posted on October 13, 2022 01:21 AM by
u/MarxBroshevik
76
u/fedawi39 pointsat 1665680006.000000
Not surprised in the slightest that he wouldn’t really bother to try
to understand Marx. Reminds me of the Peterson-Zizek debate. People tend
to embarrass themselves when they make half-assed attempts at dismissing
Marx.
The Peterson debate is still one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Only reading the first couple pages of the Communist Manifesto, not understanding the ideas, and thinking you've got it. Zizek just outright bullies him at one point and orders him to name one poshtmodern neo-marx-*sniff*-shist. Beautiful.
The double post thing does not appear for me. Looks normal on my end.
Thanks for the kind words but I'm not really into writing all that much so I don't plan to do much more.
This is a pretty common problem I’ve run into with substack, Siskind’s own did it for me a bit too, along with several others
I don’t think the author can do much about it except maybe avoid particular themes or whatever
So far the most common criticism I’ve got is that I’m talking
past Scott Alexander and that SA was talking about a
different human nature. This different human nature seems to be
greed, we’re all greedy, greedy, greedy, when we boil it all down all
that “human nature” stuff is just greed, and communism can’t work
because of greed.
Personally I don’t really think that’s what SA was trying to say, and
I don’t want to misrepresent his arguments or be seen as debating a
strawman.
But I’m also not above addressing this at length if this is what
people are interested in? I’m interested in any reader feedback on this
issue.
It’s the Mark Fisher capitalist realist take. The speaker distances themselves, but human nature is fixed as maximizing returns using compound interest.
I've been banned from the sub previously. You can post it there and see what happens if you like. I'm pretty sure I'm *persona non grata* over there so you might get banned too, I really don't know.
Hope people find it interesting. This is (with the unpublished
upcoming parts) by far the longest thing I’ve ever written. I kind of
dislike writing so if you see any mistakes please alert me here or in
the substack comments.
Share this around on twitter or wherever if you like it because I
don’t use any of that stuff.
Happy to see it here, if for no other reason than to encourage more people to actually read Feuerbach closely and not just as an aside to one short Marx article. But then again, perhaps I’m just rooting for my own particular favorite Young Hegelian contra the English/American tendency to treat every essay on another thinker as some sort of point scoring in a debate (which is one of the bigger framing errors that dominates the bizarre anti-materialist “rationalist” essay genre.)
The original SA piece reads worse than most history of philosophy 101 takes on how Marx “must be bad because daddy told me so and he pays your salary so I own you”. That takes some doing and always makes me want to Schopenhauer my life away into an anti-Kierkegaardian sense of existential ennui and dread.
Wow, the introduction of Alexander’s review is already fascinating
(in the trainwreck kind of way).
I weighed the costs and benefits of reading primary sources
versus
summaries and commentaries, and decided in favor of the latter.
The clincher was that the rare times I felt like I really
understand
certain thinkers and philosophies on a deep level, it’s rarely been
the
primary sources that did it for me, even when I’d read them.
The key word here is of course „felt“. Because what criterion for
checking if you actually did understand them exists – other than, you
know, the primary sources?
I’m not reading the rest of that. OP is pretty heroic for engaging
with it in such depth.
A dissection of Alexander's intro was the first thing I actually wrote because I found it so funny. But I've put this current part first because it's the only real evidence from Marx in question. I'm trying to front-load the more important stuff.
It can be hard to know where to start on things like this. But yeah, the part you're talking about is coming up eventually.
It links to a [post on hegel](https://web.archive.org/web/20201111210532/https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/12/what-the-hell-hegel/) though that doesn’t take any longer to become absurdly bad:
>On the other hand, it’s hard to find many people who will put in good
words for him \[Hegel\] now. In fact, hilarious pithy denunciations of Hegel are
an entire sub-genre. Hegel’s Wikiquote page, \[...\]
>
>But since we’ve already brought in Google as a philosophical authority,
we might as well note that it autocompletes “hegel is” into “hegel is
impossible to understand”. This seems to be pretty close to a consensus
position right now.
