How, for MARX, is production related to freedom?
Introduction
Freedom is an integral part of a society. It is, however, a notorious and fluid concept that changes its character and its intersubjective meaning under different circumstances. Karl Marx, a nuanced writer whose ideas constantly develop throughout his lifetime, believed that true freedom could only be achieved through communism. How he reached into that conclusion is a matter of dispute amongst scholars.
This paper does not claim to solve the intellectual dispute amongst scholars on this matter. Its objective is rather humble and that is to argue; Marx’s view on production is related to freedom through his conception of human nature. I will develop my arguments in three parts. The first section looks at Marx’s view on human nature, the second one analyses Marx’s view on production, and finally the third section illustrates Marx’s view on freedom. Each section will then be built on the preceding section in answering the question.
I. Human nature
One essential task of a political theorist is to theorise about human nature. It is important to have the understanding of human nature because how humans are conceptualised in their ‘natural’ form determines the general direction of theories constructed. Upon having said that, however, human nature is easily discernible or knowable. Albeit claims by theorists such as Rousseau who declared to have discovered the real human nature, which is the savage man who is independent and not tied to anyone and any community except himself, Marx’s views are more complex to decipher. On one hand, his writings are extremely polemic and in another his contemporaries have assigned multiple meanings to his writings in an attempt to fur...
... middle of paper ...
...has argued that, for Marx, production is related to freedom through his understanding of human nature. This paper advanced this argument, firstly, through analysing Marx’s materialist understanding of human nature. This paper thus extends its argument in the second section by arguing that human’s capacity to freely choose when to produce distinguishes them from animals who are bound to repetitive labour. It also argues how under capitalism workers are animalised and alienated from their species-beings. Finally, this paper agued that freedom only exist in the realm of necessity. Also, as unfreedom is based on the capitalist system, this paper argues that it is only through the introduction of capitalism that men understood freedom as an expression of their being. Lastly, this paper noted that capitalism is a necessary object in understanding freedom.
Bibliography
Marx believes there is a true human nature, that of a free species being, but our social environment can alienate us from it. To describe this nature, he first describes the class conflict between the bourgeois and the proletariats. Coined by Marx, the bourgeois are “the exploiting and ruling class.”, and the proletariats are “the exploited and oppressed class” (Marx, 207). These two classes are separated because of the machine we call capitalism. Capitalism arises from private property, specialization of labor, wage labor, and inevitably causes competition.
Karl Marx 's writing of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ in 1848 has been documented by a vast number of academics as one of the most influential pieces of political texts written in the modern era. Its ideologically driven ideas formed the solid foundation of the Communist movement throughout the 20th century, offering a greater alternative for those who were rapidly becoming disillusioned and frustrated with the growing wealth and social divisions created by capitalism. A feeling not just felt in by a couple of individuals in one society, but a feeling that was spreading throughout various societies worldwide. As Toma highlights in his work, Marx felt that ‘capitalism would produce a crisis-ridden, polarized society destined to be taken over by
Marx had rather extreme views on the extent to which nature in his time had become humanized as a result of human labor. He commented, “Even the objects of the simplest, “sensuous certainty” are only given to him through social development, industry and commercial intercourse. ”[2] "Throughout their labor, humans shape their own material environment, thereby transforming the very nature of human existence in the process. ”[3] One always seemed to know their role in society.
This philosophical analysis will define the internal process of actualizing the ‘self” in Marx’s definition of “freedom” through the anthropological and spiritual concept of species-being in the communist ideology. Marx envisioned an anthropological freedom of the human race through the process of liberating oneself from the class division of society, which would define the ultimate freedom in the concept of species-being. Species-being defines the collective unification of the human race as an anthropological form of historical materialism, which eventually manifests itself into a communist collective. These assumptions define the internal aspects of human development that is part of human activity as a means of production in a communist society. This form of “internal relations” is the ultimate form of freedom for Marx, as it defines the highest ontological state of existence for the worker/laborer in the realization of species-being. In essence, a
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.
In his Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx created a radical theory revolving not around the man made institution of government itself, but around the ever present guiding vice of man that is materialism and the economic classes that stemmed from it. By unfolding the relat...
