What do you think?
Rate this book
Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
Communism as a political movement attained global importance after the Bolsheviks toppled the Russian Czar in 1917. After that time the works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, especially the influential Communist Manifesto (1848), enjoyed an international audience. The world was to learn a new political vocabulary peppered with "socialism", "capitalism", "the working class", "the bourgeoisie", "labour theory of value", "alienation", "economic determinism", "dialectical materialism", and "historical materialism". Marx's economic analysis of history has been a powerful legacy, the effects of which continue to be felt world-wide.Serving as the foundation for Marx's indictment of capitalism is his extraordinary work titled "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts", written in 1844 but published nearly a century later. Here Marx offers his theory of human nature and an analysis of emerging capitalism's degenerative impact on man's sense of self and his creative potential. What is man's true nature? How did capitalism gain such a foothold on Western society? What is alienation and how does it threaten to undermine the proletariat? These and other vital questions are addressed as the youthful Marx sets forth his first detailed assessment of the human condition.
243 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1844
About the author
Karl Marx
3,027 books5,300 followersWith the help of Friedrich Engels, German philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx wrote
The Communist Manifesto
(1848) and
Das Kapital
(1867-1894), works, which explain historical development in terms of the interaction of contradictory economic forces, form many regimes, and profoundly influenced the social sciences.
German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.
Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).
The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.
Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.
Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.
Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.
Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .
People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.
Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.
Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).
The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.
Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.
Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.
Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.
Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .
People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.
Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 213 reviews
July 20, 2012
ORIGINAL REVIEW:
Early Work
The EPM is an early work by Marx.
It is where he develops his version of alienation and the relationship of the self to others, but also the relationship to work and the means of production.
By the time of The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels had got involved in History and were not content just to describe it.
They became theorists and publicists for a revolutionary cause.
They created a theoretical justification for violence as a methodology for achieving a political goal.
Justifying the Use of Violence
Despite how democratic nations claim to be, many still use violence to achieve a goal or maintain the status quo.
Because they can't be seen to endorse revolution, they create and embrace the term "regime change".
They are both types of violence. The only difference is the justification.
They both use the same means, the difference is the end.
However, the EPM precedes all of this.
Reassessing Their Relevance
Marx and Engels have received a lot of bad publicity. Few dare to defend them.
But in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, it's worth opening their works and having a dispassionate squiz.
Not so that we can all get on a revolutionary anti-capitalism bandwagon again, but so that we can understand the plight of people in contemporary society.
FULL REVIEW:
July 20, 2012
At 25
In October, 1843, Karl and Jenny Marx left Cologne and arrived in Paris, where they lived and worked for two years.
Marx’ intention was to write for a radical magazine. At the time of their arrival, Marx was 25 and Jenny was pregnant with their first child, Jenny.
While in Paris, Marx wrote the “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts”, which were effectively the first draft of the ideas that would become the foundation of “Das Kapital” (“Capital”), the first volume of which he published in 1867.
The manuscripts are a critique of “political economy”, the term used then for what we now call “economics”.
They were never published during his lifetime and only became available in Russia in 1932, fifteen years after the Russian Revolution that brought the Communists to power.
Thus, a key work that explained the origin of his ideas remained unknown and of no influence for almost 90 years.
Communism as it manifested itself in the Soviet Union owed more to later works like “The Communist Manifesto” (1848) and “Capital”.
Just as importantly, the works weren’t translated into English until 1959, from which point they caused a radical reassessment of Marx’ ideas.
The Wealth of Nations
The manuscripts total about 120 pages.
The first 40 to 50 pages largely describe the operation of the economy.
If you were to read these pages for the first time today, you would think they encapsulated the principal communist analysis of the capitalist economy.
They describe private property; the separation of labour, capital and land; the separation of wages, profit of capital and rent of land; the division of labour, competition and the concept of exchange value.
Yet, ironically, most of this analysis is quoted from Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”, a work sympathetic to capitalism published in 1776.
Marx highlights that:
• The worker does not necessarily gain when the capitalist gains, but he necessarily loses with him.
• Where worker and capitalist both suffer, the worker suffers in his very existence, while the capitalist suffers primarily in the profit on his capital.
• The worker must not only struggle for his physical means of subsistence, he must also struggle for work (in order to obtain the possibility and means of realizing his activity).
• The accumulation of capital increases the division of labour.
• As a consequence of the division of labour and the accumulation of capital, the worker becomes more and more dependent on labour, in particular a very one-dimensional and machine-like labour, which depresses him both intellectually and physically to the level of a machine.
• Even when the economy is growing, the consequence for workers is overwork and early death.
• The more mechanical nature of his work makes him more vulnerable to competition from both other workers and machines.
• Wages are designed to be just enough to enable him to continue to work.
• Even if the average income of all classes has increased, the relative incomes have grown further apart and the differences between wealth and poverty have become sharper.
• Relative poverty has grown, even though absolute poverty has diminished.
• Political economy knows the worker only as a beast of burden, as an animal reduced to the minimum bodily needs.
• It is foolish to conclude, as Smith does, that the interest of the landlord or capitalist is always identical with that of the tenant or society.
So far then, “from political economy itself, using its own words,” Marx shows that:
• The worker sinks to the level of a commodity.
• The misery of the worker is in inverse proportion to the power and volume of his production.
• The necessary consequence of competition is the accumulation of capital in a few hands and hence the restoration of monopoly in a more terrible form.
• The distinction between capitalist and landlord, between agricultural worker and industrial worker, disappears and the whole of society must split into the two classes of property owners and propertyless workers.
Marx concludes that “Political economy proceeds from the fact of private property. It does not explain it...Political economy fails to explain the reason for the division between labour and capital, between capital and land.”
Marx therefore sets out to grasp “the essential connection between private property, greed, the separation of labour, capital and landed property, exchange and competition, value and the devaluation of man, monopoly and competition, etc. – the connection between this entire system of estrangement [alienation] and the money system.”
Putting the Political Back Into “Political Economy”
I have quoted so much of Marx, partly to show how much he relied on Smith and Ricardo for his underlying analysis of the economy, partly to illustrate how little things have changed, partly to identify the moment at which Marx became political, and partly so that we can consider the political and economic options that might have been available to him to address the problems he perceived.
It was common ground that the economy was effectively a joint venture between labour, capital and landed property.
The problem was how to regulate and manage the relationship between them.
If they are all prerequisites of economic activity, are they equally vital and therefore should they be given an equal or at least more equitable status?
Is any one ingredient more or less fundamental than the others?
The Relative Significance of Capital
Smith would have said that capital was the foundation of capitalism and the one true determinant of the relationship.
Capital is money, and money has a purchasing power that can buy labour, just as it can buy property.
Capital therefore doesn’t acknowledge a joint venture relationship.
It buys what it needs to make more money and effectively replicate itself.
Capital, in its own eyes, is in control.
Over the course of 1844, this viewpoint became a red rag to Marx' bull.
The Options
One option would have been to remunerate workers more adequately.
Another would have been to grant them a share of the joint venture profit.
These options might have remedied some of the inequities.
However, they weren’t adequate from Marx’ perspective.
His preferred option was to abolish private property, in effect, to abolish private capital.
Why did he suggest this?
Entitlement to the Surplus Value
Again, there was common ground that the joint venture could create a profit or surplus value.
However, because capital has bought the labour and the property, capitalism gives the profit not to the joint venture, but to the capital that funds it.
Following on from Smith's description of the economy, Marx argues that ultimately it is labour that creates surplus value.
There would be no profit or capital without the labour that originally created the product or commodity.
If the worker whose labour created the original product had received the whole of the profit, the capitalist would have obtained no capital.
In the absence of capital, the capitalist would have had no money with which to purchase labour or property.
Instead, labour contributes to the capitalist’s wealth, which then, like a snake, turns around and consumes itself, starting with the tail or labour.
Marx believed that, only by chopping the snake in half and giving labour the benefit of surplus value, could real equity be achieved.
Since labour is the foundation of all surplus value, it should own the surplus value.
To achieve this, Marx believed we had to abolish private property.
A Chinese Diversion
Incidentally, in the Communist China of today, the replacement of private capital is not the worker, but public capital in the form of the State (the representative of the workers and other people).
By employing or exploiting Chinese workers, the Chinese State now makes so much surplus value, that, like a snake, it can turn around and start consuming or buying the capitalist economies of the world.
These economies are totally dependent on China for their continued existence.
What’s So Wrong with Private Property?
By rejecting the other available options, Marx rejected any suggestion that the inequity was purely about remuneration. (Even if the poor subsequently got richer under capitalism, the rich would get disproportionately richer, therefore “relative poverty” would increase.)
It’s precisely at this point that Marx becomes most philosophical in his approach to political economy.
He had to solve the problem of political economy in a way that satisfied the political philosophy that had begun to emerge in his mind.
The issue was so fundamental to Marx, because in his eyes it was the cause of the estrangement or alienation of mankind.
Alienation
For me, what follows is the essence of Marx, even if most Marxists or Communists before 1932 (or 1959) would have been relatively unaware of its significance (except to the extent that some of these ideas emerged, possibly slightly changed in detail or emphasis, in the later works of Marx like “Capital”).
In contrast to Hegel, Marx did not see the correct subject matter of philosophy as contemplation or idealism, but practice or “human sensuous activity”.
Man doesn’t just think, he acts, he does things, he interacts with objects in the material world, he makes things, he produces things. (For this reason, Hannah Arendt calls man “homo faber”.)
These objects and the products of his interaction have a material existence outside the mind.
During the process of labour, a worker creates a product or commodity that “stands opposed to [him] as something alien, as a power independent of the [worker or] producer”:
"The product of labour is labour embodied and made material in an object, it is the objectification of the labour. The realization of labour is its objectification. In the sphere of political economy this realization of labour appears as a loss of reality for the worker, objectification as loss of and bondage to the object, and appropriation [by capital and the capitalist]as estrangement, as alienation."
In return for his labour, the worker receives work and remuneration, the means of subsistence.
This turns him into a slave. “The activity of the worker is not his own spontaneous activity. It belongs to another, it is a loss of self”:
"The result is that man (the worker) feels that he is acting freely only in his animal functions – eating, drinking and procreating, or at most in his dwelling and adornment – while in his human functions he is nothing more than an animal."
Man becomes alienated, not just from his labour and the product of his labour, but from the human race (his species) as a whole and from other individual humans.
And private property is at the root of this alienation: it is “the product, result and necessary consequence of alienated labour, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself”:
"Private property thus derives from an analysis of the concept of alienated labour, i.e., alienated man, estranged labour, estranged life, estranged man."
Private property is both the product of alienation and the means of realizing alienation.
Marx’ Communism
Marx describes as "crude communism" the initial abolition of private property in favour of "universal private property".
At this stage, crude communism (now usually called "socialism") still preserves some form of alienation and is a political state, whether "democratic or despotic".
Stage 2 is true Communism, which he describes as follows:
"Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man; it is the complete restoration of man to himself as a social, i.e., human, being...
"This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature, and between man and man, the true resolution of the conflict between existence and being, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between individual and species.
"It is the solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be the solution."
So there!
It’s significant that, while Marx was in Paris, he first met Engels (who had just published "The Condition of the Working Class in England") and this was his first statement that he now supported Communism.
Universal Consciousness
But what does it mean? How can this happen?
This is where it starts to become frustrating and unclear. Some of the manuscripts have never been found.
We have outcomes, but not the methodology.
The new relationship of man to man, and individual to society is crucial, but difficult to piece together and understand.
For Marx, "activity and consumption, both in their content and in their mode of existence, are social activity and social consumption."
He doesn’t mean that we solely act, produce and consume communally (as opposed to individually).
He means that what man creates for himself, he creates for society, conscious of himself as a social being.
The individual and society are two sides of the one coin:
"[My] universal consciousness is only a theoretical form of that whose living form is the real community, society...the activity of my universal consciousness – as activity – is my theoretical existence as a social being...
"It is above all necessary to avoid once more establishing ‘society’ as an abstraction over against the individual. The individual is the social being.
"His vital expression – even when it does not appear in the direct form of a communal expression, conceived in association with other men – is therefore an expression and confirmation of social life. Man’s individual and species-life are not two distinct things..."
In a way, a fully realised man is good for society, and society is good for the fully realised man, but they are one and the same thing:
"Man, however much he may therefore be a particular individual – and it is just this particularity which makes him an individual and a real individual communal being – is just as much the totality, the ideal totality, the subjective existence of thought and experienced society for itself; he also exists in reality as the contemplation and true enjoyment of social existence and as a totality of vital human expression."
Humanisation
Only when this happens, whatever it is, whatever it takes, can man "humanize" nature and the objects around him.
Only then do all objects become for man the objectification of himself, objects that confirm and realise his individuality:
"Only through the objectively unfolded wealth of human nature can the wealth of subjective human sensitivity - a musical ear, an eye for the beauty of form, in short senses capable of human gratification – be either cultivated or created. For not only the five senses, but also the so-called spiritual senses, the practical senses (will, love, etc.), in a word, the human senses, the humanity of the senses – all these come into being only through the existence of their objects, through humanized nature."
Marx sees history as the inevitable progress of man towards the realization of his true, complete and unalienated humanity:
"It can now be seen how the history of industry and the objective existence of industry as it has developed is the open book of the essential powers of man, man’s psychology present in tangible form."
Instead of the objectified powers of the human essence manifesting themselves in sensuous, useful objects to which we relate, capitalism confronts us with the alien nature of our objects and we are alienated.
In contrast, communism represents "a fresh confirmation of human powers and a fresh enrichment of human nature."
My Own Private Property
There is some question as to whether private property will cease altogether under Communism.
However, Marx suggests that “the meaning of private property, freed from its estrangement, is the existence of essential objects for man, both as objects of enjoyment and of activity.”
It’s possible that money might also continue to exist, as a vehicle to acquire objects of enjoyment and activity.
However, his analysis of money is very derogatory, and this interpretation might be wrong.
The Road Ahead
I hesitate to call Marx an idealist or a romantic, because he was determined to integrate theory and practice, and extend philosophy into the politics of action.
After all, just a few years later, he wrote, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."
However, it seems to me that he had a clear definition of the nature and potential of humanity, and he shaped his political philosophy to achieve that potential.
He saw private property in the form of capital as the chief obstacle to the achievement of this potential.
He considered that it had to be abolished, and that the only means was a revolution of the working class.
He opposed other options that might have ameliorated the misery of the working class, in the hope that the severity of their condition would lead inevitably to revolution.
Many people joined the revolutionary cause, because for whatever reason they wanted to negate the negative that they felt capitalism embodied.
Few have ever been able to define the positive that they were trying to achieve.
Few who actually participated in the Russian Revolution even knew the true positive nature of what Marx hoped to achieve.
It is very easy to get caught in the enthusiasm of the 25 year old Marx, even easier to believe that many of the problems still exist, particularly in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis.
However, the physical description of the diagnosis is something as old as Adam Smith.
Marx might well have been right in identifying the causes.
However, it’s the treatment that needs to be worked on.
We need to do something that doesn’t end up killing the patient.
Early Work
The EPM is an early work by Marx.
It is where he develops his version of alienation and the relationship of the self to others, but also the relationship to work and the means of production.
By the time of The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels had got involved in History and were not content just to describe it.
They became theorists and publicists for a revolutionary cause.
They created a theoretical justification for violence as a methodology for achieving a political goal.
Justifying the Use of Violence
Despite how democratic nations claim to be, many still use violence to achieve a goal or maintain the status quo.
Because they can't be seen to endorse revolution, they create and embrace the term "regime change".
They are both types of violence. The only difference is the justification.
They both use the same means, the difference is the end.
However, the EPM precedes all of this.
Reassessing Their Relevance
Marx and Engels have received a lot of bad publicity. Few dare to defend them.
But in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, it's worth opening their works and having a dispassionate squiz.
Not so that we can all get on a revolutionary anti-capitalism bandwagon again, but so that we can understand the plight of people in contemporary society.
FULL REVIEW:
July 20, 2012
At 25
In October, 1843, Karl and Jenny Marx left Cologne and arrived in Paris, where they lived and worked for two years.
Marx’ intention was to write for a radical magazine. At the time of their arrival, Marx was 25 and Jenny was pregnant with their first child, Jenny.
While in Paris, Marx wrote the “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts”, which were effectively the first draft of the ideas that would become the foundation of “Das Kapital” (“Capital”), the first volume of which he published in 1867.
The manuscripts are a critique of “political economy”, the term used then for what we now call “economics”.
They were never published during his lifetime and only became available in Russia in 1932, fifteen years after the Russian Revolution that brought the Communists to power.
Thus, a key work that explained the origin of his ideas remained unknown and of no influence for almost 90 years.
Communism as it manifested itself in the Soviet Union owed more to later works like “The Communist Manifesto” (1848) and “Capital”.
Just as importantly, the works weren’t translated into English until 1959, from which point they caused a radical reassessment of Marx’ ideas.
The Wealth of Nations
The manuscripts total about 120 pages.
The first 40 to 50 pages largely describe the operation of the economy.
If you were to read these pages for the first time today, you would think they encapsulated the principal communist analysis of the capitalist economy.
They describe private property; the separation of labour, capital and land; the separation of wages, profit of capital and rent of land; the division of labour, competition and the concept of exchange value.
Yet, ironically, most of this analysis is quoted from Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”, a work sympathetic to capitalism published in 1776.
Marx highlights that:
• The worker does not necessarily gain when the capitalist gains, but he necessarily loses with him.
• Where worker and capitalist both suffer, the worker suffers in his very existence, while the capitalist suffers primarily in the profit on his capital.
• The worker must not only struggle for his physical means of subsistence, he must also struggle for work (in order to obtain the possibility and means of realizing his activity).
• The accumulation of capital increases the division of labour.
• As a consequence of the division of labour and the accumulation of capital, the worker becomes more and more dependent on labour, in particular a very one-dimensional and machine-like labour, which depresses him both intellectually and physically to the level of a machine.
• Even when the economy is growing, the consequence for workers is overwork and early death.
• The more mechanical nature of his work makes him more vulnerable to competition from both other workers and machines.
• Wages are designed to be just enough to enable him to continue to work.
• Even if the average income of all classes has increased, the relative incomes have grown further apart and the differences between wealth and poverty have become sharper.
• Relative poverty has grown, even though absolute poverty has diminished.
• Political economy knows the worker only as a beast of burden, as an animal reduced to the minimum bodily needs.
• It is foolish to conclude, as Smith does, that the interest of the landlord or capitalist is always identical with that of the tenant or society.
So far then, “from political economy itself, using its own words,” Marx shows that:
• The worker sinks to the level of a commodity.
• The misery of the worker is in inverse proportion to the power and volume of his production.
• The necessary consequence of competition is the accumulation of capital in a few hands and hence the restoration of monopoly in a more terrible form.
• The distinction between capitalist and landlord, between agricultural worker and industrial worker, disappears and the whole of society must split into the two classes of property owners and propertyless workers.
Marx concludes that “Political economy proceeds from the fact of private property. It does not explain it...Political economy fails to explain the reason for the division between labour and capital, between capital and land.”
