Michael,
"for Marx, it is no longer the individual that fends for its life, but
society. By contributing to the survival of the society, the individual
contributes to its own survival."
The self-reproduction of the individual through labour does not contradict
the fact that "by contributing to the survival of the society, the
individual contributes to its own survival." For Marx, the individual
certainly fends for its life (for its self-reproduction in the broad sense
of perpetuation of its organic and inorganic being - the latter being of
course all the non-organic trappings, material and intellectual, that make
him whatever he and his fellows may regard hims as being). It is the
complex concatenation of this struggle of collectivities to perpetuate and
reproduce themselves that gives rise to society - Gesellshaft. True, the
inorganic extension of the individual organism and even to no small degree
his very organic properties are the outcomes of his sustained interaction
with others, but Marx certainly does not hypostasize society.
The interpretation of phrase "by contributing to the survival of the
society, the individual contributes to its own survival." is not as simple
as it sounds. There are no lack of contributions to the survival of society
that definately do not contribute to the individual's own survival either
organically, inorganically or both. The most commonly cited case in fact is
of course that of the combat soldier who goes off to die so that "society
may live." Even this case is actually more complex than it appears since
the soldier may often correctly believe that by sacrificing his life he may
gain a certain renoun which will perpetuate his societal being long after
his death.
Victor Friedlander-Rokacz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wolff-Michael Roth" <mroth@uvic.ca>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: general, particular Holzkamp, Engeström
> Hi,
> I made comment earlier about the Marx translation. One striking example
> is the English use of "social" where Marx writes "societal"
> (Gesellschat, gesellschaftlich). The two terms are not the same, as
> German has a word for social, which is "sozial" as in Sozialarbeit
> (social work), Sozialwissenschaft (social science) etc. Holzkamp
> retains this crucial distinction between social and societal. It is at
> the level of the society that work/labor is general, which for the
> individual provides concrete physical exertion etc.
> Another issue we often forget is that for Marx, it is no longer the
> individual that fends for its life, but society. By contributing to the
> survival of the society, the individual contributes to its own
> survival. This is where double identity of work/labor shows up: it is
> concrete, physical/mental exertion of the individual AND generalized
> work/labor that produces and reproduces society. It is by contributing
> to society that we not only contribute to our own needs, but in fact
> become free in choosing how we want to contribute to the total labor of
> society. If we chose not to contribute, we become dependent again on
> the sociomaterial environment, e.g., depend on private, governmental
> hand-outs and the uncertainties that come with them and their timing.
> Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:43:06 PST