Communism and Classism Everywhere

Understanding that the assignment was to read and respond to two readings I couldn't help but notice that one of the Marx readings serves well when you’re looking for answers. I'm still very early into things but so far the concept of communism according to Marx and the story on Rudolph the red nosed reindeer seem to tie in with me, I say this because communism is ultimately about helping the economy while Marx's interpretation of the tale clearly shows that the only important thing here is yet again helping the economy.

This got me thinking about how commercialized the idea of Christmas has become. I remember watching most of the TV specials mentioned as a child I just thought they were there to help celebrate the season, as I grew older though I saw that it was all extra hoopla designed to hype people up over holidays and seeing certain commercials because it was a certain time of year. All the characters have there own obvious representation the rebel, the person who wants to be accepted and then finally the abominable snow man who didn’t really seem to me like a person at all but communism coming to town and though obviously "vicious" in some aspects because of its main goal of monetary value without regard for peoples individuality or welfare.

Though in the end he is "tamed" by having his teeth removed to me it felt like even if the issue had been resolved it was still there. Just because the abominable snow man no longer had his menacing teeth didn’t make him someone else, just like with the idea of countries that are ruled by governments who say they are not communist, socialist ect. Even if they may not identify themselves as such if they believe and follow certain ideas this doesn’t make them any different to a government that admits who they are and what they represent. In other words all variations of government are exactly the same, with core ideas in common. Though America is seen as a Capitalist Country besides the class system varying by three instead of two the principals are basically the same.

Which brings me to the concept of hegemony the basic idea behind this to me was that even if the concept was somehow different as far as the way governments are run or belief systems go they all stem from a particular idea. In example religion for instance. Though Catholics and Muslims may not believe the same ideas to a tee at the end of the argument there is a belief in one divine being.

Next we have the analysis of "Girl" I don’t know if this was done on purpose but the fact that the text had no sense of order and was just running into itself made me think of perhaps the idea of an uncivilized country or group of people. Also the ideas were scattered in the passage, though the mother has a set of rules she wants her daughter to go by they are contradictory in some cases. On one hand she wants to teach the girl how to be a proper lady but she is telling her that it is okay to have sex with a man outside of a relationship as long as she does not get pregnant. Classism ties in with both the stories because in each there are characters looking to advance themselves but in some cases cannot and will not be able to. In Rudolph’s case in the end he may be able to lead Santa's Sleigh but even with this he is still this freakish red nosed reindeer that represents the mass consumerism and consumption of Christmas. The daughter in "Girl" is always going to be in the lower class because of what her mother has taught her. Her domestic duties and her mothers direction will continue to perpetuate the way she behaves as Marx puts it

The girl will go nowhere, within or beyond the
narrative of what her work––her life––entails. She is without any means for social advancement;
she will always need to “make ends meet."

She will be doomed to repeat the same behaviors. Capitalism was doomed because according to Marx though it may temporarily satisfy the need to increase revenue among consumers the end result is something that is usually not discussed. Going back to the story of Rudolph, after Christmas is over no one is considering the after affects, such as debt due to over spending for the sake of a holiday. Capitalism has to do with social class as long as these man made classes exist some form of it will continue to flourish. As a whole it failed but the ideas and foundation are alive especially here in America. Gramsci states

All men are potentially intellectuals in the sense of having an intellect and using it, but not all are intellectuals by social function

Meaning that people are basically chosen based on their social class not their intelligence level and placed in certain classes. We are all capable of using our given talents and smarts but may be limited or convince ourselves that based on where we stand that we are some how disadvantaged and stuck in a sphere.

As far as how this all ties in with literature goes i felt that this all had to do with both social class and form, social class because in a way it is easy to tell who stories like "Girl" are directed towards, where as “Rudolph’s Shiny New Economy” and the Dickens do as well. Form because based on the voice of the narration you may be able to tell who is being portrayed speaking wise, authors may used certain types of language in order to come through as more authentic to their audiences

For Class on 9/24

For Monday's class, read Antonio Gramsci's essay 'The Intellectuals' in the links to the right, paying particular attention to his particular and influential concept of Hegemony. Consider the following: What does Gramsci mean by this , and what might it have to do with the critical question of why, if capitalism was clearly doomed to imminent failure in 1846, it seems to continue? How does a Marxist explain this problem with Marxism?

Also read over the 'Marxist Readings' on the list, paying particular attention to Jamaica Kincaid's 'Girl' (the text is available there as well). The link to the actual Marxist reading of the story is at the bottom of the 'Marxist Literary Readings: Jamaica Kincaid's "Girl"' page, though the background is useful as well.

Then, in a 250-400 word response, respond generally to Williams (which you should have read for last Wednesday) and the Gramsci, and also think about the 'Marxist readings' specifically: what is most useful in these literary readings and what is least? That is, what does this all have to do with literature?

Also, several of the responses for 9/19 were far too brief. Remember that this is a 'w' course: if your response is less than 250 words, it will not count for credit.

