Testicular Undergrowth

A philosophical method to political economy

From 1850 Marx focuses his research on political economy and the operating structures of the capitalist system: a hard work will lead eventually to Capital, whose first book was published in 1867. Marx sets this research as a "critique of political economy, is willing to depart from the classics, such as Smith and Ricardo (who also reworks some of the fundamental as the theory of labor value), and above all the bourgeois economy of his time . The latter describes with abstract categories - such as trading, profit, capital - phenomena whose existence can accept as a given. On the contrary - according to Marx - the task of the survey hernias - aching, is to go beyond "the appearance" of things, going 'phenomenal forms' in order to understand "the inner essence." Marx notes that "all science would be superfluous if the essence of things and their phenomenal form directly coincided." Capturing the essence of phenomena, that is, understand, means discovering the "internal connection" in this sense can be said that Marx's political economy is "the anatomy of society." But knowledge of this organism is not dissection may be a number of parties unrelated, but focusing on the dialectical relationships between the different categories in the whole-the whole.
Aaltra feature of Marx's method is to study capitalism's distinguishing of funds and without regard to secondary, in order to highlight the two structural characteristics and development trends, and then formulate, on it, some " predictions. "Given the" trend "of the laws found (you know that each counterweight ¬ trend can ask a counter-trend braking), they should not be confused with the" prophecies. "Tut ¬ ever, the lack of rigorous linguistic and conceptual Marx, who in this regard is now talk of "tendencies effettuantisi working with bronze and necessity "(" Preface "to the book I 1 Capital), or the fact that 'capitalist production itself creates its own negation with the inevitability that the phenomena of nature" means that the capital sem ¬ States as "a book of predictions about the future fate of modern capitalism ¬" and as such has been read by the workers' movement or by following Marx's critics, who have easily taken to "a text of prophecies wrong" . Note, finally, that capital is not just a book on economics. In fact, as Marx sees in the economic sphere, the key explanation of society as a whole the work is not intends to pursue the study of a segment of real life, isolated others, but as a photography critic of capitalist civilization understood as the overall structure.
goods, workers and capital gains
The specific feature of the capitalist mode of production, compared to that of the predecessor companies, according to Marx is to be widespread production of goods. Con ¬ sequence, the first part of Capital is devoted to analyzing the phenomenon of "goods." First, a commodity must have a "use value" in that it needs to serve some purpose, or be-useful, because no one buys something that does not meet certain ¬ born his needs, whether those needs "come from the stomach or by the imagination. " Second, a commodity, to be truly such, must have an exchange value, which ensures the ability to be exchanged for other goods. But what lies in the exchange value of goods? Mar, in the wake of the classical economists and the equation "value = work", he replies that it derives from the amount of labor socially necessary to produce the goods in question: more work is needed to produce it, the more it is worth. Note that the term 'socially necessary', the philosopher refers to the average social productivity of a given historical period: x is a commodity today, tomorrow it could be worth y, just by virtue of a change in the social media productivity. According to Marx, however, the value of a commodity not to be identified with the whole-of-its at. On the latter, in fact, affect other factors with quotas, such as the abundance or scarcity of the goods, which means that the price of a single commodity may exceed its actual value or be below it, although Marx is convinced that under normal conditions the sum total of the prices of goods existing in certain company is equivalent to the total amount of labor content in them, ie their value. Consequently, although the report of the market value does not ever feel pure, but always as the price, this is not the value, but has