Marx, individualist communist! (excerpts on the individual) - Karl Marx

Marx, individualist communist! (excerpts on the individual) - Karl Marx

A collection of excerpts from Marx's works that addresses individuals, their subordination arising from their mutual isolation and separation by which they submit to an alienated power that unites them by isolating them - the market, the state, enterprise, capital, classes. And on the creation of a society where individuals relate as individuals (i.e. not as private property owners, nor as classes, nor as post holders, or other reified identities, such as nationality, ethnicity, etc.), where labor was abolished by self-expression (or self-activity) through the free association of individuals according to their desires, capacities and needs with the world-historical productive forces …

[humanaesfera´s note: Here is a collection of excerpts from Marx's works that addresses individuals, their subordination arising from their mutual isolation and separation by which they create and submit to an alienated power that unites them by isolating them - the market, state, the enterprise, capital, classes. And on the question of the creation of a society where individuals relate as individuals (i.e. not as private property owners, nor as classes, nor as post holders, or other reified identities, such as nationality, ethnicity, etc.), where labor was abolished by self-expression (or self-activity) through the free association of individuals according to their desires, capacities and needs with the world-historical productive forces …

The excerpts were taken from the following works:
Karl Marx, Grundrisse, 1858.
Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846
Karl Marx and F. Engels, The Holy Family or Critique of Critical Criticism, 1845
Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, 1844
Karl Marx, Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1843
Karl Marx, Draft of an Article on Friedrich List’s book: Das Nationale System der Politischen Oekonomie, 1845
Letter from Marx to J. B. von Schweitzer, 1865, February 13]

THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF INDIVIDUALS AND ITS ACCUMULATION AS PRIVATE PROPERTY FORCES AGAINST THEM

“The need for exchange [of commodities] and for the transformation of the product into a pure exchange value progresses in step with the division of labour, i.e. with the increasingly social character of production. But as the latter grows, so grows the power of money, i.e. the exchange relation establishes itself as a power external to and independent of the producers. What originally appeared as a means to promote production becomes a relation alien to the producers. As the producers become more dependent on exchange, exchange appears to become more independent of them, and the gap between the product as product and the product as exchange value appears to widen. Money does not create these antitheses and contradictions; it is, rather, the development of these contradictions and antitheses which creates the seemingly transcendental power of money.” (Karl Marx, Grundrisse. The Chapter on Money)

“The division of labour implies from the outset the division of the conditions of labour, of tools and materials, and thus the splitting-up of accumulated capital among different owners, and thus, also, the division between capital and labour, and the different forms of property itself. The more the division of labour develops and accumulation grows, the sharper are the forms that this process of differentiation assumes. Labour itself can only exist on the premise of this fragmentation.
[…]
Thus two facts are here revealed. First the productive forces appear as a world for themselves, quite independent of and divorced from the individuals, alongside the individuals: the reason for this is that the individuals, whose forces they are, exist split up and in opposition to one another, whilst, on the other hand, these forces are only real forces in the intercourse and association of these individuals.

Thus, on the one hand, we have a totality of productive forces, which have, as it were, taken on a material form and are for the individuals no longer the forces of the individuals but of private property, and hence of the individuals only insofar as they are owners of private property themselves. Never, in any earlier period, have the productive forces taken on a form so indifferent to the intercourse of individuals as individuals, because their intercourse itself was formerly a restricted one. On the other hand, standing over against these productive forces, we have the majority of the individuals from whom these forces have been wrested away, and who, robbed thus of all real life-content, have become abstract individuals, but who are, however, only by this fact put into a position to enter into relation with one another as individuals.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

“Thus the old view, in which the human being appears as the aim of production, regardless of his limited national, religious, political character, seems to be very lofty when contrasted to the modern world, where production appears as the aim of mankind and wealth as the aim of production. In fact, however, when the limited bourgeois form is stripped away, what is wealth other than the universality of individual needs, capacities, pleasures, productive forces etc., created through universal exchange? The full development of human mastery over the forces of nature, those of so-called nature as well as of humanity's own nature? The absolute working-out of his creative potentialities, with no presupposition other than the previous historic development, which makes this totality of development, i.e. the development of all human powers as such the end in itself, not as measured on a predetermined yardstick? Where he does not reproduce himself in one specificity, but produces his totality? Strives not to remain something he has become, but is in the absolute movement of becoming? In bourgeois economics - and in the epoch of production to which it corresponds – this complete working-out of the human content appears as a complete emptying-out, this universal objectification as total alienation, and the tearing-down of all limited, one-sided aims as sacrifice of the human end-in-itself to an entirely external end.” (Karl Marx, Grundrisse, III, 1858)

“This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.

