Nature and Privatization

In the first paragraph of 'Private Property and Communism', Marx and Engels equate Private Property and Division of Labor, and by classifying them as "natural", apparently oppose Rousseau's concept of Nature. On the other hand, in the next paragraph, they posit that a "communal interest" that exists "first of all in reality", undergoes a "cleavage" of individual interest from general interest "as soon as" privatization occurs. Now, "as soon as" implies that what they call "natural" is subsequent to an initial condition that Rousseau calls "natural". So, there is a confusion in these passages that could benefit from a standard methodical treatment that includes a definition of 'nature', and an explanation of how that concept relates to Rousseau's.

Natural and Involuntary

According to Marx and Engels, the father-mother-child arrangement constitutes a basic 'natural' association. Furthermore, their 'natural'-'voluntary' antithesis implies that 'natural' = 'involuntary'. But, if so, then they have no way of distinguishing the involuntariness of the existence and the behavior of the baby, from the conduct of the parents. Likewise, on their proposed generalization, they have no way of distinguishing the involuntariness of the subservient classes in a pre-Communist, i. e. 'natural', society, from that of their bosses. So, at the outset of their methodical presentation of the distinction between Capitalism and Socialism, disambiguating definitions of key terms such as 'nature' and 'voluntary', each of which have a complicated history, might serve them better than the dubious, as has been previously discussed, characterization of one concept of the nuclear family as 'natural'.

Natural Society and Voluntary Society

Since the primary theme of Marxism is the transition from Capitalism to Socialism, the section of the German Ideology titled 'Private Property and Communism' presents the foundation of the doctrine. Thus, the very briefly introduced antithesis in the section--natural society vs. voluntary society--is a fundamental principle of the doctrine. However, as has been previously discussed, the example of a 'natural' association that Marx and Engels offer, the nuclear family, is dubiously characterized as such. Hence, the proposed contrast with a 'voluntary' society is equally dubious. So, their methodical development of a 'Scientific' Socialism begins on unsettled ground.

Division of Labor and Nature

The proposition, in the German Ideology, that Division in Labor, in general, "is based on the natural division of labor in the family", contains a potentially significant problem for Marxism. For, the biochemical interactions and animal instincts that constitute natural reproductive and child-rearing processes are independent of the exploitative social relations of father, mother, and child, that Marx and Engels attribute to them. Thus, by their own proposed generalization, so, too, is the Division of Labor in Capitalism a distortion of natural associations, and a similar argument can be made regarding Class distinctions. Accordingly, Socialism, while transcending private property, does not necessarily dispense with a Division of Labor or Class distinction, despite what they propose in the section 'Private Property and Communism', but as is implied by the later formulation, "From each according to his abilities". Also, the mistaking of the immediately observable for "natural" in the family constitutes a lapse of an otherwise usually careful method concerning social phenomena.

Materialism and Family

In the German Ideology, Marx and Engels tersely posit that one of the products of sexual reproduction is the Family, which entails a division of labor in which mother and child are "slaves" of the "husband", and which, therefore, consists in a fundamental instance of exploitation. However, this hasty formulation is problematic in several respects. First, the process by which 2 becomes 3 is distinct from that in which 3 becomes a 'family', the contingency of which is proven by examples, in some species, of one of the progenitors departing after the original intercourse. Second, the use of the term 'husband' connotes a conventional role, not a natural one. Third, the existence of matriarchal societies refutes any contention that if there is by nature a dominant member of a family, it is the male. Fourth, a division of labor in the act of insemination is prenatal, as is the subsequent labor process. Now, none of these errors undermines the proposition that the family in the German society of 1845 is exploitative. But, it does not follow that it is so 'by nature', as the presentation seems to contend, nor that a more methodically developed Materialist concept of the family might begin with the proposition that sexual intercourse is constituted by a complementary division of labor.

Reproduction and Socialism

Marx and Engels use 'reproduction' not only in its usual sexual sense, but also to characterise the day-to-day replenishment of an individual via nourishment, rest, etc. Thus, writ both larger and smaller, Reproduction is the general principle of continuity for the species and its members. Accordingly, insofar as any Means of Production is a means to the goods that ensure daily replenishment, it is also a Means of Reproduction. So, Reproduction is the Materialist counter to Idealist principles of History, e. g. Christian Messianism. However, it is also usually characterized as a survival instinct, e. g. as the Will to Live. Thus, the positing of Socialism as a goal of the Materialist concept of History requires a justification on survivalist grounds, which Marx and Engels do not seem to provide.

Reproduction, Synthesis, Materialism

To follow Marx's and Engel's own method of the observation of the concrete facts of human existence, the first "condition" of History, prior to, not, as they contend, simultaneous with, production within one life-span, is plainly sexual reproduction. For, without a succession of generations, History is mere biography. Now, one of the moments of the Dialectic is Synthesis, and if there is any moment in human History that plainly evinces the combination of two separate moments, it is the birth of a new member of the species. But, even in the interpretation of the relation between the two prior elements, i. e. a man and a woman, as a adversarial, the interaction that is productive is one of complementarity, not one of antithesis. Accordingly, in a rigorously developed concept of Dialectical Materialism, Hegelian Antithesis is supplanted by Complementarity. Likewise, the process in which a conflict of classes is resolved into Socialism does not exemplify Dialectical Materialism.