I would like to draw attention to a couple of points Leontev makes in his
Chapter 1, both of which appear to be pretty much orthodox marxist positions.
[Leontev 1] This activity [labour] is characterized by the fact that its
materialization, its “extinction,” according to Marx’s expression, results
in a product. Marx writes in Capital, “That which appeared on the part of
the worker in the form of activity, now appears on the part of the product
in the form of a resting property, in the form of existence.” “During the
process of work,” we read further, “work constantly changes from the form
of activity to the form of existence, from the form of movement to the form
of material.”
[Andy] This endowment of physical objects with properties of usefulness in
the context of relations of ownership constituted the dominant form of
labour in Marx's day, but is I believe an underdeveloped form of the labour
process in which mediation through things proves to be a transitory form.
Very few of us today see a tangible, material product of our labour, the
outcome of which is directly changes to other people and their social
relations. Psychology needs to look at this change which is a further
revealing of the essence of labour.
____________________________
[Leontev 2] "Of particularly great significance is the teaching of Marx
about those changes in consciousness that it undergoes during the
development of division of work in society, a separation of the majority of
producers from the means of production, and an isolation of theoretical
activity from practical activity. Engendered by the development of private
property, economic alienation leads to alienation and to disintegration of
human consciousness. This disintegration is expressed in the inadequacy of
that sense that gives objective significance to man, to his activity, and
to its products. This disintegration of consciousness is eliminated only
when the attitudes toward private property that gave rise to it are
eliminated with the transition from a class society to communism."
I don't know what Russian word is translated as "disintegration", but this
separation of the forms of labour is an essential part of the constitution
of consciousness and cognition. In the embryonic form in which there is no
social division of labour beyond the limited sphere of a kinship group,
cognition is surely limited and narrow. I question the idea that private
labour leads to labour losing objective significance. Surely it is equally
true that is loses its subjectivity? I.E., that the products of human
labour confront us as if they were natural, extra-human entities. On the
contrary, to the person who has lived only within the confines of kinship
relations, the trees and rocks have a human spirit, subjectivity, while to
who have grown up with private labour Nature is objective and spiritless??
Sure, for the non-worker, the theoretical attitude predominates over the
practical attitude.
any thoughts?
Andy
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| - Andy Blunden - Home Page - http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm - |
| All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational |
| solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:01:01 PDT