The social power, i.e., the multiplied productive force, which arises through the co-operation of different individuals as it is determined by the division of labour, appears to these individuals, since their co-operation is not voluntary but has come about naturally, not as their own united power, but as an alien force existing outside them, of the origin and goal of which they are ignorant, which they thus cannot control, which on the contrary passes through a peculiar series of phases and stages independent of the will and the action of man, nay even being the prime governor of these.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

CLASSES: SUBORDINATION OF INDIVIDUALS AS AVERAGE INDIVIDUALS AGAINST THIRD PARTIES

“Individuals have always built on themselves, but naturally on themselves within their given historical conditions and relationships, not on the "pure" individual in the sense of the ideologists. But in the course of historical evolution, and precisely through the inevitable fact that within the division of labour social relationships take on an independent existence, there appears a division within the life of each individual, insofar as it is personal and insofar as it is determined by some branch of labour and the conditions pertaining to it. ([…]) In the estate (and even more in the tribe) this is as yet concealed: for instance, a nobleman always remains a nobleman, a commoner always a commoner, apart from his other relationships, a quality inseparable from his individuality. The division between the personal and the class individual, the accidental nature of the conditions of life for the individual, appears only with the emergence of the class, which is itself a product of the bourgeoisie. This accidental character is only engendered and developed by competition and the struggle of individuals among themselves. Thus, in imagination, individuals seem freer under the dominance of the bourgeoisie than before, because their conditions of life seem accidental; in reality, of course, they are less free, because they are more subjected to the violence of things.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

“This subsuming of individuals under definite classes cannot be abolished until a class has taken shape, which has no longer any particular class interest to assert against the ruling class.

The transformation, through the division of labour, of personal powers (relationships) into material powers, cannot be dispelled by dismissing the general idea of it from one's mind, but can only be abolished by the individuals again subjecting these material powers to themselves and abolishing the division of labour. This is not possible without the community. Only in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. In the previous substitutes for the community, in the State, etc. personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class, and only insofar as they were individuals of this class. The illusory community, in which individuals have up till now combined, always took on an independent existence in relation to them, and was at the same time, since it was the combination of one class over against another, not only a completely illusory community, but a new fetter as well. In a real community the individuals obtain their freedom in and through their association.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

“It follows from all we have been saying up till now that the communal relationship into which the individuals of a class entered, and which was determined by their common interests over against a third party, was always a community to which these individuals belonged only as average individuals, only insofar as they lived within the conditions of existence of their class - a relationship in which they participated not as individuals but as members of a class. With the community of revolutionary proletarians, on the other hand, who take their conditions of existence and those of all members of society under their control, it is just the reverse; it is as individuals that the individuals participate in it. It is just this combination of individuals (assuming the advanced stage of modern productive forces, of course) which puts the conditions of the free development and movement of individuals under their control - conditions which were previously abandoned to chance and had won an independent existence over against the separate individuals just because of their separation as individuals, and because of the necessity of their combination which had been determined by the division of labour, and through their separation had become a bond alien to them. Combination up till now (by no means an arbitrary one, such as is expounded for example in the Contrat social, but a necessary one) was an agreement upon these conditions, within which the individuals were free to enjoy the freaks of fortune ([...]). This right to the undisturbed enjoyment, within certain conditions, of fortuity and chance has up till now been called personal freedom. These conditions of existence are, of course, only the productive forces and forms of intercourse at any particular time.

