Marxism, Biology, Vitalism

Just as Smith conceives humans as distinguished from other animals by a propensity to barter, for Marx, it is manufacturing processes that specifies the race. Hence, Biology is the general category of Economic activity in both cases, as well as the ground of their differentiation. Similarly, as distinguished from the traditional concept of it as inert, Marx's concept of Matter is as inherently animated, and, hence, as Biological substance, i. e. Dialectical Materialism is a Biological principle. Finally, by accordingly defining the human species as Homo Faber, as opposed to the traditional Homo Sapiens, Marx implicitly attributes Labor to it as its universal characteristic, from which his thesis that the Proletariat is the universal class easily follows. So, since, Biological concepts are at the heart of Marxism, some variety of Vitalism is an immanent principle in it, and is not an extrinsic interpretation superimposed on it.

Negation and Growth

As has been previously discussed, Dialectical Materialism can be interpreted as either a totalizing process, or as a negating process, from which it follows that Marxism can be interpreted as fundamentally promoting either Socialism, or Revolution. Now, on the basis of Marx's formulation that the purpose of Philosophy is to "change" the world, it is the latter of each of those two alternatives that is the correct interpretation of his doctrine. Accordingly, Dialectical Materialism can be classified as a Vitalist principle, with Negation equivalent to Growth, and social antagonisms as growing pains. It therefore follows that in revolutionary action, dehumanization of Capitalists is to be avoided. Now, if a Marxist disapproves of that consequence, then the structure of Dialectical Materialism and Marx's own words might need to be modified.

Dialectics, Revolution, Motivation

A Dialectical principle is often conceived as a totalizing process, with Synthesis as, if not its telos, its privileged moment. But, Synthesis is equivalent in the Logic to a Negation of a Negation, thereby indicating that it is fundamentally a negating process, an interpretation implicit in Hegel's classification of it as "negative reason", as well as, more recently, explicit in the systems of Sartre and Adorno. Now, the uncertainty bears upon the application of Dialectical Materialism to the Revolutionary process, and, in particular, to the motivation of a member of the Proletariat to initiate action--whether it as a means to Socialist totalization of Capitalist antagonisms, or is an end-in-itself, with Socialism only a temporary stage of development, itself subject to eventual negation. In other words, it is uncertain in Marxism whether what motivates a worker to revolt is the prospect of Socialist solidarity, or is change for its own sake. In any case, the motivation for change cannot be merely to lessen suffering or improve working conditions, each of which expresses a presumably, according to Marx-Engels, superseded Egoist principle.

Psychology and Revolution

According to the Materialist concept of Psychology, behavioral pattern is a function of external conditions, beginning with the prevailing means of production. Thus, for example, Selfishness is a reflection of Private Property, whereas Collective Consciousness reflects the collectivization of the Means of Production. However, in Marxism, that concept is itself implicitly a reflection of Capitalist conditions, an expression of the "natural" passivity of the Individual. In other words, the psychological negation of extant conditions that sparks revolutionary action is, at the same time, a negation of that concept of Psychology, a transformation that Marx-Engels do not seem to explain.

Laissez-Faire and Freedom

The term 'laissez-faire' is commonly conceived to connote individual freedom in a Capitalist system. However, to the contrary, it is an expression of submission in it. For, as can be observed when it is usually invoked, it is in response to some potential government action the target of which is a perceived ill, such as income inequality, toxic industrial waste products, etc., i. e. the response is to let 'market forces' correct any problem. In other words, "laissez-faire" is invoked to protect specifically those forces, in order to let them correct the problem themselves, a prescription deriving from Smith's principle that an individual pursue only self-interest, and let the invisible Hand take care of other problems. In other words, the fundamental principle of Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the submission of individuals to market forces, a submission from which Socialism is a liberation.

Public Use and Private Property

As has been previously proposed, the abolition of private property can be analyzed as the elimination of exclusive use. Hence, a familiar example of a Socialist society is a public library, which, thus, exhibits one of the advantages of that system over Capitalism--more efficient disposition of resources. For, in a public library, unlike in a private collection, a wanted book will not linger unread on a shelf. Likewise, where there is equal access to resources, the sometimes grotesque contemporaneity of excess and deficiency in a society, e. g. wasting food and hunger, multiple residences and homelessness, etc., can be, first, recognized as a problem, and, second, rectified. So, the example of the public library is available to the Socialist as part of a Public Use vs. Private Property argument against Capitalism.

Property and Use

Marx-Engels offer as a definition of "property": "power of disposing of", with the subsequent implicit definition of 'private' as 'exclusive'. But, 'power' and 'exclusive' are both abstract concepts, and 'disposal' is a special case of 'use'. So, understanding Private Property as Exclusive Use, the abolition of Private Property, i. e. the fundamental principle of Socialism, consists not only in the elimination of exclusivity of usage, but also in exposing Use as the concrete process underlying any concept of Property. Accordingly, that exposure is one of the fundamental features of the transition from Capitalism to Socialism, even if Marx-Engels do not explicitly recognize it as such.