Communist Manifesto - Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–14. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 14
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 KARL MARX Soon after moving to Paris in November, 1843, Marx applied himself to the criticism of political economy—the new phase of his critical program foreshadowed in his two essays in the Deutsch-Franzosische Iahrbiicher. Be- tween April and August of 1844 he produced the rough draft of what, judging by his preface, was to have been a book. He did not finish it for publication, however, and it lay unpublished for more than eighty years. The surviving parts, comprising four manuscripts, were given the name shown above. An incomplete version in Russian translation was published in Moscow in 1927. The first full edition in German, prepared by D. Ria- zanov of the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, was published in Berlin in 1932, in Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe. The fundamentals of the Marxist interpretation of history are to be found in the 1844 manuscripts, including the notion of the proletarian revo- lution and future communism as the goal of the historical process. The theory is set forth, however, in terms of philosophical concepts drawn by Marx from Hegel and Feuerbach, most notably the concept of man’s “self-alienation” or “self-estrangement.” History, partiCularly under modern capitalism, is seen as a story of man's alienation in his life as producer, and communism is presented as the final transcendence of alienation via a revo- lution against private property. Because the 1844 manuscripts show us Marxism at the moment of its genesis in Marx’s mind and because they help to clarify both the relation of Marxism to earlier German philosophy and its ethical significance, their publication has profoundly affected schol- arship on Marx and Marxism in our time. A part of the manuscripts consists largely of excerpts from writings of the political economists on such topics as wages of labor, profit of capital, and rent of land. The material reprinted here, comprising the extant portions in which Marx expounds his own positibn, consists of the preface and the sec- tions entitled “Estranged Labour," “Private Property and Communism,” “The Meaning of Human Requirements,” “The Power of Money in Bour< geois Society,” and “Critique of the Hegelian Dialectic and Philosophy as a Whole.” A number of passages in the manuscripts have been crossed out, appar- ently by Marx. There is no reason to think that the passages crossed out had ceased to represent what Marx thought. He may well have been guided by editorial considerations in working over the draft of a manuscript origi- nally intended for publication“ The translation and notes are by Martin Milligan. * The cross-outs are indicated by Engels: 1843-44) (London: Lawrence pointed brackets in the complete text & Wishart, 1975), pp. 249—346. I am of the 1844 manuscripts as published indebted to Thomas Ferguson for bring- in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, ing the crossed-out material to my at- Collected Works, vol. 3 (Marx and tention. 66 Preface I have already given notice in the Deutsch—Franzo'sische Iahr— bilcher of the critique of jurisprudence and political science in the form of a critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right. In the course of elaboration for publication, the intermingling of criticism directed only against speculation with criticism of the various sub— jects themSelves proved utterly unsuitable, hampering the develop- ment of the argument and rendering comprehension difficult. Moreover the wealth and diversity of the subjects to be treated, could have been COmpressed into one work only in a purely aphoris- tic style; whilst an aphoristic presentation of this kind, for its part, would have given the impression of arbitrary systematizing. I shall therefore issue the critique of law, ethics, politics, etc., in a series of distinct, independent pamphlets, and at the end try in a special work to present them again as a connected whole showing the interrelationship of the separate parts, and finally, shall make a cri— tique of the speculative elaboration of that material. For this reason it will be found that the interconnection between political econ- omy and the state, law, ethics, civil life, etc., is touched on in the present work only to the extent to which political economy itself ex fbrofesso1 touches On these subjects. It is hardly necessary to assure the reader conversant with politi- cal economy that my results have been won by means of a wholly empirical analysis based on a conscientious critical study of political economy. [Whereas the uninformed reviewer who tries to hide his com— plete ignorance and intellectual. poverty by hurling the “utopian phrase” at the positive critic’s head, or again such phrases as “pure, resolute, utterly critical criticism,” the “not merely legal but social—utterly social—society,” the “compact, massy mass,” the “oratorical orators of the massy mass,”2 this reviewer has yet to fur- nish the first proof that besides his theological family-affairs he has anything to contribute to a discussion of worldly matters.]3 It goes without saying that besides the French and English Social- ists I have made use of German socialist works as well. The only original German works of substance in this science, however—other I. Particularly. 2. Marx refers here to the Young Hege- lian Bruno Bauer, who had published in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung two long reviews dealing with books, arti- cles and pamphlets on the Jewish ques- tion. Most of the. quoted phrases are taken from these reviews in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, vol. 1, December, 1843; vol. 4, March, 1844. The expres- sions “utopian phrase” and “compact mass” can be found in Bauer’s article “Was ist jetzt der Gegenstand der Kri— tik?” published in Allgemeine Litera- tur-Zeitung, vol. 8, July, 1844. Allgemeine Literatuf—Zeimng (Gen- eral Literary Gazette), a German monthly, was published by Bauer in Charlottenburg from December, 1843, to October, 1844. ~ 3. Passages enclosed in brackets Were crossed out by Marx in his manuscript. than Weitling’s writings—are the essays by Hess published in Einundzwanzig Bogen,4 and Engels’ Umrisse zu einer Kritik der Nationalokonomie5 in the Deutsch-Franzo‘sische'Iahrbilcher where, likewise, I indicated in a very general way the basic elements of this work. [Besides being indebted to these authors who have given critical attention to political economy, positive criticism as a whole—and therefore also German positive criticism of political economy—— owes its true foundation to the discoveries of Feuerbach, against whose Philosophie der Zukunft6 and Thesen zur Reform der Philosophie7 in the Anecdotis,8 desPite the tacit use that is made of them, the petty envy of some and the veritable wrath of others seem to have instigated a regular conspiracy of silence] It is only with Feuerbach that positive, humanistic and naturalis— tic criticism begins. The less noise they make, the more certain, profound, widespread and enduring is the effect of Feuerbach’s writings, the only writings since Hegel’s Phanomenologie and Logik to contain a real theoretical revolution. In contrast to the critical theologians9 of our day, I have deemed the concluding chapter of the present work—the settling of accounts with Hegelian dialectic and Hegelian philosophy as a whole—to be absolutely necessary, a task not yet performed. This lack of thoroughness is not accidental, since even the critical theo- logian remains a theologian. Hence, either he had to start from cer— tain presuppositions of philosophy accepted as authoritative; or if in the process of criticism and as a result of other people’s discover- ies doubts about these philosophical presuppositions have arisen in him, he abandons them without vindication and in a cowardly fash- ion, abstracts from them showing his servile dependence on these presuppositions and his resentment at this dependence merely in a negative, unconscious and sophistical manner. [In this connection the critical theologian is either forever repeat- ing assurances about the purity of his own criticism, or tries to 4. The full title of this collection of ar- ticles is Einundzwanzig Bogen aus der Schweiz (Twenty-One Sheets from Switzerland), Erster Teil, Ziirich and Winterthur, 1843. 5. Engels’ “Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy.” 6.Ludwig Feuerbach, Grundsiz'tze der Philosophie der Zukunft (Principles 0/ the Philosophy 0/ the Future), Ziirich and Winterthur, 1843. 