Communism differs from all previous movements in that it overturns the basis of all earlier relations of production and intercourse, and for the first time consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures of hitherto existing men, strips them of their natural character and subjugates them to the power of the united individuals. Its organisation is, therefore, essentially economic, the material production of the conditions of this unity; it turns existing conditions into conditions of unity. The reality, which communism is creating, is precisely the true basis for rendering it impossible that anything should exist independently of individuals, insofar as reality is only a product of the preceding intercourse of individuals themselves.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

THE STATE IS AN ILLUSORY COMMUNITY

“Individuals always proceeded, and always proceed, from themselves. Their relations are the relations of their real life-process. How does it happen that their relations assume an independent existence over against them? and that the forces of their own life become superior to them?
In short: division of labour, the level of which depends on the development of the productive power at any particular time.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

“Out of this very contradiction between the particular and the common interests, the common interest assumes an independent form as the state, which is divorced from the real individual and collective interests, and at the same time as an illusory community, always based, however, on the real ties existing in every family conglomeration and tribal conglomeration— such as flesh and blood, language, division of labour on a larger scale, and other interests—and especially, as we shall show later, on the classes, already implied by the division of labour, which in every such mass of men separate out, and one of which dominates all the others. It follows from this that all struggles within the state, the struggle between democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, the struggle for the franchise, etc., etc., are merely the illusory forms—altogether the general interest is the illusory form of common interests — in which the real struggles of the different classes are fought out among one another.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

THE GENUINE WEALTH OF INDIVIDUALS IS THE WEALTH OF THEIR WORLD-HISTORICAL RELATIONS

“[The] transformation of history into world history is by no means a mere abstract act on the part of "self-consciousness", the world spirit, or of any other metaphysical spectre, but a quite material, empirically verifiable act, an act the proof of which every individual furnishes as he comes and goes, eats, drinks and clothes himself. In history up to the present it is certainly likewise an empirical fact that separate individuals have, with the broadening of their activity into world-historical activity, become more and more enslaved under a power alien to them (a pressure which they have conceived of as a dirty trick on the part of the so-called world spirit, etc.), a power which has become more and more enormous and, in the last instance, turns out to be the world market. But it is just as empirically established that, by the overthrow of the existing state of society by the communist revolution (of which more below) and the abolition of private property, which is identical with it, this power, which so baffles the German theoreticians, will be dissolved; and that then the liberation of each single individual will be accomplished in the measure in which history becomes wholly transformed into world history. From the above it is clear that the real intellectual wealth of the individual depends entirely on the wealth of his real connections. Only this will liberate the separate individuals from the various national and local barriers, bring them into practical connection with the production (including intellectual production) of the whole world and make it possible for them to acquire the capacity to enjoy this all-sided production of the whole earth (the creations of man). All-round dependence, this primary natural form of the world-historical co-operation of individuals, will be transformed by this communist revolution into the control and conscious mastery of these powers, which, born of the action of men on one another, have till now overawed and ruled men as powers completely alien to them. ” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

ABOLITION OF LABOR

“It is not a matter of freeing labour but rather of abolishing it.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

“In all revolutions up till now the mode of activity always remained unscathed and it was only a question of a different distribution of this activity, a new distribution of labour to other persons, whilst the communist revolution is directed against the preceding mode of activity, does away with labour, and abolishes the rule of all classes with the classes themselves, because it is carried through by the class which no longer counts as a class in society, is not recognised as a class, and is in itself the expression of the dissolution of all classes, nationalities, etc. within present society; [...]” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

“Thus, while the refugee serfs only wished to be free to develop and assert those conditions of existence which were already there, and hence, in the end, only arrived at free labour, the proletarians, if they are to assert themselves as individuals, will have to abolish the very condition of their existence hitherto (which has, moreover, been that of all society up to the present), namely, labour. Thus they find themselves directly opposed to the form in which, hitherto, the individuals, of which society consists, have given themselves collective expression, that is, the State. In order, therefore, to assert themselves as individuals, they must overthrow the State.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

