|
|
@@ -289,4 +289,114 @@ By thus acting upon the external wrold and changing it he changes in turn his ow
|
|
|
|
|
|
"He not only affects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realizes a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi into which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act - besides the exertion, the bodily organs, the process demands that during the whole operation the workman's will be steadily on consonance with his purpose (close attention). The less attracted by the nature of the work and the mode in which it is carried out and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention his forced to be".
|
|
|
|
|
|
-*That's the origin of work and the bees. Man is resolving the dialectic of man, and thus bootstrapping himself into the position of creator within the Marxian Theology. Who is the God of Marxism? Man. But not any man - Social Man - man that realizes that he's man that's supposed to live in a society.*
|
|
|
+*That's the origin of work and the bees. Man is resolving the dialectic of man, and thus bootstrapping himself into the position of creator within the Marxian Theology. Who is the God of Marxism? Man. But not any man - Social Man - man that realizes that he's man that's supposed to live in a society.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+### Publication History
|
|
|
+*This isn't the first time that Marx brought up the bees and animals. The economic and philosophic manuscripts from 1844 is where that comes up. These manuscripts did not inform Marxism until later -> not published until 1932-33. At this point, we were deaing with the rise of the Frankfurt School and the Neo-Marxists reckoning with the failure of Marxism. Neo-Marxists look at these publications and begin to think that something went wrong in that he was more Hegelian in his earlier years as compared to
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts
|
|
|
+### Species
|
|
|
+*These give an idea of just how religious these found*
|
|
|
+Here's a chapter about the man becoming estranted from his labour through its being co-opted by the capitalists creating forced labour which alienates and estranges man from the product of his labour, while estranging man from man -> conflict theory between bourgoisie and the capitalists during a time where man keeps living. Estragement from his essential nature as a human.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+"Man is a species being. Not only because in practice and in theory he adopts the species as well as those of other things as his object".
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*He's working on himself to make mankind higher level.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+"He adopts the species as his object (another way of expressing it). Also, because he treats himself as the living species - a Universal and therefore Free being. The life of the species in both man and animals, consists physically in the fact that man, like the animal, lives on inorganic nature, and the more Universal man is, the more Universal is the sphere of ignoranic nature on which he lives."
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+### Inorganic is Spiritual
|
|
|
+"Just as plants, animals, air, light, etc, constitute theoretically a part of human consciousness (partly his objects of natural science, partly his objects of art), his spiritual, inorganic nature, spiritual nourishment, which he must first prepare to make palatable and digestible, so also in the realm of practice, they constitute a part of human life and human activity. Physically, man lives only on these products of nature. Whether they appear in the form of food, heating, clothes, the dwelling, etc. The Universality of man appears in practice precisely in the Universality which makes all nature his inorganic body. Both in as much as nature is 1. his direct means of life and 2. the material, the object and the instrument of his life activity.".
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*Nature is man's inorganic body. Nature, that is, a spiritual body. Nature is the thing that the idea creates for Hegel. It is man's spiritual body, according to Marx.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+"Nature is man's inorganic body. Nature, that is, insofar that it is not itself a human body. Man lives on nature, means that nature is in his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchanges 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."
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*Tricky, because "for man is a part of nature" is not the entire point - nature is man's spiritual body. So, nature is that which exists in man's consciousness in perfected form and spiritual form.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*If you don't understand that he's coming from this subjectivist position where the world is being created from inside your head, it's very difficult to know what he's talking about. This is a theological view making ontological claims.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+"In estranging from man one nature into himself, his own active functions, his life activity, estranged labour, estranges the species from man. It changes from him the life of the species into the means of individual life. Likewise, in its abstract and estranged form, for labour, life activity, productive life itself, appears to man in the first place merely as a means of satisfying a need. The need to maintain physical existence. Yet, productive life IS the life of the species. It is life engendering life. The whole character of a species, its species character, is contained in the character of its life activity, and freee conscious activity is man's species character. Life itself appears only as a means to life."
