The article is an updated version of a handout distributed at the University of Turku's
social science research network KULTVA seminar
Feminist Encounters with Marxism: Past, Present, Future
17-18 September 2024, University of Turku
Marketta Horn, PhD in World Politics, http://dissidentti.org/
Semantic Analysis of Soviet Marxist Language (1992)
The Eco-erotic Revolution (1998).
Four Basic Pillars: Nourishment, Protection, Reproduction, Holiness (permaculture, ecovillage, tantra, quantum spirituality) (2024)
Marx and Alienation from Nature and
Fellow Human Beings
Introduction to Marx’s Philosophical Thoughts in the Context of Feminism and Alienation
Basic Instincts and Fundamental Division of Labor
Mode of Production and Human Interaction
Marx’s Views on Humanity and Connection to Nature
Biological Reproduction as a Historical Construct
Technological Progress and Human Consciousness
Sexual Instinct and Market Economy
Ideal Society of the Future
Counter-philosophie to Alienation: Erotica as Liberation
Concluding remarks , Rethinking Essential Needs and Production Goals:
Alienation, when man no longer recognizes his own place in the cycle of life
Basic needs (instincts) for human existence: food, shelter, biological reproduction
Fundamental division of labor: based on physical characteristics of a woman and a man
Sexual instinct in the market economy: desire, greed, pleasure - the consumer body and mind
Marx and the quantum physics: universe as a deeply interconnected system
How to get rid of alienation? Communes, ecovillages, erotica
Questions to think about
In Capital, published in the 1880s, Karl Marx identified systemic issues within capitalism, by explaining and criticizing its structure, especially its effects on labor, alienation, and human relationships, particularly the exploitation inherent in the division of labor and the accumulation of capital by a few at the expense of the many. Yet, over 30 years earlier, he released Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), in which he pondered the fundamental questions of human life, alienation, and the three basic human instincts that are common to the continuity of all species. Alienation and reproductive instinct are the subjects of interest in this article.
According to Marx, alienation begins when individuals in industrialized society, due to the capitalist mode of production, lose a sense of connection to their work and the products they create, as well as to other people. People also lose their connection to the cycle of nature and ultimately from their own humanity.
Marx discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark.(Engels at Marx’s grave 1883)
Marx found out, that there are the structural laws according to which capitalism develops. The exploitation of the wage worker produces added value, profit for the owner, which leads to accumulation of his capital. The bigger the industrial reserve army, the more wages can be trampled on. At the same time capital is concentrated into monopolies and the power of the poor decreases and alienation increases. Labor becomes a commodity, and humans are reduced to mere instruments of production.
Alienation
is
the state or experience of being isolated from an activity to which
one should belong or in which one should be involved and
from a group.
This alienation goes beyond the workplace, deeply impacting
relationships with fellow human beings. People’s
relationships are influenced by capitalist norms, which prioritize
productivity and consumption over genuine connection and fulfillment.
Alienation
expands
on deeper social and existential dimensions, such as
on
family, relationships, and identity. The concept of alienation also
holds relevance for modern feminist discourse, particularly
concerning gender roles and the commodification of sexuality.
Alienation, once rooted primarily in labor, is no longer just about labor exploitation or economic inequality—it also manifests in mental health issues and existential crises, as individuals are increasingly detached from meaningful work and purpose. It has evolved from a separation from one’s labor to a separation from one’s essence and a feeling of emptiness despite constant consumption. In this environment, people search for purpose and connection but find that capitalism exploits even those fundamental desires, turning human needs into marketable goods. In contemporary capitalist society, much of this alienation is tied to consumption, validation, and the constant pursuit of status.
What role can technology play in reducing alienation rather than exacerbating it? How can modern societies reintegrate human activities into the natural cycles without regressing to pre-industrial ways of life?
In his writings, Marx emphasized the distinctiveness of each "historical period". What would be Marx's message for today? While at the beginning of the century Marx's thinking about surplus value and exploitation awakened the workers, the Marxist spirit of this time can be found, in my understanding, in his studies of alienation. Marx did foresee the sensitivity and destruction of nature at the hands of the capitalist, but not yet the sensitivity and depression of the human mind. Nor did he foresee how powerfully the economic life, which is always looking for new markets, has taken over the human being and distorted even the human sexual drive to its own needs for profit.
I have been particularly puzzled by the third basic human instinct. The reproductive instinct is as strong an instinctual need for human survival as obtaining food and seeking shelter. Marx left the solution outside of his sharp theories. And he himself did not set a good example in raising this basic human drive to a higher level. When he, as the father of a large family, was in dire need of money, he applied for a clerk's job in an English port. He was rejected due to poor handwriting and the misery was topped off by the fact that he had by fathering a child with their household servant. (“An ironic slice of life about how revolutionaries can exploit the proletariat, and are human, all-too-human, too.” Michael Brindley, in biography written by sociologist Anitra Nelson)
How might Marx have addressed the commodification of human intimacy as a core biological need? On a fundamental level, there is a biological impulse toward reproduction, driven by evolutionary imperatives that emphasize survival and continuity of the species. However, this drive is complex, interwoven with many phases and areas of life. The decision to bring a new life into the world, to have child, has been regulated or sanctioned by government and religion. How does the current economic system regulate or sanction the sexuality? How does it take advantage of this instinct?
As a young philosopher, Marx sat down at his desk with his hand on his forehead and sought a solution to human survival, the essentials of human existence: “What is necessary for life? What is the basis for human existence, what grounds human existence?” He concluded: "In order to live and exist daily and hour by hour, man needs food. Second, he must protect himself from the cold and rain. Thirdly, the person has to multiply." Man must reproduce (Homines fame, frigore et libidine coguntur, Ihmisiä pakottaa liikkeelle nälkä, kylmyys ja kiima). The instinct of copulation is as essential to humanity’s survival as food and shelter. Without reproduction, future generations would cease to exist. No one will be here in 80 years.
Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.(Engels on Marx grave)
After examining these three basic instincts from different perspectives, Marx came to the following conclusion: Food and shelter are the primary needs of human life. Therefore, how individuals meet these instincts defines their daily lives and interactions.
The reproductive instinct, although as strong as the drives for food and shelter, was neglected in his theories. How the intimate relationship between a man and a woman, which is necessary for reproduction, comes about? However, both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels recognized the relationship between men and women as an early form of exploitation.
At first, the division of labor was the same as what occurs in sexual intercourse, that is, what corresponds to natural bodily tendencies (for example, the strength of the body), needs, accidents, etc., etc.
Marx's friend Friedrich Engels expanded the physical difference between men and women into a social difference, where some people take advantage of others:
The origin of the class division lies in the difference between men and women, women have belonged to the abused and men to the abusers even before there was any other division between people.
The patriarchal family structure as the first site of oppression laid the foundation for a society where power dynamics were based not only on physical differences (e.g., men and women performing different tasks due to their biological differences) but also on social roles and ownership of property. Under capitalism, this division is amplified and exploited, leading to rigid gender roles and hierarchies. However, Marx and Engels ignored the different role of men and women in the development of society.
In the mythic explanation the phallus is the central element in the organization of the social world. The patriarchal paradigm includes phallocentrism. A woman may have sexual intercourse at any time, but the man must be able to penetrate. Sociologist Irma Korte (1988) writes:
Phallus is naturally equated with tools, weapons and generally instruments with which to make or pierce something and with which to aim and penetrate something. The one who has a penis, hard and long, directed upwards, is able to influence the world in the form of statues and factories.