“[...] the worker is the slave of capital, he is a “commodity”, an exchange value, the higher or lower level of which, the rise or fall of which, depends on competition, on supply and demand […] his activity is not a free manifestation of his human life, that it is, rather, a huckstering sale of his forces, an alienation (sale) to capital of his one-sidedly developed abilities, in a word, that it is “labour”. One is supposed to forget this. “Labour” is the living basis of private property, it is private property as the creative source of itself. Private property is nothing but objectified labour. If it is desired to strike a mortal blow at private property, one must attack it not only as a material state of affairs, but also as activity, as labour. It is one of the greatest misapprehensions to speak of free, human, social labour, of labour without private property. “Labour” by its very nature is unfree, unhuman, unsocial activity, determined by private property and creating private property. Hence the abolition of private property will become a reality only when it is conceived as the abolition of “labour” (an abolition which, of course, has become possible only as a result of labour itself, that is to say, has become possible as a result of the material activity of society and which should on no account be conceived as the replacement of one category by another). An “organisation of labour”, therefore, is a contradiction. The best organisation that labour can be given is the present organisation, free competition, the dissolution of all its previous apparently “social” organisation.” (Karl Marx, Draft of an Article on Friedrich List’s book: Das Nationale System der Politischen Oekonomie, 1845)

THE ABOLITION OF LABOR BY SELF-EXPRESSION (OR SELF-ACTIVITY) AND THE EMERGENCE OF RELATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS AS INDIVIDUALS

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

“Thus things have now come to such a pass that the individuals must appropriate the existing totality of productive forces, not only to achieve self-activity, but, also, merely to safeguard their very existence. This appropriation is first determined by the object to be appropriated, the productive forces, which have been developed to a totality and which only exist within a universal intercourse. From this aspect alone, therefore, this appropriation must have a universal character corresponding to the productive forces and the intercourse.

The appropriation of these forces is itself nothing more than the development of the individual capacities corresponding to the material instruments of production. The appropriation of a totality of instruments of production is, for this very reason, the development of a totality of capacities in the individuals themselves.

This appropriation is further determined by the persons appropriating. Only the proletarians of the present day, who are completely shut off from all self-activity, are in a position to achieve a complete and no longer restricted self-activity, which consists in the appropriation of a totality of productive forces and in the thus postulated development of a totality of capacities. All earlier revolutionary appropriations were restricted; individuals, whose self-activity was restricted by a crude instrument of production and a limited intercourse, appropriated this crude instrument of production, and hence merely achieved a new state of limitation. Their instrument of production became their property, but they themselves remained subordinate to the division of labour and their own instrument of production. In all expropriations up to now, a mass of individuals remained subservient to a single instrument of production; in the appropriation by the proletarians, a mass of instruments of production must be made subject to each individual, and property to all. Modern universal intercourse can be controlled by individuals, therefore, only when controlled by all.

This appropriation is further determined by the manner in which it must be effected. It can only be effected through a union, which by the character of the proletariat itself can again only be a universal one, and through a revolution, in which, on the one hand, the power of the earlier mode of production and intercourse and social organisation is overthrown, and, on the other hand, there develops the universal character and the energy of the proletariat, without which the revolution cannot be accomplished; and in which, further, the proletariat rids itself of everything that still clings to it from its previous position in society.

Only at this stage does self-activity coincide with material life, which corresponds to the development of individuals into complete individuals and the casting-off of all natural limitations. The transformation of labour into self-activity corresponds to the transformation of the earlier limited intercourse into the intercourse of individuals as such. With the appropriation of the total productive forces through united individuals, private property comes to an end.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

PRACTICAL PREMISES

“[The] "alienation" (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an "intolerable" power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity "propertyless", and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

“Competition separates individuals from one another, not only the bourgeois but still more the workers, in spite of the fact that it brings them together. Hence it is a long time before these individuals can unite, apart from the fact that for the purpose of this union — if it is not to be merely local — the necessary means, the big industrial cities and cheap and quick communications, have first to be produced by large-scale industry. Hence every organised power standing over against these isolated individuals, who live in conditions daily reproducing this isolation, can only be overcome after long struggles. To demand the opposite would be tantamount to demanding that competition should not exist in this definite epoch of history, or that the individuals should banish from their minds conditions over which in their isolation they have no control.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

