Talk:Marxist humanism: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
What's wrong with this article? I'll tell you! |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
i think this page would benifit with letting Marx talk for himself a bit more and demonstrating The continuity between young Marx and his latter works. we should Add criticism of Marxist humanism such as from Paul Mattick and the French structuralist Marxists. --[[User:Monty Cantsin|Monty Cantsin]] 12:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC) |
i think this page would benifit with letting Marx talk for himself a bit more and demonstrating The continuity between young Marx and his latter works. we should Add criticism of Marxist humanism such as from Paul Mattick and the French structuralist Marxists. --[[User:Monty Cantsin|Monty Cantsin]] 12:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC) |
||
== What's wrong with this article? I'll tell you! == |
|||
For one thing it ''completely'' misunderstands the implications of Marx's conception of alienated labor in the manuscripts. Was this article written by someone using only secondary sources or what?. |
|||
The first, and simplest to understand, use of alienation in the 1844 Manuscripts is that in capitalism, the worker produces but the product of his production doesn't belong to him. It belongs to someone else (the capitalist). This includes capital itself, as it is labor that creates the means of produciton yet those means of production created by labor are the property of another (the capitalist). Thus Marx argues that the alienation of labor ''creates'' private property (i.e. private means of production) rather than being a consequence of it, as had been argued by the classical political economists (i.e. Smith, Riccardo, Say, etc). |
|||
The second sense of alienation depends on understanding that Marx saw production as an essential feature and power of society, that humans in commmon can and do and must appropriate nature to their own needs (subsistence and social reproduction). Yet in capitalism, this essential power of society becomes an alien power (the market) that in turn rules over society, imposing its own logic back on society. Thus an essential power of man become the power of an alien entity than in turn exerts that power back onto man. |
|||
The third sense is that in capitalism, this essential ''end'' of society is turned into a ''means'' for the individual to realize his individual subsistence and reproduction. |
|||
Thus, for Marx it is the very necessity imposed on human beings of doing the specific kind of labor that exists in capitalism (wage-labor) that is the problem. |
|||
His problem ''is not'' that an elite is created, its that based on his understanding of human nature and alienation, capitalism is inherently ''dehumanizing.'' |
|||
Revision as of 00:08, 24 December 2005
I am not sure which part is considered "tendentious" in this article? It seems that insofar as Marx himself did really believe there to be something very wrong with the entire system of capitalism--something very inhuman, or alienating, about the system altogether--this is only an exposition of what his texts reveal. It is not supposed to be linked to, or a showcase for, any personal opinion. Yet editing is most welcome.
i think this page would benifit with letting Marx talk for himself a bit more and demonstrating The continuity between young Marx and his latter works. we should Add criticism of Marxist humanism such as from Paul Mattick and the French structuralist Marxists. --Monty Cantsin 12:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with this article? I'll tell you!
For one thing it completely misunderstands the implications of Marx's conception of alienated labor in the manuscripts. Was this article written by someone using only secondary sources or what?.
The first, and simplest to understand, use of alienation in the 1844 Manuscripts is that in capitalism, the worker produces but the product of his production doesn't belong to him. It belongs to someone else (the capitalist). This includes capital itself, as it is labor that creates the means of produciton yet those means of production created by labor are the property of another (the capitalist). Thus Marx argues that the alienation of labor creates private property (i.e. private means of production) rather than being a consequence of it, as had been argued by the classical political economists (i.e. Smith, Riccardo, Say, etc).
The second sense of alienation depends on understanding that Marx saw production as an essential feature and power of society, that humans in commmon can and do and must appropriate nature to their own needs (subsistence and social reproduction). Yet in capitalism, this essential power of society becomes an alien power (the market) that in turn rules over society, imposing its own logic back on society. Thus an essential power of man become the power of an alien entity than in turn exerts that power back onto man.
The third sense is that in capitalism, this essential end of society is turned into a means for the individual to realize his individual subsistence and reproduction.
Thus, for Marx it is the very necessity imposed on human beings of doing the specific kind of labor that exists in capitalism (wage-labor) that is the problem.
His problem is not that an elite is created, its that based on his understanding of human nature and alienation, capitalism is inherently dehumanizing.