Marxist Response

What does "accidental", mean in the context Marx uses it in?, This is a word or phrase that Marx repeats it many times throughout his writings, to my opinion "accidental", can be seen as a casualty, eventhough one might not want it, but it just happens. This is an example as in the second paragraph, where I and another classmate where given to translate. My idea was that how Marx uses the term "accidental", as something that happen back in history that was meant for him whithout him even knowing it, this according to Marx, was not cosidered "accidental" back then but was cosideredered in the present. This is again on using the word "accidental", as a way of coinsidence, for example a person who gains a fortune by a distance family member ho died and have no one else to leave his will, then as a way of "accidental" consequence the fortune is left for him. the word "accidental", therefore is not always used to signify danger, but it can also be used as happiness. Marx uses this term "accidental" as something happening to someone either back in history, or in present times, but is meant as 'faith' that steps in an makes things happen that wherent expected.

marx, friend or foe?

• How is personal freedom only achieved in a community?

One of Marx's big issues is the matter of freedom. According to him, personal freedom can only be achieved in a communist community where everyone is working equally and gaining equal rewards from their work. You may say, in fact, even I say that this view is iffy at best. How can freedom be achieved, personal freedom no less, in a situation where everyone is forced to be exactly the same? Automatons just going about their lives in "perfect" harmony. Where's the freedom in that, Marx?
Marx's response is that in any other situation other than the communist community, there will always be somebody keeping you down. In the typical caste, or even social class system, there is a higher and lower class; with the former in control either loosely or directly of the latter. Marx believes that communism would correct this by eliminating social classes. For if there is no higher class, there is noone to oppress, and by extension noone to be oppressed. Like the rest, of Marx's ideas, this looks good on paper but doesn't really work in practice. A pity.

The problem of terminology: Why are the terms so abstract? Why so few ‘real world’ examples?

By now it should be safe to say that we all know that the abstract terms that Marx uses doesn’t actually mean what the mean but they actually mean something else. Terminology was a great problem when dealing with this text and a possible reason that most likely explains why he wrote the way he did is because he wrote it a long time ago. He wrote it in 1846 which is about 161 years ago and that was probably the way that people spoke or maybe the terms that he uses were what he had on his mind. It would be difficult to use real world examples because over time things change. But that doesn’t really explain much because that is just a guess. Marx could have made things a lot easier so that everyone could understand it with no problem but he didn’t. He could have used simpler words and context. Who was the target audience that Marx was writing to? The way he wrote things only really educated people could understand it. Another possible conclusion that he used abstract terms is so that people would focus more and think about something in particular. So it is kind of like he is putting emphasize on an idea by using a weird word.

What is the contradiction they are talking about throughout the text? (response 5)

The contradiction I believe Marx and Engels are discussing throughout The German Ideology is that between the productive forces of labor and the form of intercourse. It is this contradiction that Marx blames for the upper class’s exploitation of the working class and the rise and inevitable fall of capitalism in Europe. It is my understanding that the productive forces refer to the combination of human labor and means of labor, such as machinery and tools, which lies in the hands of the worker. The form of intercourse is directly related to the division of labor that allows the upper class to control the worker and profit from him while destroying the system that sustains him. As the form of intercourse changes and the means of labor shift due to the greed of the upper class, the worker loses his place and livelihood. Marx says that this conflict has historically lead to revolution among the displaced and disgruntled working class and will continue to do sure, therefore ensuring that capitalism eventually fails. This contradiction is at its essences a conflict between the poor and rich, while the poor supply the labor, the rich control it and therefore there will never be harmony unless the distribution of labor is done equally.

What was the main idea Marx was trying to get through?

I saw someone else already answered this question, but I just wanted to add something to his. I think Marx's main idea was to make the government richer and thus, more powerful. Individuals could not own or rent lands. This restricted one's ability to do business and make money. Transportation system and credit were centralized to the government. The gap between poor and the not-so-poor was even closer thanks to heavy progressive income taxes. (meaning that the more you make, the higher the tax rate. it's quite similar to our tax system, it's just more progressive, rates are steeper for higher income) With all these, the state could become more powerful than the rest of the country. This structure reminded me of the proletariats and bourgeoisie: the ones that sell their labor and the ones that need those labor for the land that they own.

· How is personal freedom only achieved in a community?