7.Ludwig Feuerbach, Vorliz'ufige The- sen zur Re/ormotion der Philosophie (Preliminary Theses on the Reforma- tion of Philosophy) published in Anelz- data, vol. II. 8. Marx’s abbreviation for Anekdata zur neuesten deutschen Philasophie und Publicistik (Unpublished Materials Re- lated to Modern German Philosophy and Writing), a two-volume collection published by Arnold Ruge in Switzer- land. It included Marx’s Notes on the Latest Prussian Instruction to Censors and Luther—the Arbiter Between Strauss and Feuerboch, and articles by Bruno Bauer, Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Koppen, Arnold Ruge, etc. 9. Marx has in mind Bauer and his fol- lowers, who were associated with the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung. make it seem as though all that was left for criticism to deal with now was some other immature form of criticism outside itself—say eighteenth-century criticism—and the backwardness of the masses, in order to divert the observer’s attention as well as his own from the necessary task of settling accounts between criticism and its point of origin—Hegelian dialectic and German philosophy as a whole—from this necessary raising of modern criticism above its own limitation and crudity. Eventually, however, whenever dis— coveries (such as Feuerbach’s) are made about the nature of his own philosophic presuppositions, the critical theologian partly makes it appear as if he were the one who had accomplished this, producing that appearance by taking the results of these discoveries and, without being able to develop them, hurling them in the form of catch-phrases at writers still caught in the confines of philoso— phy; partly he even manages to acquire a sense of his own superior— ity to such discoveries by covertly asserting in a veiled, malicious and sceptical fashion elements of the Hegelian dialectic which he still finds lacking in the criticism of that dialectic (which have not yet been critically served up to him for his use) against such criti— cism—not having tried to bring such elements into their proper relation or having been capable of doing so, asserting, say, the cate— gory of mediating proof against the category of positive, self— originating truth, etc., in a way peculiar to Hegelian dialectic. For to the theological critic it seems quite natural that everything has to be done by philosophy, so that he can chatter away about purity, resoluteness, and utterly critical criticism; and he fancies himself the true conqueror of philosophy whenever he happens to feel some “moment” in Hegel1 to be lacking in Feuerbach—for however much he practises the spiritual idolatry of “self—consciousness" and “mind” the theological critic does not get beyond feeling to consciousness]2 ‘ On close inspection theological criticism—genuinely progressive though it was at the inception of the movement—is seen in the final analysis to be nothing but the culmination and consequence of the old philosophical, and especially the Hegelian, transcenden— talism, twisted into a theological caricature. This interesting exam— ple of the justice in history, which now assigns to theology, ever 1. “Moment” is a technical term in He- gelian philosophy meaning a vital ele- ment of thought. The term is used to stress that thought is a process, and thus that elements in a system of thought are also phases in a movement. 2.In Hegel, “feeling” (Empfindung) denotes a relatively low form of mental life in which the subjective and the ob- jective are still confused together. “Consciousness” (Bewusstein)—-—the name given by Hegel to the rst major section of his Phenomenology 0/ Mind—denotes those forms of mental activity where a subject first seeks to comprehend an object. “Self-conscious- ness” and “mind” denote subsequent, higher phases in the evolution of “ab- solute knowledge” or “the absolute.” 70 ' The Early Marx philosophy’s spot of infection, the further role of portraying in itself the negative dissolution of philosophy——i.e., the process of its decay—this historical nemesis I shall demonstrate on another occa- sion. [How far, on the other hand, Feuerbach’s discoveries about the nature of philosophy required still, for their proof at least, a critical settling of accounts with philosophical dialectic will be seen from my exposition itself] Estranged Labour3 We have proceeded from the premises of political economy. We have accepted its language and its laws. We presupposed private property, the separation of labour, capital and land, and of wages, profit of capital and rent of land—likewise division of labour, competition, the concept of exchange-value, etc. On the basis of political economy itself, in its own words, we have shown that the worker sinks to the level of a commodity and becomes indeed the most wretched of commodities; that the wretchedness of the worker is in inverse proportion to the power and magnitude of his production; that the necessary result of competition is the accumu— lation of capital in a few hands, and thus the restoration of monop- oly in a more terrible form; that finally the distinction between cap- italist and land—rentier, like that between the tiller of the soil and the factory-worker, disappears and that the whole of society must fall apart into the two classes—the property-owners and the proper— tyless workers. Political economy proceeds from the fact of private prOperty, but it does not explain it to us. It expresses in general, abstract formu— lae the material process through which private pr0perty actually passes, and these formulae it then takes for laws. It does not com- prehend these laws—Le, it does not demonstrate how they arise from the very nature of private prOperty. Political economy does not disclose the source of the division between labour and capital, and between capital and land. When, for example, it defines the relationship of wages to profit, it takes the interest of the capitalists to be the ultimate cause; i.e., it takes for granted what it is sup— posed to evolve. Similarly, competition comes in everywhere. It is explained from extemal circumstances. As to how far these external and apparently fortuitous circumstances are but the expression of a necessary course of development, political economy teaches us nothing. We have seen how, to it, exchange itself appears to be a 3. Die Entiremdete Arbeit. See the xli. above, for a discussion of this Note on Texts and Terminology, 1). term. [R. T.] Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 ' 71 fortuitous fact. The only wheels which political economy'sets in motion are avarice and the war amongst the avancrous— competition. Precisely because political economy does not grasp the connec— tions within the movement, it was possible to counterpose, for instance, the doctrine of competition to the doctrine of monopoly, the doctrine of craft-liberty to the doctrine of the corporation, the doctrine of the division of landed property to the doctrine of the big estate—for competition, craft-liberty and the division 'of landed property were explained and comprehended only as fortuitous, pre- ineditated and violent consequences of monopoly, the corporation, and feudal property, not as their necessary, inevitable and natural consequences. ' Now, therefore, we have to grasp the essential connection between private property, avarice, and the separation of labour, cap- ital and landed, property; between exchange and competition, value and the devaluation of men, monOpoly and cempetition, etc.; the connectiOn between this whole estrangement and the money- svstem. ' Do not let us go back to a ctitious primordial condition as the political economist does, when he tries to explain. Such a primer- dial condition explains nothing. He merely pushes the question away into a grey nebulous distance. He assumes in the form of fact, of an event, what he is supposed to deduce—namely, the necessary relationship between two things—between, for example, diviSion of labour and exchange. Theology in the same way explains the origin of evil by the fall of man: that is, it assumes as a fact, in historical form, what has to be explained. We proceed from an actual economic fact. The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he cre- ates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion the devaluation of the world of men. Labour pro- duces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity—and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally. . This fact expresses merely that the object ’Wl'llCh' labour produces—Labour’s product-confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer. The product of labour is labour which has been congealed in an object, which has become material: it is the objectification of labour. Labour’s realization is its objectification. In the conditions dealt with by political econ- omy this realization of labour appears as loss of reality for the work- j if i 72 ' The Early Marx ers; objectification as loss of the object and object-bondage; appro- priation as estrangement, as alienation.4 So much does labour’s realization appear as loss of reality that the worker loses reality to the point of starving to death. So much does objectification appear as loss of the object that the worker is robbed of the objects most necessary not only for his life but for his work. Indeed, labour itself becomes an object which he can get hold of only with the greatest effort and with the most irregular interruptions. So much does the appropriation of the object appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker produces the fewer can he possess and the more he falls under the dominion of his product, capital. All these consequences are contained in the definition that the worker is related to the product of his labour as to an alien object. For on this premise it is clear that the more the worker spends himself, the more powerful the alien objective world becomes which he creates over—against himself, the poorer he himself—his inner world—becomes, the less belongs to him as his own. It is the same in religion. The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself. The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object. Hence, the greater this activity, the greater is the worker’s lack of objects. Whatever the product of his labour is, he is not. Therefore the greater this product, the less is he himself. The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labour becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to him, and that it becomes a power of its own confronting him; it means that the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien. Let us now look more closely at the objectification, at the pro— duction of the worker; and therein at the estrangement, the loss of the object, his product. The worker can create nothing without nature, without the sen— suous external world. It is the material on which his labor is mani- fested, in which it is active, from which and by means of which it produces. But just as nature provides labor with the means of life in the sense that labour cannot live without objects on which to Operate, on the other hand, it also provides the means of life in the more restricted sense—i.e., the means for the physical subsistence of the worker himself. Thus the more the worker by his labour appropriates the external world, sensuous nature, the more he deprives himself of means of life in the double respect: first, that the sensuous external world 4. "Alienation”——Entdusserung. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 ' 73 more and more ceases to be an object belonging to his labour—to be his labour’s means of life; and secondly, that it more and more ceases to be means of life in the immediate sense, means for the physical subsistence of the worker. Thus in this double respect the worker becomes a slave of his object, first, in that he receives an object of labour, i.e., in that he receives work; and secondly, in that he receives means of subsist- ence. Therefore, it enables him to exist, first, as a worker; and, second, as a physical subject. The extremity of this bondage is that it is only as a worker that he continues to maintain himself as a physical subject, and that it is only as a physical subject that he is a worker. (The laws of political economy express the estrangement of the worker in his object thus: the more the worker produces, the less he has to consume; the more values he creates, the more valueless, the more unworthy he becomes; the better formed his product, the more deformed becomes the worker; the more civilized his object, the more barbarous becomes the worker; the mightier labour becomes, the more powerless becomes the worker; the more ingen- ious labour becomes, the duller becomes the worker and the more he becomes nature’s bondsman.) Political economy conceals the estrangement inherent in the nature of labour by not considering the direct relationship between the worker (labour) and production. It is true that labour produces for the rich wonderful things—but for the worker it produces priva- tion. It produces palaces—but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty—but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labour by machines—but some of the workers it throws back to a barbarous type of labour, and the other workers it turns into machines. It pro— duces intelligence—but for the worker idiocy, cretinism. The direct relationship of labour to its produce is the relation- ship of the worker to the objects of his production. The relation— ship of the man of means to the objects of production and to pro— duction itself is only a consequence of this first relationship—and confirms it. We shall consider this other aspect later. When we ask, then, what is the essential relationship of labour we are asking about the relationship of the worker to production. Till now we have been considering the estrangement, the aliena- tion of the worker only in‘ one of its aspects, i.e., the worker’s rela- tionship to the products of his labour. But the estrangement is manifested not only in the result but in the act of production— within the producing activity itself. How would the worker come to face the product of his activity as a stranger, were it not that in the very act of production he was estranging himself from himself? The product is after all but the summary of the activity of production. 74 ' The Early Marx If then the product of labour is alienation, production itself must be active alienation, the alienation of activity, the activity of aliena- tion. In the estrangement of the object of labour is merely summa- rized the estrangement, the alienation, in the activity of labour itself. What, then, constitutes the alienation of labour? First, the fact that labour is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his essential being; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He is at home when he is not working, and when he is working he is not at home. His labour is therefore not volun- tary, but coerced; it is forced labour. It is therefore not the satisfac- tion of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labour is shunned like the plague. External labour, labour in which man alienates himself, is a labour of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Lastly, the external charac— ter of labour for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own, but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, of the human brain and the human heart, operates independently of the individ- ual—that is, operates on him as an alien, divine or diabolical activ- ity—in the same way the worker’s activity is not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self. As a result, therefore, man (the worker) no longer feels himself to be freely active in any but his animal functions—eating, drink- ing, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and in dressing-up, etc.; and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be any- thing but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal. Certainly eating, drinking, procreating, etc., are also genuinely human functions. But in the abstraction which separates them from the sphere of all other human activity and turns them into sole and ultimate ends, they are animal. We have considered the act of estranging practical human activ- ity, labour, in two of its aspects. ( 1) The relation of the worker to the product of labour as an alien object exercising power over him. This relation is at the same time the relation to the sensuous exter- nal world, to the objects of nature as an alien world antagonistically opposed to him. (2) The relation of labour to the act of produc- tion within the labour process. This relation is the relation of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 ° 75 worker to his own activity as an alien activity not belonging to him; it is activity as suffering, strength as weakness, begetting as emascu- lating, the worker’s own physical and mental energy, his personal life or what is life other than activity—as an activity which is turned against him, neither depends on nor belongs to him. Here we have self-estrangement, as we had previously the estrangement of the thing. We have yet a third aspect of estranged labour to deduce from the two already considered. Man is a species being, not only because in practice and in theory he adopts the species as his object (his own as well as those of other things), but—and this is only another way of expressing it—but also because he treats himself as the actual, living Species; because he treats himself as a universal and therefore a free being. The life of the species, both in man and in animals, consists physically in the fact that man (like the animal) lives on inorganic nature; and the more universal man is compared with an animal, the more universal is the sphere of inorganic nature on which he lives. Just as plants, animals, stones, the air, light, etc., constitute a part of human consciousness in the realm of theory, partly as objects of natural science, partly as objects of art—his spiritual inorganic nature, spiritual nourishment which he must first prepare to make it palatable and digestible—so too in the realm of practice they constitute a part of human life and human activity. Physically man lives only on these products of nature, whether they appear in the form of food, heating, clothes, a dwelling, or whatever it may be. The universality of man is in practice manifested precisely in the universality which makes all nature his inorganic body—both inasmuch as nature is (1) his direct means of life, and ( 2) the material, the object, and the instrument of his life-activity. Nature is man’s inorganic body—nature, that is, in so far as it is not itself the human body. Man lives on nature—means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous intercourse if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature. In estranging from man (1) nature, and ( 2) himself, his own active functions, his life-activity, estranged labour estranges the spe- cies from man. It turns for him the life of the species into a means of individual life. First it estranges the life of the species and indi- vidual life, and secondly it makes individual life in its abstract form the purpose of the life of the species, likewise in its abstract and estranged form. For in the first place labour, life-activity, productive life itself, appears to man merely as a means of satisfying a need—the need 2,». --—._..c.....:. ;;.