Marx therefore sets out to grasp “the essential connection between private property, greed, the separation of labour, capital and landed property, exchange and competition, value and the devaluation of man, monopoly and competition, etc. – the connection between this entire system of estrangement [alienation] and the money system.”
Putting the Political Back Into “Political Economy”
I have quoted so much of Marx, partly to show how much he relied on Smith and Ricardo for his underlying analysis of the economy, partly to illustrate how little things have changed, partly to identify the moment at which Marx became political, and partly so that we can consider the political and economic options that might have been available to him to address the problems he perceived.
It was common ground that the economy was effectively a joint venture between labour, capital and landed property.
The problem was how to regulate and manage the relationship between them.
If they are all prerequisites of economic activity, are they equally vital and therefore should they be given an equal or at least more equitable status?
Is any one ingredient more or less fundamental than the others?
The Relative Significance of Capital
Smith would have said that capital was the foundation of capitalism and the one true determinant of the relationship.
Capital is money, and money has a purchasing power that can buy labour, just as it can buy property.
Capital therefore doesn’t acknowledge a joint venture relationship.
It buys what it needs to make more money and effectively replicate itself.
Capital, in its own eyes, is in control.
Over the course of 1844, this viewpoint became a red rag to Marx' bull.
The Options
One option would have been to remunerate workers more adequately.
Another would have been to grant them a share of the joint venture profit.
These options might have remedied some of the inequities.
However, they weren’t adequate from Marx’ perspective.
His preferred option was to abolish private property, in effect, to abolish private capital.
Why did he suggest this?
Entitlement to the Surplus Value
Again, there was common ground that the joint venture could create a profit or surplus value.
However, because capital has bought the labour and the property, capitalism gives the profit not to the joint venture, but to the capital that funds it.
Following on from Smith's description of the economy, Marx argues that ultimately it is labour that creates surplus value.
There would be no profit or capital without the labour that originally created the product or commodity.
If the worker whose labour created the original product had received the whole of the profit, the capitalist would have obtained no capital.
In the absence of capital, the capitalist would have had no money with which to purchase labour or property.
Instead, labour contributes to the capitalist’s wealth, which then, like a snake, turns around and consumes itself, starting with the tail or labour.
Marx believed that, only by chopping the snake in half and giving labour the benefit of surplus value, could real equity be achieved.
Since labour is the foundation of all surplus value, it should own the surplus value.
To achieve this, Marx believed we had to abolish private property.
A Chinese Diversion
Incidentally, in the Communist China of today, the replacement of private capital is not the worker, but public capital in the form of the State (the representative of the workers and other people).
By employing or exploiting Chinese workers, the Chinese State now makes so much surplus value, that, like a snake, it can turn around and start consuming or buying the capitalist economies of the world.
These economies are totally dependent on China for their continued existence.
What’s So Wrong with Private Property?
By rejecting the other available options, Marx rejected any suggestion that the inequity was purely about remuneration. (Even if the poor subsequently got richer under capitalism, the rich would get disproportionately richer, therefore “relative poverty” would increase.)
It’s precisely at this point that Marx becomes most philosophical in his approach to political economy.
He had to solve the problem of political economy in a way that satisfied the political philosophy that had begun to emerge in his mind.
The issue was so fundamental to Marx, because in his eyes it was the cause of the estrangement or alienation of mankind.
Alienation
For me, what follows is the essence of Marx, even if most Marxists or Communists before 1932 (or 1959) would have been relatively unaware of its significance (except to the extent that some of these ideas emerged, possibly slightly changed in detail or emphasis, in the later works of Marx like “Capital”).
In contrast to Hegel, Marx did not see the correct subject matter of philosophy as contemplation or idealism, but practice or “human sensuous activity”.
Man doesn’t just think, he acts, he does things, he interacts with objects in the material world, he makes things, he produces things. (For this reason, Hannah Arendt calls man “homo faber”.)
These objects and the products of his interaction have a material existence outside the mind.
During the process of labour, a worker creates a product or commodity that “stands opposed to [him] as something alien, as a power independent of the [worker or] producer”:
"The product of labour is labour embodied and made material in an object, it is the objectification of the labour. The realization of labour is its objectification. In the sphere of political economy this realization of labour appears as a loss of reality for the worker, objectification as loss of and bondage to the object, and appropriation [by capital and the capitalist]as estrangement, as alienation."
In return for his labour, the worker receives work and remuneration, the means of subsistence.
This turns him into a slave. “The activity of the worker is not his own spontaneous activity. It belongs to another, it is a loss of self”:
"The result is that man (the worker) feels that he is acting freely only in his animal functions – eating, drinking and procreating, or at most in his dwelling and adornment – while in his human functions he is nothing more than an animal."
Man becomes alienated, not just from his labour and the product of his labour, but from the human race (his species) as a whole and from other individual humans.
And private property is at the root of this alienation: it is “the product, result and necessary consequence of alienated labour, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself”:
"Private property thus derives from an analysis of the concept of alienated labour, i.e., alienated man, estranged labour, estranged life, estranged man."
Private property is both the product of alienation and the means of realizing alienation.
Marx’ Communism
Marx describes as "crude communism" the initial abolition of private property in favour of "universal private property".
At this stage, crude communism (now usually called "socialism") still preserves some form of alienation and is a political state, whether "democratic or despotic".
Stage 2 is true Communism, which he describes as follows:
"Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man; it is the complete restoration of man to himself as a social, i.e., human, being...
"This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature, and between man and man, the true resolution of the conflict between existence and being, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between individual and species.
"It is the solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be the solution."
So there!
It’s significant that, while Marx was in Paris, he first met Engels (who had just published "The Condition of the Working Class in England") and this was his first statement that he now supported Communism.
Universal Consciousness
But what does it mean? How can this happen?
This is where it starts to become frustrating and unclear. Some of the manuscripts have never been found.
We have outcomes, but not the methodology.
The new relationship of man to man, and individual to society is crucial, but difficult to piece together and understand.
For Marx, "activity and consumption, both in their content and in their mode of existence, are social activity and social consumption."
He doesn’t mean that we solely act, produce and consume communally (as opposed to individually).
He means that what man creates for himself, he creates for society, conscious of himself as a social being.
The individual and society are two sides of the one coin:
"[My] universal consciousness is only a theoretical form of that whose living form is the real community, society...the activity of my universal consciousness – as activity – is my theoretical existence as a social being...
"It is above all necessary to avoid once more establishing ‘society’ as an abstraction over against the individual. The individual is the social being.
"His vital expression – even when it does not appear in the direct form of a communal expression, conceived in association with other men – is therefore an expression and confirmation of social life. Man’s individual and species-life are not two distinct things..."
In a way, a fully realised man is good for society, and society is good for the fully realised man, but they are one and the same thing:
"Man, however much he may therefore be a particular individual – and it is just this particularity which makes him an individual and a real individual communal being – is just as much the totality, the ideal totality, the subjective existence of thought and experienced society for itself; he also exists in reality as the contemplation and true enjoyment of social existence and as a totality of vital human expression."
Humanisation
Only when this happens, whatever it is, whatever it takes, can man "humanize" nature and the objects around him.
Only then do all objects become for man the objectification of himself, objects that confirm and realise his individuality:
"Only through the objectively unfolded wealth of human nature can the wealth of subjective human sensitivity - a musical ear, an eye for the beauty of form, in short senses capable of human gratification – be either cultivated or created. For not only the five senses, but also the so-called spiritual senses, the practical senses (will, love, etc.), in a word, the human senses, the humanity of the senses – all these come into being only through the existence of their objects, through humanized nature."
Marx sees history as the inevitable progress of man towards the realization of his true, complete and unalienated humanity:
"It can now be seen how the history of industry and the objective existence of industry as it has developed is the open book of the essential powers of man, man’s psychology present in tangible form."
Instead of the objectified powers of the human essence manifesting themselves in sensuous, useful objects to which we relate, capitalism confronts us with the alien nature of our objects and we are alienated.
In contrast, communism represents "a fresh confirmation of human powers and a fresh enrichment of human nature."
My Own Private Property
There is some question as to whether private property will cease altogether under Communism.
However, Marx suggests that “the meaning of private property, freed from its estrangement, is the existence of essential objects for man, both as objects of enjoyment and of activity.”
It’s possible that money might also continue to exist, as a vehicle to acquire objects of enjoyment and activity.
However, his analysis of money is very derogatory, and this interpretation might be wrong.
The Road Ahead
I hesitate to call Marx an idealist or a romantic, because he was determined to integrate theory and practice, and extend philosophy into the politics of action.
After all, just a few years later, he wrote, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."
However, it seems to me that he had a clear definition of the nature and potential of humanity, and he shaped his political philosophy to achieve that potential.
He saw private property in the form of capital as the chief obstacle to the achievement of this potential.
He considered that it had to be abolished, and that the only means was a revolution of the working class.
He opposed other options that might have ameliorated the misery of the working class, in the hope that the severity of their condition would lead inevitably to revolution.
Many people joined the revolutionary cause, because for whatever reason they wanted to negate the negative that they felt capitalism embodied.
Few have ever been able to define the positive that they were trying to achieve.
Few who actually participated in the Russian Revolution even knew the true positive nature of what Marx hoped to achieve.
It is very easy to get caught in the enthusiasm of the 25 year old Marx, even easier to believe that many of the problems still exist, particularly in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis.
However, the physical description of the diagnosis is something as old as Adam Smith.
Marx might well have been right in identifying the causes.
However, it’s the treatment that needs to be worked on.
We need to do something that doesn’t end up killing the patient.
March 29, 2022
As Peter Singer points out in his Marx: A Very Short Introduction (1980), Marx’s influence on the modern Western worldview and on global politics is so immense that it can only be compared to that of religious figures like Jesus and Mohammed. Unfortunately, one of the effects of this influence has been to distort Marx’s thought beyond recognition. In fact, what most people have in mind when they think of Marx has little if anything to do with the man himself. For many of his Left-wing supporters and even more of his Right-wing detractors, the name Karl Marx has become synonymous with iron laws of history, causal determinism, a priori dialectical principles, authoritarian dictatorships, centralized political power, denunciations of bourgeois art and culture… the list goes on. That none of these things are to be found in Marx’s own writings is, of course, beside the point.
Nowhere is the distance between Marx himself and his posthumous public image sharper than in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts. Written in 1844, the Manuscripts didn’t see the light of day until nearly 100 years later when they were published by the Marx–Engels–Lenin Institute in 1932. The reception of the Manuscripts has been sharply divided. Many of the so-called Western Marxists—among them György Lukács, Herbert Marcuse, Jean-Paul Sartre—would come to grant them a central place in their interpretation of Marx. In contrast, the more orthodox Marxists, especially the Marxist–Leninists, would all but repudiate them. And it really isn’t difficult to see why. For here was a side of Marx that didn’t fit in with the Marxist–Leninist picture at all: a humanist Marx whose critique of capitalism rested on a theory of human nature and on a picture of a flourishing human life.
The most influential part of the Manuscripts is without a doubt the section titled “Estranged Labour,” which is notable for introducing the terminology of alienation (Entäußerung), estrangement (Entfremdung) and species-being (Gattungswesen) into the Marxian lexicon. There, Marx characterizes the condition of the wage-worker under capitalism as one of alienation or estrangement. He identifies four types of alienation characteristic of the worker’s condition: alienation from the product of his labour, alienation from the activity of labour, alienation from his own human nature, and alienation from other human beings. Although Marx borrows the concept of alienation from Ludwig Feuerbach, who in turn adapted it from G.W.F. Hegel, it acquires a distinct meaning in Marx’s work.
Certain (most?) commentators have interpreted Marx’s use of the term "alienation" subjectively, i.e., as evoking a feeling of not belonging, of strangeness, of separation. However, I’m not at all convinced that the text bears out this reading. What Marx seems to have in mind is primarily an objective economic phenomenon, not a subjective psychological one. As he put it himself, his analyses “proceed from an actual economic fact” (p. 69). To say that the worker is alienated from the product of his labour is, first, to call attention to the fact that it does not belong to him, and second, to point out that the more he labours, the more the capitalist’s fortune, and thus his power over workers, grows. Similarly, to say that the worker is alienated from the activity of labour is first and foremost to call attention to the fact that the worker sells his labour power and therefore labours under the direction of another. Only secondarily does it express the plausible psychological claim that work performed under these conditions is likely to be highly unfulfilling.
It seems to me that a similar analysis holds for Marx’s claim that workers are alienated from their species being, that is, from their own human nature. Marx’s account of human nature is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Manuscripts. In his view, what defines human beings is their capacity for conscious productive activity: “Free, conscious activity is man’s species character” (p. 75). Whereas nonhuman animals produce instinctively, human beings produce consciously, thus allowing them deliberately to modify their productive activity over time and so to shape their social existence. Moreover, this conscious activity, being their essential characteristic, is for them an end in itself. To say that workers are alienated from their human nature is therefore to say that they are prevented from directing their own productive activity and so from collectively shaping their own lives—hence also why they are alienated from each other. Any considerations about subjective feelings of fulfilment are consequences of the more fundamental social facts of alienation.
Besides "Estranged Labour," the other crucial section of the book is the one titled “Private Property and Communism.” Anticipating his later theory of history, Marx tells us that “communism is the riddle of history solved” (p. 102). Communism, he believes, will overcome the alienation inherent in capitalism and in all previous economic systems. It will return human nature to human beings along with the activity of labour and its product. In doing so, it will also return human beings to themselves. Under conditions of communism, therefore, “man produces man” (p. 103). What is perhaps most surprising, at least for the vulgar Marxist (read: the Marxist–Leninist), is Marx’s eudaimonistic description of human life under these conditions. Marx affirms that “the objectively unfolded richness of man’s essential being is the richness of subjective human sensibility” (p. 108). In other words, the “rich man” under communist society is the cultivated man—one who has honed his senses, his mental faculties, and his emotional sensibilities to appreciate the beauty of the arts, to feel and express love, etc.
The Manuscripts are in many ways a highly frustrating read. Written at the height of Marx’s engagement with the Young Hegelians, they are replete with impenetrable Hegelian prose. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the closing critique of Hegel, which is practically unreadable and is probably best skipped entirely. Besides the obscure language, there is the added problem that Marx frequently expresses even the most straightforward claims as metaphysical theses—a habit he never quite outgrows, and which continues to plague his work all the way through to Capital (1867). Nonetheless, I remain convinced that almost everything in Marx’s account of alienation can be rendered as perfectly intelligible empirical claims and that much of it remains plausible today. And while I can’t get quite behind Marx’s commitment to communism, I am very sympathetic to his conception of the human good. Of course, a Marxist–Leninist would take this as sufficient reason to dismiss me as a bourgeois ideologue—how dare I not give my full allegiance to an ideal so vague that it somehow managed to spawn both Rosa Luxembourg's libertarian socialism and Joseph Stalin's authoritarian terror state? If that's all it takes, then I suppose I am a bourgeois ideologue, at least by Marxist–Leninist standards—but then again, so is Marx.
Nowhere is the distance between Marx himself and his posthumous public image sharper than in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts. Written in 1844, the Manuscripts didn’t see the light of day until nearly 100 years later when they were published by the Marx–Engels–Lenin Institute in 1932. The reception of the Manuscripts has been sharply divided. Many of the so-called Western Marxists—among them György Lukács, Herbert Marcuse, Jean-Paul Sartre—would come to grant them a central place in their interpretation of Marx. In contrast, the more orthodox Marxists, especially the Marxist–Leninists, would all but repudiate them. And it really isn’t difficult to see why. For here was a side of Marx that didn’t fit in with the Marxist–Leninist picture at all: a humanist Marx whose critique of capitalism rested on a theory of human nature and on a picture of a flourishing human life.
The most influential part of the Manuscripts is without a doubt the section titled “Estranged Labour,” which is notable for introducing the terminology of alienation (Entäußerung), estrangement (Entfremdung) and species-being (Gattungswesen) into the Marxian lexicon. There, Marx characterizes the condition of the wage-worker under capitalism as one of alienation or estrangement. He identifies four types of alienation characteristic of the worker’s condition: alienation from the product of his labour, alienation from the activity of labour, alienation from his own human nature, and alienation from other human beings. Although Marx borrows the concept of alienation from Ludwig Feuerbach, who in turn adapted it from G.W.F. Hegel, it acquires a distinct meaning in Marx’s work.
Certain (most?) commentators have interpreted Marx’s use of the term "alienation" subjectively, i.e., as evoking a feeling of not belonging, of strangeness, of separation. However, I’m not at all convinced that the text bears out this reading. What Marx seems to have in mind is primarily an objective economic phenomenon, not a subjective psychological one. As he put it himself, his analyses “proceed from an actual economic fact” (p. 69). To say that the worker is alienated from the product of his labour is, first, to call attention to the fact that it does not belong to him, and second, to point out that the more he labours, the more the capitalist’s fortune, and thus his power over workers, grows. Similarly, to say that the worker is alienated from the activity of labour is first and foremost to call attention to the fact that the worker sells his labour power and therefore labours under the direction of another. Only secondarily does it express the plausible psychological claim that work performed under these conditions is likely to be highly unfulfilling.
It seems to me that a similar analysis holds for Marx’s claim that workers are alienated from their species being, that is, from their own human nature. Marx’s account of human nature is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Manuscripts. In his view, what defines human beings is their capacity for conscious productive activity: “Free, conscious activity is man’s species character” (p. 75). Whereas nonhuman animals produce instinctively, human beings produce consciously, thus allowing them deliberately to modify their productive activity over time and so to shape their social existence. Moreover, this conscious activity, being their essential characteristic, is for them an end in itself. To say that workers are alienated from their human nature is therefore to say that they are prevented from directing their own productive activity and so from collectively shaping their own lives—hence also why they are alienated from each other. Any considerations about subjective feelings of fulfilment are consequences of the more fundamental social facts of alienation.
Besides "Estranged Labour," the other crucial section of the book is the one titled “Private Property and Communism.” Anticipating his later theory of history, Marx tells us that “communism is the riddle of history solved” (p. 102). Communism, he believes, will overcome the alienation inherent in capitalism and in all previous economic systems. It will return human nature to human beings along with the activity of labour and its product. In doing so, it will also return human beings to themselves. Under conditions of communism, therefore, “man produces man” (p. 103). What is perhaps most surprising, at least for the vulgar Marxist (read: the Marxist–Leninist), is Marx’s eudaimonistic description of human life under these conditions. Marx affirms that “the objectively unfolded richness of man’s essential being is the richness of subjective human sensibility” (p. 108). In other words, the “rich man” under communist society is the cultivated man—one who has honed his senses, his mental faculties, and his emotional sensibilities to appreciate the beauty of the arts, to feel and express love, etc.