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*With the fact of divided labour, man is estranged from the product of his work. The work is not creating what he's envisioning in his mind anymore, it's for somebody else's bidding in exchange for money that he uses to purchase the things that he neds to live, like food. It changes, for him, the life of the species into the means of individual life (individual is not social man). Individual man has been estranged from the collective, the social, the commune. The goal of the commune/communist ideal is make man back into Social Man that's no longer Individual Man performing individual labour for his individual needs. It changes, for him, the "Life of the species into a means of individual life".*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*Life of the species is WORK. It makes individual life the purpose of the life of the species.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+### Consciousness and Estrangement
|
|
|
+"The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It does not distinguish itself from it. It is its life activity.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Man makes his life activity itself the object of his will, and of his consciousness. He has conscious life activity. It is not a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life activity distinguishes man immediately from animal life activity. It is just because of this that he is a species being (human/higher nature - aware of itself as a species), or it is because he is a species being that he is a conscious being (his own life is an object for him). Only because of that is his activity free activity. Estranged labour reverses this relationship so it is just because a man is a conscious being that he makes his life activity, his essential being, a mere means to his existence."
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*When you work for somebody else you're no longer out creating the world according to your consciousness, which would otherwise be performing sacred work which creates the world and humanizes it, and thus making you and humanizing you. You are now doing somebody else's work for them, so they are not even engaging in productive work to have this spiritual transformation through the sacrament of work. Meanwhile, you're not performing your authentically free conscious activity necessary to realize the authentic expression of humanity's species character. You have reduced it to a mere activity of obtaining what you need to live through the artificial construct of money that's being exchanged for your work, which has become estranged labour. In other words, estranged meaning the same kind of estrangement as when God kicked us out of the garden. On the commune everybody's working in the garden and none of the labourers are estranged because they're just doing what you would most naturally do in the garden, but when the tyrant kicks you out and enforces the division of labour, now you're doing somebody else's work: neither of you are advancing in your sacred work. You are only tilling the soil, doing backbreaking labour and, eventually, dying.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+"In creating a world of objects by his practical activity in his work upon inorganic nature, man proves himself a conscious species being, that is, as a being taht treats the species as its own essential being, or that treats itself as a species being (as a self conscious being). Admittedly, animals also produce. They build themselves nests - dwellings - like the bees, beavers, ants, etc. But an animal only produces what it immediately needs for itself or its young. It produces one-sidedly, whilst man produces Universally. It producers only under the dominion of immediate physical need whilst man produces even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom. An animal produces only itself, whilst man reproduces the whole of nature. An animal's product belongs immediately to its physical body whilst man freely confronts his product. AN animal forms objects only in accordance with the standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how to produce in accordance with the standard of every species, and knows how to apply everywhere the inherent standard to the object. Man, therefore, also forms objects in accordance with the laws of beauty. It is just in his work upon teh objective word, therefore, that man really proves himself to be a species being (conscious being - the pinnacle of life - the creator). This production is his active species life. Through this production, nature appears as his work and his reality."
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*You picture the word, you work to make it, and it appears nature - your inorganic/spiritual body - as your work and reality.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+"The object of labour is, therefore, the objectification of man's species life, for he duplicates himself not only as in consciousness, intellectually, but also actively in reality. And, therefore, he sees himself in a world that he has created, and tearing away from man the object of his production, therefore, estranged labour tears from him his species life and his real objective as a member of the species and transforms his advantage over animals into the disadvantage that his inorganic body is taken away from him. Similarly, in degrading spontaneous free activity to a means, estranged labour makes man's species life a means to his physical existence. The consciousness which man has of his species is, thus, transformed by estrangement in such a way that species life becomes, for him, a means."
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*That's not mere philosophy, this is deep ontological claims about the nature of man, the nature of being as man, what separates from man from beast, and what the effect of this fall of man through the division of labour where we're no longer Social Man, anymore, although in estranged little social pods called tribes and communes - we're now individual man who has to work for himself and that is able to be exploited by selling his individual labour to s/omeone else. Neither is doing their spiritual work, creating nature (and by creating nature and society and therefore creating himself). And, so, the ejection from the garden for Marxist Theology is the act of dividing labour. This creates, though, another dialectical spiral that we can see, which is that Man does Work, and authentic work creates freedom and liberation, but freedom and liberation is what makes man Man instead of Beast, which allows him to do work and create more labour and liberation".*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*You have a telelogical process in the relationship between man, work and freedom, and at the end when this dialectic synthesizes the whole thing, you have truly free men whose work is all just the projecion of their sacred labour and will to work. So, man creates himself into a truly free man in this way and the name of that truly free man is Social Man beacuse Social Man is a man that realizes he lives in a Society, and he is therefore not exploiting any other man and stealing from him his fundamental nature or estranging him from one another and the product of his species labour. The man bootstraps himself to total freedom, just like he bootstraps himself as a species being in the MArxist theology. The end of this rainbow is Communism - when we get to complete Social Man who has achieved the goal of creating the complete independence of Man.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+### Being and Existence
|
|
|
+Here Marx talks about Being/Existence/Creation when he says:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+"A being only considers himself independent when he stands on his own feet and he only stands on his own feet when he owes his existence to himself".