If he can’t find any positive opinions on Hegel after such profound research, that can only mean he’s discarded today...
I read this and your little argument below. I think you’re right, and
I think SA is probably including and discluding things from “human
nature” and assuming his audience gets it (or he hasn’t dissected what
he means by “human nature”). I would also guess that his assumption that
Marx thinking that human nature doesn’t exist is based on his own
assumptions about “post-modern neo-marxists” and endless online
arguments about whether powerful people deserve their power (esp. wrt
race and wealth).
But maybe not. I’m just an internet hobo.
edit: If I were to come up with a succinct definition for “human
nature”, I would say that it’s a behaviour that most, if not all, humans
exhibit that most, if not all, other animals do not. Something like
seeking out salty foods is not “human nature” as many other animals will
seek out nutrients they have a deficit of. Something like “creatively
adapting their environment to benefit their community” would be closer
to “human nature”; most animals will fulfil at most two of the three
parts of that statement. But that’s just me and a bottle of wine.
In my experience, when people refer to human nature in this context,
they mean things like hardcoded or ingrained tendencies towards specific
behaviors in specific situations (like feeling jealous when a woman
you’re attracted to is affectionate to another man), which in the
aggregate cause societies to act in certain ways regardless of social
conditioning, economic incentives, etc. When it comes to discussing Marx
specifically I have usually encountered formulations along the lines of
“people are naturally hostile to others in the group not doing their
fair share, so ‘to each according to his needs’ must collapse under the
weight of resentment towards freeloaders.” Or something like that. The
specifics vary but the claim made is always that our intellectual
software will inevitably sabotage any Marxist project somehow. I don’t
want to argue the merit of these arguments, but those are the arguments
I have encountered.
I have not read Marx at any length–only brief snippets in college–but
the supporting quotes used here seem to refer more to basic capacities,
e.g. the ability to imagine, or tool/technology use. Or to the human
condition as imposed by material circumstances, e.g. needing to work to
live. In at least one case it appears to refer to the personality of the
individual as expressed or realized through creative works, but the
quotes do not (as I read them) refer to any complex behavioral
tendencies which might be true of the species as a whole. This is not to
say that Marx did not believe in complex human social instincts, only
that these quotes do not support that conclusion. The author and Scott
are talking about different things while using the same word.
Cards on the table: I’m not a rationalist, more of a
vaguely-sympathetic-in-some-respects fellow-traveler who reads some
rationalist stuff but tends to skim a lot when they get long-winded or
talk about AI. I come here now and then because it feels healthy to get
a different perspective.
> but the quotes do not (as I read them) refer to any complex behavioral tendencies which might be true of the species as a whole.
Planning, labour, social interactions and imagination are all complex behavioural tendencies.
I'm not talking about "different things"; SA made the claim that Marx believed there was "no such thing" as human nature. The quotes SA provided do not provide any evidence towards this, and SA completely misread both of the quotes in question. I then provided many quotes where Marx talks at length about human nature.
SA never makes any sort of argument about "complex human social instincts" or any other goalpost-moving jargon.
>I have not read Marx at any length
Yes, I can tell.
I think Scott Alexander was trusting his audience to understand the subtext/context for this extremely well-trod internet argument (which descended from one of the oldest, most common popular attacks on Marxism, that it treats people like blank-slate Skinner-box puppets of incentives and circumstances). You (AFAICT) did not, and are arguing based on a particular interpretation of a set of terms which Marx (based on these limited quotes) certainly seems to have been using to mean something very different. I'm not responding based on my exhaustive reading of Marx, because I didn't do one, because even these brief quotes are godawful messes of verbosity that make Scott's worst writing look aphoristic. All I'm saying is, your argument, as you present it, reads like a misunderstanding. My tuppence.
Right now I don't have any interest in debating people on the "subtext" of their argument, because as soon as I do that the criticism will go something like this:
"Scott Alexander didn't actually say that, you're arguing against a strawman, you're arguing in bad faith", etc etc.