Marx and Engels focused in their studies on the ownership and on the exploitation. This raises questions: Why wasn't Marx interested in the division of labor that he described as "fundamental"? Why didn’t Marx delve into the natural tendencies and needs the different sexes have in shaping social roles? Why, even after these fathers of the revolution, no theory has emerged about how to develop society so that the characteristic features of both men, women and everyone come differently, but with equality to the fore? What would a balanced society that values both male and female characteristics look like? Would a woman implement production technology in a different way compared to a man?
Much like Siddhartha Gautama in ancient India, Marx sought to understand human suffering and alienation. Both thinkers identified for the cause of suffering on different levels but came to the same conclusion: alienation as a core cause of suffering. Man surrenders and no longer recognizes his own place and loses his connection to life’s natural cycle. And man mourns things of no consequnce, seeks happiness in vanities, becomes preoccupied with trivial concerns.
Marx argued that the mode of production shapes human interaction and social relationships, influencing the structure of relationships within society. When working, people interact with each other, and thus mode of production determines how communication and social relations between people occurs. He saw economic relations as more fundamental than religious or political ideologies. Marx writes:
Production is a historical act, a precondition of all history, which must be fulfilled in order for man to survive at all. In writing history, one must first understand this basic fact comprehensively and give it value. No political or religious nonsense is needed for that.
According to Marx material processes related to production and the economy shape other institutions of society. People place themselves in relations of production in a way that corresponds to the level of development of the productive forces. Society acquires a superstructure, which refers to institutions other than those directly related to production and the economy like religion and culture. Marx sees technology and other productive forces as essential link between man and the environment.
The production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.
The forces of production are constantly developing throughout history. When they develop beyond the actual needs, social problems begin to arise. The ruling class controls the existing form of production, but the developing forces of production increase the power of the class that rises up against the ruling class. Marx says: "The whole history of society until now has been the history of class struggles."
In Marx's view, the satisfaction of basic needs, i.e. the way in which basic needs are acquired and the tools that are created for them, create new needs. Creating new needs is the first actual historical act. Finnish sociologist Erik Allardt would later expand upon well-being to include "having," "doing," "loving," and "being," categories that arguably encompass the reproductive and emotional aspects Marx neglected.
In Germany, a secular (religiously neutral) and material view of history was not traditionally accepted. This suggests that many German thinkers saw the understanding of history as related to philosophical or religious principles, and not simply to a chronological and sensory description of events. Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) addresses how humans come to know and interpret the world. Transcendental idealism in Kant's theory of knowledge claims that humans never reach reality as it really is, but only as it appears through five senses, procedural knowledge and emotional reactions. Humans never have direct access to things-in-themselves, or the reality beyond the sensory experiences, which the mind interprets according to what he has experienced and felt in a particular place at a particular moment and in cause-and-effect relationships. Kant’s philosophy emphasizes the active role of the mind in constructing reality as is known.
In other words, a person does not see the world as it is, but as his own mind organizes it. In contrast to Marx's "historical materialism", in Kant's philosophy reality is not just a reflection of the external world, but the mind creates and constructs reality. This idea challenged many previous views and had a broad influence on Western philosophy.
Marx's thinking in Prussia of his time was revolutionary, because the prevailing understanding of man and society at that time was based on the Biblical account of creation. And then, in contrast to the "dreams of idealists" and the abstract concepts (Kant), Marx bases his own thinking on tangible, real premises. First, in order for people to be able to make history at all, they must be alive. In order to stay alive, people must satisfy their needs. That is why people produce the means of survival. People do not do this in a haphazard way, but rather they reproduce the means of livelihood found around them. This way of getting by and surviving is therefore determined by the conditions set by the environment and determines the mode of production of the entire society as well as the lives of individuals.
A seemingly simple statement. However, before Marx, the attention of historians focused on ideas, ideas - always new ideas, the discovery of an absolute idea, world reason, self-awareness or the achievements of great men. Not on mode of production.
Young Marx paid close attention to historical modes of production, how production has been organized in different eras and who has had the power to determine the work processes and working time, i.e. who owns the means of production. He noticed that during written history there have been three different ways of making a living: in ancient times, slave labor, then feudal society (in Finland, the crofter system) and in his own time, in the 19th century, capitalist, or wage labor society. In slave labor, surplus labor is the portion of a slave's production that the slaver keeps for himself after having used the portion necessary for the slave's maintenance, while in capitalism, surplus labor appears as profit from the investment of capital obtained through the sale of products. Marx argued that these economic base (the mode of production and the relations of production) determines the superstructure (laws, politics, culture, and ideology) of any given society.
In a capitalist society, relationships between people become transactional, reducing interactions to economic exchanges rather than genuine human connections. Workers are pitted against each other in competition, undermining solidarity and mutual support. This alienation from others leads to isolation and an erosion of community, as individuals are disconnected from shared goals and struggles, he is faced with exclusion and lack of life control (suomeksi syrjäytyminen ja elämänhallinnan puute). Human relationships are transformed by the pressures of economic survival, resulting in social fragmentation and loneliness. Marx writes:
By selling himself and his time to the employer, a person begins to feel separate and outsider in what he does. Capitalism distorts natural human relationships for profit.
But the relationship that determines history is also how people begin to create new people, reproduce - the relationship between man and woman, the relationship between parents and children, the family. In the beginning, the family is the only social relationship, which in turn gives rise to new social relationships, just as the population growth creates new needs.
For Marx, human labor is a process through which humans mediate, regulate, and control the material exchanges with nature. Marx viewed nature not just as a resource to be exploited but as an essential part of human existence. He extended his critique of capitalism to the human relationship with nature and argued that in a capitalist society, people’s engagement with nature is distorted through ownership and commodification. This perspective laid the groundwork for an ecological critique of capitalism. In Marx's socio-political theory, his understanding of the inseparable connection between society and nature comes out clearly. Marx writes:
Man lives with the help of nature. This means: nature is the body of man, with which he must remain in constant interaction in order to live. When a person's physical and mental life is in constant interaction with nature, it only means that nature is interacting with itself. Because man is part of nature.
When opposing exploitation, Karl Marx disapproved of how one person uses another person's work and time for his own benefit, but he also disapproved the exploitation of nature. In Capital, he writes:
The whole development in capitalist agriculture shows, firstly, how the farmer is robbed, and secondly, how the land is robbed. Therefore, increasing productivity means also advancing on the road to destruction. It is the destruction of the durable foundation that guarantees fertility. Production based on capitalism only develops the kind of technology that allows it to connect the most diverse production processes in society. At the same time, capitalism buries the sources of wealth: the land and the worker.
Friedrich Engels blamed sector blindness on natural science already practiced in the years 1500-1700:
Dividing nature into different sectors and events and grouping different natural objects into specific categories and studying living things and their operating principles have led to gigantic progress... But they have also led to us treating natural objects and natural phenomena as separate, disconnected from the great overall community: after all, nature is not in motion but in a dormant state, it would not always change but would remain constant, nature would not be alive but dead.
In Capital, Marx also reflected that capital is so indifferent to the fate of workers and the whole of humanity that its motto seems to be "apres moi de deluge" - after me the deluge. He wrote about the pollution of urban environments and the resulting health hazards, as well as the decrease in soil fertility, the thinning of forests and desertification.
According to Marx, the capitalist land rental and interest system have so completely detached the landowner from the land that he doesn't even need to know his possessions:
The advances in agriculture under capitalism are both advances in the art of exploiting the worker and in the art of exploiting the land. Cultivation, if it proceeds by natural forces and not consciously controlled, leaves behind deserts.
