ماركس والطبيعة البشرية - نقض الأسطورة

by Norman Geras, الطيب الحصني (ترجمة )

جاء في كلمة الغلاف: "لم يرفض ماركس فكرة الطبيعة البشرية. وقد كان على حق في ذلك" هذا ما يصل إليه هذا العمل الجديد، والجريء، والجدلي، بقلم نورمان گريس. حيث يضع گريس في هذا الكتاب سادس أطروحات ماركس عن فيورباخ تحت عدسة المجهر الصارمة، ويجادل گريس بأن هذه العبارة الغامضة – التي يُستشهد بها على نطاق واسع كدليل على أن ماركس قد تخلى عن جميع مفاهيم الطبيعة البشرية في عام 1845 – ينبغي أن تُقرأ في سياق عمل ماركس ككل. حيث استرشدت كتاباته اللاحقة بفكرة الطبيعة البشرية المحددة التي تفي بكل من الوظائف التفسيرية والمعيارية.
فگريس يرى أن الاعتقاد بأن المادية التاريخية لماركس تستلزم إنكاراً لمفهوم الطبيعة البشرية، هو عبارة عن "رأي قديم تغذى عليه التأثير الألتوسيري ...لأن هذه العبارة لا تزال شائعة ومضللة، ولا يزال هناك ضرورة حقيقية لدراستها".
وبعد مرور مائة عام على وفاة ماركس، يعيد هذا الكتاب الذي جاء في الوقت المناسب - حيث يجمع بين قوى الفلسفة التحليلية والماركسية الكلاسيكية - اكتشاف جزء مركزي أساسي من تراثه.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Theory

136 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1983

About the author

Norman Geras was Professor Emeritus of Government at the University of Manchester. In a long academic career, he has contributed substantially to the analysis of the works of Karl Marx, particularly in his book Marx and Human Nature and the article "The Controversy About Marx and Justice," which remains a standard work on the issue.

Reviews

[amelia · Rating 3 out of 5]

A long and dry engagement with one of the Theses on Feuerbach, bolstering its argument with other selected paragraphs from Marx. Geras' thesis is that (largely structuralist) interpreters of Marx have made a mistake in thinking that his mature political economy represented a break with any concept of 'human nature', and that such a reading of Marx is in fact logically unsound. Very academic and not particularly constructive - it reads like a prefatory argument to justify a reading of Marx without actually making the reading itself - although the fourth chapter provides some insight into why a concept of human nature may be important to reading Marx properly and in particular to understanding Marx's normative condemnation of capitalism. But, frankly, Ollman had already done the same thing in Alienation, and with far greater richness and fire - read that instead, and consult with this only if the relative lack of philological rigour and justification in Ollman concerns you.

[Charlie Kruse · Rating 2 out of 5]

BOOORING

[عبدالعزيز زايد · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب ماركس والطبيعة البشرية
نقض الأسطورة
للكاتب: نورمان كريس

لم نجد الكتاب كما توقعناه، لم ننسجم معه كثيرًا،
نتطلع لمطالعة كتاب آخر للمؤلف

[Peter Harrison · Rating 3 out of 5]

A long essay or short book tackling Marx's views on human nature, and disputing the view that Marx believed there was no immutable human nature.

This is somewhat interesting - although it is in essence a polemic against a structuralist view of Marx which has I suspect largely fallen out of favour since this book was written. Geras' view is that there were a number of ways in which Marx did support the idea of there being certain core traits that marked out what it is to be human, above all the need to produce and re-produce. This is in general a convincing refutation, built largely on top of a close reading of the sixth thesis on Feuerbach.

However it felt to me that there was something missing. In particular the common view is that human nature is indelibly connected to capitalism, that it is in our nature to "truck, barter, and exchange". Geras' argument is pointed almost entirely to other Marxists, and really doesn't engage much with this view that 'human nature' is in fact a barrier to moving beyond capitalism. He does argue that accepting a common human nature does not determine exactly what that nature is or what limits it places on future development. But clearly if we accept the point then it must place some limits on future development and I am not fully convinced that this is what Marx was getting at.

Either way the argument fits into the category of debates around "what Marx really meant" which is in general an unhelpful distraction from making profitable use of his analysis to understand modern capitalism and how that should influence practical politics in the here-and-now.

[Mick Harvey · Rating 3 out of 5]

His main argument is almost certainly correct, but damn, what godawful style. A reminder that too much analytic philosophy can rot (at least some) parts of the brain.

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite the effort in close reading, 116 pages written on a couple sentences by Marx. Geras presented a well argued case for Marx having a conception of human nature drawing on the Theses on Feuerbach as well as a couple other additional sources like the German Ideology. I think it's safe to say after reading this that Geras is right: Marx was not an anti-humanist. Not sure I agree with Marx/Geras though, that humans have a nature separate from other animals. I'm interested in finding a work more specifically on that, perhaps from an anti-speciesist Marxist perspective, if that exists. Anyway, good book!