From my weak understanding of Marxism, I will attempt to respond to this question. One thing for sure, I must grasp the concept of ‘personal freedom’ in relation to Marx, and how a ‘community’ can help achieve personal freedom.
Marx’s excerpts from The German Ideology depict the context in which personal freedom has existed. He states that “…personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class (bourgeoisie), and only in so far as they were individuals of this class (p, 21). According to Marx, this is a ‘Historical fact’. This, in tern becomes an idea or a concept that through time and can be applied in a different time period, or context. For instance, if we are to answer this question through the use of two separate classes, class A and B. The scenario is set. How would class A (Proletarian) overturn Class B (Bourgeoisie), in a society ruled by Class B.?
Marx would argue that a revolution must take place. A revolution brought by Class A against B. He describes a revolution as “…contradiction of consciousness, battle of ideas or a political conflict” (p, 21). Marx would also argue that there needs to be a vehicle in which Class A can carry out a revolution. And he adds “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” (p, 21). Only with the help of a community can ideas be channeled through and reached out to the masses. A community has its own vehicles such as a culture, certain religion, or other beliefs, cults and even politics. Only a community can raise the awareness of change on a collective spectrum.
Then again, the concept of ‘personal freedom’ also varies. As it pertains to Marx, this ‘awareness of change on a collective spectrum; has a lot of utilitarian subcomponents. The utilitarian approach would provide the greatest good for the greatest number. The discoveries of many communities who share a similar vision constitute the greatest good. And this discovery can ultimately create change and overthrow the other class, insofar causing a revolution, and later creating a new system of classes. Nevertheless, personal freedom has been achieved, and a new status quo is established. Through duration of time, the status quo will inevitably be disturbed as a natural phenomenon, and according to Marx, another revolution will take place.

My question to the Professor

I am a bit confused Professor Henkle on the ideaology of Marxism. It seems like Marx deals a lot with the idea of societies and class systems, but what exctly is his message? He seems to be against the bourgeousie who runs the order of things in the state, and speaks about the proletariats which should uprise aginst them, but then the idea of his whole philosophy is communism which is a unified state (although we all know what that became in the Soviet Union), with no individuality at all...help! I'm definitely confused. Does he want class within the unified state? Because he says something about speaking to people only about productive forces in the same material group...? I'm not sure...

What does he mean when he refers to the "division" particulary within an individual?

After reading the text for a couple of times, what I think “division” particularly within a person means is that all individuals are divided internally between either working alone and succeeding ahead (wealth) or working and being successful as a unit. This idea is implied through when Marx states that “the transformation, through the division of labour , of personal powers into material powers, cannot be dispelled by dismissing the general idea of it from one's mind”. Additionally, this “division” can be witnessed in today’s world. For example, we have individualist countries such as America and collectivist countries such as China.
The division is specifically concentrated in the area of labor.
He further continues on how we should abolish the “division of labour”. We should refrain from subjective beliefs and only accomplish aspects that benefit the community as a whole. In this circumstance, working hand in hand with your fellow man is the superior choice. This notion is illustrated through when he says in the first paragraph that “ Communism….. treats all natural premises as the creature of men, strips them of their natural character and subjugates them to the power of individuals related.” What he means is that communism will cause individuals to unite and end the internal division that exists within individuals. Perhaps, this internal division is the cause of history repeating it self and causing each generation more and more dilemma.

What does "accidental" mean in the context Marx uses it in?

When Marx says accidental he is referring to the means in which a person acquires something without it exactly having been earned by that person. It is through fate or luck, though, that he or she received it. Marx uses this word a lot in context to what one generation inherited from the preceding one, more specifically the ideas and methodology of that generation which would ultimately lead to the separation of classes.

From reading the (very cryptic and repetitive) text, I would be inclined to believe that Karl mentions the inherited beliefs as accidental because we do not obtain these them of our own free will. It’s like they were just in the way, left by the previous generation, building up in mass and size with each passing generations, and we rammed into them. We shape our entire society upon these found beliefs, including and most importantly, the class distinction, which separates us all. This is what Marx really wants to bring our attention to. Because of the past shaping our present, because of years and years of “competition and struggle of individuals among themselves”, we have a separation of classes dividing and categorizing us all, between the higher and lower classes. It’s very possible that that accident might also refer to which class we were born into, whether into the bourgeoisie or into serfdom.

I think, in the end, that Marx is pretty much inviting us to transcend these “accidentally inherited” beliefs in favor of newer, more practical ones of our own choosing in order to avoid these kinds of segregations.

Post for Sept 20th

In the piece by Marx and Engle they talk about fetters which I think are important. These fetters are important (in their perspective) because they pretty much shape the way we do things in every perspective of our lives. In paragraph two of our translation we translated that these fetters come partly from our parents and the generations that came before. It also says that these chains become harder and harder to break, almost like a bad habit. What is worse is that everyone you know is doing it, and not just everyone you know, it’s everyone. Now that everyone is doing it, it becomes accepted and this chain becomes even harder to break because if you do oppose it you will face a lot of adversity between your peers. These fetters could be anything also. They could be ideology, mind set, job, values, morals, expressions, and an overall way everyone expresses themselves. In a capitalist society people are taught that to get anywhere in life they must work, or more recently go to school, get a degree, then get a job. These are things that control our life and we are raised to believe that these things are the way things are supposed to be, opposing this sort of thing would get you a lot of negative attention. A good past example of something that was changed due to radical revolution would be segregation. People were taught that this was right and the way things should be, until things started to change. The same thing is happening now in America regarding atheists.