-;m f M; v; j .1.» he»; 5 .i ’i j. a 4} 76 ‘ The Early Marx to maintain the physical existence. Yet the productive life is the life of the species. It is life-engendering life. The whole character of a species—its species character—is contained in the character of its life-activity; and free, conscious activity is man’s species character. Life itself appears only as a means to life. The animal is immediately identical with its life-activity. It does not distinguish itself from it. It is its life-activity. Man makes his life-activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness. He has conscious life-activity. It is not a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life-activity directly distinguishes man from animal life-activity. It is just because of this that he is a spe- cies being. Or it is only because he is a species being that he is a Conscious Being, i.e., that his own life is an object for him. Only because of that is his activity free activity. Estranged labour reverses this relationship, so that it is just because man is a con- scious being that he makes his life-activity, his'essential being, a mere means to his existence. In creating an objective world by his practical activity, in work- ing—up inorganic nature, man proves himself a conscious species being, i.e., as a being that treats the species as its own essential being, or that treats itself as a species being. Admittedly animals also produce. They build themselves nests, dwellings, like the bees, beavers, ants, etc. But an animal only produces what it immediately needs for itself or its young. It produces one-sidedly, whilst man produces universally. It produces only under the dominion of immediate physical need, whilst man produces even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom. An animal produces only itself, whilst man reproduces the whole of nature. An animal’s product belongs immediately to its physical body, whilst man freely confronts his product. An animal forms things in accordance with the standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how to produce in accord- ance with the standard of every species, and knows how to apply everywhere the inherent standard to the object. Man therefore also forms things in accordance with the laws of beauty. It is just in the working-up of the objective world, therefore, that man first really proves himself to be a species being. This produc— tion is his active species life. Through and because of this produc- tion, nature appears as his work and his reality. The object of labour is, therefore, the objectification of man’s species life: for he duplicates himself not only, as in consciousness, intellectually, but also actively, in reality, and therefore he contemplates himself in a world that he has created. In tearing away from man the object of his production, therefore, estranged labour tears from him his spe- cies life, his real species objectivity, and transforms his advantage Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 ' 77 over animals into the disadvantage that his inorganic body, nature, is taken from him. Similarly, in degrading spontaneous activity, free activity, to a means, estranged labour makes man’s species life a means to his physical existence. The consciousness which man has of his species is thus trans- formed by estrangement in such a way that the species life becomes for him a means. Estranged labour turns thus: (3) Man’s species being, both nature and his spiritual species property, into a being alien to him, into a means to his individual existence. It estranges man’s own body from him, as it does exter- nal nature and his spiritual essence, his human being. (4) An immediate consequence of the fact that man is estranged from the product of his labour, from his life-activity, from his spe- cies being is the estrangement of man from man. If a man is con- fronted by himself, he is confronted by the other man. What applies to a man’s relation to his work, to the product of his labour and to himself, also holds of a man’s relation to the other man, and to the other man’s labour and object of labour. In fact, the proposition that man’s species nature is estranged from him means that one man is estranged from the other, as each of them is from man’s essential nature.5 The estrangement of man, and in fact every relationship in which man stands to himself, is first realized and expressed in the relationship in which a man stands to other men. Hence within the relationship of estranged labour each man views the other in accordance with the standard and the position in which he finds himself as a worker. We took our departure from a fact of political economy—the estrangement of the worker and his production. We have formu- lated the concept of this fact—estranged, alienated labour. We have analysed this concept—hence analysing merely a fact of politi- cal economy. Let us now see, further, how in real life the concept of estranged, alienated labour must express and present itself. If the product of labour is alien to me, if it confronts me as an alien power, to whom, then, does it belong? If my own activity does not belong to me, if it is an alien, a coerced activity, to whom, then, does it belong? To a being other than me. Who is this being? The gods? To be sure, in the earliest times the principal produc- 5. “Species nature” (and, earlier, “spe- essential nature”——menschlichen Weren. cies being”)-—Gattungrwesen; “man’s ll 4.. an .r wwvéédiadrifiym 78 ' The Early Marx tion (for example, the building of temples, etc., in Egypt, India and Mexico) appears to be in the service of the gods, and the prod- uct belongs to the gods. However, the gods on their own were never the lords of labour. No more was nature. And what a contra- diction it would be if, the more man subjugated nature by his labour and the more the miracles of the gods were rendered super— fluous by the miracles of industry, the more man were to renounce the joy of production and the enjoyment of the produce in favour of these powers. The alien being, to whom labour and the produce of labOur belongs, in whose service labour is done and for whose benefit the produce of labour is provided, can only be man himself. If the product of labour does not belong to the worker, if it con- fronts him as an alien power, this can only be because it belongs to some other man than the worker. If the worker’s activity is a tor— ment to him, to another it must be delight and his life’s joy. Not the gods, not nature, but only man himself can be this alien‘ power over man. We must bear in mind the above-stated proposition that man’s relation to himself only becomes objective and real for him through his relation to the other man. Thus, if the product of his labour, his labour objectified, is for him an alien, hostile, powerful object independent of him, then his position towards it is such that some— one else is master of this object, someone who is alien, hostile, pow- erful, and independent of him. If his own activity is to him an unfree activity, then he is treating it as 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 practi— cal relationship to other men. The medium through which estrangement takes place is itself practical. Thus through estranged labour man not only engenders his relationship to the object and to the act of production as to powers that are alien and hostile to him; he also engenders 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 begets his own production as the loss of his reality, as his punishment; just as he begets his own product as a loss, as a product not belonging to him; so he begets the dominion of the one who does not produce over produc- Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 ' 79 tion and over the product. Iust as he estranges from himself his own activity, so he confers to the stranger activity which is not his own. Till now we have only considered this relationship from the standpoint of the worker and later we shall be considering it also from the standpoint of the non-worker. Through estranged, alienated labour, then, the worker produces the relationship to this labour of a man alien to labour and stand- ing outside it. The relationship of the worker to labour engenders the relation to it of the capitalist, or whatever one chooses to call the master of labour. Private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labour, of the exter‘ nal relation of the worker to nature and to himself. Private property thus results by analysis from the concept of alienated labour—i.e., of alienated man, of estranged labour, of estranged life, of. estranged man. True, it is as a result of the movement of private property that we have obtained the concept of alienated labour (of alienated life) from political economy. But on analysis of this concept it becomes clear that though private property appears to be the source, the cause of alienated labour, it is really its consequence, just as the gods in the beginning are not the cause but the effect of man’s intellectual confusion. Later this relationship becomes recip- rocal. Only at the very culmination of the development of private prop- erty does this, its secret, re-emerge, namely, that on the one hand it is the product of alienated labour, and that secondly it is the means by which labour alienates itself, the realization of this aliena— tion. This exposition immediately sheds light on various hitherto unsolved conflicts. (1) Political economy starts from labour as the real soul of pro— duction; yet to labour it gives nothing, and to private property every— thing. From this contradiction Proudhon has concluded in favour of labour and against private property. We understand, however, that this apparent contradiction is the contradiction of estranged labour with itself, and that political economy has merely formu- lated the laws of estranged labour. We also understand, therefore, that wages and private property are identical: where the product, the object of labour pays for labour itself, the wage is but a necessary consequence of labour’s estrangement, for after all in the wage of labour, labour does not appear as an end in itself but as the servant of the wage. We shall deveIOp this point later, and meanwhile will only deduce some con— clusions. 