“The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity can only have a "world-historical" existence. World-historical existence of individuals, i. e., existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, German Ideology, 1846)

“The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing” (Letter from Marx to J. B. von Schweitzer, 1865, February 13)

"SOCIETY" AND "HISTORY" DO NOTHING

History does nothing, it “possesses no immense wealth”, it “wages no battles”. It is man, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; “history” is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, The Holy Family or Critique of Critical Criticism, 1845)

“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, however much – and this is necessarily so – the mode of existence of individual life is a more particular or a more general mode of the species-life, or species-life a more particular or more general individual life.” (Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, 1844)

THE SELF-ABOLITION OF THE PROLETARIAT

“In the formation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right because no particular wrong, but wrong generally, is perpetuated against it; which can invoke no historical, but only human, title; which does not stand in any one-sided antithesis to the consequences but in all-round antithesis to the premises of German statehood; a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat.

The proletariat is beginning to appear in Germany as a result of the rising industrial movement. For, it is not the naturally arising poor but the artificially impoverished, not the human masses mechanically oppressed by the gravity of society, but the masses resulting from the drastic dissolution of society, mainly of the middle estate, that form the proletariat, although, as is easily understood, the naturally arising poor and the Christian-Germanic serfs gradually join its ranks.” (Karl Marx, Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1843)

“Proletariat and wealth are opposites; as such they form a single whole. They are both creations of the world of private property. The question is exactly what place each occupies in the antithesis. It is not sufficient to declare them two sides of a single whole.

Private property as private property, as wealth, is compelled to maintain itself, and thereby its opposite, the proletariat, in existence. That is the positive side of the antithesis, self-satisfied private property.

The proletariat, on the contrary, is compelled as proletariat to abolish itself and thereby its opposite, private property, which determines its existence, and which makes it proletariat. It is the negative side of the antithesis, its restlessness within its very self, dissolved and self-dissolving private property.

The propertied class and the class of the proletariat present the same human self-estrangement. But the former class feels at ease and strengthened in this self-estrangement, it recognizes estrangement as its own power and has in it the semblance of a human existence. The class of the proletariat feels annihilated in estrangement; it sees in it its own powerlessness and the reality of an inhuman existence. It is, to use an expression of Hegel, in its abasement the indignation at that abasement, an indignation to which it is necessarily driven by the contradiction between its human nature and its condition of life, which is the outright, resolute and comprehensive negation of that nature.

Within this antithesis the private property-owner is therefore the conservative side, the proletarian the destructive side. From the former arises the action of preserving the antithesis, from the latter the action of annihilating it.

Indeed private property drives itself in its economic movement towards its own dissolution, but only through a development which does not depend on it, which is unconscious and which takes place against the will of private property by the very nature of things, only inasmuch as it produces the proletariat as proletariat, poverty which is conscious of its spiritual and physical poverty, dehumanization which is conscious of its dehumanization, and therefore self-abolishing.
The proletariat executes the sentence that private property pronounces on itself by producing the proletariat, just as it executes the sentence that wage-labour pronounces on itself by producing wealth for others and poverty for itself. When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only by abolishing itself and its opposite. Then the proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which determines it, private property.” (Karl Marx and F. Engels, The Holy Family or Critique of Critical Criticism, 1845)

AGAINST CRUDE COMMUNISM

“[For crude communism] the community is only a community of labour, and equality of wages paid out by communal capital – by the community as the universal capitalist. Both sides of the relationship are raised to an imagined universalitylabour as the category in which every person is placed, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.
[...]
The category of the worker is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things.
[…]
This type of communism – since it negates the personality of man in every sphere – is but the logical expression of private property, which is this negation. General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is at least turned against wealthier private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce things to a common level, so that this envy and urge even constitute the essence of competition. Crude communism is only the culmination of this envy and of this levelling-down proceeding from the preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited standard. How little this annulment of private property is really an appropriation is in fact proved by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilisation, the regression to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and crude man who has few needs and who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it.” (Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, 1844)

Comments

Spikymike
Mar 23 2018 16:03

Thanks a very useful compilation on a subject particularly relevant on a site such as libcom popular with anarchists and assumed to be essentially anarchist by many.