Post Five- How is personal freedom only achieved in a community?

Personal freedom is, according to Marx, only achieved in a community where the people of the working class have overthrown the upper class that oppress them, and govern themselves to the point of equality. Everyone in a Marxist community is equal right down to the tee, where there are no differences amongst the people. Personal freedom is basically freedom from any sort of oppression, though if everyone was working together towards equality, the “personal” part of “personal freedom” might be somewhat of a contradiction, as true equality, as Marx would want it, would actually strip away any sort of personality. I suppose in that context, what he means by “personal freedom” is the unified, personal desire for freedom of the proletariat, as if the ultimate goal of a member of the proletariat class is to be free of any and all oppression.

However, if this question were to be asked after stripping away the entire Marxist viewpoint, the answer would be quite different, though not entirely. The idea behind Marxism is for a community to work together for independence and unity, asking this question upon removing any sort of Marxist ideology would remove the unity portion of Marx’s idea of a community. A non-Marxist would define “personal freedom” as an achievement of your own goals independently. The culmination of non-Marxist “personal freedom” though a community could be seen as a township of any kind which contains people who provide different goods and services to you to help you in achieving your “personal freedom”, as the community would work together, just not all that unified as everyone helps everyone, but everyone is really just trying to live their own lives, rather than weaving together a tight-knit network of people that act as a single unit, as the Marx would call for. Were you to change the context of the question, the answer would be different, but really not all that different.

A modern day example of paragraph 5 would be Iraq. With the Invasion/Occupation of American forces, there has been a call by mainly Western Societies that Iraq becomes a more industrialized democracy. Political Scientist from all over the world have given there two cents on what is necessary for Iraq to become a full fledge democracy. The problem with democracy, like communism, is it is hard to nurture it from the infancy stage if it does not have three things support of the masses, support of the elites, and some form of cash flow, Iraq lacks two of the three necessary. They lack support of the masses, which is evident through the lack of faith in the govt., the increasing insurgent violence, and a bit downhearted about occupation of American troops.
Iraq is also a nation build on a strong Muslim culture, a culture that is very strict on Social expression. There is a serious conflict when that type culture clashes with an ideology that emphasizes on the freedom of expression. Other Muslim zealot nations are demanding Iraq to remain true its roots This creates a quagmire for Iraq, if they resort back to the oppressive nature of their previous culture, and risk losing the support of the U.S., or do they westernize themselves and risk of losing their culture. There is much to be gained from westernizing, but there is also a lot that can be lost by losing ones culture.

Why will capitalism fall?

According to Marx and Engles capitalism will fall due to the simple fact that rich upper class business owners plan on getting richer. By doing this they plan on investing their money in newer innovations that will help make and save more money on labor. The idea is tha the bourgeois spends more money on technology and other means in order to save money and create more poverty. Marx belived that people in society is broken down into two groups, the bourgeois(upper class) and the proletarian (lower class). During Marx’s time most of the “Western World” was undergoing the industrial revolution where changes are seen in labor. Rather than labor being done by hand and use of many workers, new machines and technology helped create a faster production and less use of labor making businss owners richer. The upper class (the bourgeois) began to see a surplus in their businesses, but instead of using that money towards the workers, they used that money to invest in newer and better inovations and technology to help decrease the money in labor.

Both Marx and Engles agreed that capitalism may double the income of the rich, but at the same time it lowers the proletarian’s wealth. They believed that through time there will be such a difference between the bourgeois and the proletarian (lower class) that the proletarian will rise up and start a revolution agianst the bourgeois. The outcome with the proletraians victorious and the end of captialism; and then the start of socialism. So captialsm will fall because of the fact that through time the lower class will be so poor that the price of living will be at a high which will force a revolution agianst the upper class.


To answer this question I used this website, weekly.ahram.org.ed/2003/653/op43.html

What does productive forces refer to?

At first I was under the impression that "Productive Forces" had something to do with the government and the work you may do for it, however upon further research I found out I was misinformed. According to Wkipedia "Productive Forces" are defined as the use of mental power/physical labor to achieve an outcome. Marx however believed that unless these powers were controlled by actual people that they weren’t of any true use. That without human labor the value would become less and less if not completely be destroyed. Think of it as a personal health issue. Your symptoms may start off small, but constantly ignoring them and neglecting your overall wellbeing will cause more problems than they solve. Marx believed that the productiveness of a community was based on cooperation. What I took from this was that if people were no longer willing to cooperate and follow the ideas of what was meant to a productive force they could be replaced or controlled by machines.

the power of property ownership to command human energy and labour-time, and thus of inanimate "things" to exert an autonomous power over people.

The idea of "Productive Forces" may not have initially been meant to encourage communism but its basic Idea does exactly that. Communism is built on the notion that in order to be a successful community you must be unified and without any outside originality the whole idea is meant to control people regardless of being in the interest of gaining capital and ultimately help the economy.