The Manuscripts are in many ways a highly frustrating read. Written at the height of Marx’s engagement with the Young Hegelians, they are replete with impenetrable Hegelian prose. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the closing critique of Hegel, which is practically unreadable and is probably best skipped entirely. Besides the obscure language, there is the added problem that Marx frequently expresses even the most straightforward claims as metaphysical theses—a habit he never quite outgrows, and which continues to plague his work all the way through to Capital (1867). Nonetheless, I remain convinced that almost everything in Marx’s account of alienation can be rendered as perfectly intelligible empirical claims and that much of it remains plausible today. And while I can’t get quite behind Marx’s commitment to communism, I am very sympathetic to his conception of the human good. Of course, a Marxist–Leninist would take this as sufficient reason to dismiss me as a bourgeois ideologue—how dare I not give my full allegiance to an ideal so vague that it somehow managed to spawn both Rosa Luxembourg's libertarian socialism and Joseph Stalin's authoritarian terror state? If that's all it takes, then I suppose I am a bourgeois ideologue, at least by Marxist–Leninist standards—but then again, so is Marx.
September 26, 2020
این کتاب (یا بهتر بگم دستنوشتهها) تقریبا صد سال بعد از نوشتنش منتشر شد و مربوط به دوران جوونی مارکسه و همونطور که از اسمش پیدا علاوه بر بحث روی مباحث اقتصادی در مورد موضوعات فلسفی هم بحث شده.
در مورد بخش اقتصادی اون (که شامل مزدِ کار سود سرمایه و اجاره بهای زمین و ...) نظر خاصی ندارم چون خیلی در مورد اقتصاد چیزی نمیدونم ولی توی بخش فلسفی اون در مورد «کار بیگانه شده» و یا «ازخودبیگانگی» بحث میکنه که به نظر من خیلی جالب بود. در کل میگه که کارگر وقتی در حال کار و تولیده، شیئی که تولید میکنه رو به عنوان چیزی بیگانه و قدرتی مستقل میبینه یعنی رابطه کارگر با محصول خودش رابطه با یک شیء بیگانهست، چون کار نسبت به کارگر عنصری خارجیه یعنی به وجود ذاتی کارگر تعلق نداره پس در حین کار به جای اثبات خود، خودش رو نفی میکنه به جای حس خرسندی، احساس رنج میکنه هنگام کار احساس آسایش نداره در نتیجه کار از سر اختیارش نیست و صرفا به اون تحمیل شده و فقط ابزاریه برای برآورده ساختن نیازهای اولیه انسان. کار بیگانه شده انسان رو از طبیعت و از خودش بیگانه میکنه.
بعد در مورد ماهیت پول بحث میکنه که پول نیازیه که نظام اقتصادی جدید اون رو به وجود آورده و تنها نیازیه که این نظام ایجاد کرده:
"هر چه کمتر بخوری، کمتر بیاشامی، کمتر کتاب بخری، کمتر به تئاتر، مجلس رقص و سالن تفریح بروی، کمتر فکر کنی، عشق بورزی، نظریه ببافی، آواز بخوانی، نقاشی کنی و تفریح داشته باشی، بیشتر میتوانی پسانداز کنی و گنجت که نه بید و نه زنگ بر آن کارگر نخواخد بود، بیشتر به سرمایهات تبدیل خواهد شد."
"هر چه کمتر باشی و کمتر از زندگی بهره بگیری، زندگی از خودبیگانهات بیشتر خواهد بود؛ هر چه بیشتر داشته باشی، اندوخته وجود از خودبیگانهات بیشتر خواهد بود. به همان میزان اقتصاددان سیاسی از زندگی و انسانیت تو برمیدارد، به همان میزان پول و ثروت رو جایگزین آن میکند"
ب��د به این نکته اشاره میکنه که پول میتونه تواناییهایی رو به انسان بده که ذات فرد اون رو نداره. در واقع یعنی مثلا فردی که انسانی رذل و دغلکاره با پول میتونه برای خودش احترام و عزت بخره فردی که زشته میتونه با پول کاری کنه که دیگران زشتی اون رو بیاهمیت جلوه بدن. در واقع با پول میشه کاری که به عنوان یک انسان قادر نیستم و نیروهای ذاتی اون درونمون وجود نداره رو انجام بدیم یعنی پول نیروهای ذاتی وجود انسان رو به ضد خودش تبدیل میکنه:
"اگر انسان، انسان باشد و روابطش با دنیا روابطی انسانی، آنگاه میتوان عشق را فقط با عشق، اعتماد را با اعتماد و غیره معاوضه کرد. اگر بخواهیم از هنر لذت ببریم، باید هنرمندانه پرورش یافته باشیم؛ اگر میخواهیم بر دیگران تاثیر بگذاریم، باید قادر به برانگیختن و تشویق دیگران باشیم. هر کدام از روابط ما با بشر و طبیعت نمود ویژهای دارد که با عینها و ابژههای اراده و زندگی فردی واقعیمان منطبق باشد. اگر عشق میورزی ولی ناتوان از برانگیختن عشق هستی یعنی اگر عشقت، عشقی متقابل نمیآفریند، اگر با نمود زنده خود به عنوان آدمی عاشق، محبوب دیگری نمیشوی، آنگاه عشقت ناتوان است و این عین بدبختی است."
در کل به نظرم جامعهیی ایدهآله که استعدادها و تواناییهای ذاتی انسان رو پرورش بده. در جامعه سرمایهداری که زندگی میکنیم حرف اول رو سود میزنه هر چیزی که سرمایه رو افزایش نده محکوم به نابودیه. اگر شما شعر بگید ولی کسی اون رو نخره اگر شما نمایشنامه تئاتری رو بنویسید که بازار نداشته باشه اگه نقاشیای بکشید که خریدار نداشته باشه، همه و همه محکوم به نابودین و استعدادهای درونیه انسان و خلاقیت اون رو زیر پا له میکنن. اینجا حرف اول رو سود در بازار میزنه در واقع هر چیزی که سرمایهداران بزرگ اراده بکنند!
اوج خلاقیت و ابتکار ما الان شده زدن استارتآپهای جورواجور و تمام دغدغه و فکر و ذکر ما اینه که چجوریه محصولی تولید کنیم که سرمایهداری پیدا بشه و روی اون سرمایهگذاری کنه و بعد هم خیلی به خودمون افتخار میکنیم که چقدر ما بااستعدادیم و چه کار بزرگی کردیم. هویت ما شده هویتی که کار ما تعریف میکنه و کار ما رو بازاری که تعیین میکنه که به دنبال سود بیشتر و افزایش سرمایه سرمایهداران بزرگه! هویت وجودی هر فرد به خودش به علایقش به استعدادها و نیروهای درونی اونه نه به کاری که انجام میده. شاید به راهحل مارکس برای تغییر این جامعه اعتقاد نداشته باشم ولی به آرمانشهری که توصیف کرد باور دارم:
"تصور کنید صبح به شکار برویم، بعدازظهر ماهیگیری کنیم، عصر گله را به چرا ببریم و بعد از شام به نقد بپردازیم ..."
https://mazdapour.ir/economic-and-phi...
در مورد بخش اقتصادی اون (که شامل مزدِ کار سود سرمایه و اجاره بهای زمین و ...) نظر خاصی ندارم چون خیلی در مورد اقتصاد چیزی نمیدونم ولی توی بخش فلسفی اون در مورد «کار بیگانه شده» و یا «ازخودبیگانگی» بحث میکنه که به نظر من خیلی جالب بود. در کل میگه که کارگر وقتی در حال کار و تولیده، شیئی که تولید میکنه رو به عنوان چیزی بیگانه و قدرتی مستقل میبینه یعنی رابطه کارگر با محصول خودش رابطه با یک شیء بیگانهست، چون کار نسبت به کارگر عنصری خارجیه یعنی به وجود ذاتی کارگر تعلق نداره پس در حین کار به جای اثبات خود، خودش رو نفی میکنه به جای حس خرسندی، احساس رنج میکنه هنگام کار احساس آسایش نداره در نتیجه کار از سر اختیارش نیست و صرفا به اون تحمیل شده و فقط ابزاریه برای برآورده ساختن نیازهای اولیه انسان. کار بیگانه شده انسان رو از طبیعت و از خودش بیگانه میکنه.
بعد در مورد ماهیت پول بحث میکنه که پول نیازیه که نظام اقتصادی جدید اون رو به وجود آورده و تنها نیازیه که این نظام ایجاد کرده:
"هر چه کمتر بخوری، کمتر بیاشامی، کمتر کتاب بخری، کمتر به تئاتر، مجلس رقص و سالن تفریح بروی، کمتر فکر کنی، عشق بورزی، نظریه ببافی، آواز بخوانی، نقاشی کنی و تفریح داشته باشی، بیشتر میتوانی پسانداز کنی و گنجت که نه بید و نه زنگ بر آن کارگر نخواخد بود، بیشتر به سرمایهات تبدیل خواهد شد."
"هر چه کمتر باشی و کمتر از زندگی بهره بگیری، زندگی از خودبیگانهات بیشتر خواهد بود؛ هر چه بیشتر داشته باشی، اندوخته وجود از خودبیگانهات بیشتر خواهد بود. به همان میزان اقتصاددان سیاسی از زندگی و انسانیت تو برمیدارد، به همان میزان پول و ثروت رو جایگزین آن میکند"
ب��د به این نکته اشاره میکنه که پول میتونه تواناییهایی رو به انسان بده که ذات فرد اون رو نداره. در واقع یعنی مثلا فردی که انسانی رذل و دغلکاره با پول میتونه برای خودش احترام و عزت بخره فردی که زشته میتونه با پول کاری کنه که دیگران زشتی اون رو بیاهمیت جلوه بدن. در واقع با پول میشه کاری که به عنوان یک انسان قادر نیستم و نیروهای ذاتی اون درونمون وجود نداره رو انجام بدیم یعنی پول نیروهای ذاتی وجود انسان رو به ضد خودش تبدیل میکنه:
"اگر انسان، انسان باشد و روابطش با دنیا روابطی انسانی، آنگاه میتوان عشق را فقط با عشق، اعتماد را با اعتماد و غیره معاوضه کرد. اگر بخواهیم از هنر لذت ببریم، باید هنرمندانه پرورش یافته باشیم؛ اگر میخواهیم بر دیگران تاثیر بگذاریم، باید قادر به برانگیختن و تشویق دیگران باشیم. هر کدام از روابط ما با بشر و طبیعت نمود ویژهای دارد که با عینها و ابژههای اراده و زندگی فردی واقعیمان منطبق باشد. اگر عشق میورزی ولی ناتوان از برانگیختن عشق هستی یعنی اگر عشقت، عشقی متقابل نمیآفریند، اگر با نمود زنده خود به عنوان آدمی عاشق، محبوب دیگری نمیشوی، آنگاه عشقت ناتوان است و این عین بدبختی است."
در کل به نظرم جامعهیی ایدهآله که استعدادها و تواناییهای ذاتی انسان رو پرورش بده. در جامعه سرمایهداری که زندگی میکنیم حرف اول رو سود میزنه هر چیزی که سرمایه رو افزایش نده محکوم به نابودیه. اگر شما شعر بگید ولی کسی اون رو نخره اگر شما نمایشنامه تئاتری رو بنویسید که بازار نداشته باشه اگه نقاشیای بکشید که خریدار نداشته باشه، همه و همه محکوم به نابودین و استعدادهای درونیه انسان و خلاقیت اون رو زیر پا له میکنن. اینجا حرف اول رو سود در بازار میزنه در واقع هر چیزی که سرمایهداران بزرگ اراده بکنند!
اوج خلاقیت و ابتکار ما الان شده زدن استارتآپهای جورواجور و تمام دغدغه و فکر و ذکر ما اینه که چجوریه محصولی تولید کنیم که سرمایهداری پیدا بشه و روی اون سرمایهگذاری کنه و بعد هم خیلی به خودمون افتخار میکنیم که چقدر ما بااستعدادیم و چه کار بزرگی کردیم. هویت ما شده هویتی که کار ما تعریف میکنه و کار ما رو بازاری که تعیین میکنه که به دنبال سود بیشتر و افزایش سرمایه سرمایهداران بزرگه! هویت وجودی هر فرد به خودش به علایقش به استعدادها و نیروهای درونی اونه نه به کاری که انجام میده. شاید به راهحل مارکس برای تغییر این جامعه اعتقاد نداشته باشم ولی به آرمانشهری که توصیف کرد باور دارم:
"تصور کنید صبح به شکار برویم، بعدازظهر ماهیگیری کنیم، عصر گله را به چرا ببریم و بعد از شام به نقد بپردازیم ..."
https://mazdapour.ir/economic-and-phi...
September 8, 2020
یادداشت های پراکنده ای که شاید به لحاظ تاریخی مقدماتی بر کارهای بزرگتر مارکس باشند اما به نظرم در نهایت بهترین نقطه شروع مطالعه مارکس نیستند. یعنی بسیاری از مفاهیم کلیدی مثل ازخودبیگانگی در نیمه اول و نقد هگل در نیمه دوم محوریت دارند اما پیوستگی مطالب به خوبی حفظ نمیشود. در بعضی مواقع مطالب جاافتاده یا از دست رفته اند و دست نوشته ها ناقص است و البته ترجمه فارسی هم مخصوصا در نیمه دوم بسیار سخت خوان به نظر میرسد
با این حال مهمترین نکته ای که بدان به خوبی پرداخته شده شروع از مبحث خودبیگانگی و سپس از خودبیگانگی است که مناسبات سرمایه دار و کارگر را فراتر از سایر مناسبات - مثلا با زمین دار - قرار میدهد و مخصوصا اگر در شرایط خاص مکانی و زمانی خودش یعنی انگلستان آغاز صنعتی شدن قرار داده شود فهم بسیاری از گزاره ها را ساده تر میکند. برای من هم نکته مثبت همزمانی مطالعه این مقالات با ژرمینال زولا بود که دریافت نسبت بین شرایط زندگی کارگر و ارتباطش با مناسبات تولیدی را تسهیل میکند
با این حال مهمترین نکته ای که بدان به خوبی پرداخته شده شروع از مبحث خودبیگانگی و سپس از خودبیگانگی است که مناسبات سرمایه دار و کارگر را فراتر از سایر مناسبات - مثلا با زمین دار - قرار میدهد و مخصوصا اگر در شرایط خاص مکانی و زمانی خودش یعنی انگلستان آغاز صنعتی شدن قرار داده شود فهم بسیاری از گزاره ها را ساده تر میکند. برای من هم نکته مثبت همزمانی مطالعه این مقالات با ژرمینال زولا بود که دریافت نسبت بین شرایط زندگی کارگر و ارتباطش با مناسبات تولیدی را تسهیل میکند
November 8, 2009
I single this out (but I like most of Marx's writings)because it still gives me shivers. It isn't dry and tedious or in the realm of pure philosophy. It is what it is...an emotional (maybe dumbed down), political tract that has no fear. I don't care where in the political spectrum/circle you are...it's a good read.
December 15, 2019
این دستنوشته را مارکس در سالهای جوانی نوشته و متأسفانه بخشهایی از آن یا گم شده یا ناخواناست یا تکمیل نشده. بنابراین نمیتواند تصویری کلی و آشکار از اندیشه مارکس به دست بدهد. با اینهمه خواندنش برای من بسیار مفید بود و بار دیگر تلنگری زد که چرا باید اهتمام ورزید و هر اندیشه را از دریچه نگاه خود اندیشمند واکاوید.
در مقدمه آمده که مارکس همیشه با این انتقاد روبهرو بوده که وجوه فلسفی بینش خود را بهصورت منسجم ارائه نکرده و این بار را در عوض انگلس بهدوش کشیده. این دستنوشته نشان میدهد که چرا. گسست مارکس از فلسفه و گذار از هگل و حتی فویرباخ که در زمان نگارش این اثر همچنان مارکس تأثیرپذیرفتهی اوست، لابهلای همین دستنوشته آشکار میشود.
بخشهای نخست به مقولات ارزش، مزد کار، سود سرمایه و رانت ارضی میپردازد که با نقبزدن به تعاریف اقتصاد سیاسی از منظر اندیشمندان بزرگ آن تضادهای درونی و بیرونیشان را تاحدی بیان میکند. البته این مسایل در کتاب سرمایه کاملتر بررسی میگردند و پختهتر میشوند.
جذابیت این کتاب برای من از فصول بعدی شروع شد چرا که انسان امروز تقریبا تمامی خطوطش را زندگی کرده و چشیده. کار بیگانهشده و بررسی همهجانبهی مالکیت خصوصی (به صورت کلی، در رابطه با کار، و بعد، کمونیسم که در آن کمونیسم تخیلی و غیرعملی نقد شده) و نیازهای انسانی از منظر فلسفی. مارکس کوشیده که نشان بدهد روابط مقلوب کار و تولید چطور انسان را از هویت انسانیاش محروم میکند ( فارغ از نقشی که در این معادله دارد) و مالکیت خصوصی در تمامیت خود چطور بر همهی افکار و احساسات انسانی سلطه دارد تاحدی که حتی مدعیان کمونسیم فقط مالکیتی میخواهند همگانی و پر از بغض وکینه. چه حیف که برخی از این فصول تکمیل نشدهاند اما تا همین اندازه هم که مکتوب شدهاند میتوانند ذهن را به چالش بکشند و خوراک تازهای برایش فراهم کنند.
در مقدمه آمده که مارکس همیشه با این انتقاد روبهرو بوده که وجوه فلسفی بینش خود را بهصورت منسجم ارائه نکرده و این بار را در عوض انگلس بهدوش کشیده. این دستنوشته نشان میدهد که چرا. گسست مارکس از فلسفه و گذار از هگل و حتی فویرباخ که در زمان نگارش این اثر همچنان مارکس تأثیرپذیرفتهی اوست، لابهلای همین دستنوشته آشکار میشود.
بخشهای نخست به مقولات ارزش، مزد کار، سود سرمایه و رانت ارضی میپردازد که با نقبزدن به تعاریف اقتصاد سیاسی از منظر اندیشمندان بزرگ آن تضادهای درونی و بیرونیشان را تاحدی بیان میکند. البته این مسایل در کتاب سرمایه کاملتر بررسی میگردند و پختهتر میشوند.
جذابیت این کتاب برای من از فصول بعدی شروع شد چرا که انسان امروز تقریبا تمامی خطوطش را زندگی کرده و چشیده. کار بیگانهشده و بررسی همهجانبهی مالکیت خصوصی (به صورت کلی، در رابطه با کار، و بعد، کمونیسم که در آن کمونیسم تخیلی و غیرعملی نقد شده) و نیازهای انسانی از منظر فلسفی. مارکس کوشیده که نشان بدهد روابط مقلوب کار و تولید چطور انسان را از هویت انسانیاش محروم میکند ( فارغ از نقشی که در این معادله دارد) و مالکیت خصوصی در تمامیت خود چطور بر همهی افکار و احساسات انسانی سلطه دارد تاحدی که حتی مدعیان کمونسیم فقط مالکیتی میخواهند همگانی و پر از بغض وکینه. چه حیف که برخی از این فصول تکمیل نشدهاند اما تا همین اندازه هم که مکتوب شدهاند میتوانند ذهن را به چالش بکشند و خوراک تازهای برایش فراهم کنند.
August 21, 2020
Mucho se ha especulado sobre las disyuntivas de un Marx Joven y un Marx adulto. Y ello surge, probablemente, de entender las obras del profesor Carlos Marx como islas disgragadas de su selecta investigación científica y económica.
