123hop wrote:
>
> So, there's no difference between having sex for lust/love and having
> sex for money?
>
> ???
>
> Joanna
Of course there's a difference; we've socially created and maintained the difference. There's nothing "natural" about it.
^^^^ CB: There's something natural about both. They are physiological acts. There is no reason to banish nature from our understanding of human relations at all, and claim that human relations are absolutely social or cultural. This is equivalent to a return to religion. It is philosophical idealism. And thereby not thoroughly Marxist or Marxist at all. It is anti-scientific , i.e. anti-materialist to imagine that humans have no natural or biological aspects to their beings.
The whole discipline of biological anthropology elucidates human nature. Hell medicine elucidates human nature and biology.
Aside from that , women bear the biological consequences of sexual acts more than men.
^^^^
Sex for "love" is just as much a product of social relations as sex for money; or, to put it the other way round, both types of sex have been made possible by "human nature". We get tangled up in discussions about "human nature" time and again on LBO, and as far as I can tell, the term is just about as useful as "luminiferous aether" or "phlogiston". I think it's much more helpful to leave it aside and analyze how social relations produce the society we live in (a Marxist point through and through, I want to stress to CB!).
Miles
^^^^^ CB: No, human nature is a valid concept concerning objective reality. Human nature exists. The ether does not exist. Phlogiston doesn't exist.
What Marxists should do is revisit the intellectual history of absolute social determinism and anti-essentialism especially in post-modernist and post-structuralist works. How did initially valid claims fall into idealist philosophical error ?