“The conditions under which individuals have intercourse with each other, so long as the above – mentioned contradiction is absent, are conditions appertaining to their individuality, in no way external to them; conditions under which these definite individuals, living under definite relationships, can alone produce their material life and what is connected with it; are thus the conditions of their self – activity and are produced by this self – activity. The definite condition under which they produce, thus corresponds, as long as the contradiction has not yet appeared, to the reality of their conditioned nature, their one – sided existence, the one – sidedness of which only becomes evident when the contradiction enters on the scene and thus only exists for the later individuals. Then this condition appears as an accidental fetter, and the consciousness that it is a fetter is imputed to the earlier age as well.”
Although I read and re – read this paragraph in its entirety, I seem to find difficulty in comprehending the point that Marx and Engels’ is making. I would assume that the “contradiction” that they mention throughout this passage is explained in the paragraph preceding this one, but I still don’t know what this contradiction is. Marx and Engels’ main focus seems to be the “condition” of the people based on their individuality or something along those lines. In addition, I have no clue as to what the significance of “one – sidedness” is to their claims.
What confused the most about me throughout the article but helped me once I looked it up was the use of fetter. Looking it up, fetter meant restraint or a confine. What they seem to want to say is that every generation eventually discovers some sort of fetter within them (and accidental could allude to their unintentional perpetuation or production of the fetter, or restraint)and seek to change, making the fetter an obvious thing to further generations but at the same time creating another condition which eventually creates another fetter, and seem to give a new view on the word revolution. Here revolution meaning a cyclic thing, and not an overthrow of something.
ReplyDeleteI believe the contradiction is the between "the productive forces and the form of the intercourse (21)". I looked up the definition of intercourse. It is defined as the communication or dealings between individuals. Now the other question is what is meant by the productive force? I surmised the productive force might be the wealth of a person or individual views or ideas because the reading later goes into the contradiction of classes. Marx and Engels seems to be concerned with breaking down these divisions. What is meant by the "condition" of the individual is the status of the people. The class system Marx and Engels describes is very rigid and there seems to be a lot of competition. Which goes into the in the "one-sideness" issue. Marx and Engels seem to think that the individual is made within the class. There is little to no opportunity for movement so the individuals have a one-sided perspective based on their class status the individual was born into. Tying this together I think is the source of the competition between the classes.
ReplyDelete