Yo entiendo los Manuscritos de 1844 como el inicio del planteamiento mas disruptivo de Marx respecto a la escuela escocesa: su concepción antropológica. El resto de obras de Marx verán no un hombre distinto, sino un hombre madurado a partir de las ideas que acá se exponen.
Esta obra es pues, obligatoria cuando menos, y enormemente interesante, para recorrer el camino del esfuerzo teórico que generó Marx y que finalizó con el Capital (¿finalizó?)
Es un buen texto para rayar, devolverse, consultar referencias y palabras y en todo caso: leer detenidamente para entender el hombre que luego Marx puso en El Capital
Yo entiendo los Manuscritos de 1844 como el inicio del planteamiento mas disruptivo de Marx respecto a la escuela escocesa: su concepción antropológica. El resto de obras de Marx verán no un hombre distinto, sino un hombre madurado a partir de las ideas que acá se exponen.
Esta obra es pues, obligatoria cuando menos, y enormemente interesante, para recorrer el camino del esfuerzo teórico que generó Marx y que finalizó con el Capital (¿finalizó?)
Es un buen texto para rayar, devolverse, consultar referencias y palabras y en todo caso: leer detenidamente para entender el hombre que luego Marx puso en El Capital
Read
June 13, 2012So this is the much-vaunted humanist Marx... he's definitely a different Marx than the strict economic thinker of Capital. Rather, this is a guy who thinks that capitalism destroys the soul of the worker, alienating him from his labors and alienating humanity from history.
And given that a lot of Marx's specific economic theories are now pretty suspect while his social theories remain strong, this seems to be the Marx we should be paying attention to. Check it out!
And given that a lot of Marx's specific economic theories are now pretty suspect while his social theories remain strong, this seems to be the Marx we should be paying attention to. Check it out!
May 15, 2018
Un joven Marx de 26 años. En este libro esta ese supuesto humanismo perdido en sus trabajos posteriores. Como en todo lo que escribe Marx, se superponen distintos análisis, en este caso, la filosofía quizás está más presente que en otras de sus obras. Un texto para introducirse en el estudio de Marx, y mejor aun, para comprender la totalidad de su proyecto.
April 23, 2021
کتابی بود بسی سخت ، بیشتر فلسفی تا اقتصادی ، باید با پس زمینه فلسفی قوی خوند .
April 30, 2024
Absolutamente brutal!!!
Nunca había leído a Marx ni en general nada marxista y me ha parecido buena introducción, aunque no he entendido nada del Primer manuscrito hasta “El trabajo enajenado” porque se ve no tengo ni idea de economía (ni falta que hace I fucking hate her) ni tampoco nada de la critica a Hegel porque se ve que no he leído a Hegel 😆
Pero todo lo que he entendido, que al final ha sido más de lo que esperaba, ha sido increíble, life changing!!!!!! Destaco los capítulos de “El trabajo enajenado”, “Propiedad privada y comunismo” (precioso!!!!) y “Dinero”.
"El trabajador se relaciona con el producto de su trabajo como un objeto extraño. Partiendo de este supuesto, es evidente que cuanto más se vuelca el trabajador en su trabajo, tanto más poderoso es el mundo extraño, objetivo que crea frente a sí y tanto más pobres son él mismo y su mundo interior, tanto menos dueño de sí mismo es. Lo mismo sucede en la religión. Cuanto más pone el hombre en Dios, tanto menos guarda para sí mismo. El trabajador pone su vida en el objeto, pero a partir de entonces ya no le pertenece a él, sino al objeto"
"El trabajo es externo al trabajador, es decir, no pertenece a su ser; en su trabajo, el trabajador no se afirma, sino que se niega; no se siente feliz, sino desgraciado; no desarrolla una libre energía física y espiritual, sino que mortifica su cuerpo y arruina su espíritu. Por eso el trabajador solo se siente en sí fuera del trabajo, y en el trabajo fuera de sí. Está en lo suyo cuando no trabaja y cuando trabaja no está en lo suyo. Su trabajo no es así voluntario sino trabajo forzado. Por eso no es la satisfacción de una necesidad sino solamente un medio para satisfacer las necesidades fuera del trabajo"
"La vida productiva es, sin embargo, la vida genérica. Es la vida que crea vida. En la forma de la actividad vital reside el carácter dado de una especie, su carácter genérico, y la actividad libre, consciente, es el carácter genérico del hombre. La vida misma aparece solo como medio de vida" !!!!!! / "El trabajo enajenado invierte la relación de manera que el hombre, precisamente por ser un ser consciente, hace de su actividad vital, de su esencia, un simple medio para su existencia"
"El comunismo como superación positiva de la propiedad privada en cuanto que autoextrañamiento del hombre, y por ello como apropiación real de la esencia humana por y para el hombre; por ello como retorno del hombre para sí en cuanto hombre social, es decir, humano; retorno pleno, consciente y efectuado dentro de la riqueza de la evolución humana hasta el presente. Este comunismo es, como completo naturalismo = humanismo, como completo humanismo = naturalismo; es la verdadera solución del conflicto entre el hombre y la naturaleza, entre el hombre y el hombre" Qué bonito!!!!!
"Cuanto menos eres, cuanto menos exteriorizas tu vida, tanto más tienes, tanto mayor es tu vida enajenada y tanto más almacenas de tu esencia. Todo lo que el economista te quita en vida y en humanidad te lo restituyen en dinero y en riqueza, todo lo que no puedes lo puede tu dinero. Él puede comer y beber, ir al teatro y el baile; conoce el arte, la sabiduría, las rarezas históricas, el poder político; puede viajar; puede hacerte dueño de todo esto, puede comprar todo esto, es la verdadera opulencia. Pero siendo todo esto, el dinero no puede más que crearse a sí mismo, comprarse a sí mismo, pues todo lo demás es siervo suyo y cuando se tiene al señor se tiene al siervo y no se le necesita. Todas las pasiones y toda actividad deben, pues, disolverse en la avaricia. El obrero solo debe tener lo suficiente para querer vivir y solo debe querer vivir para tener"
"Si el dinero es el vínculo que me liga a la vida humana, que liga a la sociedad, que me liga con la naturaleza y con el hombre, ¿no es el dinero el vínculo de todos los vínculos? ¿No puede él atar y desatar todas las desataduras? ¿No es también por esto el medio general de separación?
"Como el dinero, en cuanto concepto existente y activo del valor, confude y cambia todas las cosas, es la confusión y el trueque de todas las cualidades naturales y humanas. Aunque sea cobarde, es valiente quien puede comprar la valentía. Como el dinero no se cambia por una cualidad determinada, ni por una cosa o una fuerza esencial human determinadas, sino por la totalidad del mundo objetivo natural y humano, desde el punto de vista de su poseedor puede cambiar cualquier propiedad por cualquier otra propiedad y cualquier otro objeto, incluso de los contradictorios (...) Cada una de las relaciones con el hombre - y con la naturaleza - ha de ser una exteriorización determinada de la vida individual real que se corresponda con el objeto de la voluntad"
Nunca había leído a Marx ni en general nada marxista y me ha parecido buena introducción, aunque no he entendido nada del Primer manuscrito hasta “El trabajo enajenado” porque se ve no tengo ni idea de economía (ni falta que hace I fucking hate her) ni tampoco nada de la critica a Hegel porque se ve que no he leído a Hegel 😆
Pero todo lo que he entendido, que al final ha sido más de lo que esperaba, ha sido increíble, life changing!!!!!! Destaco los capítulos de “El trabajo enajenado”, “Propiedad privada y comunismo” (precioso!!!!) y “Dinero”.
"El trabajador se relaciona con el producto de su trabajo como un objeto extraño. Partiendo de este supuesto, es evidente que cuanto más se vuelca el trabajador en su trabajo, tanto más poderoso es el mundo extraño, objetivo que crea frente a sí y tanto más pobres son él mismo y su mundo interior, tanto menos dueño de sí mismo es. Lo mismo sucede en la religión. Cuanto más pone el hombre en Dios, tanto menos guarda para sí mismo. El trabajador pone su vida en el objeto, pero a partir de entonces ya no le pertenece a él, sino al objeto"
"El trabajo es externo al trabajador, es decir, no pertenece a su ser; en su trabajo, el trabajador no se afirma, sino que se niega; no se siente feliz, sino desgraciado; no desarrolla una libre energía física y espiritual, sino que mortifica su cuerpo y arruina su espíritu. Por eso el trabajador solo se siente en sí fuera del trabajo, y en el trabajo fuera de sí. Está en lo suyo cuando no trabaja y cuando trabaja no está en lo suyo. Su trabajo no es así voluntario sino trabajo forzado. Por eso no es la satisfacción de una necesidad sino solamente un medio para satisfacer las necesidades fuera del trabajo"
"La vida productiva es, sin embargo, la vida genérica. Es la vida que crea vida. En la forma de la actividad vital reside el carácter dado de una especie, su carácter genérico, y la actividad libre, consciente, es el carácter genérico del hombre. La vida misma aparece solo como medio de vida" !!!!!! / "El trabajo enajenado invierte la relación de manera que el hombre, precisamente por ser un ser consciente, hace de su actividad vital, de su esencia, un simple medio para su existencia"
"El comunismo como superación positiva de la propiedad privada en cuanto que autoextrañamiento del hombre, y por ello como apropiación real de la esencia humana por y para el hombre; por ello como retorno del hombre para sí en cuanto hombre social, es decir, humano; retorno pleno, consciente y efectuado dentro de la riqueza de la evolución humana hasta el presente. Este comunismo es, como completo naturalismo = humanismo, como completo humanismo = naturalismo; es la verdadera solución del conflicto entre el hombre y la naturaleza, entre el hombre y el hombre" Qué bonito!!!!!
"Cuanto menos eres, cuanto menos exteriorizas tu vida, tanto más tienes, tanto mayor es tu vida enajenada y tanto más almacenas de tu esencia. Todo lo que el economista te quita en vida y en humanidad te lo restituyen en dinero y en riqueza, todo lo que no puedes lo puede tu dinero. Él puede comer y beber, ir al teatro y el baile; conoce el arte, la sabiduría, las rarezas históricas, el poder político; puede viajar; puede hacerte dueño de todo esto, puede comprar todo esto, es la verdadera opulencia. Pero siendo todo esto, el dinero no puede más que crearse a sí mismo, comprarse a sí mismo, pues todo lo demás es siervo suyo y cuando se tiene al señor se tiene al siervo y no se le necesita. Todas las pasiones y toda actividad deben, pues, disolverse en la avaricia. El obrero solo debe tener lo suficiente para querer vivir y solo debe querer vivir para tener"
"Si el dinero es el vínculo que me liga a la vida humana, que liga a la sociedad, que me liga con la naturaleza y con el hombre, ¿no es el dinero el vínculo de todos los vínculos? ¿No puede él atar y desatar todas las desataduras? ¿No es también por esto el medio general de separación?
"Como el dinero, en cuanto concepto existente y activo del valor, confude y cambia todas las cosas, es la confusión y el trueque de todas las cualidades naturales y humanas. Aunque sea cobarde, es valiente quien puede comprar la valentía. Como el dinero no se cambia por una cualidad determinada, ni por una cosa o una fuerza esencial human determinadas, sino por la totalidad del mundo objetivo natural y humano, desde el punto de vista de su poseedor puede cambiar cualquier propiedad por cualquier otra propiedad y cualquier otro objeto, incluso de los contradictorios (...) Cada una de las relaciones con el hombre - y con la naturaleza - ha de ser una exteriorización determinada de la vida individual real que se corresponda con el objeto de la voluntad"
December 7, 2022
ENGLISH
This book is made of manuscripts recovered and published after Marx’s death. Also called The Paris Manuscripts, the work predates Marx and Engels’ collaboration, and already presents the genesis of powerful, polemic ideas, considered heretic by many. A few passages are barely legible, erased, scratched and torn, though without prejudice to general comprehension.
The work presents in its first third part very clear ideas about Political Economy (or “National Economy”, as Marx calls the discipline), working on concepts and ideas of Adam Smith, J.-B. Say and James Mill. From there until the last third part of the book he follows a purely philosophical path, quite dedicated to analyzing and refuting Hegel to a large extent, and Feuerbach to a lesser extent, philosophers who notably influenced him, with greater emphasis on the former. In the final part, Marx returns to the discussion of economic issues, aiming his artillery against some conclusions of said economists.
In short, central ideas in his economic thought already appear in these manuscripts, such as the one that work and the worker are commodities; that the more the worker works, the more he is devalued, and the cheaper a commodity he becomes. Marx makes reference to Adam Smith’s idea that while workers’ unions formed to raise bargaining power are always condemned, capitalists’ ones are always allowed even though they might be considered a conspiracy against the public.
An important philosophical concept developed by Marx in this work is the idea of “worker estrangement”: working to survive dehumanizes workers and the product of labour is something for others. He becomes unhappy from not fulfilling himself, and earns a salary, which is a sacrifice of production, just to satisfy his needs outside work. Work is, therefore, an activity that belongs to others — it is the loss of oneself. This, in a market dynamics in which each human being acts to produce needs in each other. Furthermore, the specialization of production, as Smith and Say described the division of production leading to higher productivity, is also an individual limitation.
Experts point to Marx's mention in this work to the abolition of private property. In fact, he refers to the “suppression” (aufhebung) of property, as a historic movement that should be harsh and long in the real world. However, it is a very short passage and it is not possible to say that he worked this idea in depth.
Marx ends the book with a short analysis of the omnipotent power of money, using poems by Goethe and Shakespeare. Money has this ability to transform opposites: a coward becomes brave, an ugly becomes beautiful, etc.
This is a short book, giving the impression that some ideas hadn’t been fully developed, like the last part about money. The transition between the approach of ideas about economics and philosophy is not very clear, which gives the impression that Marx abandoned the manuscripts before developing such transition better. In any case, the work is quite interesting for those who are new to Marx's thought, as is my case.
PORTUGUÊS
Este livro é feito de manuscritos recuperados e publicados após a morte de Marx. Também chamada de Manuscritos de Paris, a obra é anterior à colaboração de Marx e Engels e já apresenta a gênese de ideias poderosas e polêmicas, consideradas heréticas por muitos. Alguns trechos estão pouco legíveis, rasurados, riscados e rasgados, mas sem prejuízo para a compreensão geral.
A obra apresenta em sua primeira terça parte ideias bastante claras sobre a visão de Marx sobre Economia Política (ou “Economia Nacional”, como ele se refere à disciplina), trabalhando sobre conceitos e ideias de Adam Smith, J.-B. Say e James Mill. A partir daí até a última terça parte do livro, ele segue um caminho puramente filosófico, bastante dedicado a analisar e, em boa medida, refutar Hegel e, em menor medida, Feuerbach, filósofos que notadamente o influenciaram, com maior destaque para o primeiro. Na parte final, retorna a discussão de temas econômicos, voltando Marx a mirar sua artilharia contra conclusões dos economistas mencionados.
Em suma, ideias centrais em seu pensamento econômico já aparecem nestes manuscritos, como a ideia de que o trabalho e o trabalhador são mercadorias, que quanto mais o trabalhador trabalha, mais ele se desvaloriza, se torna a mercadoria mais barata. Marx faz referência à ideia de Adam Smith de que enquanto os sindicatos dos trabalhadores para aumentar o poder de barganha são sempre condenados, os dos capitalistas são sempre permitidos, mesmo que possam ser considerados uma conspiração contra o público.
Conceito filosófico importante trabalhado por Marx nesta obra é a ideia de “estranhamento do trabalhador”. Para Marx, o trabalhador se desumaniza ao trabalhar para sobreviver e produzir algo que é para outros. Ele se torna infeliz por não se realizar e ganha um salário, que é um sacrifício da produção, apenas para satisfazer necessidades fora do trabalho. O trabalho é, portanto, atividade que pertence a outro, é a perda de si mesmo do trabalhador. Isto, numa dinâmica de mercado em que cada ser humano atua para produzir carências um no outro. Além disso, a especialização da produção, como descrita por Smith e Say na descrição do fenômeno da divisão da produção como fenômeno que leva à maior produtividade, também é uma limitação individual.
Especialistas apontam para a menção de Marx nesta obra à abolição da propriedade privada. Na verdade, ele se refere à “suprassunção” (aufhebung) da propriedade, como um movimento histórico que no mundo real deverá ocorrer de modo áspero e longo. Porém, trata-se de um trecho bastante curto e não é possível dizer que ele trabalhou essa ideia com profundidade.
Marx finaliza o livro com uma curta análise do poder onipotente do dinheiro, usando poemas de Goethe e Shakespeare. O dinheiro tem essa capacidade de transformar contrários. Um covarde se torna valente, um feio se torna belo…
Trata-se de um livro curto, dando a impressão de que algumas ideias de fato não foram totalmente desenvolvidas, como a última parte sobre o dinheiro. A transição entre a abordagem de ideias sobre economia e filosofia se dá de modo não muito claro, dando a impressão de que Marx abandonou os manuscritos antes de desenvolver melhor tal transição. De todo modo, a obra é bastante interessante para quem se inicia no pensamento de Marx, como é o meu caso.
This book is made of manuscripts recovered and published after Marx’s death. Also called The Paris Manuscripts, the work predates Marx and Engels’ collaboration, and already presents the genesis of powerful, polemic ideas, considered heretic by many. A few passages are barely legible, erased, scratched and torn, though without prejudice to general comprehension.
The work presents in its first third part very clear ideas about Political Economy (or “National Economy”, as Marx calls the discipline), working on concepts and ideas of Adam Smith, J.-B. Say and James Mill. From there until the last third part of the book he follows a purely philosophical path, quite dedicated to analyzing and refuting Hegel to a large extent, and Feuerbach to a lesser extent, philosophers who notably influenced him, with greater emphasis on the former. In the final part, Marx returns to the discussion of economic issues, aiming his artillery against some conclusions of said economists.
In short, central ideas in his economic thought already appear in these manuscripts, such as the one that work and the worker are commodities; that the more the worker works, the more he is devalued, and the cheaper a commodity he becomes. Marx makes reference to Adam Smith’s idea that while workers’ unions formed to raise bargaining power are always condemned, capitalists’ ones are always allowed even though they might be considered a conspiracy against the public.
An important philosophical concept developed by Marx in this work is the idea of “worker estrangement”: working to survive dehumanizes workers and the product of labour is something for others. He becomes unhappy from not fulfilling himself, and earns a salary, which is a sacrifice of production, just to satisfy his needs outside work. Work is, therefore, an activity that belongs to others — it is the loss of oneself. This, in a market dynamics in which each human being acts to produce needs in each other. Furthermore, the specialization of production, as Smith and Say described the division of production leading to higher productivity, is also an individual limitation.
Experts point to Marx's mention in this work to the abolition of private property. In fact, he refers to the “suppression” (aufhebung) of property, as a historic movement that should be harsh and long in the real world. However, it is a very short passage and it is not possible to say that he worked this idea in depth.
Marx ends the book with a short analysis of the omnipotent power of money, using poems by Goethe and Shakespeare. Money has this ability to transform opposites: a coward becomes brave, an ugly becomes beautiful, etc.