Khawaga
Mar 23 2018 16:36

Yeah, thanks for compiling these excerpts.

noslavery
Mar 27 2018 14:52

I am not sure Marx philosophy of history, which his views above are derived from, is correct. He thought that the existence of class society has come spontaneously. I don't share this view. I think existence of class society comes from the will, intention and work of those who want to dominate and win. I have problem with Marx's view of historical development as something in itself. Rather, I see it as the result of the work of those who want to dominate and those who resist being dominated – in which, so far, the winners are those who want to dominate. I think we need to look at Marx's view of history as a model which only partially represent realty.

In this:

"Indeed private property drives itself in its economic movement towards its own dissolution, but only through a development which does not depend on it, which is unconscious and which takes place against the will of private property by the very nature of things, only inasmuch as it produces the proletariat as proletariat, poverty which is conscious of its spiritual and physical poverty, dehumanization which is conscious of its dehumanization, and therefore self-abolishing."

Besides problem of vagueness: "unconscious development" or "things", there is a bigger problem. We have owners of private property, not private property as a thing. Owners of private property actually consciously make sure they keep their domination. They are very class conscious. Owners of private property of means of production are "real man." Majority of dominated individuals are being intentionally kept unconscious of their situation because those who rule determines who knows what and how much.

baboon
Mar 27 2018 19:08

I don't think that there's anything at all in Marx that points to a position on the spontaneous nature of class society. On the contrary his determination to get to "the root of things" produced Capital and, along with Engels, his exploration and analyses of the development of different societies, from "primitive communism" on, show the complexities and multi-faceted nature of events that led up to capitalism establishing itself.

I like the quote about the proletariat having to abolish itself and herein lies its real victory.

Here's a link to a text on the formative materialist analysis of Marx developing from a defence of the Ancient Greek materialist Epicurus.

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201802/14902/marx-and-epicurus

Khawaga
Mar 27 2018 19:10
noslavery wrote:
Rather, I see it as the result of the work of those who want to dominate and those who resist being dominated – in which, so far, the winners are those who want to dominate

Well, Marx and Engles did write in the Manifesto that:

Quote:
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Joaos
Mar 27 2018 21:18
noslavery wrote:
I think existence of class society comes from the will, intention and work of those who want to dominate and win. I have problem with Marx's view of historical development as something in itself. Rather, I see it as the result of the work of those who want to dominate and those who resist being dominated – in which, so far, the winners are those who want to dominate.

The problem of approaching the subjective aspect (will, opinion, ideas, intention, work ...) is that, in practical terms, it leads to the idea that in order to change the world, we must change people's subjectivity (desires and needs). But doing so is authoritarian. Because this is to treat their subjectivity as an instrument, a means for the purpose of changing the world, subjecting "wills" to an incessant ideological vigilance that does not change the concrete reality that makes these wills have concrete meaning and developing. At best, it's trying to put people in a regrettable and boring ritual of self-blame.

The point then is not that "ambitious" people should be repressed or repress themselves (if this happens, they will inevitably remain "ambitious," accumulating these feelings to manifest them whenever there is opportunity, in an explosive way). On the contrary, the point is that people transform material circumstances in such a way that there is no longer any way to coerce anyone to work or obey the dictates of the "ambitious" or the dictates of anyone else (i.e. abolition of class society). When people transform their material circumstances, transforming their social relations, they autonomously (by thinking and acting for themselves) modify and develop their own thoughts, desires, and needs. They are transformed.

This is an idea of Marx called the "theory of revolutionary praxis" (as presented in the Theses on Feuerbach and German Ideology). The only way to treat others libertarily is not to attack their wills, ideas, dogmatisms, or religion, but rather to help to make explicit the contradictory assumptions, the absurd circumstances that give meaning to these wills, ideas, dogmatisms, religion ("The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions", as Marx put it), so that people can autonomously transform their own circumstances, transforming themselves, transforming their wills, tastes, or ideas autonomously.