given as to how Pac is allegedly an atheist.

I wouldn't say "soul" but it does believe in an essence.

bump

...

You can believe human nature exists without being humanist. Humans are just a designated species and organisms generally have a nature specific to them. Human nature being distinct from the nature of other species is different question. People who would make a distinction between humans and animals in the sense that the animal set excludes humans are just plain wrong on that point. Marx was not right about everything.

bump

Did you make that?

Why kind of a cop out is this?
It is human nature to want to horde things. A physical examination of a human body can reveal excess consumption, but not wishes or intentions.
This video attributed to Marx a quote basically saying that animals are robots with skin.

I think it is important to make distinction between the human nature entity used by marx and the one used by idealists

Marxs talks about palpable behaviour, and we understand each of them have their opposite, it wouldn't make sense to simply imply capitalism is against human nature, as we know there are different attitudes shown by us strictly opposed to the system

Hence why idalists saying it is human nature to be racist, greedy, and the like are only spewing half-truths

will anti-humanism help the left?

Yes

im genuinely interested in how so. (im just getting into althusser)

I ask b/c from my experience mentioning alienation/estrangement in terms workers connect with often seems a powerful argument

also I'm not so sure about this idea of the 'self'
atheists took it to an okay level to not believe in the 'absolute spirit' but the zen buddhists were the ones who don't believe in the absolute spirit, or the self.

imo zen buddhists have taken antihumanism the furthest

all of buddhism has that doctrine as a core, not just zen buddhism

OK, that's a run-off sentence. I'm going to try to decipher it. Marx places too much emphasis on visible characteristic. He edgelords by saying that emotions are so complicated that they cannot be clinically qualified however he then takes the next step and actually negates the effect of persistent thoughts on society. Non-Marxist economists are humble enough to admit that they don't know, but Marx must have a final answer. His writings have earmarks of work as commodity, and in a bid for self-preservation, made an emphatic case for why workers deserve more pay.

Anti-racism wasn't a feature of Marx's writings; it was a position taken up by later communists.
Communists want to pretend that "capitalism" didn't emerge from natural forces – that some horrendous imperialist wrote a manifesto somewhere that aroused peasants around the world to suddenly straightened their backs in unisom.

It didn't, Marx traces the beginnings of Capitalism in Chapter 26 - onwards in Volume 1 of Capital. He focuses on the Enclosure movements, Game laws, and overall violence carried out by the same. What drivel.

saged for promoting some shitty youtuber instead of providing a webm or archive link
arguing to human nature is philosophical masturbation
about the only thing human nature has that is objectively true is that all humans want to either live, save those they identify with (usually children and family, but sometimes comrades in vision), or die for an idea (usually the idea is surviving through children or those they identify with)
the rest is bullshit

carried out by the state*

also kek, nice word salad

You certainly know how to say so little, but use so much.

complete rubbish mate. Those idealist thoughts even run counter to Marxism.


more trash. Liberal economists are the ones who actually do that. They place and preach restrictions on new visions of human society yelling "that's against human nature". It's extremely presumptuous.

I'm not even an marxist

Yes theyy did, their manifesto is called a constitution and they use it to defend property rights

There is no point in implying communism will be good for "humanity", the point is it is good for the individual

According to Das Kapital, the feudalist social hierarchy was the only force preventing "capitalism" in western Europe. There's no mention of an organized conspiracy, only a variety of opportunists.

Again, more rubbish world salad. If you mean "a monopoly on power by the feudalist prevented capitalism from emerging" then you would be correct - but up to a certain point. Why would it be an organized conspiracy, is this what you believe and you are expecting Marx to conform to that?

i think you make a good point

so all along it was the bourgeois neoliberals that were claiming to muh privilege the individual, while rally maintaining a system that the believed was good for 'humanity' when really communism, which I think was meant to be good for 'society' was all about the individual?

when can we have buddhist marxism?

didn't the dalai lama say he was a marxist lol

Marx denied human nature by denying that a human being could choose to behave in a "capitalistic" manner without role modeling or prompting.

btw is pic related a good start with antihumanist marxism?

what about poulantzas?

bump