This is a short book, giving the impression that some ideas hadn’t been fully developed, like the last part about money. The transition between the approach of ideas about economics and philosophy is not very clear, which gives the impression that Marx abandoned the manuscripts before developing such transition better. In any case, the work is quite interesting for those who are new to Marx's thought, as is my case.
PORTUGUÊS
Este livro é feito de manuscritos recuperados e publicados após a morte de Marx. Também chamada de Manuscritos de Paris, a obra é anterior à colaboração de Marx e Engels e já apresenta a gênese de ideias poderosas e polêmicas, consideradas heréticas por muitos. Alguns trechos estão pouco legíveis, rasurados, riscados e rasgados, mas sem prejuízo para a compreensão geral.
A obra apresenta em sua primeira terça parte ideias bastante claras sobre a visão de Marx sobre Economia Política (ou “Economia Nacional”, como ele se refere à disciplina), trabalhando sobre conceitos e ideias de Adam Smith, J.-B. Say e James Mill. A partir daí até a última terça parte do livro, ele segue um caminho puramente filosófico, bastante dedicado a analisar e, em boa medida, refutar Hegel e, em menor medida, Feuerbach, filósofos que notadamente o influenciaram, com maior destaque para o primeiro. Na parte final, retorna a discussão de temas econômicos, voltando Marx a mirar sua artilharia contra conclusões dos economistas mencionados.
Em suma, ideias centrais em seu pensamento econômico já aparecem nestes manuscritos, como a ideia de que o trabalho e o trabalhador são mercadorias, que quanto mais o trabalhador trabalha, mais ele se desvaloriza, se torna a mercadoria mais barata. Marx faz referência à ideia de Adam Smith de que enquanto os sindicatos dos trabalhadores para aumentar o poder de barganha são sempre condenados, os dos capitalistas são sempre permitidos, mesmo que possam ser considerados uma conspiração contra o público.
Conceito filosófico importante trabalhado por Marx nesta obra é a ideia de “estranhamento do trabalhador”. Para Marx, o trabalhador se desumaniza ao trabalhar para sobreviver e produzir algo que é para outros. Ele se torna infeliz por não se realizar e ganha um salário, que é um sacrifício da produção, apenas para satisfazer necessidades fora do trabalho. O trabalho é, portanto, atividade que pertence a outro, é a perda de si mesmo do trabalhador. Isto, numa dinâmica de mercado em que cada ser humano atua para produzir carências um no outro. Além disso, a especialização da produção, como descrita por Smith e Say na descrição do fenômeno da divisão da produção como fenômeno que leva à maior produtividade, também é uma limitação individual.
Especialistas apontam para a menção de Marx nesta obra à abolição da propriedade privada. Na verdade, ele se refere à “suprassunção” (aufhebung) da propriedade, como um movimento histórico que no mundo real deverá ocorrer de modo áspero e longo. Porém, trata-se de um trecho bastante curto e não é possível dizer que ele trabalhou essa ideia com profundidade.
Marx finaliza o livro com uma curta análise do poder onipotente do dinheiro, usando poemas de Goethe e Shakespeare. O dinheiro tem essa capacidade de transformar contrários. Um covarde se torna valente, um feio se torna belo…
Trata-se de um livro curto, dando a impressão de que algumas ideias de fato não foram totalmente desenvolvidas, como a última parte sobre o dinheiro. A transição entre a abordagem de ideias sobre economia e filosofia se dá de modo não muito claro, dando a impressão de que Marx abandonou os manuscritos antes de desenvolver melhor tal transição. De todo modo, a obra é bastante interessante para quem se inicia no pensamento de Marx, como é o meu caso.
June 5, 2020
Não sei nem como classificar esse tipo de livro ahahaha. Foi uma experiência peculiar, mas muito enriquecedora. Aprendi muito, sem dúvidas. Você lê, assimila, reflete. Foi muito interessante e fiz um fichamento extenso, que vai ser muito útil.
(tenham amigas que incentivam você a sair da sua zona de conforto literária hehe obrigada, Letícia pelo empréstimo)
(tenham amigas que incentivam você a sair da sua zona de conforto literária hehe obrigada, Letícia pelo empréstimo)
July 24, 2017
Difficult to really assess due to its incompletion and what reads to me as a mediocre translation -- like much late-discovered Marx, this reaches us in roundabout, allusive ways, both historically and theoretically, but it's worth sinking your teeth into him at his most philosophically impassioned. [In reference to the 1844 manuscripts; the Manifesto, also included here, it should go without saying is obviously great.]
May 3, 2022
The parts about Hegel went over my head and at this point in my life I'm just going to have to accept that.
September 14, 2023
Amazing book. I'd like to read more on alienation and "species-being".
May 31, 2021
Well worth reading. I used a free online edition provided by Marxists.org.
Highlights include discussions of the alienation of labour, the power of money, the nature of private property and the role of capital. Marx expresses in various ways the belief that the division of labour causes a fundamental separation of the whole human being from his own nature and from nature itself. Yet he also suggests that our social and even our natural world is a product of countless generations of human labour; we live in a world that we have built for ourselves. His concept of communism (which he several times suggests is itself only a stage and not our final goal) is aspirational. He clearly sees a need to balance his very gloomy evaluation of modern conditions under capitalism with a positive and even utopian vision of what lies in the future. As a result these writings are more humane and ethical than what would soon follow in collaboration with Engels, starting from the Holy Family and the German Ideologies, but these ideas remain present even as he changes his emphasis and it is helpful to have these papers to refer to.
Also interesting are Marx's reactions to Hegel and, specifically, his remarks on Hegel's dialectic, which are inevitably influential as he develops his own methodology in contrast to Hegel and to the Young Hegelians.
Quotes
It goes without saying that the proletarian, i.e., the man who, being without capital and rent, lives purely by labour, and by a one-sided, abstract labour, is considered by political economy only as a worker. Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work. It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.
The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labor becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to him, and that it becomes a power on its own confronting him. It means that the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien.
It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces – but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty – but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence – but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism.
What, then, constitutes the alienation of labor? First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague. External labor, labor in which man alienates himself, is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Lastly, the external character of labor for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own, but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, of the human brain and the human heart, operates on the individual independently of him – that is, operates as an alien, divine or diabolical activity – so is the worker’s activity not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self.
As a result, therefore, man (the worker) only feels himself freely active in his animal functions – eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and in dressing-up, etc.; and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.
Man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.
Every self-estrangement of man, from himself and from nature, appears in the relation in which he places himself and nature to men other than and differentiated from himself. For this reason religious self-estrangement necessarily appears in the relationship of the layman to the priest, or again to a mediator, etc., since we are here dealing with the intellectual world. In the real practical world self-estrangement can only become manifest through the real practical relationship to other men. The medium through which estrangement takes place is itself practical. Thus through estranged labor man not only creates his relationship to the object and to the act of production as to powers that are alien and hostile to him; he also creates the relationship in which other men stand to his production and to his product, and the relationship in which he stands to these other men. Just as he creates his own production as the loss of his reality, as his punishment; his own product as a loss, as a product not belonging to him; so he creates the domination of the person who does not produce over production and over the product. Just as he estranges his own activity from himself, so he confers upon the stranger an activity which is not his own.
Private property thus results by analysis from the concept of alienated labor, i.e., of alienated man, of estranged labor, of estranged life, of estranged man.
The need for money is therefore the true need produced by the economic system, and it is the only need which the latter produces..... Subjectively, this appears partly in the fact that the extension of products and needs becomes a contriving and ever-calculating subservience to inhuman, sophisticated, unnatural and imaginary appetites.... Thus political economy – despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance – is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power – all this it can appropriate for you – it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself...
Above all we must avoid postulating “society” again as an abstraction vis-à-vis the individual. The individual is the social being. His manifestations of life – even if they may not appear in the direct form of communal manifestations of life carried out in association with others – are therefore an expression and confirmation of social life.
... the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become a natural essence – the extent to which his human nature has come to be natural to him. This relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need; the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need – the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being.
...communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.
Man appropriates his comprehensive essence in a comprehensive manner, that is to say, as a whole man. Each of his human relations to the world – seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking, observing, experiencing, wanting, acting, loving – in short, all the organs of his individual being, like those organs which are directly social in their form, are in their objective orientation, or in their orientation to the object, the appropriation of the object, the appropriation of human reality. ...
But since for the socialist man the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labour, nothing but the emergence of nature for man, so he has the visible, irrefutable proof of his birth through himself, of his genesis. Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism. Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.
In order to abolish the idea of private property, the idea of communism is quite sufficient. It takes actual communist action to abolish actual private property. History will lead to it; and this movement, which in theory we already know to be a self-transcending movement, will constitute in actual fact a very rough and protracted process. But we must regard it as a real advance to have at the outset gained a consciousness of the limited character as well as of the goal of this historical movement – and a consciousness which reaches out beyond it....
Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust, etc. If you want to enjoy art, you must be an artistically cultivated person; if you want to exercise influence over other people, you must be a person with a stimulating and encouraging effect on other people. Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression, corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. If you love without evoking love in return – that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent – a misfortune.
The outstanding achievement of Hegel’s Phänomenologie and of its final outcome, the dialectic of negativity as the moving and generating principle, is thus first that Hegel conceives the self-creation of man as a process, conceives objectification as loss of the object, as alienation and as transcendence of this alienation; that he thus grasps the essence of labour and comprehends objective man – true, because real man – as the outcome of man’s own labour. The real, active orientation of man to himself as a species-being, or his manifestation as a real species-being (i.e., as a human being), is only possible if he really brings out all his species-powers – something which in turn is only possible through the cooperative action of all of mankind, only as the result of history – and treats these powers as objects: and this, to begin with, is again only possible in the form of estrangement.
Highlights include discussions of the alienation of labour, the power of money, the nature of private property and the role of capital. Marx expresses in various ways the belief that the division of labour causes a fundamental separation of the whole human being from his own nature and from nature itself. Yet he also suggests that our social and even our natural world is a product of countless generations of human labour; we live in a world that we have built for ourselves. His concept of communism (which he several times suggests is itself only a stage and not our final goal) is aspirational. He clearly sees a need to balance his very gloomy evaluation of modern conditions under capitalism with a positive and even utopian vision of what lies in the future. As a result these writings are more humane and ethical than what would soon follow in collaboration with Engels, starting from the Holy Family and the German Ideologies, but these ideas remain present even as he changes his emphasis and it is helpful to have these papers to refer to.
Also interesting are Marx's reactions to Hegel and, specifically, his remarks on Hegel's dialectic, which are inevitably influential as he develops his own methodology in contrast to Hegel and to the Young Hegelians.
Quotes
It goes without saying that the proletarian, i.e., the man who, being without capital and rent, lives purely by labour, and by a one-sided, abstract labour, is considered by political economy only as a worker. Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work. It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.
The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labor becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to him, and that it becomes a power on its own confronting him. It means that the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien.
It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces – but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty – but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence – but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism.
What, then, constitutes the alienation of labor? First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague. External labor, labor in which man alienates himself, is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Lastly, the external character of labor for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own, but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, of the human brain and the human heart, operates on the individual independently of him – that is, operates as an alien, divine or diabolical activity – so is the worker’s activity not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self.
As a result, therefore, man (the worker) only feels himself freely active in his animal functions – eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and in dressing-up, etc.; and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.
Man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.
Every self-estrangement of man, from himself and from nature, appears in the relation in which he places himself and nature to men other than and differentiated from himself. For this reason religious self-estrangement necessarily appears in the relationship of the layman to the priest, or again to a mediator, etc., since we are here dealing with the intellectual world. In the real practical world self-estrangement can only become manifest through the real practical relationship to other men. The medium through which estrangement takes place is itself practical. Thus through estranged labor man not only creates his relationship to the object and to the act of production as to powers that are alien and hostile to him; he also creates the relationship in which other men stand to his production and to his product, and the relationship in which he stands to these other men. Just as he creates his own production as the loss of his reality, as his punishment; his own product as a loss, as a product not belonging to him; so he creates the domination of the person who does not produce over production and over the product. Just as he estranges his own activity from himself, so he confers upon the stranger an activity which is not his own.
Private property thus results by analysis from the concept of alienated labor, i.e., of alienated man, of estranged labor, of estranged life, of estranged man.
The need for money is therefore the true need produced by the economic system, and it is the only need which the latter produces..... Subjectively, this appears partly in the fact that the extension of products and needs becomes a contriving and ever-calculating subservience to inhuman, sophisticated, unnatural and imaginary appetites.... Thus political economy – despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance – is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power – all this it can appropriate for you – it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself...
Above all we must avoid postulating “society” again as an abstraction vis-à-vis the individual. The individual is the social being. His manifestations of life – even if they may not appear in the direct form of communal manifestations of life carried out in association with others – are therefore an expression and confirmation of social life.
... the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become a natural essence – the extent to which his human nature has come to be natural to him. This relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need; the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need – the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being.
...communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.
Man appropriates his comprehensive essence in a comprehensive manner, that is to say, as a whole man. Each of his human relations to the world – seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking, observing, experiencing, wanting, acting, loving – in short, all the organs of his individual being, like those organs which are directly social in their form, are in their objective orientation, or in their orientation to the object, the appropriation of the object, the appropriation of human reality. ...
But since for the socialist man the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labour, nothing but the emergence of nature for man, so he has the visible, irrefutable proof of his birth through himself, of his genesis. Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism. Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.
In order to abolish the idea of private property, the idea of communism is quite sufficient. It takes actual communist action to abolish actual private property. History will lead to it; and this movement, which in theory we already know to be a self-transcending movement, will constitute in actual fact a very rough and protracted process. But we must regard it as a real advance to have at the outset gained a consciousness of the limited character as well as of the goal of this historical movement – and a consciousness which reaches out beyond it....
Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust, etc. If you want to enjoy art, you must be an artistically cultivated person; if you want to exercise influence over other people, you must be a person with a stimulating and encouraging effect on other people. Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression, corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. If you love without evoking love in return – that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent – a misfortune.
The outstanding achievement of Hegel’s Phänomenologie and of its final outcome, the dialectic of negativity as the moving and generating principle, is thus first that Hegel conceives the self-creation of man as a process, conceives objectification as loss of the object, as alienation and as transcendence of this alienation; that he thus grasps the essence of labour and comprehends objective man – true, because real man – as the outcome of man’s own labour. The real, active orientation of man to himself as a species-being, or his manifestation as a real species-being (i.e., as a human being), is only possible if he really brings out all his species-powers – something which in turn is only possible through the cooperative action of all of mankind, only as the result of history – and treats these powers as objects: and this, to begin with, is again only possible in the form of estrangement.
Read
August 5, 2010This is kind of a mixed bag. It's seems more like a peek into Marx's private notebook than a fully formed treatiste per se, he's just starting here to pin down things like capital, labor, money, and the individual, and to give some basic analysis with regards to how they interact. But by the end, I was surprised at just how humanistic it turned out to be. This isn't the often cold, polemical materialism that he would develop later on, but something which is deep down concerned with the problems that capital et al. has for basic human dignity and value. Maybe I'm telgraphing too much of Heidegger into it, but it seems that what this gets at is the ways in which capitalism alienates us not just in our day to day lives, but on a more metaphysical level, from our sense of Being itself. It's a very sensitive, musing piece of writing which, for it being Marx, I found refreshing
June 12, 2022
কার্ল মার্ক্স ১৮৪৩ সালের জুন মাসে জেনি ফন ওয়েস্টফালেনের সাথে বিবাহ বন্ধনে আবদ্ধ হন। একই বছরের নভেম্বরে তারা প্যারিসে গমন করেন এবং সেখানে ১৮৪৫ পর্যন্ত বসবাস করেন।
প্রশ্ন হল, জার্মান থেকে তারা প্যারিস কেন গেলেন?
আসলে ততদিনে মার্ক্সের নিকট স্পষ্ট হয়ে গিয়েছিল যে জার্মান সেন্সরশিপ এবং প্রতিক্রিয়াশীল রাজনীতি তাঁকে বাক-প্রতিবন্ধী করে দেবে। প্যারিসে আগমনের তাঁর আরেকটি উদ্দেশ্য ছিল। আর্নল্ড রুজ নামক এক Young Hegelian তাঁকে প্রস্তাব করেছিলেন প্যারিসে এসে তাঁর জারমান-ফ্রেঞ্চ অ্যানাল নামক একটি পত্রিকার সম্পাদক হিসেবে যোগদান করতে রুজ জার্মানী এবং ফ্রান্সের র্যাডিক্যাল লেখকদের লেখা ছাপাতে চেয়েছিলেন। মার্ক্সও তার প্রস্তাবে রাজি হয়ে যান।
প্যারিসে ১৮৪৩ থেকে ১৮৪৫ সন ছিল মার্ক্সের বুদ্ধিবৃত্তিক বিকাশের জন্য অত্যন্ত গুরুত্বপূর্ণ সময়। এসময়ে তিনি বিশ্ব সমাজতান্ত্রিক এবং কমিউনিস্ট তত্ত্বের সূত্রবদ্ধকরণে এবং রাজনৈতিক কর্মকাণ্ডে নিজেকে সম্পূর্ণরূপে নিয়োজিত করেন।
এ সময়ে তিনি যেমন প্রচুর অধ্যয়ন করতেন আবার বিভিন্ন ফরাসি সমাজতাত্ত্বিকের সাথে সংযোগ রক্ষা করে চলতেন। এরকম একজন ছিলেন পিয়েরে প্রুঁধো। প্রুঁধোর সাথে শুরুতে সখ্যতা গড়ে উঠলেও পরবর্তীতে দুজন দুজনের শত্রুতে পরিণত হন। মজার ব্যাপার, প্রুঁধো একটি বই লিখেছিলেন The Philosophy of Proverty নামে। মার্ক্স এই বইয়ের 'ক্রিটিক' করে একটি বই লিখেছিলেন The Proverty of Philosophy নামে।
মার্ক্স এই সকল র্যাডিক্যালদের 'ইউটোপীয়' বলে গালমন্দ করতেন। অর্থাৎ—এরা সমাজের অগ্রগতির জন্য নানা উপাদানের সমন্বয় করে একটা বানোয়াট তত্ত্ব তৈরি করছেন যা মহিমান্বিত ভবিষ্যৎ গড়ার শুধু স্বপ্নই দেখাবে, বাস্তবে তা কখনই প্রয়োগ করা সম্ভব হবে না।
প্যারির বছরগুলোতে মার্ক্স দুটি সম্পাদ্য নিয়ে কাজ করেন যা র্যাডিক্যাল সমাজতন্ত্রিরা উত্থাপন করতেই ব্যর্থ হয়েছিলেন।
প্রথম সম্পাদ্যঃ ফরাসি বিপ্লব ব্যর্থ হল কেন? বিপ্লব সংগঠিত হবার পরেও কেন ইউরোপ মুক্তির নিকটবর্তী নয়?
