----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Against the thesis that Marx has no conception of innate human nature, it could be useful
to consider what he says about Bentham:
 
"To know what is useful for a dog, one must investigate the nature of dogs. This nature is
not itself deducible from the principle of utility. Applying to this man, he that would
judge all human acts, movements, relations, etc. according to the principle of utility
would have first to deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as
historically modified in each epoch. Bentham does not trouble himself with this. With the
driest naivete he assumes that the modern petty-bourgeois, is the normal man." (Capital,
I, Penguin ed., p. 758)
 
This distinction between "human nature in general", and "human nature as historically
modified in each epoch", in my view, is a key to understand Marx's notion of human nature.
 
Huseyin Ozel 
Hacettepe University 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]