Marx was convinced that, unlike other creatures, man can be aware of the laws of nature and apply them in the right way. Work means a process between man and nature, where man with his actions "mediates, directs and controls the exchange of materials between himself and nature". This is how man affects nature outside of himself, and when he changes it, he changes his own nature at the same time.
Marx saw the perverse consequences of urbanization in the same way as contemporary researchers:
Urbanization disrupts the exchange of materials between man and the earth, i.e. the return of the earth's ingredients that man has consumed in his food and clothing, thus breaking the eternal and natural condition of permanent fertility... In London, the capitalist economy can do nothing more with the excreta of four million people than to use them at enormous expense to pollute the Thames.
Humans are part of the natural world, yet industrial capitalism disrupts this symbiotic relationship. Alienation from nature manifests in exploitation of natural resources, destruction of ecosystems, and loss of understanding of humanity's place in the cycle of life.
Marx observed that capitalism disrupts the symbiotic relationship between humans and nature, treating the natural world as an exploitable resource rather than a shared ecosystem. This disconnection is driven by an economic model that prioritizes profit and productivity over environmental sustainability. As a result, nature becomes something to dominate and extract from, leading to environmental degradation and a loss of harmony with the natural world. Humans, alienated from the environment, begin to lose a sense of belonging to it, fostering a cycle of exploitation that disregards ecological balance.
Marx also had a solution for waste reduction and utilization:
Only by merging the city and the countryside can the current poisoning of the air, water and land be eliminated, only in this way will the masses of people who are now suffering in the city reach a state where their excrement will turn into producers of plants, when they are now the causes of disease.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels considered both family, private property and the origin of the state to be different sides of the same coin, as facets of a single social construct. Engels writes:
A monogamous family is based on the dominance of the man and means the begetting of children to be undeniably descended from the father. Since monogamy arose for economic reasons, will it disappear when those reasons disappear? It will be resolved when a new generation has grown up, a male generation who has never had the opportunity in their life to buy a woman's surrender with money or other state means, and a female generation who has never had to surrender for any motive other than true love for a man, nor to refuse to surrender to a loved one due to the financial consequences out of fear. (1886)
At that time, monogamy and inheritance advantages gave rise to strict sexual morality. The inheritance did not go to the woman, but only to the children acknowledged by the man. Fathers found spouses for their daughters. The man dictated the woman's labor, sexuality and fertility. Marriage was institutionalized and became, above all, a steadfast part of the stability and order of the state. Unmarried heirs applied to become monks and nuns.
Biological reproduction, in particular, become tools for perpetuating class structures.
The change in a historical epoch can always be determined by the progress of women toward freedom, because in the relation of woman to man, of the weak to the strong, the victory of human nature over brutality is most evident. The degree of emancipation of woman is the natural measure of general emancipation. (The Holy Family, 1844)
Later Michel Foucault, a French philosopher, also discussed sexuality as a social construct, defined by society. Through the “repression hypothesis,” economic forces shape what is considered acceptable sexuality, perceptions of “normal” or “deviant” sexuality are defined by social forces which perpetuates and serve existing power hierarchies and support positions of power. According to Foucault even the most intimate desires are subject to social and economic control shaping individuals' perceptions of themselves, others and social roles. Foucault sees modern society as exploiting human sexuality for economic gain and control, ultimately reducing a fundamental human experience to an object of manipulation.
The third basic human instinct is the target of economic control and the use of power. This perspective aligns with Freud, Marcuse, and Reich, who also viewed sexuality as a means of social and economic control and as the engine of the development of state power. Each saw sexuality as suppressed and exploited by the capitalist system.
According to the Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud (1856.-.1939), the "genuine" truth of a person and human identity is found in his sexuality. It is a force that shapes not only individual lives but also social order. While Marx spoke of innate instincts, Freud used the word ”id” to describe a person's strictly unconscious structure of the psyke, fundamental needs. In Freud's words, the ego must mediate between the basic demands created by the libido as well as the standards imposed by the superego according the ideals and morals internalized from parents, authority figures, and society.
Herbert Marcuse's (1898 – 1979) ideas in the book Eros and Civilization, where Marcuse writes about the social meaning of biology – history is seen not as a class struggle, but fight against repression of human instincts. He argues that capitalism is preventing from reaching the non-repressive society "based on a fundamentally different experience of being, a fundamentally different relation between man and nature, and fundamentally different existential relations.
Austrian physician and psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich (1897 -1957) wrote about fascism as a mass psychology and in his book "Sexuality in the Cultural Struggle" he explained that sexuality is used as a tool of oppression for the youth of the post-war economic boom. The family is essential to the economic structure of capitalism because the capitalist benefits from the family unit through the wife's unpaid domestic work and care for the next generation. It is important for the dynamics of social oppression that different socioeconomic groups have different attitudes towards sex, its practices and psychosocial structures and beliefs.
Freud has been compared to Marx, with Freud's importance to psychiatry being as great as Marx's importance to economics. Both were addressing similar questions from different perspectives in explaining the forces that control human behavior: Freud emphasized internal psychological dynamics, Marx thought those forces were external and social. Their work is parallel because both gave frameworks to understand big, hidden systems that affects everyone's life—whether those are inside the head or in the society. Foucault 50 years later examines the socio-political systems that organize, regulate, and commodify sexuality on a mass scale.
Marx could have been quite an expert in the creation of both libido and state regulation. The third basic instinct presented Marx with a “mystical problem,” as he himself described it in a letter to Engels in 1851. Australian sociology professor Anitra Nelson brought up this public secret mysterious problem and addresses it in an ironic documentary written in the form of a play in 2009. The documentary describes how everyday problems in Marx’s life reflected the contradiction between ideal principles and practice. How much pain gender issues cause and how the socialist movement did not address them. Noble goals such as equality clashed with pragmatic and everyday demands, and even revolutionary men who sought to end the exploitation of the proletariat turned out to be human themselves, with their own weaknesses and contradictions.
In her documentary “Servant of the Revolution” (2009), Nelson explores the relationship between Karl Marx and the family servant Helene Demuth (Lenchen), which led to the birth of a son, Freddy Demuth. The 33-year-old Marx, then a father of four, wrote to Engels about this “mystery” and hinted at a plan in which he expected Engels to be involved. Freddy’s birth certificate listed the child’s father as “unknown,” but Engels, who was unmarried, officially took responsibility for the paternity. Perhaps the most difficult decision for Marx, since Marx's wife, Jenny Marx, had at the same time given birth to a baby, whom Marx lamented was a girl, not a boy. Freddy was given to a working-class family to raise. Engels, this “prophet of revolution and freedom,” appealed to “Victorian respectability” in preventing Lenchen from even meeting his son until he was an adult mechanic. According to Jenny's biographer Heinz Frederick Peters, "Jenny quietly accepted the 'menage à trios'. Jenny knows, but does not want to know.”
The writer Eleanor Marx, Karl Marx’s daughter, four years younger than Freddy, served as Marx’s personal secretary and later published the family correspondence that dealt with these events. Eleanor expressed sympathy for Freddy’s fate, noting that he had suffered great injustice in his life. In 1896, Eleanor introduced Freddy to Clara Zetkin at the Socialist Congress in London, calling him “my half-brother.” This, Nelson thought, reflected how the revolutionary movement was trying to balance the scandals of private life with its political goals.
(Marx's wife, Jenny Marx, referred to the same period in her own memoirs as a series of difficult worries. Jenny, who had just given birth to her fifth child in great poverty, was also grieving the deaths of two of her children..” Already when Jenny became pregnant, in August 1850, she visited a wealthy relative in Holland, Lion Philips - but he rejected her requests for money and advised that her husband should find work in America if necessary.
