Alienation, Etc. (was Re: FROP etc)

[Dace]

>CB: Maybe Marx is wrong, but if we are trying to discern what Marx's and
Engels' ideas were on the existence or non-existence of human nature "of any
interest" , or the degree of their historicism, what about the category
"production" , and as I say "labor" ?  Production is universal among humans
for them. And labor is the form of production that distinguishes humans from
other species.  How can labor not be human nature FOR MARX , even if we
admit that he is a dialectician so that this nature is in unity and struggle
with a historical shaping ? Such a conception is not absolute historicism.
Is to labor , to produce with imagination, an idea passed on from generation
to generation ?
>>>>>>>>

That capitalism is opposed to human nature is revealed by the fact that
labor no longer means "to produce with imagination."  Capitalism attempts to
remove imagination from labor as much as possible.  This has proven
particularly true in the 20th century with the advent of Taylorism.  What we
have now is a mechanistic form of labor.  While this is certainly compatible
with ant nature, bee nature, and termite nature, it's a warping of human
nature.

I can't agree with either Ken Hanley-- that the transformation of nature
through labor is at the essence of human nature-- or with Rob and Charles
that the will to freedom is at the essence of humanity.  Rather, what
defines us is consciousness, i.e. perception of mentality.  Since the mind
is where judgments and decisions are made, perception of our own minds
opened up the possibility of freely directing our actions, as opposed to
merely following instinct.  Freedom follows from consciousness, and
transforming our environments follows from freedom, but they're not
essential to us.  That they're not essential is illustrated by early human
history.  What's curious about our early history is that nothing whatsoever
changed in our way of life for a very long time.  The prefrontal lobe was
fully developed 200,000 years ago, meaning that we were consciously engaged
in abstract thought at that time.  Yet it took another 100,000 years before
there was even the slightest sign of alteration in our interaction with
nature, and it was another 40,000 years after that before we finally got
around to updating our toolkit, which had been established 1.5 million years
ago by our African predecessor, Homo ergaster.  Talk about lazy!


>Engels and Marx are not absolute or radical historical particularists. With
respect to capitalism they say not only is bourgeois "nature" not human
nature, but proletarian struggle IS human nature, given a bourgeois or other
private property regime. The Revolution is natural.
>
>Maybe ?
>

Whereas the bourgeois conception of human nature is more fitting for
insects, the Marxist conception follows directly from human nature.  Freedom
and imaginative labor are not at our essence, but they follow directly from
that essence.

Ted