----------------- 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]