(ক) শিক্ষা, বিজ্ঞান, এবং যুক্তিবিচারের দ্বারা জগতকে পরিবর্তিত করার বিষয়ে এনলাইটমেন্ট যুগের চিন্তাভাবনা ছিল বড্ড সরলতা দোষে দুষ্ট।
(খ) র্যাডিক্যাল পার্টিগুলোও ভ্রান্ত প্রমাণিত হয়েছিল।
(গ) এ ব্যাপারে হেগেলের মতেরও তেমন কোন মুল্য নেই। হেগেল বলেছিলেন বিপ্লবের উপযুক্ত সময় এখনও হয়নি।
দ্বিতীয় সম্পাদ্যঃ নয়া শিল্প বিপ্লবের তাৎপর্য কি? কারখানায়, মিলে, খনিতে, কৃষিতে, এবং পরিবহনে মহাপ্রযুক্তিগত বিপ্লবের অর্থ কি? যা বিশ্বের সমাজ, অর্থনীতি, রাজনীতিতে ব্যাপক পরিবর্তন আনছিল। সেই সাথে কিছু লোকের কাছে সম্পদের পুঞ্জিভবন ঘটছিল আবার কিছু লোকের মধ্যে ব্যাপক দারিদ্র আর Alienation [পরকীকরণ] সৃষ্টি হচ্ছিল।
এই সমস্ত প্রশ্নের উত্তর খুঁজতে মার্ক্সকে প্যারিসে প্রচুর অধ্যয়ণ করতে হয়। প্রথমত, মানবীয় সমস্যা অনুধাবনের জন্য হেগেলের দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি অনুযায়ী ফ্রান্স এবং জার্মানের ইতিহাস পাঠ করেন।
দ্বিতীয়ত, শিল্পবিপ্লবের সঙ্গে সংশ্লিষ্ট অর্থনৈতিক সমস্যা সঠিকভাবে বোঝার জন্য তাঁর নিজ সময়কাল পর্যন্ত অর্থনীতি বিষয়ে সকল প্রধান প্রধান তাত্ত্বিকদের লেখা গ্রন্থ পাঠ করেন। তিনি যা পড়তেন তার বিস্তারিত নোট করে নিতেন এবং সেখান থেকে কিছু কিছু তার পাণ্ডুলিপিতে সংযুক্ত করতেন।
১৮৪৪ সালের প্যারিসের গ্রীষ্ম এবং বসন্তে তিনি যে সব নিবন্ধ রচনা করেছেন তাকে সম্মিলিতভাবে বলা হয়—The Economic & Philosophic Manuscript 1844 কিংবা সংক্ষেপে—Paris Manuscript.
এই বইয়ের প্রথম কয়েকটি পাতা উল্টালেই বোঝা যায় অর্থনীতি নিয়ে সে সময়ে মার্ক্স কি পরিমান আগ্রহী হয়ে উঠেছিলেন। অ্যাডাম স্মিথ থেকে শুরু করে ডেভিড রিকার্ডো এবং অন্যান্য তাত্ত্বিকের রচনা যে তিনি গোগ্রাসে গিলেছেন তার নজির পাওয়া যায় এই পাণ্ডুলিপিতে।
এই পাণ্ডুলিপি নিয়ে কয়েকটা সমস্যা রয়েছে। প্রথমত, এই গ্রন্থটি প্রায় একশ বছর দৃষ্টির আড়ালে ছিল। মার্ক্স তাঁর জীবদ্দশায় এই গ্রন্থ প্রকাশ করেননি এবং এর কথা স্বীকার করেননি। এই পাণ্ডুলিপি প্রকাশিত হয় দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধের পর। আমি কিছুদিন আগে মার্ক্সের সাহিত্য সমগ্র পড়েছিলাম এবং সেটা নিয়ে একটু মশকরা করবার লোভ সামলাইনি কেননা সেটা ছিল তরুণ মার্ক্সের প্রেমের কবিতা দিয়ে ঠাঁসা। প্রায় ঠিক একই সমস্যা হয়েছে এই পাণ্ডুলিপি নিয়ে। ১৮৪৫ সালে তিনি 'দ্য জার্মান আইডিওলজি' গ্রন্থ প্রকাশ করেন যার সাথে ১৮৪৪ সালের পাণ্ডুলিপির একটা বড় দার্শনিক ফারাক আছে।
এই পাণ্ডুলিপি আবিষ্কার ও প্রকাশের পূর্বে যে মার্ক্সবাদের কথা ভাবা হত সেই পরিনত মার্ক্সের রচনা যাকে মার্ক্স এবং এঙ্গেলেস বৈজ্ঞানিক সমাজতন্ত্র বলা অভিহিত করতেন, পাণ্ডুলিপি আবিষ্কারের পরে মার্ক্স সম্পর্কে এক নতুন দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির সন্ধান পাওয়া যায়, যেখানে মার্ক্সবাদকে একটা মানবিক চিন্তাপ্রনালী হিসেবে দেখানো হয়, যার মৌলিক থিম ছিল বিশ্ববিপ্লবের মাধ্যমে মানবসমাজের নৈতিক পুনরুজ্জীবন।
সোজা কোথায় পশ্চিমা বুদ্ধিজীবীরা বিশেষ করে অ-কমিউনিস্ট মার্ক্স পণ্ডিতেরা নিজেদের মতো করে মার্ক্সকে ব্যাখ্যা করবার একটা বড় সুযোগ পেয়ে যায়। তরুণ মার্ক্সের প্রতি এই ঝোঁকের ব্যাপারে সোভিয়েত পণ্ডিত মহলের অফিশিয়াল অবস্থান ছিল কঠোর, তাঁদের কাছে এটা ছিল ভর্ৎসনীয় এবং সাম্যবাদের তাত্ত্বিক ভিত্তির উপর বুর্জোয়া আক্রমণের তুল্য।
এখানে একটা বড় প্রশ্নের সম্মুখীন হতে হয়—তবে কি দুইটি মার্ক্সবাদ আছে?
১৮৪৪ সালের প্যারির পাণ্ডুলিপির সাথে ১৮৪৫ সালের ‘দ্য জার্মান আইডিওলজি’ গ্রন্থের তুলনা করলে দেখা যায় দুটো গ্রন্থের মূল থিম আলাদা। আমার প্রশ্ন হল মার্ক্সের এই দ্রুত উৎক্রান্তির প্রভাবক হিসেবে কি কাজ করেছে?
মানুষকে বিচ্ছিন্নতা (alienaion) বা তার সত্তার অন্তদ্বন্দ্বের সাহায্যে উপলব্ধির চাইতে তাকে বাহ্যিক অর্থনৈতিক শ্রেনিদ্বন্দ্বের মাধ্যমে উপলব্ধি করবার জন্য মার্ক্সের যে দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির পরিবর্তন তার একাধিক ব্যাখ্যা থাকতে পারে।
আমার কাছে মনে হয় ১৮৪৪ এর পাণ্ডুলিপি লেখবার পর একজন ব্যাক্তি বিশেষভাবে মার্ক্সকে প্রভাবিত করেন। আর তিনি হলেন—এঙ্গেলেস!
১৮৪৪ সালের গ্রীষ্মে মার্ক্সের স্ত্রী জেনি শিশু সন্তান নিয়ে প্যারিস থেকে ট্রাইয়ারে চলে যান। সেখানে তিনি তাঁর মা এবং শাশুড়ির সাথে সাক্ষাৎ করেন। সেই বছরের সেপ্টেম্বরে যখন প্যারিস প্রত্যাবর্তন করেন তখন দেখতে পান তাঁর স্বামীর একজন নতুন বন্ধু জুটেছে। মার্ক্সকে কারও সাথে এতো ঘনিষ্ঠ বন্ধুত্ব পাতাতে জেনি কখনও দেখেনি।
এঙ্গেলসের শিল্প পুঁজিতন্ত্রের অর্থনীতি সম্পর্কে সুগভীর জ্ঞান ছিল। তিনি দাবি করতেনঃ যখন একটি অর্থনৈতিক ব্যাবস্থা কার্যকর হয় তখন তা ব্যাক্তিমানুষের নিয়ন্ত্রণ বহির্ভূত হয়ে যায়। হতে পারে এঙ্গেলসের অর্থনৈতিক ব্যাখ্যা মার্ক্সকে দার্শনিক ব্যাখ্যা থেকে সরে আসতে উদ্বুদ্ধ করে।
এরপর ‘দ্য জার্মান আইডিওলজি’ গ্রন্থের আলোচনা দিয়ে পরিণত মার্ক্সবাদের আলোচনা শুরু করা যেতে পারে।
প্রশ্ন হল, জার্মান থেকে তারা প্যারিস কেন গেলেন?
আসলে ততদিনে মার্ক্সের নিকট স্পষ্ট হয়ে গিয়েছিল যে জার্মান সেন্সরশিপ এবং প্রতিক্রিয়াশীল রাজনীতি তাঁকে বাক-প্রতিবন্ধী করে দেবে। প্যারিসে আগমনের তাঁর আরেকটি উদ্দেশ্য ছিল। আর্নল্ড রুজ নামক এক Young Hegelian তাঁকে প্রস্তাব করেছিলেন প্যারিসে এসে তাঁর জারমান-ফ্রেঞ্চ অ্যানাল নামক একটি পত্রিকার সম্পাদক হিসেবে যোগদান করতে রুজ জার্মানী এবং ফ্রান্সের র্যাডিক্যাল লেখকদের লেখা ছাপাতে চেয়েছিলেন। মার্ক্সও তার প্রস্তাবে রাজি হয়ে যান।
প্যারিসে ১৮৪৩ থেকে ১৮৪৫ সন ছিল মার্ক্সের বুদ্ধিবৃত্তিক বিকাশের জন্য অত্যন্ত গুরুত্বপূর্ণ সময়। এসময়ে তিনি বিশ্ব সমাজতান্ত্রিক এবং কমিউনিস্ট তত্ত্বের সূত্রবদ্ধকরণে এবং রাজনৈতিক কর্মকাণ্ডে নিজেকে সম্পূর্ণরূপে নিয়োজিত করেন।
এ সময়ে তিনি যেমন প্রচুর অধ্যয়ন করতেন আবার বিভিন্ন ফরাসি সমাজতাত্ত্বিকের সাথে সংযোগ রক্ষা করে চলতেন। এরকম একজন ছিলেন পিয়েরে প্রুঁধো। প্রুঁধোর সাথে শুরুতে সখ্যতা গড়ে উঠলেও পরবর্তীতে দুজন দুজনের শত্রুতে পরিণত হন। মজার ব্যাপার, প্রুঁধো একটি বই লিখেছিলেন The Philosophy of Proverty নামে। মার্ক্স এই বইয়ের 'ক্রিটিক' করে একটি বই লিখেছিলেন The Proverty of Philosophy নামে।
মার্ক্স এই সকল র্যাডিক্যালদের 'ইউটোপীয়' বলে গালমন্দ করতেন। অর্থাৎ—এরা সমাজের অগ্রগতির জন্য নানা উপাদানের সমন্বয় করে একটা বানোয়াট তত্ত্ব তৈরি করছেন যা মহিমান্বিত ভবিষ্যৎ গড়ার শুধু স্বপ্নই দেখাবে, বাস্তবে তা কখনই প্রয়োগ করা সম্ভব হবে না।
প্যারির বছরগুলোতে মার্ক্স দুটি সম্পাদ্য নিয়ে কাজ করেন যা র্যাডিক্যাল সমাজতন্ত্রিরা উত্থাপন করতেই ব্যর্থ হয়েছিলেন।
প্রথম সম্পাদ্যঃ ফরাসি বিপ্লব ব্যর্থ হল কেন? বিপ্লব সংগঠিত হবার পরেও কেন ইউরোপ মুক্তির নিকটবর্তী নয়?
(ক) শিক্ষা, বিজ্ঞান, এবং যুক্তিবিচারের দ্বারা জগতকে পরিবর্তিত করার বিষয়ে এনলাইটমেন্ট যুগের চিন্তাভাবনা ছিল বড্ড সরলতা দোষে দুষ্ট।
(খ) র্যাডিক্যাল পার্টিগুলোও ভ্রান্ত প্রমাণিত হয়েছিল।
(গ) এ ব্যাপারে হেগেলের মতেরও তেমন কোন মুল্য নেই। হেগেল বলেছিলেন বিপ্লবের উপযুক্ত সময় এখনও হয়নি।
দ্বিতীয় সম্পাদ্যঃ নয়া শিল্প বিপ্লবের তাৎপর্য কি? কারখানায়, মিলে, খনিতে, কৃষিতে, এবং পরিবহনে মহাপ্রযুক্তিগত বিপ্লবের অর্থ কি? যা বিশ্বের সমাজ, অর্থনীতি, রাজনীতিতে ব্যাপক পরিবর্তন আনছিল। সেই সাথে কিছু লোকের কাছে সম্পদের পুঞ্জিভবন ঘটছিল আবার কিছু লোকের মধ্যে ব্যাপক দারিদ্র আর Alienation [পরকীকরণ] সৃষ্টি হচ্ছিল।
এই সমস্ত প্রশ্নের উত্তর খুঁজতে মার্ক্সকে প্যারিসে প্রচুর অধ্যয়ণ করতে হয়। প্রথমত, মানবীয় সমস্যা অনুধাবনের জন্য হেগেলের দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি অনুযায়ী ফ্রান্স এবং জার্মানের ইতিহাস পাঠ করেন।
দ্বিতীয়ত, শিল্পবিপ্লবের সঙ্গে সংশ্লিষ্ট অর্থনৈতিক সমস্যা সঠিকভাবে বোঝার জন্য তাঁর নিজ সময়কাল পর্যন্ত অর্থনীতি বিষয়ে সকল প্রধান প্রধান তাত্ত্বিকদের লেখা গ্রন্থ পাঠ করেন। তিনি যা পড়তেন তার বিস্তারিত নোট করে নিতেন এবং সেখান থেকে কিছু কিছু তার পাণ্ডুলিপিতে সংযুক্ত করতেন।
১৮৪৪ সালের প্যারিসের গ্রীষ্ম এবং বসন্তে তিনি যে সব নিবন্ধ রচনা করেছেন তাকে সম্মিলিতভাবে বলা হয়—The Economic & Philosophic Manuscript 1844 কিংবা সংক্ষেপে—Paris Manuscript.
এই বইয়ের প্রথম কয়েকটি পাতা উল্টালেই বোঝা যায় অর্থনীতি নিয়ে সে সময়ে মার্ক্স কি পরিমান আগ্রহী হয়ে উঠেছিলেন। অ্যাডাম স্মিথ থেকে শুরু করে ডেভিড রিকার্ডো এবং অন্যান্য তাত্ত্বিকের রচনা যে তিনি গোগ্রাসে গিলেছেন তার নজির পাওয়া যায় এই পাণ্ডুলিপিতে।
এই পাণ্ডুলিপি নিয়ে কয়েকটা সমস্যা রয়েছে। প্রথমত, এই গ্রন্থটি প্রায় একশ বছর দৃষ্টির আড়ালে ছিল। মার্ক্স তাঁর জীবদ্দশায় এই গ্রন্থ প্রকাশ করেননি এবং এর কথা স্বীকার করেননি। এই পাণ্ডুলিপি প্রকাশিত হয় দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধের পর। আমি কিছুদিন আগে মার্ক্সের সাহিত্য সমগ্র পড়েছিলাম এবং সেটা নিয়ে একটু মশকরা করবার লোভ সামলাইনি কেননা সেটা ছিল তরুণ মার্ক্সের প্রেমের কবিতা দিয়ে ঠাঁসা। প্রায় ঠিক একই সমস্যা হয়েছে এই পাণ্ডুলিপি নিয়ে। ১৮৪৫ সালে তিনি 'দ্য জার্মান আইডিওলজি' গ্রন্থ প্রকাশ করেন যার সাথে ১৮৪৪ সালের পাণ্ডুলিপির একটা বড় দার্শনিক ফারাক আছে।
এই পাণ্ডুলিপি আবিষ্কার ও প্রকাশের পূর্বে যে মার্ক্সবাদের কথা ভাবা হত সেই পরিনত মার্ক্সের রচনা যাকে মার্ক্স এবং এঙ্গেলেস বৈজ্ঞানিক সমাজতন্ত্র বলা অভিহিত করতেন, পাণ্ডুলিপি আবিষ্কারের পরে মার্ক্স সম্পর্কে এক নতুন দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির সন্ধান পাওয়া যায়, যেখানে মার্ক্সবাদকে একটা মানবিক চিন্তাপ্রনালী হিসেবে দেখানো হয়, যার মৌলিক থিম ছিল বিশ্ববিপ্লবের মাধ্যমে মানবসমাজের নৈতিক পুনরুজ্জীবন।
সোজা কোথায় পশ্চিমা বুদ্ধিজীবীরা বিশেষ করে অ-কমিউনিস্ট মার্ক্স পণ্ডিতেরা নিজেদের মতো করে মার্ক্সকে ব্যাখ্যা করবার একটা বড় সুযোগ পেয়ে যায়। তরুণ মার্ক্সের প্রতি এই ঝোঁকের ব্যাপারে সোভিয়েত পণ্ডিত মহলের অফিশিয়াল অবস্থান ছিল কঠোর, তাঁদের কাছে এটা ছিল ভর্ৎসনীয় এবং সাম্যবাদের তাত্ত্বিক ভিত্তির উপর বুর্জোয়া আক্রমণের তুল্য।
এখানে একটা বড় প্রশ্নের সম্মুখীন হতে হয়—তবে কি দুইটি মার্ক্সবাদ আছে?
১৮৪৪ সালের প্যারির পাণ্ডুলিপির সাথে ১৮৪৫ সালের ‘দ্য জার্মান আইডিওলজি’ গ্রন্থের তুলনা করলে দেখা যায় দুটো গ্রন্থের মূল থিম আলাদা। আমার প্রশ্ন হল মার্ক্সের এই দ্রুত উৎক্রান্তির প্রভাবক হিসেবে কি কাজ করেছে?
মানুষকে বিচ্ছিন্নতা (alienaion) বা তার সত্তার অন্তদ্বন্দ্বের সাহায্যে উপলব্ধির চাইতে তাকে বাহ্যিক অর্থনৈতিক শ্রেনিদ্বন্দ্বের মাধ্যমে উপলব্ধি করবার জন্য মার্ক্সের যে দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির পরিবর্তন তার একাধিক ব্যাখ্যা থাকতে পারে।
আমার কাছে মনে হয় ১৮৪৪ এর পাণ্ডুলিপি লেখবার পর একজন ব্যাক্তি বিশেষভাবে মার্ক্সকে প্রভাবিত করেন। আর তিনি হলেন—এঙ্গেলেস!