Lenchen had become Jenny's assistant in Trier at the age of nine due to difficult domestic circumstances and devoted herself to the Marx family throughout her life. Jenny and Marx's parents were friends and when the young people became secretly engaged against the will of both families, Lenchen had presumably acted as a spokesperson. In the spring of 1845, Jenny's mother sent Lenchen to help her daughter with her two small children, and Lenchen moved from country to country with them for 40 years.)
Friends called Lenche "the soul of the family", "the children's second mother". She had a "strong will", "what she deemed it necessary, it was done". According to the lawyer Karl Liebknecht, Jenny had the power, but Lenchen had the "dictatorship". Marx "submitted like a lamb to this dictatorship". Lenchen was so good at talking to Marx that his family members asked her to act as their messenger when no one else dared to go to Marx's "storming lion's den". However, all this did not protect her from the social consequences of childbirth or the imbalance of power that was revealed in the way her relationship with Marx was handled. It is aid that Marx fostered out Freddy because that is what most people in that situation would have done at the time – and because a public scandal about his family would undermine the work he was doing. He behaved in accordance with his class and the moral demands of the Victorian era.
The primitive, lowest-level society is "animal", says Marx. Human actions are closely tied to basic needs resembling animal instincts. But humans are aware of their instincts and can reflect on them, rather than merely acting on them. Marx writes:
Man stands out from the rams only because man has consciousness, possess self-awareness, in addition to instinct. The more developed society is, the better a person learns to be aware of his instincts and develops himself.
Marx also used the metaphor of "building the cells in his head before he builds them out of wax" to illustrate human labor as a conscious, creative act that sets humans apart from animals. Humans plan and conceptualize their actions before carrying them out. Labor is not just physical; it is a process of envisioning, designing, and thinking abstractly before acting. This imaginative capacity enables humans to transcend basic instincts and engage in creative, meaningful work. People move beyond basic instincts, gaining the ability to consciously reflect on and shape their behavior rather than acting purely on impulse.
Karl Marx explored the relationship between technological progress and human consciousness, the spiritual and intellectual development of man, suggesting that advancements in production impact not only how goods are made but also how people think, relate to one another, and understand the world. The more developed society is, the less time must be spent on producing food and shelter, on physical work, and the more a person himself develops and learns to become aware of life.
According to Marx, the materialist understanding of history means that the production of necessities for human life is the basis for all social structures. The mode of production determines social relations. Consciousness does not determine life, but life determines consciousness.
He saw technological progress as a double-edged sword: it has the potential to elevate human consciousness and intellectual development, but within capitalist structures, it often leads to new forms of alienation and exploitation. Under capitalism, this potential for development is distorted. The alienation experienced by workers who become disconnected from the products of their labor and the creative process itself stifle spiritual growth. Rather than realizing their potential, people are reduced to "cogs in a machine". Workers loos intellectual capacities that distinguish human work from mere mechanical activity, although human beings from their nature are not just passive recipients of their environment; they actively engage with and transform it through labor.
Marx viewed human independence and self-fulfillment, realization of individuality central to life with work being merely a means to this end. Personal experiences and creativity is the goal rather than a life devoted solely to production. That's why the "kingdom of freedom" should be the goal of governmental activity as well. Marx writes.
A person can only be independent when his relationship to the world as a person is humane. When he sees, hears, smells, tastes, feels, thinks, observes, wants, acts, loves, in short: strengthens and clearly brings out all the senses that make up his own self. Then he is not only free from something but free for something.
Marx believed that when a person realizes himself, he is also in perfect connection with his fellow humans and nature. Consuming increases a person's alienation from himself as well. The idea of "alienation" can be expanded to encompass the disconnection of humanity even from the cosmic order. Marx compared production and consumption to religion:
"The more the worker works, the grander becomes the alien, material world that he thus creates around him. The poorer he becomes himself, and his inner world, The less it belongs to him. The same principle works in religion as in productive life. The more a person puts his hope in God the less he hopes for himself. The worker spends his whole life producing objects. But then life does not belong to him but to the object. The more he toils, the more alienated he becomes, not only as a result of work, but in the work itself... and life itself begins to look like just a means of living. By selling himself and his time to the employer, a person begins to feel separate and outsider in what he does.
Marx saw evolution as a dialectical process in which science and conscious human action play a fundamental role. Man is only at the beginning of the development of awareness. Marx’s ideas link the development of consciousness and spirituality to his understanding of history, because dialectical materialistic realism considers the external world to be both material and spirit which is highly developed property of matter. The more science develops, the closer humanity gets to this essence of the world. Because everything in the world of reality is in motion, then logic must also reflect this motion. Formal logic cannot do that. Only dialectical logic is suitable the connection.
The alienation from nature mirrors the alienation from the self and others, as all are intertwined in the "metabolic" relationship between humans and the environment. The universe is a deeply interconnected system, echoing Marx's holistic view of society and nature. In this framework, alienation is not just a human condition but a disruption of the interconnected ness that binds all matter and life.
Quantum physics, with its insights into the interconnectedness, offers a compelling framework for understanding the universe as a deeply interconnected system. The idea that nothing is born by chance and that everything is part of a larger, interconnected network is suggesting a universe where everything is dynamically connected. Everything belongs to a common network and everyone is constantly changing the mosaic-like universe. The idea of a "spiral of continuous development" reflects a dynamic of growth and evolution. Each individual’s development is part of a larger, ever-evolving system. In this interconnected framework, each person is part of a broader system—including ecosystems, society, and the cosmos. In each individual’s consciousness resides a fragment of the larger universe, a common consciousness that links everyone.
While Karl Marx was not directly connected to quantum physics (a field that emerged 40 years later), one can draw analogies or alignments between Marxist philosophy and the implications of quantum theory. Quantum physics deals with the fundamental principles of matter and energy at the smallest scales. Marx’s dialectical materialism posits that the material world, not ideas, is the foundation of reality. Quantum indeterminacy supports a dialectical understanding of material reality, aligning with Marx’s emphasis on processes and change. In Marxist thought, phenomena are interconnected and best understood as part of a totality. Similarly, quantum physics emphasizes entanglement and nonlocality, where particles are deeply connected, transcending classical separations. This resonates with Marx’s holistic approach to understanding social and material relations
This interconnected view challenges the individualistic mindset promoted in modern society. It offers new insights into the nature of existence and the potential for personal and collective growth. Marx wrote:
In order for the world not to disintegrate into separate parts, each part must be viewed as originally born from one of the others, as a product of their development and interaction, in which case the examination of man requires the examination of the nature that gave birth to him in its historical, human-oriented transformation. Man is a being that breathes in and out all the forces of nature, nature is his body, with which he must stay in a continuous process.
Interestingly, in his doctoral dissertation in 1841, Marx focused on ancient philosophical debates about the nature of reality, despite the absence of quantum physics. He examined the atomistic views of thinkers like Epicurus and noted that an atomistic way of thinking is fundamentally different from a holistic approach. He had chosen the differences in the philosophical thought of Democritus and Parmenides' predecessor Epicurus and was interested in the conclusions of the ancient atomists, the "spiritual solar system": If someone's thinking is based on atoms, then his way of processing information is also atomistic, not holistic. Today’s physics, however, supports a holistic worldview, suggesting that no one acts in isolation; all beings are interconnected within a larger system. This echoes Marx’s idea that human consciousness and the development of society are mutually influenced, forming an interdependent reality. No wonder, that Mar’s friend Engels, spoke at Marx’s funeral:
But in every single field which Marx investigated -- and he investigated very many fields, none of them superficially -- in every field, even in that of mathematics, he made independent discoveries… For example, he followed closely the development of the discoveries made in the field of electricity and recently those of Marcel Deprez.
According of quantum physic no one acts alone in isolation from others, there is no objective and independent atom. Nor is there something out there somewhere that dictates. The saying “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, it means that development arises from their relationship.
We must become aware of the fact that we are not only spectators, but also influencers on the stage of life. There is no objective, human-independent nature. The fundamental substance of reality is neither spirit (idealism) nor matter (materialism) nor both together (dualism), but a kind of neutral foundation behind both matter and spirit at the same time. (quantum physicist David Bohm 1992)
The reproductive instinct is a fundamental human instinct, as crucial as the instinct for food and shelter. If Human procreation, sexual intercourse, were a voluntary activity, humans as a species would have died out long ago - so demanding, dirty and dangerous, breeding and raising a new human has been done since the dawn of time.
In a market economy, ownership and consumption are the driving forces of the entire system, which is constantly looking for new markets and now human flexibility is being ruthlessly abused in an attempt to fulfill the sexual instinct. Michel Foucault talks about the modern consumer body, which is always seeking self-improvement and validation through consumption and a disconnect between authentic pleasure and the demands of a consumer-driven society. The economic life has distorted the human sexual drive to its own needs. Foucault questioned how sexuality became a tool of power. He suggested that by keeping sexuality visible yet regulated, it becomes suppressed, shaping norms and reinforcing power structures. In Western societies, the word sexuality did not even exist a century ago.
Economic abuse of sexuality means commercial exploitation of sexuality where capitalism has transformed the basic human need for sexual intimacy into a consumer-driven pursuit. This shift separates sexuality from reproduction, echoing Foucault’s concept of biopolitical control, where biological functions are manipulated to enhance productivity and satisfaction within a capitalist framework. From desire has become an economic tool because the sexual desire is harnessed by the market economy to create insatiable demands. The portrayal of love and intimacy in media subtly convinces individuals that material consumption is the path to attraction and romance. Thats how capitalist structures exploit sexual and emotional relationships for profit.
This process is so subtle that people often don’t notice how these standards shape their behaviors and desires. Consumer culture commodifies sex and desire, turning them into products to be bought, sold, and consumed. Advertisements, media, and popular culture exploit sexual imagery influencing how people understand their own desires and relationships, fueling industries from fashion and cosmetics to dating apps. Through this lens,
In the 20th century, technological and social shifts, such as contraception and artificial birth technologies, separated sexuality from reproduction, marking a wave of what Foucault called in turn "biological modernization." In this millennium sexuality is also separated from raising children. Consumers are living crazy years, there is a talk about “latch-key children”, “cereal packet families”.
Friendships and family relationships manifest themselves today in pretty much the same way as in ancient times. Friendship is about caring, common interests and loyalty. There have hardly been significant upheavals in sibling relationships either, as shared experiences still mark the siblings' mutual dynamics. But the couple's relationship has experienced a significant upheaval as romantic love rose to an unimaginably great value, becoming idealized in consumer culture. How does the commodification of basic needs and instincts alter the perception of what it means to be human? Can we unlearn consumer-driven desires to reconnect with authentic needs?
Sociologist Kitti Suoranta considers especially the longing for romantic love to be an ideological story – capitalism, Disney, consumption, shaped by capitalism and consumer culture, promising endless possibilities for love and fulfillment. No one should miss the fact that you can always experience a little more romance and enjoy a lot more. And that's what the global consumer culture of continuous growth promises us.
Those who share sexual information are power users. (Michel Foucault 1998)
The search for and worship of love has been most influenced by commercial media – advertisements, brands, television shows, interviews with celebrity couples. Romantic Comedies push into the subconscious. When the idea of romantic love took off, it was found to increase a person's vulnerability and search for the new. More and more people might ask: why does love sell well?
Sexuality is at the center of consumer culture. In particular, a person consumes when he prepares himself to be desired. There is nothing better in business than setting an impossible goal for people and making them believe that by buying this and that, it is possible to achieve that goal. And that's what the global consumer culture of continuous growth promises us. (reporter Niklas Storås, HS financial appendix 18 June 2022)
Commercial advertising and propaganda have understood the vitality of desire. Desire in itself is in no way a progressive, liberating or happiness-creating power line. While suggestion means changing a person's thoughts and behavior by instilling some thought into the target person's head, today that suggestion, the instilled thought, is pleasure. An top of that, according to biopolitical “sexual education”, a person can achieve greater productivity, satisfaction, and lives more intensely if he has the freedom to search for sexuality and other optimal physical satisfaction. Sex is sought for comfort, effect, relaxation, passing time, self-searching, temporary fulfillment. Erotic stories are as comforting as eating and shopping. Some talk even about the dictatorship of sex, forced sexual economy.
Advertising slogans and images aim to convince the insecure part of everyone who wants to buy themselves love. Love has become a tool and has acquired the hallmarks of a commodity, as if it were a product. Love should always feel new, fascinating, exciting, like a good offer or opening a new package. (futurist Perttu Pölönen 2020)
This pursuit aligns with capitalist goals, making love and desire part of a relentless quest for consumer fulfillment. Commercial entities excel in the mating market.
In the "mating market," corporations leverage sexual appeal to increase demand, setting unattainable standards that drive people to consume more in pursuit of desirability. Desire, which could potentially be a force for liberation, is instead harnessed for economic gain, becoming a tool for manipulation rather than empowerment. This cultivated desire for pleasure works as a form of control, with contemporary society instilling the idea that fulfillment comes from consumption.
Even a sexually liberated person may play a pre-scripted part without realizing it, hat aligns with capitalist ideals rather than genuine personal freedom. When "love professional" Sami Kuronen was asked if love has become disposable, he answered:
When the number of people's options increases, long-termism decreases. It's just easy to swipe the next one if the first date doesn't feel right, when initial excitement fades. when both of you realize that all the cards have been looked at and all that's left is a waste of time, it's best to break up. (HS 18.6.2022)
Kuronen admits that he is part of some mechanism that creates a counterweight to difficult times by offering what is called pleasure. Erotic stories and Temptation Island are comforting "in the middle of all the shit", as well as comfort eating and comfort shopping.
This is how the market economy can successfully socialize citizens, take over the individual. Capitalism as this stage in Western society has turned sexual desire into a marketable good. The commodification of desire reshapes relationships into transactional exchanges, weakening genuine connections and intensifying alienation. In the capitalistic state and in the abundance of the market economy, man is alienated from all his basic instincts. The basic instinct of multiply has turned into desire. Desire has turned into greed - greed for goods, power, popularity and sex. The economic exploitation of desires is a key part of the market economy's use of power. The key word for manipulation is pleasure.
Sexual appeal, sexual attraction, has been turned into a mechanism that will certainly increase consumer demand. You can't survive in a capitalist system without greed. Ownership and consumption are the driving forces of the system. There are no more religious rules, no more patriarchal regulations, no more romantic country seat rendezvous. In almost 50 years, everything has been erased and only greed remains. In sex, the rules of paid work and exchange apply.
After all, the capitalist system would collapse immediately if people took care of their daily needs together and got by with what they have. If sexuality was once influenced by prohibition, shame, shyness, now consumption mechanisms have taken over. As people engage in calculated, consumption-driven sexual behavior that aligns with the broader goals of market expansion.
Sexual experience has become more a product of economic culture than part of a person's identity. Blurred by his adaptability, man has accepted sexual behavior that utilizes economic life, because society has created and is still creating the ways in which people fulfill their sexual needs for the benefit of economic life. (sociologist Rita Liljeström, 1975)
Liljeström introduces the term "erotic war" to describe how sexual stimulation is omnipresent, targeting everyone in an anonymous manner. In a forced sexual economy, people do not behave instinctively and do not react with the nervous stimuli that are part of their nature. Naturalness and spontaneity have been declared rustic and uncivilized. After all, natural personality is a threat to the ideology of continuous growth of the ruling system. For the growth of consumption, it is beneficial for people to observe each other with learned mechanisms, to look for traits in each other that they have been taught to look for, and to act out in front of each other the gestures of love they have learned from television.
I apologize to the companions of my youth, because I was in bed mostly according to the model of the movies - so to speak, a bream moaning at the right points. (editor Sanna Kiiski 2020
The advertising industry, with support from political and medical establishments, exploits even minor official endorsements to promote consumption. Dating apps, pornography, and industries that monetize intimacy reduce personal connections to transactions or products. The focus on appearances and consumer-driven standards distort natural expressions of intimacy and desire. Doctors recommend taking a sex holiday to avoid stress. Politicians tolerate contraceptive ads alongside sausage ads at bus stops.
The integration of sexual imagery and messaging in consumer life keeps people engaged in an endless cycle of consumption, distracting them from social and political issues. Psychologist and feminist activist Betty Friedan (1921-2006) argued that, after World War II, America's focus on sexuality served to divert attention from troubling political realities, allowing citizens to escape discomforting truths by immersing themselves in personal pleasures and consumer goods.
It filled the emptiness in the thoughts and aspirations of people who were no longer sufficiently stimulated by God, fatherland or bank account, and who could not bear to feel responsible for lynchings in concentration camps or starving children in India and Africa. It offered a pleasant opportunity not to think about the unsettling problems that could spoil the enjoyment of steaks, cars, color television, and swimming pools. It allowed us to forget the terrible problems of the larger world and focus on our own personal joys. (Betty Friedan 1973)
As personal fulfillment centers on desires linked to sexuality, it can serve as a diversion from broader societal concerns. It is said that a person who runs after his pleasure does not rise to the barricades. Nor does he go out to protest against the structures of society. Such a person is passive, humble and, above all, comfortable. The more people focus on sex, the less world market needs to fear criticism of the prevailing production and ownership structure. They buy and consume. When desires, expectations and disappointments are concentrated in the area of the genitals, one can momentarily forget the deep-seated problems of society. This aligns with the World Association for Sexual Health's view that pleasure is a fundamental right; yet, in practice, this rhetoric is absorbed into consumer culture to enhance sales.
The World Sexual Health Organization demanded that pleasure be made more visible in legislation, health care and sex education. The organization reminds that an enjoyable and safe sex life is a basic right of every person. (2019)
In Soviet Russia, too, in the 1920s, the state policies also recognized sexuality's potential for societal control and paid attention to reproductive health. Its first leader, Vladimir Lenin, advocated for a biologically driven approach to sexuality and wrote about a sexual life suitable for the state's strategy. According to him, sex and love would be free when their basis is purely biological. Sexual desire must be satisfied without feeling, in the same way as the feeling of hunger and thirst. In Soviet Russia, there was talk of the so-called water glass theory: People should be relaxed so that they can focus their energy on social change. Sexual abstinence was considered petty-bourgeois nonsense.
Sexual love is just an extension of social relationships. In order to create a new society, traditional values must be changed. The revolution must also include the intimate life of citizens: Love is a matter for the whole society. (lawyer Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov 1915)
In the modern capitalist system, the restructuring of sexuality and reproductive instincts reflects broader social shifts, notably influenced by movements with the huge hype of sexual desire-directed like #MeToo, queer, and intersectionality.
Some feminist scholars of patriarchy describe how market-oriented rhetoric shapes perceptions of gender, with the consumer-driven economy using subtle power dynamics to mold behavior. This rhetoric promotes individualism and self-determination, yet often serves as a cover for pervasive techniques of control and manipulation. They speak of an artificial gender when they study the keepers of the market economy. Someone wrote: "President Sauli Niinistö has exactly that expression when giving statements, like a third artificial gender, when he wants to sound important when he says something that a person in his position is supposed to say. The sentences start with the words yes, of course, on the one hand and on the other hand."
The talk of the autonomous, self-directed and self-governing individual is part of modern rhetoric, which is used to veil techniques of power and manipulation that are much more covert than before, and therefore more effective. (Tapio Puolimatka 1996)
People have been subordinated to the state in a form important to capital. Regulation, security, social interactions and bureaucratic services increasingly control social relations. They implement the laws of capital: the more social relations become individualized, the more necessary bureaucratically organized regulation becomes. Governmentally produced services are increasing and many of them control and separate people. This state-led organization enforces economic priorities, encouraging individuality while simultaneously structuring society to sustain the capitalist agenda.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels considered both family, private property and the origin of the state to be different sides of the same coin. They envisioned a world where the state and traditional family structures would eventually "wither away" as class divisions were abolished. Marx believed that the commune system would give back to the people the powers that had until now been consumed by the "parasite called the state".
According to Marx, the capitalist state is infinitely efficient in satisfying people's material needs. He theorized a transition to a society of abundance, characterized by freedom from necessity while technological advancements in capitalism would enable the satisfaction of material needs for all. Marx's vision extended beyond the capitalism. In this "kingdom of freedom" individuals would no longer be bound by economic imperatives. They could dedicate their time to personal growth, cultural pursuits, and creative endeavors. Human fulfillment lies in intellectual, artistic, and philosophical pursuits. In a society of plenty, a person works a few hours a day. The rest of the time he can "fish, ride and philosophize". He does not become alienated from his work or the results of his work. He doesn't alienate from himself or neither his loved ones, because he himself is a part of the work.
Marx reached far in his thoughts. His vision is a true Edenic paradise for mankind. However, something went wrong, not only in the development, but also in his thinking. Life is mechanized and people, including women, are becoming alienated bureaucrats and consumers.
In his writings, Marx emphasized the distinctiveness of each "historical period". Had Marx's vision of a stateless, classless society been realized, we would be talking more, in today's language, of ecovillages, collective living arrangements, self-sufficient communities and intentional communities. These alternative models of living exist already in every country of the world.
The idea of eco-villages as a modern parallel to Marx’s vision of communal living is particularly interesting. These communities promote collective ownership of resources, mutual aid, ecological sustainability and sustainable practices—principles that resonate with Marx’s idea of dissolving class distinctions and private ownership of basic resources. People share resources and responsibilities.
Ecovillages are seen as a path to social emancipation, attempts to build egalitarian social structures, the dissolution of traditional family roles. Thy seek to harmonize human activity with natural cycles, addressing both alienation from nature and fellow humans, principles that challenge the individualism and consumerism associated with the nuclear family model in capitalist societies. This would mean a world where human relationships and culture are ends in themselves, rather than being subordinated to economic gain. A fundamental shift away from economic structures as the primary organizing principle of society. These structures counteract the alienating effects of the capitalist state by fostering close, supportive communities. (https://vimeo.com/722765718?&login=true)
Marx did not specifically address sexual intimacy in his writings, but his broader philosophical approach offers insight. In Marx’s ideal society, the dissolution of class distinctions and the abolishment of alienation would extend to all aspects of life, including intimate relationships. In his view, alienation arises when individuals are disconnected from their own humanity, true intimacy emerges in a society where they are free from economic oppression, objectification, and social divisions. These principle are extended in modern ecovillages. The need for intimacy is more naturally fulfilled in a communal and equitable society where all individuals, regardless of gender or social position, are equally respected and valued as they are from birth?
