What do you think?
Rate this book
The Concept of Nature in Marx
Schmidt’s close reading of Marx’s own writings and his relation of them to the positions of Kant, Hegel, Engels, Lenin, the early Lukacs and Sartre, enables him to establish the significance of the mature Marx’s sense of the interpenetration of nature and society. He shows how Marxism cuts right across the traditional tendency to counterpose an abstract concept of man with an abstract concept of nature. Schmidt stresses the importance in Marxism of the development of industry and science as the mediation between historical man and external nature, leading either to their reconciliation (if positive) or to their mutual annihilation (if negative). He then both explores this mediation in history and shows how an awareness of its positive and negative possibilities is reflected in such writers as Bertolt Brecht, Walter Benjamin and Ernst Bloch.
252 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1973
8 people are currently reading
330 people want to read
About the author
Alfred Schmidt
97 books6 followersAlfred Schmidt was a German philosopher. He studied history and English as well as classical philology at the Goethe University Frankfurt and later philosophy and sociology. He was a student of Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer and gained his doctorate with his The Concept of Nature in Marx.
Schmidt was professor of philosophy and sociology at the University of Frankfurt from 1972 and was made emeritus in 1999. Schmidt's primary research topics were the critical theory of the Frankfurt School, philosophy of religion, and Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy.
Schmidt was professor of philosophy and sociology at the University of Frankfurt from 1972 and was made emeritus in 1999. Schmidt's primary research topics were the critical theory of the Frankfurt School, philosophy of religion, and Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 28, 2021
If you're into the meaning of nature and the critical Hegelian view of history, this book is an easy way to understand Marx's manifest against nature. The book represents two historic forms ( Marx explains it as Human history and Nature history ) with these forms you would have a lot more clear view of Marx's economic manifests ( most of them are based on his thoughts of nature). Also, Marx denies the social Darwinism in many ways, the book explains how and why perfectly.
Most of Marx's thesis about nature comes from Hegel dialectic, consequently, it's important to know the exact mechanism of the Hegel dialectic before you read the book. Moreover, I suggest reading Engels because the book explains his nature thesis ( even more than Marx). Overall it's a useful book.
Most of Marx's thesis about nature comes from Hegel dialectic, consequently, it's important to know the exact mechanism of the Hegel dialectic before you read the book. Moreover, I suggest reading Engels because the book explains his nature thesis ( even more than Marx). Overall it's a useful book.
September 22, 2024
Every time Marxist metabolic theory is discussed in articles these days, John Bellamy Foster is rightly brought up, but discussions of Alfred Schmidt are almost completely absent. Strangely, because this is such a landmark text, and the very tensions between Foster and Jason Moore are already addressed to some extent here. (At least to the extent the dispute has to do with semantic disagreements rather than substantive conceptual ones... in my opinion).
This book was originally Schmidt's doctoral dissertation supervised by Adorno and Horkheimer and later published in 1962 (in German). Schmidt discusses the influence of scientists like Moleschott and Liebig on Marx and the concept of metabolism in Marx’s writing. (Foster really critiques the idea that Marx drew heavily from Moleschott, and focuses on Marx's readings of Liebig, which he very evidently draws upon, as Marx copied scores of pages out of Liebig's writings into his own notebooks.)
The stuff on metabolism is largely concentrated in Chapter 2, Section B, with some further elaborations (a bit in Chapter 4, but mostly...) in the essay in the Appendix entitled "On the Relation between History and Nature in Dialectical Materialism". There's a surprising amount of engagement with Lenin, but emerging from the Frankfurt School, this text really does have it out for Engels and Soviet philosophers which it lumps all together. Even still, it's a useful if sometimes opaque text that people should make time for regardless of their theoretical investments. Will finish with this illuminating excerpt that itself concludes with a quote from Marx:
"Marx the nature-dialectician did not limit himself to contemplating pre-human nature and its history, viewing reality only ‘in the form of the Object’, nor, despite his admiration for Hegel, did he view reality ‘in the form of the Subject’. He insisted instead on the indivisibility of the two moments. The awareness of this indivisibility lies at the core of Marx’s materialism. Marx’s Subject- Object, in contrast to Hegel’s, is never entirely incorporated into the Subject.
The nature-speculation inherent in Marx referred to above is nothing but an attempt, which runs through the whole of his work, to provide an appropriate concept for the mutual interpenetration of nature and society within the natural whole. To this end Marx used new and in part peculiarly biological metaphors, of which the expression ‘metabolism’, used throughout Capital, seems finally to have been chosen as the best formulation.
Nature appears in the Paris Manuscripts, with reference to Hegel’s Phenomenology of Mind, as ‘the inorganic body of man; that is to say nature, excluding the human body itself’. It is his body, ‘with which he must remain in continuous interaction in order not to die’. Just as in living nature assimilation changes the inorganic into the organic, so man assimilates that ‘inorganic body’ in his work and converts it in an ever-increasing measure into an ‘organic’ part of himself. Man can only do this, however, because he himself belongs directly to nature, which is by no means a purely external world entirely separated from his internal characteristics:
'The interdependence of the physical and mental life of man with nature has the meaning that nature is interdependent with itself, for man is part of nature.'"
This book was originally Schmidt's doctoral dissertation supervised by Adorno and Horkheimer and later published in 1962 (in German). Schmidt discusses the influence of scientists like Moleschott and Liebig on Marx and the concept of metabolism in Marx’s writing. (Foster really critiques the idea that Marx drew heavily from Moleschott, and focuses on Marx's readings of Liebig, which he very evidently draws upon, as Marx copied scores of pages out of Liebig's writings into his own notebooks.)