8O ' The Early Marx A forcing-up of wages (disregarding all other difficulties, includ- ing the fact that it would only be by force, too, that the higher wages, being an anomaly, could be maintained) would therefore be nothing but better payment for the slave, and would not conquer either for the worker or for labour their human status and dignity. Indeed, even the equality of wages demanded by Proudhon only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labour into the relationship of all men to labour. Society is then conceived as an abstract capitalist. Wages are a direct consequence of estranged labour, and estranged labour is the direct cause of private property. The down- fall of the one aspect must therefore mean the downfall of the other. (2) From the relationship of estranged labour to private prop- erty it further follows that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not that their emancipation alone was at stake but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation—and it contains this, because the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and every relation of servitude is but a modification and consequence of this relation. Just as we have found the concept of private property from the concept of estranged, alienated labour by analysis, in the same way every category of political economy can be evolved with the help of these two factors; and we shall find again in each category, e.g., trade, competition, capital, money, only a definite and developed expression of the first foundations. Before considering this configuration, however, let us try to solve two problems. (1) To define the general nature of private property, as it has arisen as a result of estranged labour, in its relation to truly human, social property. ( 2) We have accepted the estrangement of labour, its alienation, as a fact, and we have analysed this fact. How, we now ask, does man come to alienate, to estrange, his labour? How is this estrange- ment rooted in the nature of human development? We have already gone a long way to the solution of this problem by trans- forming the question as to the origin of private property into the question as to the relation of alienated labour to the course of humanity’s development. For when one Speaks of private property, one thinks of being concerned with something external to man. When one speaks of labour, one is directly concerned with man himself. This new formulation of the question already contains its solution. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 ' 81 As to (1): The general nature of private property and its rela— tion to truly human property. Alienated labour has resolved itself for us into two elements which mutually condition one another, or which are but different expressions of one and the same relationship. Appropriation appears as estrangement, as alienation; and alienation appears as appropria- tion, estrangement as true enfranchisement. We have considered the one side—alienated labour in relation to the worker himself, i.e., the relation of alienated labour to itself. The property-relation of the non—worker to the worker and to labour we have found as the product, the necessary outcome of this relation of alienated labour. Private property, as the material, sum- mary expression of alienated labour, embraces both relations—the relation of the worker to work, to the product of his labour and to the non—worker, and the relation of the non—worker to the worker and to the product of his labour. Having seen that in relation to the worker who appropriates nature by means of his labour, this appropriation appears as estrangement, his own spontaneous activity as activity for another and as activity of another, vitality as a sacrifice of life, production of the object as loss of the object to an alien power, to an alien per- son—we shall now consider the relation to the worker, to labour and its object of this person who is alien to labour and the worker. First it has to be noticed, that everything which appears in the worker as an activity of alienation, of estrangement, appears in the non-worker as a state of alienation, of estrangement. Secondly, that the worker’s real, practical attitude in production and to the product (as a state of mind) appears in the non—worker confronting him as a theoretical attitude. Thirdly, the non—worker does everything against the worker which the worker does against himself; but he does not do against himself what he does against the worker. Let us look more closely at these three relations.6 Private Property and Communism Re. p. XXXIX. The antithesis of propertylessness and property so long as it is not comprehended as the antithesis of labour and capital, still remains an antithesis of indifference, not grasped in its active connection, its internal relation—an antithesis not yet grasped as a contradiction. It can find expression in this first form even without the advanced development of private property (as in ancient Rome, Turkey, etc.). It does not yet appear as having been established by private property itself. But labour, the subjective 6. At this point the first manuscript breaks off unfinished. 82 ' The Early Marx essence of private property as exclusion of property, and capital, objective labour as exclusion of labour, constitute private property as its developed state of contradiction—hence a dynamic relation- ship moving inexorably to its resolution. Re. the same page. The transcendence of self—estrangement fol- lows the same course as sel-f—estrangement.~ Private property is first considered only in its objective aspect—but nevertheless with labour as its essence. Its form of existence is therefore capital, which is to be annulled “as such" (Proudhon). Or a particular form of labour—labour levelled down, parcelled, and therefore unfree——is conceived as the source of private property’s pernicious- ness and of its existence in estrangement from men; for instance, Fourier, who, like the physiocrats, also conceived agricultural labour to be at least the exemplary type, whilst Saint—Simon declares in contrast that induster labour as such is the essence, and now also aspires to the exclusive rule of the industrialists and the improve— ment of the workers’ condition. Finally, communism is the positive expression of annulled private property—at first as universal private property. By embracing this relation as a whole, communism is: (1) In its first form only a generalization and consummation of this relationship. It shows itself as such in a twofold form: on the one hand, the dominion of material property bulks so large that it wants to destroy everything which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property. It wants to abstract by force from talent, etc. For it the sole purpose of life and existence is direct, physical possession. The category of labourer is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things. Finally, this movement of counterposing universal private pr0perty to pri- vate property finds expression in the bestial form of counterposing to marriage (certainly a form of exclusive private prOperty) the community of women, in which a woman becomes a piece of com- munal and common pr0perty. It may be said that this idea of the community of women gives away the secret of this as yet com- pletely crude and thoughtless communism. just as the woman passes from marriage to general prostitution} so the entire world of wealth (that is, of man’s objective substance) passes from the rela- tionship of exclusive marriage with the owner of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the community. In negating the personality of man in every Sphere, this type of communism is really nothing but the logical expression of private property, which 7. Prostitution is only a specific expres- but also the one who prostitutes—and sion of the general prostitution of the the latter’s abomination is still labourer, and since it is a relationship in greater—the capitalist, etc., also comes which falls not the prostitute alone, under this head. [Marx] Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 ' 83 is this negation. General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which avarice re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way. The thoughts of every piece of private prop- erty—inherent in each piece as such—are at least turned against all wealthier private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce to a common level, so that this envy and urge even consti- tute the essence of competition. The crude communism is only the consummation of this envy and of this levelling-down proceeding from the preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited stand- ard. How little this annulment of private property is really an appr0priation is in fact proved by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and'civilization, the regression to the unnat- ural simplicity of the poor and undemanding man who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even attained to it. The community is only a community of labour, and an equality of wages paid out by the communal capital—the community as the universal capitalist. Both sides of the relationship are raised to an imagined universality—labour as a state in which every person is put, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community. In the approach to woman as the spoil and handmaid of commu- nal lust is expressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself, for the secret of this approach has its unambiguous, decisive, plain and undisguised expression in the relation of man to woman and in the manner in which the direct and natural procrea— tive relationship is conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. In this natural relationship of the sexes man’s relation to nature is immediately his relation to man, just as his relation to man is immediately his relation to nature—his own natural function. In this relationship, therefore, is sensuously manifested, reduced to an observable fact, the