Post 5- German Ideology

What does he mean when he refers to the 'division,' particulary within an individual?

After reading the German Ideology by Karl Marx Friedrich Engels you come across many interesting words and phrases used by both authors. One term they refer to in the piece is 'division' and I asked myself what he actually means when he says that. You see him use this term when he says in the reading,"The transformation, through the division of labour, of personal powers(relationships) into material power, cannot be dispelled by dismissing the general idea of it from ones mind, but only by the action of individuals in again subjecting these material powers to themselves and abolishing the 'division' of labour." For me after seeing this quote i was thinking to myself what is he actually trying to tell the reader? I think what Marx and Engels is trying to say is that we should fight for what we believe in. I believe the word 'division' in this paragraph means the seperation between two different groups, and labour meaning the working class. So combing those two terms hes referring to the wealthier and the poorer class being seperated by personal powers. In life we see everyday how people are always seperated by who they are, what they do, or how much money they make in life. The only way to change that is by taking your own actions into your own hand and elimiante that seperation barrier between both groups. So both authors are trying to tell us until this transformation occurs there will always be that 'divison of labour' between all people.

What is the main idea Marx is trying to get through ?

I think the idea of communism and individuality was to keep the rich 'Rich' and to keep the poor 'Poor'. Which in having this type of view only one type of people would always survive life and that would be the rich. A life lived like that is the most horrible to live because you wouldn't be able to better yourself or move into the upper class because you would be permently stagnated as a lower class citizen. Marx wanted the political and socialist to have complete rule over the people which causes the lower class to have no individual opinion on any matters that concern them but would be simply left in the hands of others whom knowingly have none of the poor folks concerns at hand.

When one thinks about it would you say we live in that type of world now? My answer would be yes we as a people are broken into social classes, upper class, middle class and lower class people. And in my opinion we are controlled by the upper class rich people . For example, Have you ever witness a poor man become president and be able to dictate what happens in America? NO you have not. Almost all if not all of our president came from an upper class family that was accepted enough socially that their peers ' other rich folk such as themselves gave that president a try. If they where not that socially inclined I don't think they would've stood the chance. Only because I believe the theory still stands of the "rich staying rich" and the "poor staying poor". Just like Marx the people that serve us believe in some of the same theories of life.

How is personal freedom acheived in a community?

It is extremely hard for someone born in 1981 to ponder the thought of personal freedom being acheived solely from their community . However, Marx and his ideas came from a much different time period then the one I was born in, and I am trying to really grasp his ideas of freedom with their being no aspect of individuality.
Marx believes that the idea of class should be eradicated entirely, leaving it up to nature. The era in which Marx lived was a time of the really rich (bourgeousie) and the peasants, and not much in between. How much better it would be, so he thought, that everyone could be on the same level of class and financial standing. If everyone was of the same social status then everyone would be happy and basking in the glory of being a unified state. I truly believe that Marx was trying to create a government and state where the citizens would all be working to obtain the same goal of being a profit weilding state, with peaceful and loyal subjects who all profited from their labor that aided the countries profits. In theory, this would lead to achieving the goal of freedom within the community, not as individuals.
The conflicting question that keeps running through my mind is did Marx foresee what would become of his idealogy? Did he forsee the iron curtain and opression that woud fall on the lives of millions of people that he thought would indeed be set free by his ideas? Could it be possible that his idea was innocent and naive when he thought that people should all be the same? How can we be free without individuality? We now know for certain, that that is most definitely not possible as it has been proved in history. The one thing I pray, is that this idea of Marx, does not repeat itself in the future, because as he speaks about fetters, I most certainly can't even phathom the future societies being chained down under persecution of such a monstrosity of an idea such as freedom in communities.

Note on the Marx Translation

I've added the last of the translated paragraphs to the Marx 'translation.' It's quite interesting, so be sure to have a look.

What happens when we try to understand Marx out of his context? What is that context?

In my attempts to translate Marx into a form of essay easier to understand I came upon several roadblocks. Context was the worst of them. It was not just as easy as merely looking up a confusing word from the text in a dictionary and then injecting that definition in place of that word in the original text. All that did was give me sentences like: “It follows from all we have been saying up till now that the (of or relating to a small, often rural community whose members share work and income and often own property collectively) relationship into which the individuals of a class entered, and which was determined by their common interests over against a third party, was always a community to which individuals belonged only as average individuals, only in so far as they lived within the conditions of existence of their class…” Ick! Did that help anyone? It certainly didn’t help me any.
It is my opinion that the works of Marx is deeply contextual and that contributes to the difficulty in explicating it. It was virtually impossible for me to take anything he said completely out of context and make any sense of it. One of the things imperative to keep in mind when reading Marx is he is speaking to us from another time, roughly 1846 not to put too fine a point on it, another country, and perhaps most importantly from the midst of an entirely different economic and political structure than the one we were born and raised in.
Keeping this in mind it is easier to see Marx’s use of the word “communal” as found on page 21 (eighth paragraph) as including but not limited to the collectively owned sharecropping rural community. It is here perhaps we can find it appropriate to include the definition supplied to us by the American Heritage dictionary’s definition of commune as it offers us; the smallest local political division of various European countries.
We must do our best to stretch our minds to the context of mid nineteenth century Prussia.
I know this would have been of much more use for Monday’s assignment but for what it’s worth, as long as we’re talking context I found www.philosophypages.com/ph/marx.htm to be helpful when looking into the socio-economical structure of the time and Marx’s background.

