MARX MP 1818 1883 BORN TRIER GERMANY EDUCATION

MARX MP

1818 -1883 BORN TRIER, GERMANY EDUCATION: UNIVERSITY OF JENA UNIVERSITY OF BONN HUMBOLT UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN MOVED TO PARIS WITH HIS WIFE 1843 -5 BELGIUM 1845 VISITS ENGLAND CHARTISTS 1845 PARIS 1847 COLOGNE 1847 LONDON 1849 • PRINCIPAL WRITINGS: • THESIS ON FEUERBACH • GERMAN IDEOLOGY • COMMUNIST MANIFESTO (WITH FREDERICK ENGELS) • CAPITAL

• YOUNG HEGELIANS: LUDWIG FEUERBACH, MAX STIRNER, INFLUENCES HEGEL AND THE YOUNG HEGELIANS BRITISH POLITICAL ECONOMY AND BRUNO BAUER • ADAM SMITH, THOMAS MALTHUS, JAMES MILL, AND DAVID RICARDO FRENCH ST SIMONIANISM AND SOCIALISM • ST SIMON, CHARLES FOURIER MET FRIEDRICH ENGELS AUGUST 1844

YOUNG-OLD MARX/OLDER-NEW MARX • YOUNG HEGELIAN MARX • ECONOMIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL MANUSCRIPTS • ALIENATION • COMMODITY FETISHISM • HEGELIAN OVERTONES/DIALECTICS • IDEALISM • OLDER POLITICAL ECONOMY MARX • SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS • SYSTEMATIC EXPLANATORY THEORY OF HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT • REDUCTIONISM • HISTORICAL MATERIALISM/DETERMINISM

ALIENATION • FROM THE OBJECT OF ONE’S LABOUR • FROM THE LABOUR PROCESS • FROM ONE’S SPECIES BEING • FROM ONE’S FELLOW MEN AND WOMEN

FROM THE OBJECT OF ONE’S LABOUR • MAN AS HOMO FABER/LABOUR AS EXPRESSIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL OF MAN’S NATURE • ‘THE OBJECT THAT THE LABOURER PRODUCES STANDS OPPOSED TO IT, AS SOMETHING ALIEN - AS A POWER INDEPENDENT OF THE PRODUCER • THE WORKER BECOMES A SLAVE OF HIS OBJECT – HE RECEIVES WORK AND HE RECEIVES THE MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE • LABOUR PRODUCES MARVELS FOR THE RICH, BUT PRIVATION FOR THE WORKER – PALACES, BUT HOVELS FOR THE WORKER – BEAUTY, BUT DEFORMITY FOR THE WORKER

FROM THE PROCESS OF LABOUR • THE WORKER DOES NOT CONFIRM HIMSELF IN HIS WORK, BUT DENIES HIMSELF…DOES NOT DEVELOP FREE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL ENERGY, BUT MORTIFIES HIS FLESH AND RUINS HIS MIND • HIS LABOUR IS NOT VOLUNTARY BUT FORCED; IT IS NOT THE SATISFACTION OF A NEED BUT A MERE MEANS TO SATISFY NEEDS OUTSIDE ITSELF • LABOUR IN WHICH MAN ALIENATES HIMSELF IS A LABOUR OF SELF-SACRIFICE, OR MORTIFICATION

FROM ONE’S SPECIES BEING • ESTRANGED LABOUR TURNS MAN’S SPECIES BEING INTO A BEING ALIEN TO HIM AND A MEANS TO HIS INDIVIDUAL EXISTENCE – IT ESTRANGES MAN FROM HIS OWN BODY, FROM NATURE AS IT EXISTS OUTSIDE HIM, FROM HIS SPIRITUAL ESSENCE – THE HUMAN ESSENCE.

FROM ONE’S FELLOW LABOURERS • THE IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE OF MAN’S ESTRANGEMENT FROM THE PRODUCT OF HIS LABOUR, HIS LIFE’S ACTIVITY, HIS SPECIES BEING, IS THE ESTRANGEMENT OF MAN FROM MAN • IN THE RELATIONSHIP OF ESTRANGED LABOUR EACH MAN REGARDS THE OTHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD AND THE SITUATION IN WHICH HE AS A LABOURER FINDS HIMSELF – AS A COMPETITOR AND RIVAL

