"The transformation, through the division of labour, of personal powers (relationships) into material powers, cannot be dispelled by dismissing the general idea of it from one's mind, but only by the action of individuals in again subjecting these material powers to themselves and abolishing the division of labour. This is not possible without the community. Only in community with others has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible."
I honestly dont understand what hes talking about when he says material powers, I think maybe hes saying turning your thoughts into actions and then producing something, but I'm not sure, because I don't get where the division of labour comes into play.
Betty chose:
"Alternatively, and at best, theory is tentative and provisional, self-reflexivley critical and cautious, functioning as a throughgoing challenge to unexamined common-sense assumptions, those invisible dogmas we inherit from cultural tradition and which closedown other possible questions about the world, other ways of seeing and understanding."
I feel like maybe hes saying that theory is many things in one, that it can not only be described as just one thing and over time it's own definition has changed and became broader.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My interpretation of this particular passage is that systems such as capitalism are not as free as most people think. According to Marx and Engels, as long as there is a division of labors (unequal pay, unequal amount of work done, and unequal social statuses) the people will never truly be free. They believe that the true freedom lies within the group, the community, and not in each person alone. In addition, they claim that a person gains their personal freedom by belonging to a united, equal community that allows for their real abilities and gifts to come out without the restrictions and advantages of social class. I am also not entirely sure of what is meant by the terms “personal powers” and “material powers.” However, from the way the sentence is phrased, I would guess that Marx and Engels want individuals to embrace material powers rather than personal powers. Though I am not entirely confident of my grasp of Marx and Engels’ vision I can attempt to picture what it is that Marx and Engels might prefer in communism. I would imagine that in a community much like the one that they envision, there would be a number of men and women living together in a manner that suggests that they are all equivalent. The doctor makes no more than the construction worker, the lawyer no more than the waiter. When it comes to obtaining any of these jobs, for example, in a company, the boss would not account for the connections and networks of people that the individual has or because of the family they belong to. Since the idea of social classes becomes obsolete, there is no individual that has an edge over another based on the fortunes or misfortunes they were born into. There would be no situation in which a person felt that their true calling in life was to become a doctor and would be unable to do so because of their inability to pay for medical school. In this sense, I would suppose that this personal freedom of Marx and Engels would stem from a person’s ability to choose a career based on what they feel is the right one for them, without having to consider how much or how little they would make. A person would never have to take a job purely out of necessity to pay the bills or make ends meet, and would take a job that they really desire to pursue. Reaching your goals would never be out of reach because hypothetically, everybody would be on an even playing field.
ReplyDelete