১৮৪৪ সালের গ্রীষ্মে মার্ক্সের স্ত্রী জেনি শিশু সন্তান নিয়ে প্যারিস থেকে ট্রাইয়ারে চলে যান। সেখানে তিনি তাঁর মা এবং শাশুড়ির সাথে সাক্ষাৎ করেন। সেই বছরের সেপ্টেম্বরে যখন প্যারিস প্রত্যাবর্তন করেন তখন দেখতে পান তাঁর স্বামীর একজন নতুন বন্ধু জুটেছে। মার্ক্সকে কারও সাথে এতো ঘনিষ্ঠ বন্ধুত্ব পাতাতে জেনি কখনও দেখেনি।
এঙ্গেলসের শিল্প পুঁজিতন্ত্রের অর্থনীতি সম্পর্কে সুগভীর জ্ঞান ছিল। তিনি দাবি করতেনঃ যখন একটি অর্থনৈতিক ব্যাবস্থা কার্যকর হয় তখন তা ব্যাক্তিমানুষের নিয়ন্ত্রণ বহির্ভূত হয়ে যায়। হতে পারে এঙ্গেলসের অর্থনৈতিক ব্যাখ্যা মার্ক্সকে দার্শনিক ব্যাখ্যা থেকে সরে আসতে উদ্বুদ্ধ করে।
এরপর ‘দ্য জার্মান আইডিওলজি’ গ্রন্থের আলোচনা দিয়ে পরিণত মার্ক্সবাদের আলোচনা শুরু করা যেতে পারে।
August 2, 2019
GOOD SHIT JUST A REMINDER
October 21, 2020
Turn up
December 8, 2022
Al tratarse de unos manuscritos y no un libro al uso, nos encontramos con un texto fragmentario e incompleto que nunca fue pensado para ser publicado. Es común encontrarse con cortes a mitad de párrafo, saltos de un tema a otro sin un hilo conductor o indicaciones de “posteriormente veremos en mayor detalle [inserte tema]” que no se materializan. Sin embargo, me parece un texto muy lúcido y de gran importancia, ya que sin una jerga excesivamente farragosa, establece ya desde muy temprano temas centrales de la teoría marxista, como es la ley de la tasa de beneficio decreciente.
Marx desarrolla temas como son las crisis cíclicas del capitalismo y su consecuencia nefasta para lxs obrerxs, la tendencia inevitable al monopolio en el capitalismo, el poder del gran capital sobre el pequeño, el concepto de trabajo enajenado, la esencia de la propiedad privada y la necesidad del comunismo. Gran parte del contenido es una crítica a Adam Smith, a Ricardo y otros economistas. Critica con mucha certeza las fábulas falaces que usaban (y usan) los economistas para “explicar” el origen de la propiedad privada o de la división del trabajo. Practican el “picapedrismo”, que consiste en inventarte una sociedad pasada que posee la misma estructura que la nuestra (modelo de familia celular, ausencia de economía social o común, especialización laboral, propiedad privada) pero más rudimentaria. Partiendo de esta sociedad “rudimentaria” con una estructura capitalista prueban las premisas (la propiedad privada y la división de trabajo es natural) a través de las consecuencias, ya que fue la propiedad privada (trabajo enajenado acumulado) quien generó la estructura capitalista, y no al revés.
Los manuscritos son considerados el texto más “humanista” de Marx, ya que da gran importancia a la realización del individuo en su vida (el “hombre” genérico), y discute ampliamente las consecuencias psicológicas y vitales del trabajo enajenado, de producir bienes que no poseemos y de la no-participación de lx obrerx en su propia vida. Encuentro un gran paralelismo entre el concepto de “hombre” genérico de Marx (ser humano autoconsciente que se realiza mediante el trabajo creativo, creando para saciar sus neesidades tanto inmediatas como más “elevadas”) y el concepto de übermensch nietzscheano. En ambos filósofos la autorealización es un pilar de sus doctrinas, aunque en Marx no esté tan visiblemente presente en el resto de sus obras, ya que van más en la línea de analizar los mecanismos del capitalismo y conseguir la emancipación.
Marx desarrolla temas como son las crisis cíclicas del capitalismo y su consecuencia nefasta para lxs obrerxs, la tendencia inevitable al monopolio en el capitalismo, el poder del gran capital sobre el pequeño, el concepto de trabajo enajenado, la esencia de la propiedad privada y la necesidad del comunismo. Gran parte del contenido es una crítica a Adam Smith, a Ricardo y otros economistas. Critica con mucha certeza las fábulas falaces que usaban (y usan) los economistas para “explicar” el origen de la propiedad privada o de la división del trabajo. Practican el “picapedrismo”, que consiste en inventarte una sociedad pasada que posee la misma estructura que la nuestra (modelo de familia celular, ausencia de economía social o común, especialización laboral, propiedad privada) pero más rudimentaria. Partiendo de esta sociedad “rudimentaria” con una estructura capitalista prueban las premisas (la propiedad privada y la división de trabajo es natural) a través de las consecuencias, ya que fue la propiedad privada (trabajo enajenado acumulado) quien generó la estructura capitalista, y no al revés.
Los manuscritos son considerados el texto más “humanista” de Marx, ya que da gran importancia a la realización del individuo en su vida (el “hombre” genérico), y discute ampliamente las consecuencias psicológicas y vitales del trabajo enajenado, de producir bienes que no poseemos y de la no-participación de lx obrerx en su propia vida. Encuentro un gran paralelismo entre el concepto de “hombre” genérico de Marx (ser humano autoconsciente que se realiza mediante el trabajo creativo, creando para saciar sus neesidades tanto inmediatas como más “elevadas”) y el concepto de übermensch nietzscheano. En ambos filósofos la autorealización es un pilar de sus doctrinas, aunque en Marx no esté tan visiblemente presente en el resto de sus obras, ya que van más en la línea de analizar los mecanismos del capitalismo y conseguir la emancipación.
May 17, 2020
ان الشبه الأول بين هذا الكتاب وكتابىّ العائلة المقدسة والإيديولوچية الألمانية هو أنه يبدأ بدراسة أساسية لماركس ويختتم بمقالة او بحث مختصر بقلم فريدريك إنجلز عن مواضيع مشابهة لما تتناولته دراسة ماركس .
لكن فى حين يتناولان فى الكتابين الأخيرين مواضيع فلسفية بنقدهم للمثالية الالمانية نراهم يهتمون بمواضيع اقتصادية واجتماعية ذات طابع نقدى كذلك مما يجعل هذا الكتاب مماثلاً للآخرين من حيث كونه تمهيداً لفكرهم الثورى بنقدهم لكل فكر محافظ فلسفى عموما واقتصادى . اجتماعى . سياسي على وجه الخصوص .
وهم يهتمون بشكل اساسى فى هذه المجموعة من المقالات بتحليل التناقض القائم فى الواقع الاقتصادى بين العمل ورأس المال وكذلك الانفصال بين العوامل الاقتصادية من أرض ورأس مال وعمل . بحيث يقوم التحليل على نقد المدارس الاقتصادية السابقة وخصوصاً الاقتصاد السياسى الحديث ذو الاتجاه الليبرالى والذى يمثل فى اعتبارهم مجرد فكر تجريدى ولذلك فهو يترك الكثير من المشاكل والتناقضات العملية دون حل فعال . وكذلك يمثل الفكر الاقتصادى الليبرالى الوعاء الذى يحوى كل لا أخلاقية وأنانية الاقتصاد القديم ولكن فى صورة أكثر زيفاً من واقعها .
ويتوغل مسار البحث بهم الى نقد المقولات الرئيسية لدى مختلف الاقتصاديين ومختلف مدارسهم وازمانهم كمقولات القيمة والربح والثمن والريع والأجر والميزان التجارى والمنافسة و......... ولكن كل المسارات عندهم تؤدى الى نقد مقولة الملكية الخاصة التى تمثل العقدة الرئيسة والعقبة الأساسية فى طريق حل تناقضات الأقتصاد الحديث الآخذة فى الإحتداد .
فيما عدا هذه الدراسات الإقتصادية المحورية - والتى ستتبلور فى أعمالهم اللاحقة كمنهج متكامل - نجد بحث نقدى لماركس ضد أساس الفلسفة الهيجلية الذى يتمثل فى المنطق والفينومينولوچيا ولكنه يقر أن هيجل نفسه يدرك مادية جدله والذى بإلباسه ثوب النفى ونفى النفى او بإدخال مقولة سلب السلب الإيجابية على مقولة السلب يكون قد توائم بمثاليته مع تناقضات الواقع والتى تجد أهم تمثلاتها فى إغتراب العامل عن ناتج عمله و إنسلابه عن واقعه او بمقولة أخرى لا إنسانية العمل وكذلك فى إغتراب الإنسان عن ذاته فى الدين وهى المشكلة التى يرى ماركس ان فويرباخ قد تجاوزها بنجاح فى نقده لمثالية هيجل التى وصفها باللاهوتية وهو الأمر الذى يدرك أى متأنى وغير متحيز فى قراءته لهيجل نقول أنه يدرك خطأ فويرباخ او مبالغته فهو لم يزد كثيرا عن التصريح بما لم يجرؤ هيجل على التصريح به فى زمنه نظرا لاختلاف السياسات الالمانية الداخلية .
اخيرا لا استطيع كعادتى أن اتغافل عن اسلوب الكاتبين الذى يمكن ان يوصف بالنقدى الساخر والفكه والأدبى والعلمى كذلك وهو ما يجعل الكتابات -رغم جدية وتركيبية مواضيعها وطابعها الفلسفى- أكثر وضوحا ومتعة .
لكن فى حين يتناولان فى الكتابين الأخيرين مواضيع فلسفية بنقدهم للمثالية الالمانية نراهم يهتمون بمواضيع اقتصادية واجتماعية ذات طابع نقدى كذلك مما يجعل هذا الكتاب مماثلاً للآخرين من حيث كونه تمهيداً لفكرهم الثورى بنقدهم لكل فكر محافظ فلسفى عموما واقتصادى . اجتماعى . سياسي على وجه الخصوص .
وهم يهتمون بشكل اساسى فى هذه المجموعة من المقالات بتحليل التناقض القائم فى الواقع الاقتصادى بين العمل ورأس المال وكذلك الانفصال بين العوامل الاقتصادية من أرض ورأس مال وعمل . بحيث يقوم التحليل على نقد المدارس الاقتصادية السابقة وخصوصاً الاقتصاد السياسى الحديث ذو الاتجاه الليبرالى والذى يمثل فى اعتبارهم مجرد فكر تجريدى ولذلك فهو يترك الكثير من المشاكل والتناقضات العملية دون حل فعال . وكذلك يمثل الفكر الاقتصادى الليبرالى الوعاء الذى يحوى كل لا أخلاقية وأنانية الاقتصاد القديم ولكن فى صورة أكثر زيفاً من واقعها .
ويتوغل مسار البحث بهم الى نقد المقولات الرئيسية لدى مختلف الاقتصاديين ومختلف مدارسهم وازمانهم كمقولات القيمة والربح والثمن والريع والأجر والميزان التجارى والمنافسة و......... ولكن كل المسارات عندهم تؤدى الى نقد مقولة الملكية الخاصة التى تمثل العقدة الرئيسة والعقبة الأساسية فى طريق حل تناقضات الأقتصاد الحديث الآخذة فى الإحتداد .
فيما عدا هذه الدراسات الإقتصادية المحورية - والتى ستتبلور فى أعمالهم اللاحقة كمنهج متكامل - نجد بحث نقدى لماركس ضد أساس الفلسفة الهيجلية الذى يتمثل فى المنطق والفينومينولوچيا ولكنه يقر أن هيجل نفسه يدرك مادية جدله والذى بإلباسه ثوب النفى ونفى النفى او بإدخال مقولة سلب السلب الإيجابية على مقولة السلب يكون قد توائم بمثاليته مع تناقضات الواقع والتى تجد أهم تمثلاتها فى إغتراب العامل عن ناتج عمله و إنسلابه عن واقعه او بمقولة أخرى لا إنسانية العمل وكذلك فى إغتراب الإنسان عن ذاته فى الدين وهى المشكلة التى يرى ماركس ان فويرباخ قد تجاوزها بنجاح فى نقده لمثالية هيجل التى وصفها باللاهوتية وهو الأمر الذى يدرك أى متأنى وغير متحيز فى قراءته لهيجل نقول أنه يدرك خطأ فويرباخ او مبالغته فهو لم يزد كثيرا عن التصريح بما لم يجرؤ هيجل على التصريح به فى زمنه نظرا لاختلاف السياسات الالمانية الداخلية .
اخيرا لا استطيع كعادتى أن اتغافل عن اسلوب الكاتبين الذى يمكن ان يوصف بالنقدى الساخر والفكه والأدبى والعلمى كذلك وهو ما يجعل الكتابات -رغم جدية وتركيبية مواضيعها وطابعها الفلسفى- أكثر وضوحا ومتعة .
March 16, 2021
Economic writings ranged from a 2 to a 3 for me, sometimes veering into 4 star territory but rarely. However the chapter on Hegel was a 4, it's pretty good. I think the things Marx took from Feuerbach are in many ways more sound than Feuerbach on his own. Fun book more or less
August 14, 2022
The Economic and Political Manuscripts of 1844 are a collection of short treatises by Karl Marx composed early in his intellectual and political career. They are a peculiar set of texts, both because they are extremely disjointed and nowhere near ready for official publication (in several essays, Marx inserts massive block quotes from prominent political economists like Adam Smith, while others are simply either unfinished or end unexpectedly) and because they set forth a deeply humanist form of Marxism somewhat at odds with later texts like Capital. In fact, the Manuscripts, which were not published until 1932, are so different from later texts by Marx that they sparked an intense debate about how they fit into the overall Marxist project.
By far the most influential theme in the Manuscripts is the concept of alienation. Marx starts from the fact that labor not only produces commodities, but also “produces itself and the worker as a commodity,” which accounts for how the object that labor produces confronts labor as alien to it, “as a power independent of the producer.” Consequently, “the worker is related to the product of his labor as to an alien object” (71). For Marx, this is only true for the worker under capitalism, who, while he “puts his life into the object” of his labor, nevertheless relates to that object as what exists outside him, as what is not his own but rather the property of the capitalist under whose direction he labors (72). This means that in his work, the worker “does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy. . . . His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor” and not the satisfaction of a need or an active, spontaneous drive. Under capitalism, labor “is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it,” for which reason it “is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification” (74).
So the worker under capitalism is alienated from the product of her labor, but she is alienated in three other respects as well. Second, Marx claims that the worker is alienated from the act by which she produces the product of labor, that is to say, from the activity of labor itself. This is already evident in some of what I set forth above: if labor is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it, i.e. if one does not exert labor in order to satisfy some inner need or drive (as when a craftsman experiences the drive to labor as a form of self-expression), then labor becomes an acute burden, an activity that one would rather not do. Most basically, that the worker is alienated from the activity of her labor is entailed in the fact that she sells it to another (the capitalist) in order to survive; and once she sells it, it is not hers.
Third, Marx states that the worker under capitalism is alienated from her very nature. For Marx, human nature is most saliently defined by humans’ capacity for self-conscious productive activity: “free, conscious activity is man’s species character” (76). While non-human animals are “identical” with their “life-activity” insofar as they produce instinctively, “man makes his life-activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness” and hence “produces even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom” (75-6). In other words, humans’ self-reflexivity allows them to shape and mold their productive activity in ways that are under their control, and for Marx, this is an essential aspect of what it means to be human. Consequently, labor under capitalism, insofar as workers lack control over their own productive activity, alienates them from their very nature.
The final form of alienation directly follows from and incorporates the other three: labor under capitalism alienates the worker from other humans. Most simply, this is because the product of labor from which the worker is alienated is, under capitalism, someone else’s. Similarly, the worker’s labor itself is, insofar as he sells it to the capitalist, someone else’s. Thus the first two forms of alienation mean that the worker confronts the capitalist as alien to himself (79). Yet the fact that the worker is alienated from human nature also entails that he is alienated from other humans, since he must be alienated from the nature of other humans if he is alienated from his own nature. In other words, Marx thinks that humans cannot properly relate as non-alien to one another if they are each alienated from their own essential nature (78).
Perhaps the second most influential treatise from the Manuscripts treats three different forms of communism. While the humanist side of Marx’s critique of capitalism is certainly evident in his discussion of alienation, it comes fully to the fore in his characterization of fully-developed communism as opposed to two other, non-normative types he rejects as deficient. The first form of communism Marx criticizes is what he calls “crude communism,” which he associates with the universalization of private property. Due to its reliance on (rather than the abolition and transcendence of) private property, crude communism discounts human personality insofar as it renders all people workers, each of whom is alienated in the ways mentioned earlier. Under crude communism, the community is the “universal capitalist” and labor is the “state in which every person is put” (101). Marx articulates two iterations of the second form of communism he rejects, both of which he discusses very briefly: the first is “communism of a political nature,” whether democratic or despotic, and the second is communism “with the annulment of the state.” Both types of communism fall short insofar as, like crude communism, they fail to overcome the influence of private property and the alienation of workers from their labor and its products (102). Finally, Marx describes “communism as socialism” that coincides “with humaneness,” the normative form of communism that he endorses. Marx insists that this is the only sort of communism that restores the human to herself as naturally social; it represents “the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man” (ibid.). Importantly, Marx characterizes this normative form of communism as equal parts naturalistic and humanistic because it resolves “the conflict between man and nature and between man and man.” This form of communism is therefore “the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution” (102-3).
Marx claims that communism as socialism that coincides with humaneness (a remarkable title) will, in short, return the activity of labor and its product to alienated humans. By way of its transcendence of these forms of alienation, it will also return to humans their alienated nature, and not just in some particular aspect, but in its totality. As Marx puts this point, “man appropriates his total essence in a total manner, that is to say, as a whole man” (106). And he means this rather literally: “the transcendence of private property,” he writes, “is therefore the complete emancipation of all human senses and attributes; but it is this emancipation precisely because these senses and attributes have become, subjectively and objectively, human” (107). For Marx, the promise of communism is the liberation of the total human person in her full sociality, the unfettered manifestation of human nature in all its mental and physical aspects. This is, of course, rather scandalous to the orthodox Marxist-Leninist, as it represents a profoundly eudaimonistic portrait of human nature and the sociopolitical conditions for its fulfillment.
The final essay in the Manuscripts is a dense and often impenetrable critique of the Hegelian dialectic informed, in part, by Marx’s interpretation of Feuerbach. Marx praises Hegel for his comprehension of the essence of labor, particularly insofar as Hegel claims that “objective man” is “the outcome of man’s own labor” (149). In Marx’s view, Hegel correctly views labor as a process “within alienation” that realizes “the essence of man” (150). For Marx, however, the problem with Hegel is that labor for him is a spiritual activity: “The appropriation of man’s essential powers, which have become objects . . . is thus in the first place only an appropriation [that occurs] in consciousness . . . i.e. in abstraction” (148). This also means that for Hegel, alienation, however central to his philosophy, is always alienation of self-consciousness, which implies that actual alienation in relation to natural objects (i.e. alienation from the product the worker produces, from the activity of labor that produces this product, etc.) is only apparent, a sort of fiction (162). In a similar vein, Hegel mistakenly renders objective and sensuous entities into spiritual entities, since for him, “mind is the true essence of man. . . . The humanness of man’s products . . . appears in the form that they are products of abstract mind and as such, therefore, phases of mind” (148).