COMMODITY FETISHISM ESSENTIALLY THE ILLUSION THAT COMMODITIES HAVE VALUE INDEPENDENT OF THE LABOUR TIME EMBODIED IN THEM (TO FETISHIZE IS TO INVEST SOMETHING WITH A POWER IT DOES NOT HAVE) • 1. THE LABOUR TIME USED TO PRODUCE A COMMODITY TAKES THE FORM OF THE EXCHANGE VALUE OF THE COMMODITY – BUT THE EXCHANGE VALUE VEILS ITS TRUE VALUE IN LABOUR. • 2. THINGS DO HAVE EXCHANGE VALUE • 3. THEY DO NOT HAVE IT AUTONOMOUSLY • 4. THEY APPEAR TO HAVE IT AUTONOMOUSLY • 5. EXCHANGE VALUE AND THE ILLUSION ACCOMPANYING IT ARE NOT PERMANENT, BUT ARE PECULIAR TO A DETERMINATE FORM OF SOCIETY

CAPITAL FETISHISM G A COHEN: MEN DO NOT RECOGNISE THEIR AUTHORSHIP OF THE VALUE THROUGH WHICH ALONE THEY RELATE, AND WHICH THEREFORE REGULATES THEIR LIVES AS PRODUCERS. THEY ARE THUS, IN A QUITE SPECIFIC SENSE, ALIENATED FROM THEIR OWN POWER, WHICH HAS PASSED INTO THINGS • 1. THE PRODUCTIVITY OF MEN OPERATING WITH PHYSICAL FACILITIES TAKES THE FORM OF THE PRODUCTIVITY OF CAPITAL • 2. CAPITAL IS PRODUCTIVE • 3. IT IS NOT AUTONOMOUSLY PRODUCTIVE • 4. IT APPEARS AUTONOMOUSLY PRODUCTIVE • 5. CAPITAL, AND THE ILLUSION ACCOMPANYING IT ARE NOT PERMANENT BUT PECULIAR TO THE DETERMINATE FORM OF SOCIETY

THESES ON FEUERBACH • PHILOSOPHERS HAVE ONLY INTERPRETED THE WORLD; THE POINT IS TO CHANGE IT. • THESIS 1 • THE CHIEF DEFECT OF ALL HITHERTO EXISTING MATERIALISM – THAT OF FEUERBACH INCLUDED – IS THAT THE THING, REALITY, SENSUOUSNESS, IS CONCEIVED ONLY IN THE FORM OF THE OBJECT OR OF CONTEMPLATION, BUT NOT AS SENSUOUS HUMAN ACTIVITY, PRACTICE, NOT SUBJECTIVELY. HENCE, IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO MATERIALISM, THE ACTIVE SIDE WAS DEVELOPED ABSTRACTLY BY IDEALISM – WHICH, OF COURSE, DOES NOT KNOW REAL, SENSUOUS ACTIVITY AS SUCH.

COMMUNIST MANIFESTO 1848 • 1848 REVOLUTIONS • THE BOURGEOISIE CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT CONSTANTLY REVOLUTIONIZING THE INSTRUMENTS OF PRODUCTION, AND THEREBY THE RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION…CONSTANT REVOLUTIONIZING OF THE , UNINTERRUPTED DISTURBANCE OF ALL SOCIAL CONDITIONS, EVERLASTING UNCERTAINTY AND AGITATION DISTINGUISH THE BOURGEOIS EPOCH FROM ALL EARLIER ONES.

ALL THAT IS SOLID… • ALL FIXED, FAST-FROZEN RELATIONS, WITH THEIR TRAIN OF ANCIENT AND VENERABLE PREJUDICES AND OPINIONS ARE SWEPT AWAY, ALL NEW-FORMED ONES BECOME ANTIQUATED BEFORE THEY CAN OSSIFY. ALL THAT IS SOLID MELTS INTO AIR, AL THAT IS HOLY IS PROFANED, AND MAN IS AT LAST COMPELLED TO FACE WITH SOBER SENSE, HIS REAL CONDITIONS OF LIFE, AND HIS RELATIONS WITH HIS KIND.