Therefore my argument is only based on what's actually in the text.
>certainly seems to have been using to mean something very different.
It really doesn't matter if SA and Marx have two slightly different conceptions of the kind of traits that are "human nature". It doesn't matter because SA's argument was never that Marx had an *incomplete* or *insufficient* or *faulty* conception of human nature. SA's argument was that Marx thought there was "no such thing" as human nature. The extensive evidence I've amassed shows that Marx *did* think there was such a thing as human nature. Now, if someone wants to argue against me I kind of expect them to amass just as much evidence or more, not to have them admit that they haven't really read Marx and that they have no interest in doing the basic work of reading a book.
If Scott Alexander is basing his argument on "extremely well-trod" material then he should have cited it.
>because even these brief quotes are godawful messes of verbosity.
I really don't know what you think is a "mess" here. If you can quote the bit from Marx that you're not comprehending, I can explain it for you, if you like?
To be clear, I feel reasonably confident that I understand these Marx quotes; my hedging here is mostly due to the fact that, like all other Marx quotes I have encountered, they use two hundred words where twenty would do, and something might have gotten lost in all that. That, and it's possible he uses specific words in idiosyncratic ways. Benefit of the doubt. No, I'm not reading him, because I'm not that invested in this argument, and I'm not addressing the merits of Marx himself or his ideas, only this particular argument as you have presented it, as it comes across to me, a semi-random layman (though admittedly in the context of other such arguments I have read, which I honestly have a hard time believing you have not encountered).
Anyway, exactly how broadly do you think it is reasonable to define "human nature" here? If you think "X nature" can be used to mean "any set of traits which apply to all members of category X," then you win by default because we don't usually refer to sets of utterly disparate things with a single label. As in the category "Flumpfel," which I just made up, and which consists of all garden hoses; a specific shade of purple; Passaic, New Jersey; and acupuncture. "Flumpfel nature" does not and cannot exist because those four things have nothing to do with each other, which is why nobody invented the Flumpfel concept before.
So yes, humans necessarily have a common set of attributes, as we are (almost) all bipedal speech-using tool-using primates with circulatory systems, etc., etc. And yes, in the course of making claims about the best way to organize human economic activity, Marx is going to refer to common aspects or attributes of human beings. The question is whether those aspects are what an ordinary (American) person today would refer to by the shorthand "human nature." It doesn't read like they are, with the possible exception of imagination. Which is fine, because he was writing more than a century ago in German, translation difficulties, concepts changing over time, etc. You are claiming victory over a excessively literal reading of an argument. That's all I'm saying.
>Anyway, exactly how broadly do you think it is reasonable to define "human nature" here?
Since SA argued that Marx thought there was "no such thing" as human nature, then I think it is reasonable to define it as broadly as possible.
Do you have any polling or any evidence at all that the average American would not accept planning, labour, social interactions and imagination and so on as "human nature"?
In any case, Scott Alexander did not make any sort of argument that Marx conception of human nature was different or insufficient - he claimed that Marx thought there was "no such thing". Marx did think there was such a thing.
I don't think my argument is excessively literal when SA claimed Marx thought that there was "no such thing" and that Marx was "unstrawmannable" on this issue.
>though admittedly in the context of other such arguments I have read, which I honestly have a hard time believing you have not encountered
I've encountered plenty of arguments. My point is that if Scott Alexander is basing his views on something else, he should cite it. He's certainly not rooting his discussion in Marx.
I don't imagine there are a lot of organizations polling the public on what does or does not constitute human nature (are there?), so we're at an impasse there. In fact, we're probably at an impasse in general. If you want to argue that Scott's being kinda lazy here, sure. No awards for rigor, and saying any statement can't be strawmanned is dubious in my book. It's, uh, human nature to be really good at caricaturing opposing views. I was aiming for charity--and, to be fair, this is not the sub for charity, so perhaps I should knock it off already. Thanks for indulging me.
I was aiming for maximum charity which is why I was taking SA and Marx at their literal words and why I didn't make up a phantom "ordinary", "American" definition of human nature.