It is not just that Marx opposes this idealism with materialism, however, at least not in the Manuscripts. In what is by now a familiar refrain, Marx advocates for “a naturalism or humanism” that differs from both idealism and materialism yet nevertheless unifies the “truth of both” (154). And this naturalistic humanism, or humanistic naturalism, is rooted most fundamentally in the fact that the human person is both an active and passive natural being; “he has real, sensuous, objects as the objects of his being or of his life” and hence “can only express his life in real, sensuous objects” (ibid.). For Marx, human nature is constituted by our active impulses and passive needs, and it is via nature that these impulses and needs are satisfied. Consequently, humans need objects that are independent and external to them to express their objective nature: “to be objective, natural and sensuous, [is] at the same time to have object, nature and sense outside oneself” (ibid.). If mind, or self-consciousness, really were the essence of human nature as Hegel insists, then humans would not be able to establish objects external to themselves that have real independence in relation to self-consciousness. And this, for Marx, is an unacceptable conclusion, for it amounts to a denial of humans’ objective and sensuous existence as part of nature.
However disjointed the Manuscripts may be, they nevertheless offer a helpful snapshot of several of the most central concepts in Marxist theory. Across the essays, Marx blends the so-called three pillars of Marxism: German idealist philosophy, French socialism, and British economics. Yet what is most remarkable about the Manuscripts has to do with the ethical presuppositions that provide the impetus for the early Marx’s critique of capitalist society. In effect, Marx posits a specific portrait of human nature, observes that capitalist society inhibits the full realization of that nature (principally due to alienation), and advocates for a society that allows human nature to realize its full and unfettered potential. His theory in the Manuscripts essentially combines a classical, eudaimonistic ethics with an immanent critique of modern political economy coupled with a utopian vision for a communist future. It is not difficult to see why the Manuscripts were attractive to many twentieth-century philosophers and political theorists outside the Soviet Union who bristled at Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy and were horrified by the atrocities of Stalinism.
By far the most influential theme in the Manuscripts is the concept of alienation. Marx starts from the fact that labor not only produces commodities, but also “produces itself and the worker as a commodity,” which accounts for how the object that labor produces confronts labor as alien to it, “as a power independent of the producer.” Consequently, “the worker is related to the product of his labor as to an alien object” (71). For Marx, this is only true for the worker under capitalism, who, while he “puts his life into the object” of his labor, nevertheless relates to that object as what exists outside him, as what is not his own but rather the property of the capitalist under whose direction he labors (72). This means that in his work, the worker “does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy. . . . His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor” and not the satisfaction of a need or an active, spontaneous drive. Under capitalism, labor “is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it,” for which reason it “is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification” (74).
So the worker under capitalism is alienated from the product of her labor, but she is alienated in three other respects as well. Second, Marx claims that the worker is alienated from the act by which she produces the product of labor, that is to say, from the activity of labor itself. This is already evident in some of what I set forth above: if labor is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it, i.e. if one does not exert labor in order to satisfy some inner need or drive (as when a craftsman experiences the drive to labor as a form of self-expression), then labor becomes an acute burden, an activity that one would rather not do. Most basically, that the worker is alienated from the activity of her labor is entailed in the fact that she sells it to another (the capitalist) in order to survive; and once she sells it, it is not hers.
Third, Marx states that the worker under capitalism is alienated from her very nature. For Marx, human nature is most saliently defined by humans’ capacity for self-conscious productive activity: “free, conscious activity is man’s species character” (76). While non-human animals are “identical” with their “life-activity” insofar as they produce instinctively, “man makes his life-activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness” and hence “produces even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom” (75-6). In other words, humans’ self-reflexivity allows them to shape and mold their productive activity in ways that are under their control, and for Marx, this is an essential aspect of what it means to be human. Consequently, labor under capitalism, insofar as workers lack control over their own productive activity, alienates them from their very nature.
The final form of alienation directly follows from and incorporates the other three: labor under capitalism alienates the worker from other humans. Most simply, this is because the product of labor from which the worker is alienated is, under capitalism, someone else’s. Similarly, the worker’s labor itself is, insofar as he sells it to the capitalist, someone else’s. Thus the first two forms of alienation mean that the worker confronts the capitalist as alien to himself (79). Yet the fact that the worker is alienated from human nature also entails that he is alienated from other humans, since he must be alienated from the nature of other humans if he is alienated from his own nature. In other words, Marx thinks that humans cannot properly relate as non-alien to one another if they are each alienated from their own essential nature (78).
Perhaps the second most influential treatise from the Manuscripts treats three different forms of communism. While the humanist side of Marx’s critique of capitalism is certainly evident in his discussion of alienation, it comes fully to the fore in his characterization of fully-developed communism as opposed to two other, non-normative types he rejects as deficient. The first form of communism Marx criticizes is what he calls “crude communism,” which he associates with the universalization of private property. Due to its reliance on (rather than the abolition and transcendence of) private property, crude communism discounts human personality insofar as it renders all people workers, each of whom is alienated in the ways mentioned earlier. Under crude communism, the community is the “universal capitalist” and labor is the “state in which every person is put” (101). Marx articulates two iterations of the second form of communism he rejects, both of which he discusses very briefly: the first is “communism of a political nature,” whether democratic or despotic, and the second is communism “with the annulment of the state.” Both types of communism fall short insofar as, like crude communism, they fail to overcome the influence of private property and the alienation of workers from their labor and its products (102). Finally, Marx describes “communism as socialism” that coincides “with humaneness,” the normative form of communism that he endorses. Marx insists that this is the only sort of communism that restores the human to herself as naturally social; it represents “the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man” (ibid.). Importantly, Marx characterizes this normative form of communism as equal parts naturalistic and humanistic because it resolves “the conflict between man and nature and between man and man.” This form of communism is therefore “the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution” (102-3).
Marx claims that communism as socialism that coincides with humaneness (a remarkable title) will, in short, return the activity of labor and its product to alienated humans. By way of its transcendence of these forms of alienation, it will also return to humans their alienated nature, and not just in some particular aspect, but in its totality. As Marx puts this point, “man appropriates his total essence in a total manner, that is to say, as a whole man” (106). And he means this rather literally: “the transcendence of private property,” he writes, “is therefore the complete emancipation of all human senses and attributes; but it is this emancipation precisely because these senses and attributes have become, subjectively and objectively, human” (107). For Marx, the promise of communism is the liberation of the total human person in her full sociality, the unfettered manifestation of human nature in all its mental and physical aspects. This is, of course, rather scandalous to the orthodox Marxist-Leninist, as it represents a profoundly eudaimonistic portrait of human nature and the sociopolitical conditions for its fulfillment.
The final essay in the Manuscripts is a dense and often impenetrable critique of the Hegelian dialectic informed, in part, by Marx’s interpretation of Feuerbach. Marx praises Hegel for his comprehension of the essence of labor, particularly insofar as Hegel claims that “objective man” is “the outcome of man’s own labor” (149). In Marx’s view, Hegel correctly views labor as a process “within alienation” that realizes “the essence of man” (150). For Marx, however, the problem with Hegel is that labor for him is a spiritual activity: “The appropriation of man’s essential powers, which have become objects . . . is thus in the first place only an appropriation [that occurs] in consciousness . . . i.e. in abstraction” (148). This also means that for Hegel, alienation, however central to his philosophy, is always alienation of self-consciousness, which implies that actual alienation in relation to natural objects (i.e. alienation from the product the worker produces, from the activity of labor that produces this product, etc.) is only apparent, a sort of fiction (162). In a similar vein, Hegel mistakenly renders objective and sensuous entities into spiritual entities, since for him, “mind is the true essence of man. . . . The humanness of man’s products . . . appears in the form that they are products of abstract mind and as such, therefore, phases of mind” (148).
It is not just that Marx opposes this idealism with materialism, however, at least not in the Manuscripts. In what is by now a familiar refrain, Marx advocates for “a naturalism or humanism” that differs from both idealism and materialism yet nevertheless unifies the “truth of both” (154). And this naturalistic humanism, or humanistic naturalism, is rooted most fundamentally in the fact that the human person is both an active and passive natural being; “he has real, sensuous, objects as the objects of his being or of his life” and hence “can only express his life in real, sensuous objects” (ibid.). For Marx, human nature is constituted by our active impulses and passive needs, and it is via nature that these impulses and needs are satisfied. Consequently, humans need objects that are independent and external to them to express their objective nature: “to be objective, natural and sensuous, [is] at the same time to have object, nature and sense outside oneself” (ibid.). If mind, or self-consciousness, really were the essence of human nature as Hegel insists, then humans would not be able to establish objects external to themselves that have real independence in relation to self-consciousness. And this, for Marx, is an unacceptable conclusion, for it amounts to a denial of humans’ objective and sensuous existence as part of nature.
However disjointed the Manuscripts may be, they nevertheless offer a helpful snapshot of several of the most central concepts in Marxist theory. Across the essays, Marx blends the so-called three pillars of Marxism: German idealist philosophy, French socialism, and British economics. Yet what is most remarkable about the Manuscripts has to do with the ethical presuppositions that provide the impetus for the early Marx’s critique of capitalist society. In effect, Marx posits a specific portrait of human nature, observes that capitalist society inhibits the full realization of that nature (principally due to alienation), and advocates for a society that allows human nature to realize its full and unfettered potential. His theory in the Manuscripts essentially combines a classical, eudaimonistic ethics with an immanent critique of modern political economy coupled with a utopian vision for a communist future. It is not difficult to see why the Manuscripts were attractive to many twentieth-century philosophers and political theorists outside the Soviet Union who bristled at Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy and were horrified by the atrocities of Stalinism.
April 19, 2024
tan brutal q m acabo d pillar miseria d la filosofía en el reread mano.
June 19, 2020
Sobre algunos autores (y sus obras) no parece adecuado decir si se está de acuerdo o no con los mismos, ya sea parcial o completamente ―en una reseña breve, claro está; pues defender por qué se alaban o se desprecian ciertas ideas requiere de un escrito de mayor profundidad y extensión―.
Ante casos como éste, donde Marx no es el primero ni el último, me limitaré a hacer un recuento de los puntos más importantes que se encuentran en la obra que haya leído en ese momento. En el caso específico de esta obra, la pregunta del segundo examen sobre este filósofo estaba relacionada con la misma, por lo que la transcribo junto a mí respuesta:
DESARROLLO
Suponer que existe la esencia humana como algo distinto del conjunto de las relaciones sociales es asumir que está fuera de aquello de lo que pretende dar cuenta, es decir, creer que la esencia está por un lado y la existencia por el otro, que la primera está más allá de la segunda, cuando se trata precisamente de que todo lo que es existe y todo lo que existe es.
Suponer, entonces, la separación, lleva a considerar que el hombre es impotente y, por ello, que es y sólo puede ser aquello que hagan con él, que es, pues, su circunstancia. Lo cual sólo es cierto en parte, porque la libertad del hombre está en reconocer que está determinado y, aún así, saberse capaz de hacer, de transformar su circunstancia.
Suponer, de nuevo, que la esencia humana es...
El resto de la reseña se encuentra en mi blog: https://jsaaopinionpersonal.wordpress...
Ante casos como éste, donde Marx no es el primero ni el último, me limitaré a hacer un recuento de los puntos más importantes que se encuentran en la obra que haya leído en ese momento. En el caso específico de esta obra, la pregunta del segundo examen sobre este filósofo estaba relacionada con la misma, por lo que la transcribo junto a mí respuesta:
PREGUNTA
Si Marx puede ser considerado como un materialista, y si todo materialismo supone la existencia de la esencia humana, ¿por qué señala que la esencia humana es una especie, o sea una abstracción, toda vez que no se concibe como el conjunto de las relaciones sociales? (Tesis VI sobre Feuerbach)
DESARROLLO
Suponer que existe la esencia humana como algo distinto del conjunto de las relaciones sociales es asumir que está fuera de aquello de lo que pretende dar cuenta, es decir, creer que la esencia está por un lado y la existencia por el otro, que la primera está más allá de la segunda, cuando se trata precisamente de que todo lo que es existe y todo lo que existe es.
Suponer, entonces, la separación, lleva a considerar que el hombre es impotente y, por ello, que es y sólo puede ser aquello que hagan con él, que es, pues, su circunstancia. Lo cual sólo es cierto en parte, porque la libertad del hombre está en reconocer que está determinado y, aún así, saberse capaz de hacer, de transformar su circunstancia.
Suponer, de nuevo, que la esencia humana es...
El resto de la reseña se encuentra en mi blog: https://jsaaopinionpersonal.wordpress...
Read
July 20, 2012Early Work
The EPM is an early work by Marx.
It is where he develops his version of alienation and the relationship of the self to others, but also the relationship to work and the means of production.
By the time of The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels had got involved in History and were not content just to describe it. They became theorists and publicists for a revolutionary cause. They created a theoretical justification for violence as a methodology for achieving a political goal.
Justifying the Use of Violence
Despite how democratic nations claim to be, many still use violence to achieve a goal or maintain the status quo.
Because they can't be seen to endorse revolution, they create and embrace the term "regime change".
They are both types of violence.
The only difference is the justification.
They both use the same means, the difference is the end.
However, the EPM precedes all of this.
Reassessing Their Relevance
Marx and Engels have received a lot of bad publicity. Few dare to defend them.
But in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, it's worth opening their works and having a dispassionate squiz.
Not so that we can all get on a revolutionary anti-capitalism bandwagon again, but so that we can understand the plight of people in contemporary society.
Other Review
I have put a more extended review of this book here:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
The EPM is an early work by Marx.
It is where he develops his version of alienation and the relationship of the self to others, but also the relationship to work and the means of production.
By the time of The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels had got involved in History and were not content just to describe it. They became theorists and publicists for a revolutionary cause. They created a theoretical justification for violence as a methodology for achieving a political goal.
Justifying the Use of Violence
Despite how democratic nations claim to be, many still use violence to achieve a goal or maintain the status quo.
Because they can't be seen to endorse revolution, they create and embrace the term "regime change".
They are both types of violence.
The only difference is the justification.
They both use the same means, the difference is the end.
However, the EPM precedes all of this.
Reassessing Their Relevance
Marx and Engels have received a lot of bad publicity. Few dare to defend them.
But in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, it's worth opening their works and having a dispassionate squiz.
Not so that we can all get on a revolutionary anti-capitalism bandwagon again, but so that we can understand the plight of people in contemporary society.
Other Review
I have put a more extended review of this book here:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
November 18, 2008
Do not purchase this book from a store. Either steal it or pirate it. Enlightening and inspiring. Everybody needs to read this book at one point or another, and be able argue for and against its claims. Marx sums up the basics of his philosophy and critiques past leftist movements such as religious socialists and anarchists and explains why they have and will continue to fail. He gives us his 'scientific socialism' which explores the economic side of communism and why it is destined to eventually succeed. Highlights class warfare and how the bourgeois have abused, and continue to abuse, the working class. Also explains how petty emotional movements (ie animal rights) are used to distract the workers from their own personal abuse and prevent them from rebelling. Remains relevant to this day.
The only complaint I had was that I needed to keep a dictionary handy while reading it, apart from that it was great read and a life-changing experience.
The only complaint I had was that I needed to keep a dictionary handy while reading it, apart from that it was great read and a life-changing experience.
February 17, 2023
Els manuscrits del "jove Marx" lluny de ser textos romàntics completament superats pel científic "Marx madur", preparen el terreny per tot el desenvolupament posterior del nostre estimat revolucionari. Havent llegit aquest text després dels llibres primer i segon del Capital se'm fa evident la continuïtat entre aquests textos de joventut (1844) i l'obra més madura de Marx (El Capital, 1867-83).
Els quatre aspectes del treball alienat que apareixen en el primer manuscrit es poden connectar, més o menys, amb idees que acabarà desenvolupament Marx anys després. En el treball alienat es produeix una alienació respecte de:
1. El producte del treball. Aquest es presenta com un objecte aliè al treballador que l'ha produït. Hi ha, per tant, una alienació respecte de la cosa. Aquesta forma d'alienació està lligada a la distinció fonamental del Capital entre treball (el que es fa en l'acte productiu) i força de treball (la capacitat de treballar que el treballador ven al capitalista com a mercaderia). El treballador, en vendre's com a mercaderia, tot el producte del seu treball pertany al capitalista i se li presenta com a estrany.
2. L'acte de producció. El treballador es relaciona amb la seva activitat productiva com una activitat dirigida contra ell (alienació respecte de si mateix). S'anticipa aquí el que serà la contradicció capital-treball.
3. El ser genèric. Aquí potser sí que hi ha un punt de ruptura en el posterior desenvolupament de Marx, ja que, en part, la idea del ser genèric descansa sobre el pressupòsit d'una essència humana.
4. Els (altres) homes. L'alienació de l'home respecte de l'home s'explica perquè la relació entre els homes adopta la forma de relació entre coses (la forma de relació entre persones esdevé la relació d'intercanvi). Aquest últim aspecte del treball alienat recorda moltíssim al fetitxisme de la mercaderia que apareix en la primera secció del llibre primer del Capital.
Sense entrar en la crítica a Hegel en el manuscrit tercer (crec que per fi ho he entès iuju), deixo una cita de Simon Clark que ho sintetitza perfectament:
"La crítica de Hegel i la crítica de l'Economia Política són, en última instància, la mateixa: la crítica del pressupòsit constitutiu del pensament burgès" (Marx, marginalism and modern sociology, p.69)
PD: Si els llegiu no us desespereu amb les primeres pàgines, després millora i tot té més sentiu. Un petonet <3.
Els quatre aspectes del treball alienat que apareixen en el primer manuscrit es poden connectar, més o menys, amb idees que acabarà desenvolupament Marx anys després. En el treball alienat es produeix una alienació respecte de:
1. El producte del treball. Aquest es presenta com un objecte aliè al treballador que l'ha produït. Hi ha, per tant, una alienació respecte de la cosa. Aquesta forma d'alienació està lligada a la distinció fonamental del Capital entre treball (el que es fa en l'acte productiu) i força de treball (la capacitat de treballar que el treballador ven al capitalista com a mercaderia). El treballador, en vendre's com a mercaderia, tot el producte del seu treball pertany al capitalista i se li presenta com a estrany.
2. L'acte de producció. El treballador es relaciona amb la seva activitat productiva com una activitat dirigida contra ell (alienació respecte de si mateix). S'anticipa aquí el que serà la contradicció capital-treball.
3. El ser genèric. Aquí potser sí que hi ha un punt de ruptura en el posterior desenvolupament de Marx, ja que, en part, la idea del ser genèric descansa sobre el pressupòsit d'una essència humana.
4. Els (altres) homes. L'alienació de l'home respecte de l'home s'explica perquè la relació entre els homes adopta la forma de relació entre coses (la forma de relació entre persones esdevé la relació d'intercanvi). Aquest últim aspecte del treball alienat recorda moltíssim al fetitxisme de la mercaderia que apareix en la primera secció del llibre primer del Capital.
Sense entrar en la crítica a Hegel en el manuscrit tercer (crec que per fi ho he entès iuju), deixo una cita de Simon Clark que ho sintetitza perfectament:
"La crítica de Hegel i la crítica de l'Economia Política són, en última instància, la mateixa: la crítica del pressupòsit constitutiu del pensament burgès" (Marx, marginalism and modern sociology, p.69)
PD: Si els llegiu no us desespereu amb les primeres pàgines, després millora i tot té més sentiu. Un petonet <3.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 213 reviews