extent to which the human essence has become nature to man, or to which nature has to him become the human essence of man. From this relationship one can therefore judge man’s whole level of development. It follows from the character of this relationship how much man as a species being, as man, has come to be himself and to comprehend himself; the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become a natural essence—the extent to which his human nature has come to be nature to him. In this relation- ship is revealed, too, the extent to which man’s need has become a human need; the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a 84 ' The Early Marx person has become for him a need—the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being. The first positive annulment of private property—crude communism-45 thus merely one form in which the vileness of private property, which wants to set itself up as the positive community, comes to the surface. (2) Communism (a) of a political nature still—democratic or despotic; (b) with the annulment of the state, yet still incomplete, and being still affected by private property (i.e., by the estrange- ment of man). In both forms communism already knows itself to be re-integration or return of man to himself, the transcendence of human self—estrangement; but since it has not yet grasped the posi- tive essence of private property, and just as little the human nature - of need, it remains captive to it and infected by it. It has, indeed, grasped its concept, but not its essence. (3) Communism as the positive transcendence of private prop- erty, or human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appro- priation of the human essence by and for man; communism there- fore as the complete retum of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being—a return become conscious, and accomplished within the entire wealth of previous development. This commu- nism, as fullydeveloPed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully-developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine reso- lution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man—the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between free- dom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Com- munism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution. The entire movement of history is, therefore, both its actual act of genesis (the birth act of its empirical existence) and also for its thinking consciousness the comprehended and known process of its coming-to-be. That other, still immature communism, meanwhile, seeks an historical proof for itself—a proof in the realm of the exis- tent—amongst disconnected historical phenomena opposed to pri- vate property, tearing single phases from the historical process and focussing attention on them as proofs of its historical pedigree (a horse ridden hard e5pecially by Cabet, Villegardelle, etc.). By so doing it simply makes clear that by far the greater part of this proc- ess contradicts its claims, and that, if it has once been, precisely its being in the past refutes its pretension to being essential. That the entire revolutionary movement necessarily finds both its empirical and its theoretical basis in the movement of private prop- erty—in that of the economy, to be precise—is easy to see. This material, immediately sensuous private property is the mate- / Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 ' 85 ml sensuous expression of estranged human life. Its movement— production and consumption—is the sensuous revelation of the molvement of all production hitherto—Le, the realization or the res ity of man. Religion, family, state, law, morality, science art etc., are only particular modes of production, and fall under its, en: eral law. The positive transcendence of private property as gthe appmpnation of human life is, therefore, the positive transcend ence. of all estrangement—that is to say, the return of man from religion, family, state, etc., to his human, i.e., social mode of exist- ence.‘Religious estrangement as such occurs only in the realm of :finscwusness, of. man’s inner life, but economic estrangement is It at of real life; its transcendence therefore embraces both aspects. is eVident that the initial stage of the movement amongst the various peoples depends on whether the true and for them authen— tic life of the people manifests itself more in consciousness or in the external world—is more ideal or real. Communism begins from the outset (Gwen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, it is still mostly an abstraction. alThlc: philanthropy of atheism is therefore at first only philosophi- c , a_stract, philanthropy, and that of communism is at once eal and directly bent on action. r We have seen how on the premise of positively annulled private property man produces man—himself and the other man- how the object, being the direct embodiment of his individuality is simulta- neously his own existence for the other man, the existence of the other .man, and that existence for him. Likewise, however both the inaterial of labour and man as the subject, are the point’of depar- fure as well as the result .of the movement (and precisely in this tact, that they must constitute the point of departure, lies the his— tErica] necessity of private property). Thus the social character is e general character of the whole movement: just as society itself produces man as man, so is society produced by him. Activity and consumption, both in their content and in their mode of existence are soczal: socwl activity and social consumption' the human essence of nature first exists only for social man; for duly here does nature CXist for him as a bond with man—as his existence for the other and the other’s existence for him—as the life—element of the human world; only here does nature exist as the foundation of his own human eXistence. Only here has what is to him his natural exrstence become his human existence, and nature become man for him. Thus society is the consummated oneness in substance of man and nature—the true resurrection of nature—the naturalism of man and the humanism of nature both brought to fulfilment Socral actrvrty and social consumption exist by no means only in the form of some directly communal activity and directly commu- 86 ' The Early Marx nal consumption, although communal activity and communal con— sumption~i.e., activity and consumption which are manifested and directly confirmed in real association with other men—will occur wherever such a direct expression of sociality stems from the true character of the activity’s content and is adequate to the nature of consumption. But again when I am active scientifically, etc.,—when I am engaged in activity which I can seldom perform in direct commu- nity with others—then I am social, because I am active as a man. Not only is the material of my activity given to me as a social prod- uct (as is even the language in which the thinker is active): my own existence is social activity, and therefore that which I make of myself, I make of myself for society and with the consciousness of myself as a social being. My general consciousness is only the theoretical shape of that of which the living shape is the real community, the social fabric, although at the present day general consciousness is an abstraction from real life and as such antagonistically confronts it. Conse- quently, too, the activity of my general consciousness, as an activ- ity, is my theoretical existence as a social being. What is to be avoided above all is the re—establishing of “Society” as an abstraction vis-a-vis the individual. The individual is the social being. His life, even if it may not appear in the direct form of a communal life carried out together with others—is there- fore an expression and confirmation of social life. Man’s individual and species life are not different, however much—and this is inevi- table—the mode of existence of the individual is a more particular, or more general mode of the life of the species, or the life of the species is a more particular or more general individual life. In his consciousness of species man confirms his real social life and simply repeats his real existence in thought, just as conversely the being of the species confirms itself in Species—consciousness and is for itself in its generality as a thinking being. Man, much as he may therefore be a particular individual (and it is precisely his particularity which makes him an individual, and a real individual social being), is just as much the totality—the ideal totality—the subjective existence of thought and experienced society present for itself; just as he exists also in the real world as the awareness and the real enjoyment of social existence, and as a totality of human life~activity. Thinking and being are thus no doubt distinct, but at the same time they are in unity with each other. Death seems to be a harsh victory of the species over the definite individual and to contradict their unity. But the determinate indi- vidual is only a determinate species being, and as such mortal. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 ' 87 (4) just as private property is only the sensuous expression of the fact that man becomes objective for himself and at the same time becomes to himself a strange and inhuman object; just as it expresses the fact that the assertion of his life is the alienation of his life, that his realization is his loss of reality, is an alien reality: conversely, the positive transcendence of private property—Le, the sensuous appropriation for and by man of the human essence and of human life, of objective man, of human achievements—is not to be conceived merely in the sense of direct, one-sided grati- fication—merely in the sense of possessing, of having. Man appropriates his total essence in a total manner, that is to say, as a whole man. Each of his human relations to the world—seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking, being aware, sensing, wanting, acting, loving—in short, all the organs of his individual being, like those organs which are directly social in their form, are in their objective orientation or in their orientation to the object, the appropriation of that object, the appropriation of the human world; their orientation to the object is the manifestation of the human world;8 it is human eflicaciousness and human suffering, for suffering, apprehended humanly, is an enjoyment of self in man. Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it———when it exists for us as capi- tal, or when it is directly possessed, eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, etc.,—-in short, when it is used by us. Although private property itself again conceives all these direct realizations of possession as means of life, and the life which they serve as means is the life of private property—labour and conversion into capital. In place of all these physical and mental senses there has there- fore come the sheer estrangement of all these senses—the sense of having. The human being had to be reduced to this absolute pov- erty in order that he might yield his inner wealth to the outer world. (On the category of “having,” see Hess in the Twenty-One Sheets.) The transcendence of private property is therefore the complete emancipation of all human senses and attributes; but it is this emancipation precisely because these senses and attributes have become, subjectively and objectively, human. The eye has become a human eye, just as its object has become a social, human object—an object emanating from man for man. The senses have therefore become directly in their practice theoreticians. They relate themselves to the thing for the sake of the thing, but the thing itself is an objective human relation to itself and to man,9 8. For this reason it is just as highly thing humanly only if the thing relates priced as the determinations of human itself to the human being humanly. essence and activities. [Marx] [Marx] 9. In practice I can relate myself to a can: a .fl'fl'fi‘l‘fiws ,_ r 88 ' The Early Marx and vice versa. Need or enjoyment have consequently lost their ego- tistical nature, and nature has lost its mere utility by use becoming human use. ‘ In the same way, the senses and enjoyments of other men have become my own appropriation. Besides these direct organs, there- fore, social organs develop in the form of society; thus, for instance, activity in direct association with others, etc., has become an organ for expressing my own life, and a mode of appropriating human life. It is obvious that the human eye gratifies itself in a way different from the crude, non-human eye; the human ear different from the crude ear, etc. To recapitulate; man is not lost in his object only when the object becomes for him a human object or objective man. This is possible only when the object becomes for him a social object, he himself for himself a social being, just as society becomes a being for him in this object. On the one hand, therefore, it is only when the objective world becomes everywhere for man in society the world of man’s essential powersl—human reality, and for that reason the reality of his own essential powers—that all objects become for him the objectifica- tion of himself, become objects which confirm and realize his indi- viduality, become his objects: that is, man himself becomes the object. The manner in which they become his depends on the nature of the objects and on the nature of the essential power cor— respOnding to it; for it is precisely the determinateness of this rela- tionship which shapes the particular, real mode of affirmation. To the eye an object comes to be other than it is to the ear, and the object of the eye is another object than the object of the ear. The peculiarity of each essential power is precisely its peculiar essence, and therefore also the peculiar mode of its objectification, of its objectively actual living being. Thus man is affirmed in the objec- tive world not only in the act of thinking, but with all his senses. On the other hand, looking at this in its subjective aspect: just as music alone awakens in man the sense of music, and just as the most beautiful music has no sense for' the unmusical ear—is no object for it, because my object can only be the confirmation of one of my essential powers and can therefore only be so for me as my essential power is present for itself as a subjective capacity, because the sense of an object for me goes only so far as my senses go (has only sense for a sense corresPonding to that object)—for this reason the senses of the social man are other senses than those of the non—social man. Only through the objectively unfolded rich- }. “Essential powers”—Wesenskrd'fte: my essential nature, my very being. 1.e., powers belonging to me as part of Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 ' 89 ness of man’s essential being is the richness of subjective human sensibility (a musical car, an eye for beauty of form—in short, senses capable of human gratifications, senses confirming them- selves as essential powers of man) either cultivated or brought into being. For not only the five senses but also the so-called mental senses—the practical senses (will, love, etc.)—in a word, human sense—the humanness of the senses—comes to be by virtue of its object, by virtue of humanized nature. The forming of the five senses is a labour of the entire history of the world down to the present. The sense caught up in crude practical need has only a restricted sense. For the starving man, it is not the human form of food that exists, but only its abstract being as food; it could just as well be there in its crudest form, and it would be impossible to say wherein this feeding-activity differs from that of animals. The care‘burdened man in need has no sense for the finest play; the dealer in minerals sees only the mercantile value but not the beauty and the unique nature of the mineral: he has no mineralogical sense. Thus, the objectification of the human essence both in its theoretical and practical aspects is required to make man’s sense human, as well as to create the human sense corresponding to the entire wealth of human and natural substance. Just as resulting from the movement of private property, of its wealth as well as its poverty—or of its material and spiritual wealth and poverty—the budding society finds to hand all the material for this development: so established society produces man in this entire richness of his being—produces the rich man profoundly endowed with all the senses—as its enduring reality. It will be seen how subjectivism and objectivism, spiritualism and materialism, activity and suffering, only lose their antithetical character, and thus their existence, as such antitheses in the social condition; it will be seen how the resolution of the theoretical antitheses is only possible in a practical way, by virtue of the practi- cal energy of men. Their resolution is therefore by no means merely a problem of knowledge, but a real problem of life, which philoso- phy could not solve precisely because it conceived this problem as merely a theoretical one. It will be seen how the history of industry and the established objective existence of industry are the open book of man’s essential powers, the exposure to the senses of human psychology. Hitherto this was not conceived in its inseparable connection with man’s essential being, but only in an external relation of utility, because, moving in the realm of estrangement, people could only think man’s general mode of being—religion or history in its abstract- general character as politics, art, literature, etc.,—to be the reality 90 ' The Early Marx of man’s essential powers and man’s species-activity. We have before us the objectified essential powers of man in the form of sensuous, alien, useful objects, in the form of estrangement, dis— played in ordinary material industry (which can be conceived as a part of that general movement, just as that movement can be con- ceived as a particular part of industry, since all human activity hith- erto has been labour—that is, industry—activity estranged from itself). ‘ A psychology for which this, the part of history most contempo- rary and accessible to sense, remains a closed book, cannot become a genuine, comprehensive and real science. What indeed are we to think of a science which airily abstracts from this large part of human labour and which fails to feel its own incompleteness, while such a wealth of human endeavour unfolded before it means noth— ing more to it than, perhaps, what can be expressed in one word—“need,” “vulgar need”? The natural sciences have developed an enormous activity and have accumulated a constantly growing mass of material. Philoso— phy, however, has remained just as alien to them as they remain to philosophy. Their momentary unity was only a chimerical illusion. The will was there, but the means were lacking. Even historiogra- phy pays regard to natural science only occasionally, as a factor of enlightenment and utility arising from individual great discoveries. But natural science has invaded and transformed human life all the more practically through the medium of industry; and has prepared human emancipation, however directly and much it had to con— summate dehumanization. Industry is the actual, historical relation of nature, and therefore of natural science, to man. If, therefore, industry is conceived as the exoteric revelation of man’s essential powers, we also gain an understanding of the human essence of nature or the natural essence of man. In consequence, natural sci- ence will lose its abstractly material—or rather, its idealistic— tendency, and will become the basis of human science, as it has already become the basis of actual human life, albeit in an estranged form. One basis for life and another basis for science is a priori a lie. The nature which comes to be in human history—the genesis of human society—is man’s real nature; hence nature as it comes to be through industry, even though in an estranged form, is true anthropological nature. Sense-perception (see Feuerbach) must be the basis of all sci- ence. Only when it proceeds from sense—perception in the twofold form both of sensuous consciousness and of sensuous need—that is, only when science proceeds from nature—is it true science. All his- tory is the preparation for “man” to become the object of sensuous consciousness, and for the needs of “man as man” to become [nahvml cancnnncl nnnr‘c udc§nwv u'boal‘ :n n "’41 “nv‘ at. «45..