Economic freedom is freedom from economics.

[Monty Cantsin]

"Economic freedom is freedom from economic necessity"

This pretty much sums up a Marxist or Anti-captialist view of things. But where does this quote come from, it it comes from anywhere. i'm writing an essay for uni, and this keeps jumping in my head as a way to sum things up. it just sounds to good to be somthng i dreamt up.

[Rawthentic]

Sounds true I guess, and sums up very briefly what a communist society could be like.

[IronColumn]

marcuse I believe in his one dimensional man.

[vyborg]

it comes from rosa luxemburg and nicolai bucharin

[Monty Cantsin]

if you could put forward sources that would be great.

from what i remeber, marcuse has a paragraph that comes to that effect.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Such new modes can be indicated only in negative terms because they would amount to the negation of the prevailing modes. Thus economic freedom would mean freedom from the economy - from being controlled by economic forces and relationships; freedom from the daily struggle for existence, from earning a living. Political freedom would mean liberation of the individuals from politics over which they have no effective control. Similarly, intellectual freedom would mean the restoration of individual thought now absorbed by mass communication and indoctrination, abolition of “public opinion” together with its makers. The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization. The most effective and enduring form of warfare against liberation is the implanting of material and intellectual needs that perpetuate obsolete forms of the struggle for existence."

That's what Marcuse said in One Dimensional Man (in Chapter 1).. I don't know if it's what you were looking for.. I don't know what Luxemburg and Bucharin said along these lines.

[Monty Cantsin]

yer, thats where i got the idea from. i just could not remeber exactly what he said and whether or not it was the same thing i wrote.

[More Fire for the People]

Marcuse was brilliant. I find his ability to take thick concepts and use them in beautiful prose amazing. I do have certain objections to his Freudianism [objections which I consider resolved by Lacan] but do not consider him overly dependent upon Freudianism rather he takes the totality of human relations — psychological, historical, etc. — in order to develop his theories. However, Marcuse does have the defect of taking a particular situation and universalizing it.