the value to their base. The belief that the root of all this are the work leads Marx to challenge the so-called "commodity fetishism", which is to consider the goods as the TY ¬ bodies having value in itself, forgetting that they are the result of ' human activity and certain social relations. According to Marx, the distinguishing feature of capitalism is the fact that it is not designed to produce consumption, but the accumulation of money. Consequently, the cycle of capitalism is not "simple"> prevalent in the pre ¬ bourgeois society can be described with the schematic formula (MDM-money-commodity goods). This formula, in fact, alludes double process by which a certain quantity of goods are transformed into ¬ between money and a certain amount of money is transformed back into a commodity (as in the case of a farmer who sells wheat to buy a dress), but the cycle eco ¬ nomic peculiar of capitalism is quite describable with the formula DMD '(dena ¬ ro-commodity-more money), as in bourgeois society we have a subject (¬ understood list), which invests money in a commodity to obtain in the end, more money than it has invested. But how can someone buy a product that gives him more money, and then - being the money equivalent of the value - more value? Where does this "more money, this "surplus"? At first glance the process of generating the surplus is a sort of "mystery." In fact, the surplus value (D ') can not come no money itself, which is simply a medium of exchange, or by the exchange because, in terms of social statistics, trade always occurs between equivalent values, so that the capitalist ¬ is acquired as a seller of goods should already have lost as buyer. For this reason, Marx is convinced that the source of surplus value should not be sought the level of the exchange of goods, but the level of capitalist production-the same. In bourgeois society, in fact, the capitalist has the opportunity to "buy" and "use" a particular market, which has the characteristic of producing the m-value: it is the "human merchandise", that is, metaphorically, of the worker. The heads ¬ talista buys his labor power as a paying any goods or second ¬ do the value corresponding to the amount of labor socially necessary to produce it: this value if the worker is equal to the resources that are necessary to live, work and create, or the so-called "salary". However, the worker - and this is the source of surplus value - has the ability to produce their work with a value far greater than what is paid with wages. The added value derives from the surplus labor of the worker and thus is identified with the overall value, he freely offered to the capitalist. With this theory, Marx is to provide a "scientific" explanation of capitalist exploitation, which he identifies with the possibility for the entrepreneur to use the force re ¬ work of others to their advantage. This is because the capitalist has the means of production, while the employee only has its own energy ¬ already working and is forced to live, to "sell" on the market in exchange for wages. Derives from the surplus value; steep. Surplus value and profit, for Marx, however, are not the same thing, as is sometimes improperly says, because the profit, even if the pre ¬ surplus does not coincide completely with it. To understand the rea ¬ I of this thesis is essential to bear in mind the distinction between Marxist 'variable capital (so named because it coincides with mobile capital invested in wages) and "constant capital" (which coincides with the capital invested in machinery and in all what the factory needs to function). Since the surplus arises only in respect to wages, ie the variable capital (because the higher the surplus labor, the greater the surplus value), the rate (or rate) of surplus value lies in the ratio, expressed as a percentage of surplus value and variable capital . But the capitalist, in order to manage the factory, is obliged to invest not only in wages (variable capital), but also in plants (constant capital). Therefore the rate of rent is not pro ¬ coincides with the rate of surplus value, but comes from the ratio, expressed as a percentage of the profit on the one hand and the sum of variable capital and constant capital, on the other.
Consequently, the rate of profit is always less than the rate of surplus value (as is evident by the vast size of the denominator) and expressed more precisely the gain of the capitalist.