Not surprised in the slightest that he wouldn’t really bother to try to understand Marx. Reminds me of the Peterson-Zizek debate. People tend to embarrass themselves when they make half-assed attempts at dismissing Marx.
Great article! I learnt a lot, actually. Such as that I shouldn’t read Marx: A Very Short Introduction and that Peter Singer is a hack.
One thing - you double-posted the article. After the citations, starts again from the first paragraph.
I’d love to read more from you!
So far the most common criticism I’ve got is that I’m talking past Scott Alexander and that SA was talking about a different human nature. This different human nature seems to be greed, we’re all greedy, greedy, greedy, when we boil it all down all that “human nature” stuff is just greed, and communism can’t work because of greed.
Personally I don’t really think that’s what SA was trying to say, and I don’t want to misrepresent his arguments or be seen as debating a strawman.
But I’m also not above addressing this at length if this is what people are interested in? I’m interested in any reader feedback on this issue.
[removed]
The marxbro extended work!
Did you already try to post this at r/slatestarcodex and the themotte survivalist bunker site?
Hope people find it interesting. This is (with the unpublished upcoming parts) by far the longest thing I’ve ever written. I kind of dislike writing so if you see any mistakes please alert me here or in the substack comments.
Share this around on twitter or wherever if you like it because I don’t use any of that stuff.
Cheers!
Wow, the introduction of Alexander’s review is already fascinating (in the trainwreck kind of way).
The key word here is of course „felt“. Because what criterion for checking if you actually did understand them exists – other than, you know, the primary sources?
I’m not reading the rest of that. OP is pretty heroic for engaging with it in such depth.
Quality sneer.
I read this and your little argument below. I think you’re right, and I think SA is probably including and discluding things from “human nature” and assuming his audience gets it (or he hasn’t dissected what he means by “human nature”). I would also guess that his assumption that Marx thinking that human nature doesn’t exist is based on his own assumptions about “post-modern neo-marxists” and endless online arguments about whether powerful people deserve their power (esp. wrt race and wealth).
But maybe not. I’m just an internet hobo.
edit: If I were to come up with a succinct definition for “human nature”, I would say that it’s a behaviour that most, if not all, humans exhibit that most, if not all, other animals do not. Something like seeking out salty foods is not “human nature” as many other animals will seek out nutrients they have a deficit of. Something like “creatively adapting their environment to benefit their community” would be closer to “human nature”; most animals will fulfil at most two of the three parts of that statement. But that’s just me and a bottle of wine.
In my experience, when people refer to human nature in this context, they mean things like hardcoded or ingrained tendencies towards specific behaviors in specific situations (like feeling jealous when a woman you’re attracted to is affectionate to another man), which in the aggregate cause societies to act in certain ways regardless of social conditioning, economic incentives, etc. When it comes to discussing Marx specifically I have usually encountered formulations along the lines of “people are naturally hostile to others in the group not doing their fair share, so ‘to each according to his needs’ must collapse under the weight of resentment towards freeloaders.” Or something like that. The specifics vary but the claim made is always that our intellectual software will inevitably sabotage any Marxist project somehow. I don’t want to argue the merit of these arguments, but those are the arguments I have encountered.
I have not read Marx at any length–only brief snippets in college–but the supporting quotes used here seem to refer more to basic capacities, e.g. the ability to imagine, or tool/technology use. Or to the human condition as imposed by material circumstances, e.g. needing to work to live. In at least one case it appears to refer to the personality of the individual as expressed or realized through creative works, but the quotes do not (as I read them) refer to any complex behavioral tendencies which might be true of the species as a whole. This is not to say that Marx did not believe in complex human social instincts, only that these quotes do not support that conclusion. The author and Scott are talking about different things while using the same word.
Cards on the table: I’m not a rationalist, more of a vaguely-sympathetic-in-some-respects fellow-traveler who reads some rationalist stuff but tends to skim a lot when they get long-winded or talk about AI. I come here now and then because it feels healthy to get a different perspective.