The stuff on metabolism is largely concentrated in Chapter 2, Section B, with some further elaborations (a bit in Chapter 4, but mostly...) in the essay in the Appendix entitled "On the Relation between History and Nature in Dialectical Materialism". There's a surprising amount of engagement with Lenin, but emerging from the Frankfurt School, this text really does have it out for Engels and Soviet philosophers which it lumps all together. Even still, it's a useful if sometimes opaque text that people should make time for regardless of their theoretical investments. Will finish with this illuminating excerpt that itself concludes with a quote from Marx:
"Marx the nature-dialectician did not limit himself to contemplating pre-human nature and its history, viewing reality only ‘in the form of the Object’, nor, despite his admiration for Hegel, did he view reality ‘in the form of the Subject’. He insisted instead on the indivisibility of the two moments. The awareness of this indivisibility lies at the core of Marx’s materialism. Marx’s Subject- Object, in contrast to Hegel’s, is never entirely incorporated into the Subject.
The nature-speculation inherent in Marx referred to above is nothing but an attempt, which runs through the whole of his work, to provide an appropriate concept for the mutual interpenetration of nature and society within the natural whole. To this end Marx used new and in part peculiarly biological metaphors, of which the expression ‘metabolism’, used throughout Capital, seems finally to have been chosen as the best formulation.
Nature appears in the Paris Manuscripts, with reference to Hegel’s Phenomenology of Mind, as ‘the inorganic body of man; that is to say nature, excluding the human body itself’. It is his body, ‘with which he must remain in continuous interaction in order not to die’. Just as in living nature assimilation changes the inorganic into the organic, so man assimilates that ‘inorganic body’ in his work and converts it in an ever-increasing measure into an ‘organic’ part of himself. Man can only do this, however, because he himself belongs directly to nature, which is by no means a purely external world entirely separated from his internal characteristics:
'The interdependence of the physical and mental life of man with nature has the meaning that nature is interdependent with itself, for man is part of nature.'"
May 5, 2025
Indispensable for dispelling the myths of Engels' Dialectics of Nature which has led to innumerable Marxists to distort and inadvertently falsify Marxism through a poor understanding of Marx's method, and "dialectics" generally. Moreover, this is quite a valuable text for how Marx viewed nature in his works through his analysis of value generally, and the unfolding labor process.
Nature enters into a dialectical relationship when human beings act as conscious, transformative Subjects engaging with it as a force. Humans serve as the vital link between instruments of labor and the object of labor. In this process, nature itself becomes both the subject and the object of labor. The dialectic here lies in how people alter their own character by gradually stripping away nature’s externality-internalizing and directing it toward their ends. Because the human-nature interaction underlies all human–human relations, the dialectical dynamics of the labor process as a natural process expand to encompass the dialectic of human history as a whole.
In conclusion, this work by Schmidt is a sobering recount of the concept of Nature in Marx's work, hence the name, and I highly suggest it for any serious Communist.
Nature enters into a dialectical relationship when human beings act as conscious, transformative Subjects engaging with it as a force. Humans serve as the vital link between instruments of labor and the object of labor. In this process, nature itself becomes both the subject and the object of labor. The dialectic here lies in how people alter their own character by gradually stripping away nature’s externality-internalizing and directing it toward their ends. Because the human-nature interaction underlies all human–human relations, the dialectical dynamics of the labor process as a natural process expand to encompass the dialectic of human history as a whole.
In conclusion, this work by Schmidt is a sobering recount of the concept of Nature in Marx's work, hence the name, and I highly suggest it for any serious Communist.
January 8, 2022
Marx's critical materialism is not only a radical break from idealist philosophy, it is a radical break from all pre-existing philosophy. It diffuses the mystical nonsense commonly found in traditional metaphysical, ontological, and theological thinkers. The author begins by showing how critical materialism is not an example of the ontological materialism of, say a Helveticus or a Locke, and by showing the distortion made by Engels in his Dialectic of Nature which explains the persistent errors of the various worldview Marxisms. He goes on to draw out the relation between Marx's critique of political economy and his Materialism, by analyzing the commodity form and the concept of metabolism in his later works. He then briefly touches upon teleology, epistemology, and the categories of the dialectic. In the final chapter, he discusses whatever little material can be extracted from Marx on the topic of utopia and its relation to nature. He takes an appropriate deflationary view on this matter. Overall, a worthwhile read.
October 30, 2024
Okay okay
August 12, 2014
“The interdependence of the physical and mental life of man with nature has the meaning that nature is interdependent with itself, for man is part of nature.” [Marx]
John Bellamy Foster's Marx's Ecology builds on Schmidt's narrative and relates it to modern environmental crises. Though it is interesting how prescient Schmidt was in his day ...
"Today, when men’s technical possibilities have outstripped the dreams of the old Utopians many times over, it appears rather than these possibilities, negatively realized, have changed into forces of destruction, and therefore, instead of bringing about an albeit always humanly limited salvation, lead to total destruction, a grim parody of the transformation intended by Marx, in which Subject and Object are not reconciled, but annihilated." (p.163)
John Bellamy Foster's Marx's Ecology builds on Schmidt's narrative and relates it to modern environmental crises. Though it is interesting how prescient Schmidt was in his day ...
"Today, when men’s technical possibilities have outstripped the dreams of the old Utopians many times over, it appears rather than these possibilities, negatively realized, have changed into forces of destruction, and therefore, instead of bringing about an albeit always humanly limited salvation, lead to total destruction, a grim parody of the transformation intended by Marx, in which Subject and Object are not reconciled, but annihilated." (p.163)
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews