miercuri, 21 octombrie 2009

Francezii care se aruncă de la etaj - continuare


"If the product of labor is alien to me, if it confronts me as an alien power, to whom, then, does it belong?

To a being other than myself.

Who is this being?

The gods? To be sure, in the earliest times the principal production (for example, the building of temples, etc., in Egypt, India and Mexico) appears to be in the service of the gods, and the product belongs to the gods. However, the gods on their own were never the lords of labor. No more was nature. And what a contradiction it would be if, the more man subjugated nature by his labor and the more the miracles of the gods were rendered superfluous by the miracles of industry, the more man were to renounce the joy of production and the enjoyment of the product to please these powers.

The alien being, to whom labor and the product of labor belongs, in whose service labor is done and for whose benefit the product of labor is provided, can only be man himself.

If the product of labor does not belong to the worker, if it confronts him as an alien power, then this can only be because it belongs to some other man than the worker. If the worker’s activity is a torment to him, to another it must give satisfaction and pleasure. Not the gods, not nature, but only man himself can be this alien power over man.

We must bear in mind the previous proposition that man’s relation to himself becomes for him objective and actual through his relation to the other man. Thus, if the product of his labor, his labor objectified, is for him an alien, hostile, powerful object independent of him, then his position towards it is such that someone else is master of this object, someone who is alien, hostile, powerful, and independent of him. If he treats his own activity as an unfree activity, then he treats it as an activity performed in the service, under the dominion, the coercion, and the yoke of another man.

Every self-estrangement of man, from himself and from nature, appears in the relation in which he places himself and nature to men other than and differentiated from himself. For this reason religious self-estrangement necessarily appears in the relationship of the layman to the priest, or again to a mediator, etc., since we are here dealing with the intellectual world. In the real practical world self-estrangement can only become manifest through the real practical relationship to other men. The medium through which estrangement takes place is itself practical. Thus through estranged labor man not only creates his relationship to the object and to the act of production as to powers [in the manuscript Menschen (men) instead of Mächte (powers). – Ed.] that are alien and hostile to him; he also creates the relationship in which other men stand to his production and to his product, and the relationship in which he stands to these other men. Just as he creates his own production as the loss of his reality, as his punishment; his own product as a loss, as a product not belonging to him; so he creates the domination of the person who does not produce over production and over the product. Just as he estranges his own activity from himself, so he confers upon the stranger an activity which is not his own.

We have until now considered this relationship only from the standpoint of the worker and later on we shall be considering it also from the standpoint of the non-worker.

Through estranged, alienated labor, then, the worker produces the relationship to this labor of a man alien to labor and standing outside it. The relationship of the worker to labor creates the relation to it of the capitalist (or whatever one chooses to call the master of labor). Private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labor, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself.

Private property thus results by analysis from the concept of alienated labor, i.e., of alienated man, of estranged labor, of estranged life, of estranged man."

Karl Marx - Manuscrisele economico-filozofice din 1844 (ediţia engleză de la http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm)

2 comentarii:

  1. Desigur, Marx a fost interesant, dintr-o perspectiva academica. Nu a reusit insa sa ne lumineze cum am fi putut exista/progresa intr-o lume fara bani, ca mijloc de schimb universal acceptat, intr-o lume in care, fiind mereu mai multi, ar trebui sa si putem supravietui... Ori cum am fi putut progresa (el insusi sa fi avut timp si posibilitatea de a filozofa), fara o diviziune a muncii, in care fiecare produce ce poate si trebuie sa faca schimburi cu restul lumii, pentru a supravietui...deci, iata, banii....si daca unii obtin mai mult ca altii, pentru ca marfa lor e mai buna sau mai dorita, sa li se interzica?!?!?! daca li se interzice, unicul motor al progresului, recte competitia, nu dispare?!?!?!

    Marx a fost interesant, punctual, istoria economiei l-a mai si confirmat, dar atat...

    RăspundețiȘtergere
  2. ai dreptate, mi-e greu sa te contrazi; eu eram ofticat din cauza amaratilor alora care - cat or fi ei de gulere albe - tot o iau razna in lumea asta nebuna...

    RăspundețiȘtergere

Faceți căutări pe acest blog

Postări populare