For Karl Marx human nature is a reflection of the society that they are a part of. It’s a product of the influencing relationships between a human’s consciousness (their psychology), the material world, and society. These three things produce our nature within society, but we also have a basic species nature. Our basic nature, or our species nature, is more important to Marx than our individual nature. Marx’s belief of our nature leads him to believe that communism is the most beneficial society for us to exist in.
how it limits freedom. For Marx man's freedom is relinquished or in fact wrested from his. true nature once he becomes a labourer. This process is thoroughly explained throughout. Estranged Labour.
Under this course of dialogue, Marx’s work is seen as speculations and possible reasons for certain patterns seen over history, but it concretes the idea of these patterns in such a way that they are finite and do not lend themselves to change or modification.
Karl Marx’s article titled Estranged Labor as found in his 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts pays significant attention to the political economic system, which is commonly referred to capitalism. He further delves into nature of the political economy with a keen focus on how it has negatively impacted the worker or laborer. Therefore, the laborer forms the subject of his critical and detailed analysis as tries demonstrates the ill nature of the political economy. To start with Karl Marx portrays how the political economy as presented by its proponents has led to emergence of two distinct classes in society; the class of property owners and on the other hand, the class of property less workers. According to Karl Marx (2004), proponents of the political economy have introduced concepts such as private property and competition indicating without providing any form of analytical explanation but rather just expecting the society to embrace and apply such concepts. In particular, political economists have failed to provide a comprehensive explanation for division that has been established between capital and labor. Estranged Labor clearly depicts Marx’s dissatisfaction as well as disapproval towards the political economy indicating that proponents of such a system want the masses to blindly follow it without any form of intellectual or practical explanation. One area that Karl Marx demonstrates his distaste and disappointment in the article is worker or the laborer and how the worker sinks to not just a commodity but rather a wretched commodity (Marx, 2004). This is critical analysis of Karl Marx concept or phenomenon on the alienation of the worker as predicted in Estranged Labor in several aspects and how these concepts are ...
Marx’s theoretical thinking is based on inequality and social reproduction – most evident in his interpretation of capitalism. Generally, we associa...
Karl Marx’s critique of political economy provides a scientific understanding of the history of capitalism. Through Marx’s critique, the history of society is revealed. Capitalism is not just an economic system in Marx’s analysis. It’s a “specific social form of labor” that is strongly related to society. Marx’s critique of capitalism provides us a deep understanding of the system to predict its pattern and protect ourselves from its negative sides.
After years of study and research, Karl Marx published the first volume of his monumental Das Kapital in 1867. In it Marx presents his theory of the materialist conception of history in which the economic base of a society gives rise to and interacts in a dialectical way with the societal superstructure of culture, law, religion and art. Among other things, Das Kapital traces the historical development of industrial capitalism as arising out of feudalism, predicts capitalism's further evolution, and sets forth theories of class structure and class struggle. It also critiques the methods by which industrial capitalism organizes the means of production so that capital and labor are separated and held by distinct and antagonistic groups within the society. This separation overwhelmingly benefits the holders of capital, politically and economically, to the corresponding detriment of those who sell their labor. Though this is by no means an adequate summary of Marx' ideas and contributions, my aim is to provide this simple theoretical framework within which to focus on more particular elements of Marxist theory. Fo...
As one of greatest figures in human history, Karl Marx introduced not only Communism but also historical materialism to us. According to historical materialism, the mode of production would determine and foster mankind’s ideas, values, and beliefs. Many opponents of Marx attacked his “impossible” Communism but neglected his contribution in defining the relationship among important production elements. This paper would explain the theme of historical materialism and probed the relationship between consciousness and mode of production. Then, this paper would analyze how division of labor affect mode of production and conclude that historical materialism was realistic and applicable.
He saw communism as a way for all people to be truly free and equal. There would be no more class discrimination and everyone would have resourced based on what is needed. He exclaimed that communism would give individuals the freedoms that the bourgeoisie denied them. While this is what Karl Marx predicted and believed would be successful, the reality over time has taken a much different path proving that Marx’s ideas cannot be accurately applied