peter – I hope I’m not pestering you, but I do admire expertise, and I try to take the opportunity to learn as much as I can when I get the chance to speak with an expert.
I would be interested to hear a little more about something you said in a previous message. You say about Marx:
“His original theorem, and as refined / revised over the years by him and his followers, have many floes [flaws?], not the least of which was the Nietzsche - like dehumanization of humans - all but elimination of “AN INDIVIDUAL:”….
But this is not quite consistent with Kolakowksi’s interpretation. He suggests that Marx was responding to the dehumanization produced by capitalism. Thus the idea of alienation. Here Kolakawsi is summarizing Marx’s view:
“We live in an age in which the dehumanization of man, that is to say the alienation between him and his own works, is growing to a climax which must end in a revolutionary upheaval; this will originate from the particular interest which has suffered the most from dehumanization, but its effect will be to restore humanity to all mankind.” (“Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. I:p. 262)
“Exploitation consists in the worker selling his labour-power and thus divesting himself of his own essence; the labour process and its results become alien and hostile, a deprivation of humanity rather than a fulfillment.” (“Main Currents of Marxism”, Vol I, p. 264)
And there is much more to the same point. Now if Kolakowski were an apologist for Marx, one might dismiss such claims. But Kolakowski, as you know, is a critic of Marx and Marxism.
Since you are an expert in these matters, I wonder if you could explain what seems to be a fundamental difference of interpretion between you and Kolakawski.
Thanks in advance for your help in understanding these questions.
peter – I hope I’m not pestering you, but I do admire expertise, and I try to take the opportunity to learn as much as I can when I get the chance to speak with an expert.
I would be interested to hear a little more about something you said in a previous message. You say about Marx:
“His original theorem, and as refined / revised over the years by him and his followers, have many floes [flaws?], not the least of which was the Nietzsche - like dehumanization of humans - all but elimination of “AN INDIVIDUAL:”….
But this is not quite consistent with Kolakowksi’s interpretation. He suggests that Marx was responding to the dehumanization produced by capitalism. Thus the idea of alienation. Here Kolakawsi is summarizing Marx’s view:
“We live in an age in which the dehumanization of man, that is to say the alienation between him and his own works, is growing to a climax which must end in a revolutionary upheaval; this will originate from the particular interest which has suffered the most from dehumanization, but its effect will be to restore humanity to all mankind.” (“Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. I:p. 262)
“Exploitation consists in the worker selling his labour-power and thus divesting himself of his own essence; the labour process and its results become alien and hostile, a deprivation of humanity rather than a fulfillment.” (“Main Currents of Marxism”, Vol I, p. 264)
And there is much more to the same point. Now if Kolakowski were an apologist for Marx, one might dismiss such claims. But Kolakowski, as you know, is a critic of Marx and Marxism.
Since you are an expert in these matters, I wonder if you could explain what seems to be a fundamental difference of interpretion between you and Kolakawski.
Thanks in advance for your help in understanding these questions.