CLASS STRUGGLE • HISTORY OF ALL PAST SOCIETY IS THE HISTORY OF CLASS STRUGGLE • ONE FACT IS COMMON TO ALL PAST AGES, THE EXPLOITATION OF ONE PART OF SOCIETY BY THE OTHER

ECONOMIC STRUCTURE LEVEL OF PRODUCTIVE DEVT • 1. PRE-CLASS SOCIETY • NO SURPLUS • 2 PRECAPITIALIST/FEUDAL CLASS SOCIETY • SMALL SURPLUS – SMALLER THAN • 3. CAPITALIST SOCIETY • MODERATELY HIGH SURPLUS, BUT LESS THAN • 4. POST CLASS SOCIETY • MASSIVE SURPLUS/ABUNDANCE

PRODUCTIVITY SIZE OF PRODUCT AMOUNT OF DIRECT LABOUR REQUIRED TO PRODUCE IT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVOLVES INCREASING QUANTITY OF SURPLUS LABOUR TIME REQUIRED TO REPRODUCE THE CONDITIONS OF LABOUR

EPISTEMOLOGICAL BREAK • ALTHUSSER GIVES EXAMPLES OF THREE MAJOR TRANSFORMATIONS. THE FIRST IS THE FOUNDING OF MODERN PHYSICS BY GALILEO, THE OTHER THAT OF GREEK MATHEMATICS, AND THE THIRD, THAT OF MARX'S FOUNDING OF THE SCIENCE OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM OUT OF CLASSICAL POLITICAL ECONOMY. EACH OF THESE FOUNDINGS IS MARKED BY WHAT ALTHUSSER TERMS AN “EPISTEMOLOGICAL BREAK, ” OR A PERIOD WHEN IDEOLOGICAL CONCEPTS ARE REPLACED BY SCIENTIFIC ONES.

G. A. COHEN, KARL MARX’S THEORY OF HISTORY (OXFORD, 1978) • PART ATTACK ON LACK OF SYSTEMATIC THINKING ABOUT THE LOGIC OF MARX’S ACCOUNT – AND ON THE ALTHUSSERIAN IDEA OF ‘DETERMINATION IN THE LAST INSTANCE. ’ • NO SUCH THING AS A BREAK • BUT THERE IS A SEMINAL TEXT

PREFACE TO THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY • IN THE SOCIAL PRODUCTION OF THEIR EXISTENCE, MEN INEVITABLY ENTER INTO DEFINITE RELATIONS, WHICH ARE INDEPENDENT OF THEIR WILL, NAMELY RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION APPROPRIATE TO A GIVEN STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR MATERIAL FORCES OF PRODUCTION. THE TOTALITY OF THESE RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION CONSTITUTES THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY, THE REAL FOUNDATION, ON WHICH ARISES A LEGAL AND POLITICAL SUPERSTRUCTURE AND TO WHICH CORRESPOND DEFINITE FORMS OF SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS. THE MODE OF PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL LIFE CONDITIONS THE GENERAL PROCESS OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE. IT IS NOT THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF MEN THAT DETERMINES THEIR EXISTENCE, BUT THEIR SOCIAL EXISTENCE THAT DETERMINES THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS. AT A CERTAIN STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE MATERIAL PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF SOCIETY COME INTO CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION OR – THIS MERELY EXPRESSES THE SAME THING IN LEGAL TERMS – WITH THE PROPERTY RELATIONS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF WHICH THEY HAVE OPERATED HITHERTO. FROM FORMS OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES THESE RELATIONS TURN INTO THEIR FETTERS. THEN BEGINS AN ERA OF SOCIAL REVOLUTION. THE CHANGES IN THE ECONOMIC FOUNDATION LEAD SOONER OR LATER TO THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE WHOLE IMMENSE SUPERSTRUCTURE.