If Marx had studied and specified the natural differences between the sexes and then considered how economic systems could accommodate these differences equitably, society had developed in a more balanced and sustainable way. From a woman's point of view the current state of inequality and ecological degradation is a result of a male-dominated perspective that has historically shaped social and economic structures. A woman has to give birth to an offspring by force of nature. At the same time, a man creates a career and dictates social processes.
In a society governed by capitalist logic, the family structure, particularly the nuclear family, can be seen as both a consequence and a tool of capitalism. The collective living arrangements would give back to the people the powers.
When individuals live in close-knit, in sustainable environments that prioritize shared resources and mutual support, the responsibilities of raising children are spread across the community, making the child-rearing less isolating and less tied to patriarchal family structures. This model would decentralize childcare and economic support. Communal child-rearing and shared responsibilities within a collectivist economy allow for a more balanced division of labor between men and women, which in turn helps alleviate gendered alienation. People are less alienated from nature and from one another, as they work together to meet their material needs in a way that is harmonious with the environment. Marx’s emphasis on the material basis of life applies here and provides a supportive foundation for other needs to develop. A communal society prioritizes human flourishing and offers a holistic way of living.
In 1991, a working group called “A State from a Feminist Perspective” started in Germany. The state was considered a repressive machine, a corporation, a monolithic union, an organization of men. But the idea of the welfare state grew and grew and women could be integrated back into the patriarchal state power. Also women can become good men, but they cannot change the state hegemony. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx writes about the function of the state at that time:
The executive body of the modern state is nothing more than a committee that manages the common affairs of the entire bourgeoisie. This represents a high point in the adaptation of the theory of the state to an economic interpretation of history, in which the productive forces determine the relations of production among nations, and their relations of production determine all other relations, including political ones.
Finally, Marx presents the rationale: "The commune is a cheap government - by putting an end to the two biggest items of expenditure, the army and the civil service.” Anthropological studies show that a state of peace is natural for humans, a state of war is the result of "civilization". Violent behavior has formed along with social discipline, not because of the basic human nature.
Marx presents two forms of democracy beyond bourgeois political emancipation, the organic community and the commune. The distinction made by Marx and the development related to it have a very topical meaning today, in the conditions of the crisis of pluralistic democracy and the statization of society. (Professor of Social Policy Sakari Hänninen 2004)
How the humans ended up in an alienating commodity society? In the old days the distribution of wealth and power was explain in terms of God's will, framed as divinely ordained. As production capabilities increased, mercantilism emerged as an economic doctrine to bolster national strength. The emphasis on minimizing imports and maximizing exports aimed to protect local markets under the state's control. Just before Marx's time, philosophical economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo laid the foundations of classical “free market” economic. Smith's concept of laissez-faire encapsulated the belief that minimal government interference allowed markets to function optimally and the "invisible hand" proposed that self-interest, channeled through free markets, naturally leads to economic efficiency and societal benefit. Ricardo built upon the ideas of Smith arguing for a free trade society where different civilizations specialized in producing what they were best at and traded to get products they were not good at producing. It envisioned economic prosperity through individual initiative and market-driven resource allocation. They were tempted to consider the capitalist economy as a natural system.
Then along came Marx and identified the systemic problem within capitalism, particularly the exploitation inherent in the division of labor and the accumulation of the wealth by a few at the expense of the many. He argued that technological advancements in capitalism would eventually enable the satisfaction of material needs for all and posed the question of what is beyond capitalism, what is the alternative to capitalism. Where individuals could dedicate their time to personal growth, cultural pursuits, and creative endeavors instead of being bound by economic imperatives? For Marx, human liberation involved transcending the economic dimension of society. This would mean a world where human relationships and culture are ends in themselves, rather than being subordinated to economic gain. He analyzes the “system of needs” that civil society constitutes. Human fulfillment lies in intellectual, artistic, and philosophical pursuits. Society evolves to prioritize the enrichment of human existence over material accumulation, envisioning a future where humanity achieves freedom not just in material terms but also in its cultural and existential pursuits. According to Russian “post-Soviet” Marxist Vadim Mezhujev, Marx did not mean by socialism a new “economic social formation” to come after capitalism, but on the contrary a state beyond all economy. According to Marx there will inevitably come a society of abundance, "kingdom of freedom".
The Communist society] will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage, the dependence, rooted in private property, of the woman on the man and of the children on the parents. (Communist Manifesto, 1848)
In Marx’s view, spiritual and intellectual development is not separate from material conditions; rather, it is deeply influenced by them. As production becomes more complex and efficient due to technological innovations, humans have more opportunities to develop intellectually and culturally. This process of development allows individuals to transcend their basic animalistic instincts and engage in higher forms of thought and creativity.
For a person in today's individualistic consumer society, the most pressing issue of the "current historical period" is no longer food, but alienation. Besides of ecovillages, what could be óne of the counter-philosophies to alienation and constant consumption? For me it's erotica. In Greek mythology, Eros meant creative primal power. According to an old fable, Eros guides a beautiful body to another beautiful body, Eros also guides the body and the person carrying it to other beautiful ones and gradually to the search for wisdom. In ancient Greece, love for another person was not respected. Man should love wisdom and beauty.
Eroticism as a counterculture to alienation and the notion of Eros, as an uplifting and creative force, connects deeply with the idea of intimacy that transcends mere physicality. In a society free from alienation, eroticism is no longer reduced to a commodified or utilitarian act but becomes a form of spiritual connection.
Freud refers to ”Platonic Eros” with the word ”libido”, which represented to Freud all psychic energy and not just sexual energy. The nature of libido is a universal desire that is inherent in all life instincts. He defined it as life-drive, self-preservation, the instinctual force. It describes the energy created by survival and sexual instincts, the driving force of all behavior.
Intimacy is an avenue for personal growth and communal unity, as individuals engage with each other not just physically, but intellectually and spiritually. This vision of sexuality aligns with Marx’s broader humanist ideals, where the fulfillment of human potential goes beyond material needs and includes emotional, intellectual, and spiritual aspects of life.
For Plato, Eros was the longing of a person aware of his own vanity. It did not mean a longing downward to the world of the senses, but a longing upwards to the world of ideas. Plato defined the spirituality of Eros as an inspiring force. The goal of life is to race towards greater and greater spirituality, perfection, and Eros is a hitchhiker in that. By definition, it means the mental aspect of sexual intimacy, joining in thoughts.
Plato’s concept of Eros as a longing for wisdom and transcendence reflects an ideal of spiritual growth rather than superficial satisfaction. Applying this concept today, Eros could be seen as a journey toward meaningful connection, self-discovery, and unity with others. In this way, Eros might encourage people to aspire not only toward material achievements but also toward personal and relational growth, deepening their understanding of themselves and their place in the world.
Erotica serves as a form of resistance against the commodification of sexuality by celebrating authentic, consensual, and diverse expressions of human intimacy. It challenges capitalist notions of the body as a product, reasserting agency and creativity. The notion of Eros, as an uplifting force, connects deeply with the idea of intimacy that transcends mere physicality. In a society free from alienation, eroticism is no longer reduced to a commodified or utilitarian act but becomes a form of spiritual connection. A Finnish sociologist Erik Allardt's has said it right, well-being is divided into four need categories: having, doing, loving and being.