[A. Redact · Rating 3 out of 5]

Geras makes a painstaking case that Marx’s rejection of theories of human behavior that relied on an ahistorical notion of human nature IS NOT a rejection of ‘human nature’ tout court. Marx had a notion of human nature, just one highly inflected and mediated by ‘the ensemble of human social relations.’ His case is basically iron clad about 40 pages in but he continues for another 70 in what can only be called an *extremely Mortal Kombat voice* ANALITY

[Mattia Hughes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Phenomenal polemic against Althusser n structuralism

[Malcolm · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite being almost 30 years old (published in 1983) this remains as fresh and necessary as it was then. Written in specific response to one of the great myths expounded by some forms of Marxism, and given emphasis on Althusserian approaches at the time Geras wrote this, this case for the essential role that a notion of human nature plays in Marx's work is smart and engaging (well as smart & engaging as political philosophy can be!). The first third of the book (it is very short) is a detailed textual analysis of the 6th thesis on Feuerbach and as such is close to a model of textual exegesis as there can be. Overall, the book sits alongside Bertell Ollman's brilliant Alienation as required reading, and a vital reminder that accepting that there is a human nature is not an acceptance of a narrow essentialism, but underpins the revolutionary project for human liberation.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spoiler alert! The author sums up the entirety of his book in three sentences on the last page: "The sixth thesis does not show Marx rejected the idea of a human nature. Marx did not reject the idea of a human nature. He was right not do so." If reading, over the course of 127 pages, what exactly he means by this sounds more exciting than engaging in human contact, please indulge!

[Jacob Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Please read the following as if I had given this 2.75 stars:

Geras does a substantial service here. He plainly lays out the evidence for Marx's conception of 'human nature' against both reactionary and Marxist claims that historical materialism as such is 'against human nature' and that 'humanity lacks a nature'. He traces a consistent and clear line of thought within Marx from his so-called early period to his mature thought and demonstrates a throughline of human nature as both an essence and a socially constructed and mediated reality (useful in today's incessant reactionary culture wars).

However, it is also extremely dull, and reads as if the majority of the text is a tempest in a teapot against Althusser. This doesn't detract from the utility of Geras' argument, but it certainly renders it a chore to read, occasionally. Thankfully, it is brief, and doesn't overstay its (albeit dwindling) welcome.

[Luke · Rating 4 out of 5]

I went into this trying to study Marx’s conception of “humanity” and came away disappointed on that level. However, when read for what it is, not as a grand commentary on Marx’s humanism, but rather a refutation of those who deny a concept of human nature in Marx it is succinct and devastating. Considering that this is basically a pamphlet and it totally refuted my own conception of human nature in Marx, I have to give it high praise for its simple tearing apart of Althusserian conceptions of Marx.

[Patrick Diego · Rating 2 out of 5]

sem dúvidas, um dos livros mais inúteis que eu já li. não digo "inútil" nem num sentido exatamente pejorativo, e sim com a intenção de dizer que a reflexão contida nessa centena de páginas é absolutamente irrelevante. repito aqui as próprias palavras do autor na contracapa, que, acredite se quiser, resumem integralmente o conteúdo do livro.

"Marx did not reject the idea of a human nature. He was right not to do so."

[Nico Cornejo · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this short and straightforward essay, Geras uses philosophical analysis to prove that Marx did believe in Human Nature. The author is very cautious in his argumentation, deflating the metaphysical implications as much as possible.

I think he is largely successful. The idea of human nature has been used in many reactionary ways both outside and within Marxism. But the "deflated" notion that Geras analyzes was, without a doubt, present in Marx's thought across the years.

[Kevin Q · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh, positing an unchanging essence is ahistorical. Which is not dialectical. I don't think Geras understands this aspect of Marxist theory and I didn't buy his cites that Marx himself had made this ahistorical gesture.

[Stanley Reeves · Rating 3 out of 5]

whilst what geras is contesting here is quite important in considering marx from a marxist humanist perspective the actual experience of reading this book is really dull - primary concerned with very close readings of a few passages from marx. geras does not inherit marx’s linguistic flair in presenting his arguments 6/10

[Omar Abu samra · Rating 3 out of 5]

أنصح به للمهتمين بماركس وافكاره

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very engaging and clear. Definitely helps if you've read a bit of Marx first but not absolutely necessary.

[محمد مصباح · Rating 2 out of 5]

كتاب ممكن اختزاله في مقال، بل في فقرة واحدة.

[ª · Rating 3 out of 5]

bastante aburrido pero tambien bastante cierto

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short, sharp, and irrefutable.

[José Pereira · Rating 1 out of 5]

Geras' case definitely is "irrefutable".

[Tobi ﾄﾋﾞ · Rating 1 out of 5]

not very inspiring

[Ernesto · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not bad but boring and rather basic. Maybe worth the read as a reference point for discussions but that's all.