Trends and contradictions of capitalism because capitalism is based on the DMD cycle ', the end of its structural most quan ¬ tity of possible capital gains. This means that capitalism pursues all avenues to achieve this, characterized as a type of society governed by the logic of private profit, rather than by the logic of the collective. ¬ tion outlining a description of the tragic background to capitalism, Marx looks at the different roads to turn into it in view of his autoaccrescimento, showing how this system produces a series of contradictions and difficulties which threaten the survival, preparing the future death ¬ ra. Let's look at some milestones in this process. At first the capitalist is looking for growth by increasing the added value of their work day ¬ born workers (Raising, say, 15 hours). But this expansion of time, while generating more surplus labor, and therefore greater added value, has AlCu ¬ ni impassable limits, because beyond a certain number of hours the workforce of the worker ceases to be productive. Rather than the extension of the working day (which Marx called "absolute surplus value), then the capital point that part of the reduction of working days to reinstate the wage (which M 'relative surplus value'). In other words, if the worker, rather than spend six hours to pay their king, it takes four, the capital gains pocketed by the capitalist will obviously be greater. Obviously, this can get only achieve greater productivity, and this follows the need for structural adjustment, capitalism, constantly introducing new and more efficient methods and tools which make it more productive mo.
Historically, the process of production of relative surplus value goes through three stages: 4
cooperation simple
4, the manufacturing;
4 large industry
The turning point of the capitalist mode of production is the birth of mechanized, with the introduction into the work cycle of the machine, namely the "most powerful means for the shortening of work", that can dramatically increase the quantity of goods produced at the same time with the same number of workers and thus provide more relative surplus value. Moreover, having no need of rest, the machines also allow you to increase the absolute surplus value, making possible the extension of the workday. Without taking into account that make it less strenuous work operations allows the capitalists to use the workforce of the children, cheaper and more docile. However, because of the increased productivity achieved through the use of machines generate the cyclical crises of overproduction. While over the centuries were caused precede the scarcity of goods (in turn caused by famines, epidemics, etc..), In capitalist society depend on a plethora of goods. Paradoxically, there is a crisis in capitalism, not because there is little movement in goods, but because there is too much. This is due to the so-called "anarchy of production, so the capitalists rush" blind "in areas where profit is highest, ensuring that at some point there is a surplus production to the needs of the market. Everything generates the crisis, which has as its concomitant effects is the destruction of capitalist property (often the very ones which would need the poorer classes, coffee, fruit, etc..), and unemployment, which shall accrue to what Marx called "the 'industrial reserve army. "The need, for capitalism, a continuous introduction of new technologies creates another structural problem: the falling tendency of the rate of profit. This expression shows that Marx's law for whose greater immeasurably constant capital (made by machinery and raw materials) to variable capital, or increasing what the philosopher calls "organic composition of capital" decreases to force the rate of profit. The law of falling tendency of the rate of profit is therefore equivalent to a law of diminishing returns, "discouraging" than capitalist investment. While some lists' causes antagonistic "to alleviate or slow the trend (such as the purchase of raw materials abroad at a price lower than that required in the country), Marx considers the law of falling profit as the trend of the real "Achilles heel" of the capitalist system, in the belief that this law is likely to delay but not prevent catastrophic exist for bourgeois society.
phenomena adding to the anarchy of production, and overproduction of free competition, the falling tendency of the rate of profit, according to Marx, the bourgeoisie, cause problems and ends up producing that final and decisive feature of capitalism that is the trend towards division of society into two classes antagonistic
Marx's vision is essentially dualistic, according to which at all times the company consist of two basic classes. Attributing less importance to the middle classes, this doctrine reflects fully in the opinion of Marx, the situation of advanced industrial capitalism, in which, following the phenomenon of competition on the one hand it creates a progressive "expropriation of many capitalists by few with the effect of a 'steady decrease of the magnates of capital and on the other hand, it forms a larger and larger mass of employees, employed and unemployed. Marx tends to the proposed final state of capitalism in dialectical terms: on the one hand, a minority of the industrial giant and the immense power and wealth the other used a proletarian majority. Given the international nature of capitalism, this situation tends to occur on a global scale, denouncing the maximum reached by the contradiction that underlies all the other contradictions of capitalism: the contrast between the productive forces and the more social character of private law relations of production and ownership. Hence the famous epilogue of Book I of Capital:
Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor reach a point where
become incompatible with their capitalist shell. And it is broken. He plays the last hour of capitalist private property. The espropriatoci are expropriated.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM IN MARX AND HISTORY
When discussing using the same words but in different ways, there is a logomachy. One of the biggest, and worst, logomachy policy is when we speak of "socialism" and "communism". I think a few terms are (were) used so inappropriately, either by the person who is opposed both by those who put in a flag.
Therefore, first we have to define, that is, with as few words sum up the meaning of the terms that have been used millions, perhaps billions of times, but with varying meanings depending on who used them.
"Socialism" is the revolutionary transition from capitalism to communism, a society that is where the socialized means of production and implemented full employment ("who does not work, do not eat"), applies the principle "to each according to his work." The
"communism" is the next stage of socialism, in which, now abolished social classes and missing the contrast of mental and physical labor, the State is extinguished and becomes the guiding principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. "
Socialism is characterized, therefore, as a revolutionary society and transient, unconfined - choking penalty - within the borders of a country. Communism, a fortiori, it is a way of world production. Before
logical implication of historical these details. All the historical experiences that call to mind when you pronounce the word "socialism" and "communism" can actually refer exclusively to the first of them, socialism.
second implication. The "best" of these experiences can at best be regarded as attempts to build socialism. For example, the Paris Commune of 1871 was the first of these attempts, aborted in the bud by an immediate and ruthless counter-revolution. The Russian Revolution was the most sustained effort over time (1917-1924), which ended with the upper hand within the Bolshevik party, the forces of capitalist accumulation (Stalin) to those revolutionary (Trotsky, Bukharin, etc. Lenin died in 1924), justified by the theory of "socialism in one country."
In the vast majority of the discussions, rather logomachy, which are used in the aforesaid, the parties agree in advance not only their meaning, but neither hasten to control what they're actually discussing.
Therefore, we see continuous ceremonial funeral of "communism": that of a society that never would have died without ever coming to light! A "civilization buried ... before (yet) to have never existed!
As already stated, we can speak, so far, only history of attempts to build socialism. But it is clear to anyone who knows a minimum of history and current affairs, since they are not words that count but the facts, that the only two historical examples of this are the two first mentioned (the Paris Commune, the October revolution ). The
"Stalinism", the forced industrialization of Russia, the extermination of millions of peasants, of the same old guard Bolshevik of the gulag, etc.. neither of the tomb is not socialism nor communism, but are over the counter-revolution of capitalism and state experiment most radical and courageous for the establishment of socialism in a backward country and was, unfortunately, isolated. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the collapse Russian empire, are the precondition for a resumption of the march of world socialist revolution.
And Mao's China, then? Here, too, must meet a minimum of history, not to speak nonsense. The true revolutionary and socialist attempts have taken place in several Chinese cities in the years between 1925 and 1927, all nipped in the bud in the blood. The peasant movement, led by Mao Zedong, began in 1928, starting just from the countryside, as a movement of national struggle against the invading Japanese. Through the epic story (but not only), including the legendary "Long March (1934-35), managed to oust the Japanese, also taking advantage of their defeat in World War II. In 1949 he formed the People's Republic of China, based on a "new kind of democracy" and the bloc of four classes (peasants, workers, industrialists, businessmen). As is revealed by the same name ("popular"), has never been a socialist republic, despite the show by Mao and his followers of a pseudo-revolutionary phraseology. The subsequent history repeats, in other forms, the dramatic events of capitalist Russia, with the kit for millions of deaths in the country and continue to purge the top of the party and state, but without ever being passed, even for a day, the antechamber of socialism. The China of today presents itself in the domestic market, with the note "openness" to private property (which has never been abolished) and economic liberalism (read: super-exploitation of the unprecedented labor), and the external field, as the most formidable competitor for the imperial hegemony of the U.S. waning.
As explained, by the way, the transition to "market rules" both in Russia and in China, after decades of ironclad "conducting" state? In both cases, without the necessary distinctions, state capitalism, once sold out his military duties of 'primitive accumulation and promoted the industrial take-off, with the consequent development monopolistic economy, had to make way for the state monopoly capitalism that is, the state of the socialization of costs and privatization profits that were beginning to pour massive (Chinese Russian oil and steel). This is the true nature of the transition from "direct" to "liberalism." So, nothing to do with the problems of socialism, but with those of capitalist modes of production similar to those of the West, on which were erected with particular traits and social formations, each with differing fates: while Russia receded, due to dell'autonomizzazione centers peripheral accumulation of his empire, China sweep, having kept intact the national economic units, thanks to the most colossal mechanism of exploitation of labor power (and the extraction of absolute surplus value) never seen before in the history capitalism (before which the horrors of the industrial revolution English pale).
For others, residues, cases of "ill-called socialism" (Cuba, North Korea, etc..), Let the reader simply the effort to study the history and socio-economic realities of these countries to verify the statements and reports their leaders to the principles of socialism summarized in the introduction. Unless (you walk the beat heavy) you do not want to confuse socialism (women?) With sex tourism ... Notwithstanding that, of course, this clear, we are always on the side of Cuba and all other oppressed country against the U.S. and other imperialists. Finally. Socialism, As a first step to communism, was twice tried in earnest to implement it (regardless of the revolutions nipped in the bud), other times it is smuggled to entice the masses to swallow the bitter pill of colossal and tragic in the primitive accumulation ' auspices of state capitalism.

