Marx, as one of the first "bohemians" in 1840s Paris, was in fact quite the "hippie," 19th-century style, and his lifelong project was based on a fundamental commitment to human freedom, understood not only "materially," but "abstractly" as well.
>From "The German Ideology" (1846) (bolding added, italics in original): ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a4 ) "*With the division of labour*, in which all these contradictions are implicit, and which in its turn is based on the natural division of labour in the family and the separation of society into individual families opposed to one another, *is given simultaneously the distribution, and indeed the unequal distribution, both quantitative and qualitative, of labour and its products, hence property*: the nucleus, the first form, of which lies in the family, where wife and children are the slaves of the husband. This latent slavery in the family, though still very crude, is the first property, but even at this early stage it corresponds perfectly to the definition of modern economists who call it the power of disposing of the labour-power of others. *Division of labour and private property are, moreover, identical expressions*: in the one the same thing is affirmed with reference to activity as is affirmed in the other with reference to the product of the activity. Further, *the division of labour implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals* who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the “general interest,” but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labour is divided. And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. *For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape.* He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; *while in communist society, *where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, *society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. *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." >From "On James Mill" (1844) (bolding added, italics in original): ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/james-mill/). "Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have *in two ways affirmed* himself and the other person. 1) In my *production* I would have objectified my *individuality, its specific character*, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual *manifestation of my life* during the activity, but also when looking at the object I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be *objective, visible to the senses* and hence a power *beyond all doubt*. 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have the *direct* enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a *human* need by my work, that is, of having objectified *man's **essential nature*, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another *man's* essential nature. 3) I would have been for you the *mediator* between you and the species, and therefore would become recognised and felt by you yourself as a completion of your own essential nature and as a necessary part of yourself, and consequently would know myself to be confirmed both in your thought and your love. 4)* In the individual expression of my life I would have directly created your expression of your life, and therefore in my individual activity I would have directly** confirmed and realised my true nature, my human nature, my communal nature.* *Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.* This relationship would moreover be reciprocal; what occurs on my side has also to occur on yours. Let us review the various factors as seen in our supposition: My work would be a *free manifestation of life*, hence an *enjoyment of life*. Presupposing private property, my work is an *alienation of life*, for I work *in order to live*, in order to obtain for myself the *means* of life. My work is *not* my life. Secondly, the *specific nature* of my individuality, therefore, would be affirmed in my labour, since the latter would be an affirmation of my *individual* life. Labour therefore would be *true, active property*. Presupposing private property, my individuality is alienated to such a degree that this *activity is* instead *hateful* to me, a *torment*, and rather the *semblance* of an activity. Hence, too, it is only a *forced* activity and one imposed on me only through an *external* fortuitous need, *not* through an *inner, essential* one." On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 12:56 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > "Wholeness" indeed. Is this an advertisement for Stoned Wheat Thins? > > It should be obvious to anyone with a functioning intellect that the only > way forward from the present crisis is through the revolutionary > transformation of the existing complex advanced industrial infrastructure, > not its destruction. There's no little grass shack or cottage with nine > bean rows to retreat to. We've been all through that. > > The late, brilliant, fallible David Graeber wrote (re "bullshit jobs"): > > The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political. The ruling > class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time > on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when > this even began to be approximated in the ’60s). > > But even Graeber supports the idea of being "productive"--lamentably weak, > since he seems to mean nothing more by it than the direct production of > physical objects, but still a concession to the material necessity of > production. The "neo-primitivist" pile of steaming mere assertions is so > gloriously free, philosophical, and enlightened that it scorns even this. > > You can't be a Marxist and a really tuned-in hippy at the same time. > Likewise, being "wisely eclectic" and "giving Marx his due in spite of his > errors" isn't Marxism. > > Why bother with Marxism when you could just set up a website and sell holy > weetabix and vibrating crystals instead? > > > > > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1481): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/1481 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/76796153/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