• IN STUDYING SUCH TRANSFORMATIONS IT IS ALWAYS NECESSARY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE MATERIAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF PRODUCTION, WHICH CAN BE DETERMINED WITH THE PRECISION OF NATURAL SCIENCE, AND THE LEGAL, POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS, ARTISTIC OR PHILOSOPHIC – IN SHORT, IDEOLOGICAL FORMS IN WHICH MEN BECOME CONSCIOUS OF THIS CONFLICT AND FIGHT IT OUT. JUST AS ONE DOES NOT JUDGE AN INDIVIDUAL BY WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT HIMSELF, SO ONE CANNOT JUDGE SUCH A PERIOD OF TRANSFORMATION BY ITS CONSCIOUSNESS, BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, THIS CONSCIOUSNESS MUST BE EXPLAINED FROM THE CONTRADICTIONS OF MATERIAL LIFE, FROM THE CONFLICT EXISTING BETWEEN THE SOCIAL FORCES OF PRODUCTION AND THE RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION. NO SOCIAL ORDER IS EVER DESTROYED BEFORE ALL THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES FOR WHICH IT IS SUFFICIENT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED, AND NEW SUPERIOR RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION NEVER REPLACE OLDER ONES BEFORE THE MATERIAL CONDITIONS FOR THEIR EXISTENCE HAVE MATURED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE OLD SOCIETY. • MANKIND THUS INEVITABLY SETS ITSELF ONLY SUCH TASKS AS IT IS ABLE TO SOLVE, SINCE CLOSER EXAMINATION WILL ALWAYS SHOW THAT THE PROBLEM ITSELF ARISES ONLY WHEN THE MATERIAL CONDITIONS FOR ITS SOLUTION ARE ALREADY PRESENT OR AT LEAST IN THE COURSE OF FORMATION. IN BROAD OUTLINE, THE ASIATIC, ANCIENT, FEUDAL AND MODERN BOURGEOIS MODES OF PRODUCTION MAY BE DESIGNATED AS EPOCHS MARKING PROGRESS IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY. THE BOURGEOIS MODE OF PRODUCTION IS THE LAST ANTAGONISTIC FORM OF THE SOCIAL PROCESS OF PRODUCTION – ANTAGONISTIC NOT IN THE SENSE OF INDIVIDUAL ANTAGONISM BUT OF AN ANTAGONISM THAT EMANATES FROM THE INDIVIDUALS' SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE – BUT THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES DEVELOPING WITHIN BOURGEOIS SOCIETY CREATE ALSO THE MATERIAL CONDITIONS FOR A SOLUTION OF THIS ANTAGONISM. THE PREHISTORY OF HUMAN SOCIETY ACCORDINGLY CLOSES WITH THIS SOCIAL FORMATION.

THE COMPONENTS • PRODUCTIVE FORCES (PF) COMPRISED OF : LABOUR POWER (INCL. K) + • PRODUCTION RELATIONS • COMPRISING THE STRUCTURE OF CONTROL OF THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES – IE THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY MEANS OF PRODUCTION IE: INSTRUMENTS – TOOLS, MACHINES, PREMISES RAW MATERIALS BUT THERE IS ALSO THE SUPERSTRUCTURE – LAW, RELIGION, IDEOLOGY ETC. WHICH SUPPORTS THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE, TURNING RELATIONS OF POWER INTO PROPERTY RELATIONS

PF – PR - SS • . AT A CERTAIN STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE MATERIAL PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF SOCIETY COME INTO CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION OR – THIS MERELY EXPRESSES THE SAME THING IN LEGAL TERMS – WITH THE PROPERTY RELATIONS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF WHICH THEY HAVE OPERATED HITHERTO. FROM FORMS OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES THESE RELATIONS TURN INTO THEIR FETTERS. THEN BEGINS AN ERA OF SOCIAL REVOLUTION. THE CHANGES IN THE ECONOMIC FOUNDATION LEAD SOONER OR LATER TO THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE WHOLE IMMENSE SUPERSTRUCTURE.

? K R O W T I HOW DOES T), IS R A T N U L O V O O (T L A N IO INTENT ) T IS N IO T C U D E R O O (T L CAUSA IO T A N A L P X E L A N IO T C N U F AND N

FUNCTIONAL • WHY DOES THE GIRAFFE HAVE A LONG NECK? • BECAUSE HAVING A LONG NECK IS OPTIMAL FOR SURVIVAL – SO X OCCURS, BECAUSE IF X WERE TO OCCUR IT WOULD BRING ABOUT Z

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE STEAM POWERED WOOLLEN MILLS • SOCIETY OF DOMESTIC LABOR AND FARMING OUT • INVENTION OF A NEW MEANS OF PRODUCTION – THE POWER MILL • INVOLVES CONCENTRATION OF CAPITAL, CONCENTRATION OF LABOUR, DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN ENVIRONMENTS ETC. • WHY IS IT ADOPTED?

…BECAUSE… • AT A CERTAIN STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE MATERIAL PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF SOCIETY COME INTO CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION OR – • FROM FORMS OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES THESE RELATIONS TURN INTO THEIR FETTERS. THEN BEGINS AN ERA OF SOCIAL REVOLUTION. • THE CHANGES IN THE ECONOMIC FOUNDATION LEAD SOONER OR LATER TO THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE WHOLE IMMENSE SUPERSTRUCTURE.