'The German Ideology' contd.

What does it mean to say that "culture is materially produced"? As opposed to what?

Although my interpretation and response to this question may not be what Karl Marx was thinking during his time, here's my best shot.
By disecting this question, I can say that something that is materially produced means an object that is tangible and was made by combining several components together, either by man or by a machine. For example, a cake is materially produced by a baker, by combining ingredients such as flour, sugar, eggs, etc., just as a computer is materially produced by a machine combining parts such as the hardrive, the ram, the motherboard, etc.
Websters Dictionary defines culture simply as: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group. In reference to the question, one might wonder how can such a thing as "culture be materially produced", if it is not tangible, nor created by man or a machine. In my opinion, culture is something that naturally exists in every society. To give a simple example, when the U.S. was bombarded by thousands and thousands of immigrants in the 1920's, each family brought along with them their own culture. The Italians continued speaking Italian and practicing Catholicism, just as the Germans continued speaking German and practicing their Protestant religion. From this, the American culture was born, which I would describe as extremely varied, because as I said, we've got Italians and their culture combined with Germans and theirs, etc.
What Marx might have intended by saying that "culture is materially produced" is that in a communist society, since no one has their own entity and everyone is equal socially and economically, they must create their own culture, because it simply does not exist.

Class 9/17

This post has been edited, please reread:

I heard some signs of engagement today, if not a great deal of certainty. We'll keep working at it. Now that I've received most of your 'translations' of one of Marx's paragraphs (send me yours immediately if you haven't) along with your questions and problematic terms, I've put it all (along with some questions and terms of my own) together into something you'll find on the links list that we can use as a reference guide. Read it over, consider one of the questions and then, predictably, try to answer that question in 250 to 400 words. Also bring the class translation to class.

In addition, read the Introduction to the Marxism section in Modern Literary Theory, and Raymond Williams' 'Marxism and Literature' in the same. The Williams is not short, though easier going than the Marx one hopes.

Lastly, for anyone who missed class today, feel free to make up for it by 'translating' one of the last five paragraphs of 'The German Ideology' into everyday language and emailing it to me along with a question about the Marx you think the class needs to deal with. Let me know which paragraph you want to do before you do it to ensure no overlap.

Post Four- Marx

"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."

This sentence all together was confusing to me, as was the text in general.

Response #4

The conditions under which individuals have intercourse with each other 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.

I read the entire text three times and I still can't grasp the slightest idea of this one. I honestly have no clue, about not only this sentence but the entire essay. I looked around to see if I can comment on someone else's, but God, I can't even help myself!

The German Ideology?

The passage that I found particularly difficult to comprehend is in the middle of page 19. “The relation of the productive forces to the form of intercourse is the relation of the form of intercourse to the occupation or activity of the individuals. (The Fundamental form of this activity is, of course, material, from which depend all other forms-mental, political, religious, etc. The various shaping, of material is, of course, in every case dependent on needs which are already developed, and both the production and the satisfaction of these needs is an historical process, which is not found in the case of a sheep or a dog [perversity of Stirner’s principal argument adversus hominen], although sheep and dogs in their present form certainly, but malgré eux, are products of an historical process.)

I probably had difficulties comprehending this text because I was unable to fully interpret the passages before this one and I didn’t find a very good definition of a few words and concepts.

"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 had Trouble understanding this paragraph because I dont understand what or how one needs to change his life or relationship, in order to 'transform' into something or someone better, and achieve freedom with the help of the community.



www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-marxism-faq.htm - 15k

Response 4 (Marx and Engels)

"It follows from all we have been saying up till now that the communal relationship into which the individuals of a class entered, and which was determined by their common interest over against a third party, was always a community to which these individuals belonged only as average individuals, only in so far as they lived within the conditions of existence of their class-a relationship in which they participated not as individuals but as members of a class. "

Does this mean one must sacrifice individuality to act as a member of a class?

