Will to Power, Dialectical Materialism, Socialism

The concept of a 'second nature' entails that of a transition from a 'first nature', one which, as the intentional acquisition of any new skills evinces, is deliberate.  Hence, underlying the two 'natures' is a more fundamental process, which Nietzsche calls Self-Overcoming.  But, Self-Overcoming is one manifestation of Will to Power.  So, insofar as Marxist Revolution consists in a transition to a second nature, as has been previously discussed, it can be attributed to the Will to Power, which is consistent with Trotsky's formulations, and avoids the difficulties entailed in deriving Socialism from Dialectical Materialism, e. g. the conflict between Necessity and Voluntary.

Socialism, Second Nature, Technology

Since what Human Nature is has long been in dispute, so, too, is what a Second Nature constitutes unsettled.  However, since the use of tools is unarguably an acquired activity, it seems difficult to deny that Technology is part of any Second Nature of Humans.  Now, according to Marx, Technology is what differentiates the Human species from all others.  Thus, Marxist Socialism is a Second Nature doctrine.  In contrast, Capitalism is not, not so much because Technology is not an essential factor in it, but because one of its essential features, the Invisible Hand, is conceived as independent of Human artifice.  Furthermore, that concept of Socialism functions as a means to the organization of society.  Hence, it is part of the Technology that constructs that organization, not a mere Nominalist characterization of it.

Socialism, Superman, Will to Power

In 'On the Philosophy of the Superman', Trotsky strongly opposes Nietzsche's concept, on the grounds of its privileging Individuality.  However, that judgment is significantly complicated by the passage from Their Morals and Ours that has been previously discussed.  For, his characteristization, in the latter work, of a Human "power" over Nature, that includes that over the natural "power" of one human over another, plainly expresses an adoption of Nietzsche's Will to Power principle.  He thereby diverges from traditional Marxist analysis, by attributing Capitalist exploitation as for its own sake, not as a means to economic profit.  He also extends the principle in a direction that is generally unconsidered by Nietzsche.  For, he ascribes power over Nature to the species, not to an individual, thereby entertaining the possibility of the former as possessing a Will to Power of its own, which Nietzsche never seems to do.  Similarly, therefore, the Superman can be interpreted as the species with respect to individual humans, and, hence, as equivalent to the Dionysian principle.  Thus, Trotsky shows, wittingly or not, how Socialism can be derived from the Will to Power, or, in other words, that Marxism intersects with Nietzsche's doctrine.

Nature and Second Nature

While the expression 'second nature' has no precise definition, at minimum, it connotes a transcendence of a 'nature' that is not necessarily incorporeal.  Now, in a pivotal passage in the Philosophy of Right, Hegel uses the term to characterize the relation of Will to Mind, i. e. the actualization of the freedom of the latter in the former.  So, Marx is plainly familiar with a concept of a Second Nature, and while he might not accept the implied characterization of incorporeal Mind as 'natural', there would be no such problem in adopting the contrast to Materialism.  So, the transcendence of 'nature' by voluntsry activity, in the German Ideology, and by a "power", in Trotsky's Their Morality and Ours, can be explained as a Second Nature, though the status of Dialectical Materialism in the immanent Dualism remains unclear, i. e. insofar as it precludes the exercise of Free Will, it, too, is transcended by the Second Nature.

Nature, Humans, Power

As has been previously discussed, Trotsky's conjoined goals of Socialism--the promotion of the power of humans over Nature, and the elimination of the power of humans over humans--appear to conflict, insofar as humans are part of Nature.  Now, an alternative interpretation of his formulation is suggested by passages from the German Ideology, in which intra-human exploitation is classified as "natural", and is overcome in a communist society.  On that basis, the power over Nature, expressed in the first clause, consists in the power over intra-human exploitation.  However, that interpretation requires the existence of a super-Natural power, e. g. Kantian Reason, though there is no evidence in any of the cardinal Marxist literature of the kind of systematic Philosophical exposition that would adequately explain the dualistic relation between such a super-Nature and Dialectal Materialism.

Technology, History, Weaponry

While Marxists conceive Technology as integral to the emergence of Socialism, they do not explain how the history of Technology coincides with the history of Economic relations.  Now, the Means of Production is not the only aspect of society that is influenced by Technology.  Communication is, too, i. e. Gutenberg's invention has plainly helped shape society, without any obvious derivation from Economic relations.  But, a perhaps more decisive impact of Technology on the course of human history, beginning with the necessity of its adequacy if a Revolution is to succeed, is weaponry, a topic absent from Marxist analyses of the transition from Capitalism to Socialism.  Especially troublesome to a Marxist theory of History is the apparent defeat of the Soviet Union by the U. S., because of its military inferiority.  But, even granting Communism a more favorable outcome of the Cold War, confirmation of Trotsky's thesis, that technological progress conduces to the ascendance of Socialism, requires a more rigorous, generalizable, derivation of that result, from Einstein's moment of inspiration regarding the relation of Energy and Matter, via its application to the development of nuclear weaponry, in the forefront of which has been the U. S.

Socialism, Nature, Humans

As has been previously discussed, Trotsky, reflecting the essentiality to it of technological development, characterizes Socialism as constituted by both a progressive power of Humans over Nature, and the abolition of the power of humans over humans.  However, he does not recognize the potential contradiction between the two that is made explicit by the introduction of the unarguable proposition that humans are part of Nature.  Furthermore, that all the parts of Nature are systematically related makes difficult a modification of the first clause that would decisively distinguish Human Nature from non-Human Nature.  That difficulty has been repeatedly illustrated by the adverse consequences of technological development on vital environmental features such as air, water, and climate, which are independent of Economic distinctions, as their occurrences in the U. S., Chernobyl, and the atmosphere of China, alike, demonstrates.  Nor, given the role of Technology in the concept of Marxist Socialism, can Trotsky simply jettison that clause.  Instead, the proposition can be respected as instructive--that in a Naturalist concept of Socialism, Economics cannot be isolated from Ecology.