-,11 lu'n. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 ' 91 tory—of nature’s coming to be man. Natural science will in time subsume under itself the science of man, just as the science of man will subsume under itself natural science: there will be one science. Man is the immediate object of natural science: for immediate, sensuous nature for man is, immediately, human sensuousness (the expressions are identical)——presented immediately in the form of the other man sensuously present for him. For his own sensuous- ness first exists as human sensuousness for himself through the other man. But nature is the immediate object of the science of man: the first object of man—man—is nature, sensuousness; and the particular human sensuous essential powers can only find their self-knowledge in the science of the natural world in general, since they can find their objective realization in natural objects only. The element of thought itself—~the element of thought’s living expres- sion—language—is of a sensuous nature. The social reality of nature, and human natural science, or the natural science about man, are identical terms. It will be seen how in place of the wealth and poverty of politi- cal economy come the rich human being and rich human need. The rich human being is simultaneously the human being in need of a totality of human life-activities—the man in whom his own realization exists as an inner necessity, as need. Not only wealth, but likewise the poverty of man—given socialism—receives in equal measure a human and therefore social significance. Poverty is the passive bond which causes the human being to experience the need of the greatest wealth—the other human being. The dominion of the objective being in me, the sensuous outburst of my essential activity, is emotion, which thus becomes here the activity of my being. (5) A being only considers himself independent when he stands on his own feet; and he only stands on his own feet when he owes his existence to himself. A man who lives by the grace of another regards himself as a dependent being. But I live completely by the grace of another if I owe him not only the sustenance of my life, but if he has, moreover, created my life—if he is the source of my life; and if it is not of my own creation, my life has necessarily a source of this kind outside it. The Creation is therefore an idea very difficult to dislodge from popular consciousness. The self- mediated being of nature and of man is incomprehensible to it, because it contradicts everything palpable in practical life. The creation of the earth has received a mighty blow from geo- geny—i.e., from the science which presents the formation of the earth, the coming—to-be of the earth, as a process, as self-generation. Generatio aequivoca2 is the only practical refutation of the theory of creation. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 ‘ 93 no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the practically and theoretically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive self-con- sciousness no longer mediated through the annulment of reli- gion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated, through the annulment of private property, through communism. Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and recovery. Communism is the necessary pattern and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human develOpment—the structure of human society. ,. 92 ' The Early Marx Now it is certainly easy to say to the single individual what Aris- totle has already said. You have been begotten by your father and your mother; therefore in you the mating of two human beings—a species-act of human beings—has produced the human being. You see, therefore, that even physically, man owes his existence to man. Therefore you must not only keep sight of the one aspect—~the infinite progression which leads you further to enquire: “Who begot my father? Who his grandfather?”, etc. You must also hold on to the circular movement sensuously perceptible in that progres— sion, by which man repeats himself in procreation, thus always remaining the subject. You will reply, however: I grant you this cir- cular movement; now grant me the progression which drives me even further until I ask: Who begot the first man, and nature as a whole? I can only answer you: Your question is itself a product of abstraction. Ask yourself how you arrived at that question. Ask yourself whether your question is not posed from a standpoint to which I cannot reply, because it is a perverse one. Ask yourself whether that progression as such exists for a reasonable mind. When you ask about the creation of nature and man, you are ab- stracting, in so doing, from man and nature. You postulate them as non-existent, and yet you want me to prove them to you as exist- ing. Now I say to you: Give up your abstraction and you will also give up your question. Or if y0u want to hold on to your abstrac- tion, then be consistent, and if you think of man and nature as non—existent, then think of yourself as non-existent, for you too are surely nature and man. Don’t think, don’t ask me, for as soon as you think and ask, your abstraction from the existence of nature The Meaning of Human Requirements We have seen what significance, given socialism, the wealth of human needs has, and what significance, therefore, both a new mode of production and a new object of production have: a new manifestation of the forces of human nature and a new enrichment of human nature.3 Under private property their significance is reversed: every person speculates on creating a new need in another, so as to drive him to a fresh sacrifice, to place him in a new depend- ence and to seduce him into a new mode of gratification and there- fore economic ruin. Each tries to establish over the other an alien power, so as thereby to find satisfaction of his own selfish need. The increase in the quantity of objects is accompanied by an extension of the realm of the alien powers to which man is subjected, and , ; l i and man has no meaning. Or are you such an egoist that you pos- tulate everything as nothing, and yet want yourself to be? You can reply: I do not want to postulate the nothingness of nature. I ask you about its genesis, just as I ask the anatomist about the formation of bones, etc. But since for the socialist man the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the begetting of man through human labour, nothing but the coming-to-be of nature for man, he has the visible, irrefutable proof of his birth through himself, of his process of coming-to—be. Since the real existence of man and nature has become practical, sensuous and perceptible—since man has become for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man—the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man—a question which implies the admission of the inessentiality of nature and of man—has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as the denial of this inessentiality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism every new product represents a new potency of mutual swindling and mutual plundering. Man becomes ever poorer as man; his need for money becomes ever greater if he wants to overpower hostile being; and the power of his money declines exactly in inverse pro- portion to the increase in the volume of production: that is, his neediness grows as the power of money increases. The need for money is therefore the true need produced by the modern economic system, and it is the only need which the latter produces. The quantity of money becomes to an ever greater degree its sole effective attribute: just as it reduces everything to its abstract form, so it reduces itself in the course of its own movement to something merely quantitative. Excess and intemperance come to be its true norm. Subjectively, this is even partly manifested in that the extension of products and needs falls into contriving and ever— calculating subservience to inhuman, refined, unnatural and imagL nary appetites.Private property does not know how to change crude a; Forces of human nature: mensehh‘chen Werenkrafl; human nature: menschlichen esens. ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/09/2008 for the course ILS 206 taught by Professor Avramenko during the Spring '07 term at University of Wisconsin Colleges Online.

Page1 / 14

Communist Manifesto - Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 14. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online