Q and A

What I choose to answer, is the question stating if there was a modern occurrence of what Marx is saying in paragraph 5. This is important to me because if there are events that are similar to what Marx is saying, then obviously there holds some truth in his writings and we wouldn’t be reading Marx in class if he was not right about anything. Although Marx seems to be hard to read and harder to understand, I think I really understand what he is trying to say (at least I hope so). In paragraph 5 he still uses the word intercourse and all some more other difficult words, but I have learned that in this section of his writing you can interoperate intercourse as an "idea". It is critical to understand this if anyone wishes to analyze Marx and compare what he is writing to modern day events and that is exactly what I did. In paragraph 5 Marx talks about a North America as a country and how it broke off from the British. He also talked about other countries that take countries over and instill an idea and enforce this idea to the conquered country. He gives examples of when in history these occurrences have happened, but I want to know if any of what Marx is saying can be applied to today’s world. I believe it’s quite easy to see where this is apparent. Look at the war in Iraq. This is a fine example of how what Marx says in the 5th paragraph. The first part of his paragraph says that this new country only settled there because it had different views or goals than the old country. This is hard but I think we can say that America had settled in Iraq because they had different views than Iraq, mainly about terrorism and the government. This also means that because Americans took over Iraq to make it democratic the level of democracy should be more advanced in Iraq or at least the Americans in Marx opinion had many years to develop democracy and perfect it, so the people who worked on democracy in Iraq should be the most advanced. The second part of the paragraph says about a country conquering another and bringing over its ideas. Once again I’m going to continue with the view that this country is America and Iraq has been conquered. Although America is, at one point in time, going to leave the Iraq government develop on its own, we do not leave until the since of democracy is in its purist form. We do not leave until we know the idea we brought over does not change. Although Americans have their own traditions at home they do not look to have these traditions in Iraq. What I mean by this is that our very own soldiers in America, while in America may goof around or not be as serious about what they do. Taking a look in Iraq, the news says that the American soldiers will not stand for any goofing around by the Iraqi soldiers. They find them sleeping on the job and playing games instead of doing their job. And according to Marx in order for the Iraq democracy to be with out a loss of power you can not allow the Iraqi soldiers to do so, or else there is a chance the terrorists will take over again.

Q&A

What I choose to answer, is the question stating if there was a modern occurrence of what Marx is saying in paragraph 5. This is important to me because if there are events that are similar to what Marx is saying, then obviously there holds some truth in his writings and we wouldn’t be reading Marx in class if he was not right about anything. Although Marx seems to be hard to read and harder to understand, I think I really understand what he is trying to say (at least I hope so). In paragraph 5 he still uses the word intercourse and all some more other difficult words, but I have learned that in this section of his writing you can interoperate intercourse as an "idea". It is critical to understand this if anyone wishes to analyze Marx and compare what he is writing to modern day events and that is exactly what I did. In paragraph 5 Marx talks about a North America as a country and how it broke off from the British. He also talked about other countries that take countries over and instill an idea and enforce this idea to the conquered country. He gives examples of when in history these occurrences have happened, but I want to know if any of what Marx is saying can be applied to today’s world. I believe it’s quite easy to see where this is apparent. Look at the war in Iraq. This is a fine example of how what Marx says in the 5th paragraph. The first part of his paragraph says that this new country only settled there because it had different views or goals than the old country. This is hard but I think we can say that America had settled in Iraq because they had different views than Iraq, mainly about terrorism and the government. This also means that because Americans took over Iraq to make it democratic the level of democracy should be more advanced in Iraq or at least the Americans in Marx opinion had many years to develop democracy and perfect it, so the people who worked on democracy in Iraq should be the most advanced. The second part of the paragraph says about a country conquering another and bringing over its ideas. Once again I’m going to continue with the view that this country is America and Iraq has been conquered. Although America is, at one point in time, going to leave the Iraq government develop on its own, we do not leave until the since of democracy is in its purist form. We do not leave until we know the idea we brought over does not change. Although Americans have their own traditions at home they do not look to have these traditions in Iraq. What I mean by this is that our very own soldiers in America, while in America may goof around or not be as serious about what they do. Taking a look in Iraq, the news says that the American soldiers will not stand for any goofing around by the Iraqi soldiers. They find them sleeping on the job and playing games instead of doing their job. And according to Marx in order for the Iraq democracy to be with out a loss of power you can not allow the Iraqi soldiers to do so, or else there is a chance the terrorists will take over again.

Post 4 (marx and engels)

"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." [p.19]

I cant seem to interpret the connection between a individuals relationship and the conditions of that relationship, having to alone produce material life in the absence of external events that would make every relationship not "definite (in my opinion).

for monday the 17th

"The contradiction between the productive forces and the form of intercourse, which, as we saw, has occurred several times in past history without, however, endangering its basis, necessarily on each occasion burst out in a revolution, taking on at the same time various subsidiary forms, such as all-embracing collisions, collisions of various classes, contradiction of consciousness, battle of ideas, etc., political conflict, etc."

