∞
6th November 2010, 01:48
Recently I have been reading "Marx and Marxism" by Iring Fischer, and I've felt furthermore disgust with the Soviet impression of Marxism. Especially the almost dismissal notion of Marxian sociology which the Young Marx had construed in the mid-1840's.
If any of you have read Marx's Wesensschau you will find his early concept (that of which we find no evidence that he denounced) of alienation. He makes it quite clear the functions of man should primarily based on his voluntary obligations, and man in turn should value his time in leisure not as vain break.
Some may call this hedonistic...
Karl Marx
From all this the man (the worker) feels himself to be freely active in his animal functions-eating, drinking, and procreating, or at most in his dwelling or personal adornment-while in his human functions he is reduced to an animal. The animal becomes human and the human becomes animal . Eating, drinking, and procreating of course are genuine human functions. But considered abstraction of all other human activity and turned into final and sole ends, they are animal.
Lenin's NEP also seems contrary to specific Marxist logic.
If one speaks of property ones is speaking of something dealing outside of man.
So it would seem that the struggle for worker control of the means production would only be plausible if the concentration of property that which is the extensive feature of various "predecessor" systems.
Speaking of Labor directly , one immediately deals with man.
So how could a worker based industry ever complement its slowly developing agrarian sector? Seems to me it is putting each on opposite spheres, coursed by bureaucratic control. To establish workers control, property must develop, otherwise it would ship into the same economic failures of a capitalist system.
In some cases, recovery may not be nearly as dynamic.
It also seems peculiar that Moscow had to edit Marx's Grundisse, 1939-1941.
In Grundisse Marx actually promotes exchange over small firms producing in subsidies in a progressive median of exchange. Which makes Luxemburg's view on Nationalization more coherent. It's likely this new division of labor is trying to progress mankind technologically. I think this would lead the new mode of production where our current control over technologies allow us to break the cycle of business. This is likely due to the fact him seeing it as necessary, but not a phase that could be implemented immediately. It has to develop through a natural, Historical Materialist process.
If any of you have read Marx's Wesensschau you will find his early concept (that of which we find no evidence that he denounced) of alienation. He makes it quite clear the functions of man should primarily based on his voluntary obligations, and man in turn should value his time in leisure not as vain break.
Some may call this hedonistic...
Karl Marx
From all this the man (the worker) feels himself to be freely active in his animal functions-eating, drinking, and procreating, or at most in his dwelling or personal adornment-while in his human functions he is reduced to an animal. The animal becomes human and the human becomes animal . Eating, drinking, and procreating of course are genuine human functions. But considered abstraction of all other human activity and turned into final and sole ends, they are animal.
Lenin's NEP also seems contrary to specific Marxist logic.
If one speaks of property ones is speaking of something dealing outside of man.
So it would seem that the struggle for worker control of the means production would only be plausible if the concentration of property that which is the extensive feature of various "predecessor" systems.
Speaking of Labor directly , one immediately deals with man.
So how could a worker based industry ever complement its slowly developing agrarian sector? Seems to me it is putting each on opposite spheres, coursed by bureaucratic control. To establish workers control, property must develop, otherwise it would ship into the same economic failures of a capitalist system.
In some cases, recovery may not be nearly as dynamic.
It also seems peculiar that Moscow had to edit Marx's Grundisse, 1939-1941.
In Grundisse Marx actually promotes exchange over small firms producing in subsidies in a progressive median of exchange. Which makes Luxemburg's view on Nationalization more coherent. It's likely this new division of labor is trying to progress mankind technologically. I think this would lead the new mode of production where our current control over technologies allow us to break the cycle of business. This is likely due to the fact him seeing it as necessary, but not a phase that could be implemented immediately. It has to develop through a natural, Historical Materialist process.