This vision of sexuality aligns with Marx’s broader humanist ideals, where the fulfillment of human potential goes beyond material needs and includes emotional, intellectual, and spiritual aspects of life. Instead of treating sexuality as an individualistic, consumable act, reclaiming it as a source of deep connection and shared experience addresses the loneliness capitalism often exacerbates. Embracing “Eros” in its ancient Greek sense—of a primal, creative force that seeks beauty and wisdom— guides people toward meaningful forms of fulfillment.
While searching for an answer, Marx started pondering the fundamental needs for human existence and survival rooted in basic instincts: the need for food, shelter, and the ability to reproduce. Without fulfilling these basic needs, human life would cease to continue. While the need for food and shelter became central in Marx’s analysis of capitalism, the role of reproduction—its influence and manipulation under modern economic structures and the commodification of sexuality— did he leave out.
Using Marx's ideas, it is possible to analyze how modern society manipulates and commodifies even the most basic human instinct. To transcend these limitations, a new approach would require addressing the alienation of not just labor but also intimate and emotional aspects of life, striving for a society where these needs are met authentically and communally, rather than through market mechanisms.
Marx concludes that the way in which people produce they vital products determines their relationship with themselves, with each other, and with the nature. Marx recognized that human beings are shaped by their material instincts, which include also the biological instinct to reproduce. In contemporary capitalism, reproduction and sexuality have been commodified. The economy exploits sexuality through marketing and advertising. The instinct to reproduction is turned to sexuality and sexuality is used to sell products and services and turning it into a tool for profit. The hyper-commercialization of sexual imagery and relationships alienates individuals from genuine connections, paralleling Marx’s analysis of alienation in labor.
Marx’s philosophical tools—his focus on material conditions, alienation, and systemic critique—can be applied to these themes, but they require reinterpretation for contemporary issues. His work invites to question how systems shape fundamental human experiences, including those as profound as sexuality, and to seek ways to create more humane and authentic forms of life. To extend Marx’s conceptual framework and to consider it in a contemporary context, attention must be paid to the huge advertising and influence industry and what methods it uses to increase buying and consumption in order to generate ever more profit to its shareholders. The evolution of societal organization reflects profound shifts in how humanity understands wealth, labor, and social progress and guides to explore the idea that relationships between people—and decisions about reproduction—are actually at this level of progress foundational in shaping how society organizes production and resource distribution.
For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and its needs, conscious of the conditions of its emancipation. (Engels at Marx’s grave)
Alienation transforms both nature and man's mental ability into something foreign to him, a tool for his individual existence. One of the immediate consequences of the fact that a person is alienated from the result of his work, his life activity, his essence, is the alienation of a person from other people. Both sexes, each human being, should act as equals in development according to their own instincts and disposition. Had Marx studied and specified the natural differences between the sexes more thoroughly, he might have developed a framework that accounted for the unique contributions and challenges of everybody. It would not have resulted in the current unequal and non-ecological quality of life.
If an economic system were designed with a more holistic understanding of human needs and natural dispositions, it could potentially create a balanced and equitable society, more inclusive and sustainable.
When studying industrialization, it has been surprisingly discovered that the reason for additional and always only additional production is not the actual material need, but the need for validation. For example, Lenin declared at the Party Congress in 1921. "Our greatest influence on the international revolution is our economic policy. If we solve this problem, we will have won on the international level definitely and once and for all." Lenin wanted to have influence. He believed, as was widely believed at the time, that the greatest means of influence was economic progress and greatness. Lenin transferred his incompetence in intimate and close human relationships to his competence with life's hard knocks. How could he have done otherwise. After all, a million people died every year from hunger and cold.
Marx’s critique of capitalist alienation offers a lens through which to examine the current state of mental health, ecological degradation, and the fracturing of human relationships in modern society. A Marxian response to these crises involves a radical rethinking of both economic systems and social structures, moving beyond individualism and consumerism toward a collective, sustainable, and holistic way of life. Marx’s analysis of alienation and his vision for a future society that prioritizes collective well-being over individual competition provides a strong foundation for reimagining the way to approach social organization, relationships and sexuality. By fostering a society that meets the material and emotional needs of all individuals in a sustainable and equitable way, it is possible to find a way to overcome the alienation that defines contemporary life.
Challenging the alienation inherent in capitalism may require a reorientation toward values that capitalism cannot commodify: love, wisdom, and shared human experience. As Marx anticipated, the true fulfillment of human potential can only be possible within a society that values not just productivity but also genuine human connection, fostering a space where individuals can be fully present with one another and with themselves.
By examining how people relate to each other—within families, communities, and society at large—one can see that social bonds often drive collective priorities, including the way resources are managed and allocated. In societies with a strong emphasis on family and community, there is an implicit motivation to preserve resources for future generations, potentially fostering sustainable production practices. Society is influenced by cultural values tied to nurturing, caregiving, and the long-term well-being of children and families.
This perspective reverses the usual approach of Marx’s framework. It invites to redefine what “vital resources” are necessary to live fulfilling, sustainable lives. If production is guided by the relational needs of people—especially when focused on family and community—there is less emphasis on mass production of commodities and more emphasis on resources that contribute to health, resilience, and community connection. Rather than producing for individual consumption, production shifts toward fulfilling needs that nurture people in ways that are both economically and ecologically sustainable. This shift suggests that societal development become more attuned to the interdependent needs of people and the planet, fostering both human connection and ecological resilience.
According to Marx, the historical development of capitalism leads to the increasing polarization of bourgeois society: an ever smaller capitalist class owns almost everything, while the vast majority of society, the wage workers, own almost nothing — apart from their labor power. By addressing both ecological and social aspects of alienation, mankind can work toward a future that balances human needs with environmental health and fosters genuine human connections, echoing Marx’s vision for a society free from estrangement.
Marx argued that human existence depends on fulfilling basic instinct. If people lack these essentials, food, shelter and reproduction, their thoughts and efforts inevitably focus on securing them. Regarding reproduction, the question arises whether, like with food and housing production, humanity has pursued reproduction in ways that damage nature and alienate individuals from their own essence. In the 200 years that have passed since Marx's birth, is the same to be said about reproduction as about the production of housing and food: while securing reproduction, man has destroyed nature and lost himself? What if the way people connect and relate to each other shapes how they produce and engage in economic life? What if it were the other way around: how people relate to each other, how the decision to reproduce between two people is made, determines how he produces his vital products? And in general: what does a person who is seeking the meaning of life really/anymore needs?
1. Equality. How to develop society to meet the characteristic features of both men, women and everyone come? Why has it not been asked in what kind of interaction people can act differently, but with equaly?
2. Disaster. With his own logic, i.e. neither exploitation nor alienation of a single person, how would Marx have taken into account the third basic biological instinct of humans: the need for sexual intimacy? Is the same to be said about reproduction as about the production of the two other basic instincts, housing and food: While securing multiplying, man has destroyed nature and lost himself?
3. New methods of desire. What are the specific effects of the restructuring of the reproductive instinct in contemporary capitalist society, especially with the huge hype of sexual desire-directed me too, queer and intersectionality perspectives, the woke culture?
4. The historic period. According to Marx the way in which man produces his vital products determines his relationship with himself, society's level of development, and relationship with his fellow beings. What if it were the other way around: how people relate to each other, how the decision to reproduce between two people is made, determines how he produces his vital products?
Marx and alienation from nature and loved ones
- ”food, shelter, biological reproduction”
-”based on physical characteristics of a woman and a man”
-”man no longer recognizes his own place in the cycle of life”
- desire, greed, pleasure - the consumer body and mind
- universe as a deeply interconnected system
- communes, ecovillages, erotica