I too had massive problems with comprehending this text, this is just one selection of many that confused and befuddled me.

response 4

"Since this evolution takes place naturally, i.e. is not subordinated to a general plan of freely combined individuals, it proceeds from various localities, tribes, nations, branches of labour, etc., each of which to start with develops independently of the others and only very slowly; the various stages and interests are never completely overcome, but only subordinated to the interest of the victor, and trail along beside the latter for centuries afterwards. It follows from this that within a nation itself the individuals, even apart from their pecuniary circumstances, have quite different developments, and that an earlier interest, the peculiar form of intercourse of which has already been ousted by that belonging to a later interest, remains for a long time afterwards in possession of a traditional power in the illusory community (State, law), which has won an existence independent of the individuals; a power which in the last resort can only be broken by a reveolution. This explains why, with reference to individual points which allow of a more general summing-up, consciousness can sometimes appear further advanced than contemporary empirical relationships, so that in the struggles of a later epoch one can refer to earlier theoriticians as authorities."

In truth, the whole text was hard for me to understand. I don't know if it was Marx' and Engels' concept I couldn't grasp or the points they brought up. But, whatever it was, I just wasn't getting it. This paragraph is where I had the most problems. It doesn't matter how many times I've read it and tried to break it down, I can't make any sense out of it.

Post for 9/17

"These various conditions, which appear first as conditions of self-activity, later as fetters upon it, form in the whole evolution of history a coherent series of forms of intercourse, the coherence of which consists in this: thats in the place of an earlier form of intercourse, which has become a fetter, a new on is put, corresponding, to the more developed productive forces and, hence, to the advanced mode of the self-activity of individuals - a form which in its turn becomes a fetter and is then replaced by another."

I don't understand how an interchange of ideas has anything to do with being chained or bogged down.  

Also, the guy who translated this work could of picked a better word than intercourse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx  
 

Post for 9/17

"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. This condition appears as accidental fetter, and the consciousness that it is a fetter is imputed to the earlier age as well."

This confused me but what I got from it was it when something changes from a conditioned nature, that change is what will exist for later individuals to contradict.

Response #4 The Idealogy of Marxism

"The tranformation, 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."

I was confused about what material powers meant but I think what is being said here is that in order to create an economically prosperous, united community, the people must give up their personal relationships and only be concerned with working for the greater prosperity of the State, in which they will be unified.


This site that I went to really helped explain the ideas of Marx and Engel and explained many terms that I hadn't heard of in a number of years, so it was a great site to refresh my memory!
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/marxism.htm

'The German Ideology'

"Of the elements handed down to a later age from an earlier, what appears accidental to the later age as opposed to the earlier, is a form of intercourse which corresponded to a less developed stage of the productive forces. The relation of the productive forces to the form of intercourse is the relation of the form of intercourse to the occupation or activities of the individuals."

These two sentences are a little repetitive and confusing, but my main confusion lies in Marx's reference to 'productive forces'.

Response #4

"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 defenite individuals, living under defenite relationships, can it alone produce thier material life and what is connected with it; are thus the conditions of their self activity and are produced by this self-activity."

What are these conditions Marx and Engels refers to that can produce their material life?

Response Four

"The illusory community, in which individuals have up till now combined, always took on an independent existence in relation to them, and was at the same time, since it was the combination of one class over against another, not only a completely illusory community, but a new fetter as well. In the real community the individuals obtain their freedom in and through their association."

What difference do "illusory communities" (where it's one class over another) and "real communities" (where the individuals gain their freedom through association), in terms of classes actually have, as it seems as if they are both virtually the same in this right?

post #4

"Individuals have always built on themselves, but naturally on themselves within their given historical conditions and relationships, not the 'pure' individual in the sense of the ideologists. But in the course of historical evolution, and precisely though the inevitable fact that within the division of labor social relationships take on an independent existence, there appears a division within the life of each individual, in so far as it is determined by some branch of labour and the condition of pertaining to it."

I think what he is trying to say is that we are all individuals, but that our individuality is built upon our "branch of labour". Basically your economic class will determine your individuality whether your the rich controlling poor (media), or whether your the proletarian being controlled by the bourgeois; your branch of labour will determine part of your individuality depending on your social class and what you choose to follow.

" 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 the one's mind, but only bu the action of individual in the again subjecting these material powers to themselves and abolishing the division of labour"

What Marx is trying to say,in my opinion, is changing personal power into material power can not be achieved by dismissing it from your psyche, there has to acion,an uprising, for change to occur.

“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. In the previous substitutes for the community, in the State, ect., personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class, and only so far as they were individuals of this class.”

How is personal freedom possible “only” in a community? Isn’t this statement contradictory?

Thoughts on the German Ideology

"The difference between the individual as a person and what is accidental to him, is not a conceptual difference but an historical fact. This distinction has a different significance at different times — e.g. the estate as something accidental to the individual in the eighteenth century, the family more or less too. It is not a distinction that we have to make for each age, but one which each age makes itself from among the different elements which it finds in existence, and indeed not according to any theory, but compelled by material collisions in life."

How are people accidentally different when its obvious everyone is both physically and ethnically not the same?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm