The most important misunderstanding seems to me to lie in a confusion between the human necessities which I consider part of human nature, and the human necessities as they appear as drives, needs, passions, etc., in any given historical period. This division is not very different from Marx's concept of 'human nature in general', to be distinguished from 'human nature as modified in each historical period'. The same distinction exists in Marx when he distinguishes between 'constant' or 'fixed' drives and 'relative' drives. The constant drives 'exist under all circumstances and ... can be changed by social conditions only as far as form and direction are concerned'. The relative drives 'owe their origin only to a certain type of social organization'.

I believe in the possible realization of a world in which man can be much, even if he has little; a world in which the dominant motivation of existence is not …

One social structure will be conducive to cooperation and solidarity another social structure to competition, suspiciousness, avarice; another to child-like re…

I believe that one can and must hope for a sane society that furthers man's capacity to love his fellow men, to work and create, to develop his reason and his …

Man was formed for society.

'What the War Taught Me: There are two kinds of people in the world--those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who believe that there is one kin…

All in all, Engels talked so much rot of every kind, that now all the world's academies of science should be directed to rectify his mistakes and idiocies.