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*We can't be subject to God or children of God because we don't stand on our own two feet - we would owe our existence to our creator - so we must owe our existence to ourselves as men*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*This whole idea that God the creator would see this in a gnostic way that it is a lie. In fact, as we saw from the Critique of Hegel that he would see religion as being a construction of Man and thus God as being a construction of Man. Man created a construction of God as an ideology to justify why he is doing what he does and why he is not standing as Man himself and in himself.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+"A man who lives by the grace of another regards himself as a dependent being. But I live completely by the grace of another if I owe him not only the maintenance of my life, but if he has moreover created my life - if he is the source of my life. When it is not of my own creation, my life has necessarily a source of this kind outside of it - the Creation is therefore an idea very difficult to dislodge from popular consciousness. The fact that nature and man exist on their own account incomprehensible to it, because it contradicts everything tangible in practical life. The creation of the Earth has received a mighty blow from Geognosci - that is from the science which presents the formation of the earth, the development of the earth as a process - as as self-generation. Generatio Equivica is the only practical refutation of the theory of Creation.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Now it is easy to say, to the single individual, what Aristotle has already said. You have been begotten by your father and your mother, therefore, in you, the mating of two human beings, a species act of human beings, has produced the human being. You see, therefore, that even physically, man owes his existence to man. Therefore, you must not only keep sight of the one aspect - the infinite progression which leads you to further enquire "Who begot my father, who his grandfather, etc" - you just also hold onto the circular movement, sensually perceptible in that progress by which man repeats himself in procreation. Man, thus, always remaining the subject.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+You will reply, however, I grant you the circular movement, now grant me the progress which drives me ever-further until I ask who begot the first man in nature as a whole, and I can only answer you: your question is itself a product of abstraction - ask yourself how you arrived at that question - ask yourself whether your question is not posed from a standpoint to which I cannot reply, because it is wrongly put. Ask yourself whether that progress, as such, exists for a reasonable mind. When you ask yourself about the creation of nature and man, you are abstracting in so doing from man and nature. You postulate them as non-existent and, yet, you want me to prove them to you as existing. Now I say to you: give up your abstraction and you will also give up your question. Or, if you want to hold onto your abstraction, then be consistent, and if you think of Man and Nature as non-existent, then think of yourself as non-existent, for, you too, are surely Nature and Man. Don't think - don't ask me - for as soon as you think and ask your abstraction from the exsitence of Nature and Man has no meaning. Or are you such an egotist that you conceive Everything is Nothing and yet want yourself to exist?"
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*This is where Voegelin accuses him of being an intellectual swindler - sidestepping the fundamental question of ontology, and creating Man as a brute-fact of the world that has then bootstrapped itself into the state that it's in now. You can see the Marxian flavours of advising to not ask questions, etc. Voegelin takes him for heavy task for that, but then does the typical Marxian thing - "or are you such an egotist..."*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*Cut this out, or there's something wrong with you. Intellectual swindler is the term, again, that is used for this.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+"You can reply "I do not want to postulate the nothingness of nature", etc. Just as I asked the anatomist about the formation of bones, and so on. 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 the 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 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 immediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and 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 throught he abolition of private property through Communism. Communism is the position as the negation of the negation and, hence, is 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."
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*This is Marx talking about the origin of humanity and he says that "For the Socialist" we just see that Man is Man and Nature is Nature, and we are, in practice, the entire history of the world is nothing but the creation of Man through human labour. For Marx, man is creating man through the process of history, and man is creating himself by realiziing that he is a man in this process. For Man to realize that he is man in himself, which is along the path to becoming Socialist Msn, he first has to realize his potential for full independence and, eventually, to be man in himself, he has to realize his full independence, independence from God, independence from his parentage. Man as creator placed in place of Deity - that's what's going on in the Marxian Theology - each Man has to become his own creator. Theory and practice in place of religion, or as a religion, is what's going on. Socialist Theory explaining what's happening and practice until those two fuse.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Praxis
|
|
|
+"Practice and Theory" From Marxists.org
|
|
|
+"Practice means activity with a means and an end. These words, practice, action, activity, praxis, labour, behaviour - are used with different meanings by different writers at different times in different languages."
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+* I'm going to separate that:*
|
|
|
+- Work is the sacred thing that Marxists do, and it's not perfectly consistent with Marx's use.
|
|
|
+- Labour is what happens when it is appropriated by bosses, capitalists and the division of labour.
|
|
|
+- Activity is what you do when it doesn't have a conscious direction in mind (what animals do)
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+* The crucial point is that, for Marxists, praxis is inclusive of its mental, theoretical or ideological aspects*:
|
|
|
+- mental: the vision in your mind
|
|
|
+- theoretical: conforms to theory
|
|
|
+- ideology: born of ideology
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+### Ideology for Marx
|
|
|
+*Badly understood, but insightful to watch Charles Mills "From Class to Race" - explains how he went from being classical Marxist to Critical Race Theorist*:
|
|
|
+- every Marxist in existence is wrong about what Marx meant by "ideology"
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Ideology, for Marx, is the set of justifications that people give for doing work that's not productive. In particular, for making other people work for them.
|
|
|
+- Priests create "God" as an ideology and religion. They aren't productive, but as priests they know they will be fed. In the ideology of Religion is a set of justifications given for why a Priest needs to be doing as he does, instead of doing real productive labour.
|
|
|
+- Lawyer isn't doing anything practical - not real work - he just hustles paper and arguments and wields an ideology about the law and how it exists so that he can understand it and mediate it for those who haven't the same capacity. His ideology about the law justifies his existence as a lawyer.
|
|
|
+- Ideology is whatever idea justifies super-structural work and is continuous with the superstructure itself.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+"What we have here is that for Marxists, practice is inclusive of its mental, theoretical or ideological aspects. These ideological or mental aspects can be abstracted from practice only relatively. The contrast between theory and practice is always only a conditional and relative one. Practice is active, rather than being a passive observation, and is directed at changing something. Practice differs from activity, in general, because practice is inseparable from Theory, which gives its means and end."
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*The only real work is Socialist Work - because practice has to be performed while having the idea in one's head. The worker has a vision of what he is creating in mind. It already exists in his consciousness and he is bringing it about as creator into the world, and he will understand himself better as creator and more human as a result. The subjective is brought into the objective world and the subject understands itself better as a result. That's activity. Practice goes beyond that.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*Practice is also inseparable from Theory which means that the only kind of work that counts as practice is work that's in coordination with Theory - Marxian Theory - which gives its means and end. While activity or behaviour usually includs unthinking reflexes.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+"Practice is only enacted through theory, and theory is formulated based on practice."
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*Theory inspires practice, practice requires reflection, which is going to reform theory and give rise to a new iteration. This is the wheel of becoming until Theory and Practice fuse, once again. When the practical idea and the theoretical idea fuse into the absolute idea, for Hegel, you have the Escaton. For Marx, you take this away from Idealism (Theoretical and Practical => Absolute), but will now be Theory and Practice becoming Unified into something Unified - perfectly theoretically informed activity with a means and an end that are informed by Theory and which is, therefore, Socialist. When practice and theory become the same thing, theory-practice, they are no longer divided whatsoever - and that's the thing that Social Man does in Socialist Society, which both also become fused as well.*
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+"Whenever Theory and Practice are separated, they fall into a distorted one-sidedness. Theory and Practice can only fully develop in connection with one another. Human Activity is always purposeful, but in the earliest stages of development of society, before the development of the division of labour, there was no separation between theory and practice"
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+*Before we got kicked out of the garden by Original Sin of Dividing Labour, theory and practice were unified and we lived in Communist Gardens.*
|
|
|
+
|
logicp