Talk:Marx's theory of human nature

message: Gattungswesen is not identical to human nature, and Marx of course criticized the conception of an eternal and universal human nature (concerning reversal of recent edits). Regards, Santa Sangre 22:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, you can't extrapolate from Norman Geras' book (no matter how good it is) and claim that's all that can be said. It is not generally admitted that Marx conceived of an eternal & universal nature! Santa Sangre 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems like a better title for this article would be "Marx's theory on species-being" or "on gattungswesen", although I'd be inclined to go with the english translation, since this is an english site, and that is the translation that is most likely to be searched.AnieHall (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gattungswesen 

message: I removed this paragraph from the "Humans as free, purposive producers" section:
Can Marx's claims be substantiated? Allen Wood wrote that 'Marx gives no real argument for identifying labour or production as the most basic or essential human function' but that ‘human history (on Marx’s theory) is best made intelligible in terms of [the assumption that there is something such as] the fundamental human aspiration to develop and exercise the productive powers of society.  Consequently, we have good evidence for regarding this as the fundamental or chief human good’. This claim seems to rely on the premise that the expansion of the productive forces in history can be attributed to the creative nature of humans.  It's debatable whether this characterisation should be allowed though - see the below section on historical materialism.  However, many of Marx's contentions are fairly strong intuitions for many people.  It does seem to be characteristic of humans to make plans for what they build and what they do.  And it does seem that humans do have a tendency to create which transcends the manufacture of what is necessary for survival.
It seemed to me that this was more critical analysis/discussion than encyclopaedic explanation, so I was bold and took it out. I was a little unsure about removing such a large block of text, however, so I'm putting this here. --superioridad (discusión) 02:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed text 

message: This reads like an essay, not a bad one, but not an encyclopedic article. It needs to be more inclusive of a variety of opinions (and not just in a polemical way).--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: opinions such as?AnieHall (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay 

message: During my search on Marx's work, I stumbled on this essay, which looks like a complete copy of the article. I am unsure as to which one came first, but someone mentionned the essay format of the article, so I figured I would point it out. I'm not sure what to make of this, any idea?
66.130.19.93 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I looked at the essay, and they are for the most part the same. but the wikipedia article is older than the essay. it looks more like this article was copied and posted on that website, perhaps by the main author? tough to say.AnieHall (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: on closer inspection, at the bottom of the above link, it provides the link to the Wikipedia page that it is from.AnieHall (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay stolen? 

message: Remarkable fact that the editors have neglected to discuss  Marx's doctoral dissertation, where Marx presents his first appreciation of the concept of nature.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marx's theory of human nature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615025735/http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-a.html to http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-a.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130110083614/http://media.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/DSS/Marx/MARXW3.HTML to http://media.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/dss/Marx/MARXW3.HTML
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is the evidence this text is authored by Marx? This is unsourced Hugeprostate (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Russian Loan 

message: According to David Ruccio, a transhistorical concept of "human nature" would be eschewed by Marx who wouldn't accept any transhistorical or transcultural "human nature." much in the same way as in Marxian critique of political economy.
That extra dot has been here forever, indicating that no-one has ever properly reviewed this old contribution. 
See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marx's_theory_of_human_nature&oldid=1045409701 — from 20 September 2021
Not being much of a Marxist, I don't understand this assertion. It's not clear whether Ruccio is a source we should be giving this much prominence. I don't know why we've wandered into a sideline about "transhistoricism" whatever that might possibly be. I have no idea what "much in the same way" is intended to convey, as I have no mental reference on 'sameness' in this discipline. 
All this leads me to doubt this should be in the lead at all, but clearly I'm unfit to judge, since I came here to learn from the page, rather than critique it from a lofty pre-understanding. — MaxEnt 20:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Ruccio moved from article