Silver City And Kitchener

The summary of the Manifesto _Borghesia, the proletariat and class struggle

The Communist Manifesto of the Communist (1848), in which Marx seeks to expose 'in the face to the world "the aims and methods of revolutionary action, is a concise summation of the Marxist conception of the world. The main points of it are:
analysis of the historical role of the bourgeoisie and the concept of history as 'class struggle' and the relationship between proletarians and communists;
criticism of non-scientific socialism.
In the first part of the Manifesto Marx describes, with brilliant eloquence, the historical destiny of the bourgeoisie, summarizing, from his point of view, merits and limitations. A differ ¬ ence of the ruling classes of the past, which tended to the preservation of static modes of production, the bourgeoisie, according to Marx, can not exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production and the whole of social relations. It is thus constitutionally dynamic class, which dissolves not only the lives but also the ideas and traditional beliefs. Except that this bourgeoisie, which has awakened as if by magic forces so huge, it looks like the sorcerer that can no longer control the powers of hell evoked. In fact, the modern productive forces, increasing social revolt against the old relations of pro ¬ property, still subject to the logic of private law and private gain, creating crisis terr ¬ ible, which bring into question the very existence of capitalism. So much so that the proletariat, the oppressed class of bourgeois society, can not help but put in place a harsh class struggle, aimed at overcoming of capitalism and its institutional forms and ideological.
The concept of history as "class struggle is one of the most significant of the Manifesto. In The German Ideology Marx poses as an engine of social development, the dialectic between forces production and relations of production, in the Manifesto identifies authenticity as a subject ¬ matic history the struggle between classes. We have already mentioned that, from the standpoint of Marx, speaking of a dialectic between productive forces and relations of production on the one hand, and the class struggle on the other hand, despite some misunderstanding on the part of the interpreters of Marxist thought, it means to say same thing, because the productive forces and production relations are not "structures breasts subject," but are actually embodied by those groups' ¬ living human individuals "who are the classes.
According to his analysis of capitalism as a global fact, Marx also insists on internationalism of the proletarian struggle and ends with the famous revolutionary slogan Manifesto: "Workers of all countries, unite."
FOR CRITICAL TO FALSE society: REFERS TO NOTES TAKEN IN CLASS.

Pocket Bikes Store In Phx

The criticism of "ideologues" of the Hegelian Left (5)

knowledge of the general lines of historical materialism can adequately understand the criticism of the Left Hegelian Marxist representatives (which is largely devoted to German Ideology). The period in which Marx and Engels refer ¬ no to these philosophers, as is clear from the title, is to "ideologues," with which the authors intend to specify those thinkers who live in "false consciousness, because it is not realize that ideas, as they reflect the material relations of men, have no independent existence. Losing touch with reality and retreating into their castles speculative ideologues end up: 4
overestimate the role of ideas and intellectuals, seeing the former as the driving forces behind the events and the latter as "manufacturers of history";
4 present their ideas as supratemporal and as universally valid;
4 believe that the whole world lies in the negative misconceptions that individuals make about themselves and if that human emancipation would be to replace misconceptions true ideas, through a battle purely philosophical
4 provide, as a result of all this, a framework inevitably deforming or mystifying the real.
On the basis of their materialist conception of history, Marx opposes these "aberrations" of ideology, point by point, the following theses:
4 the real driving forces of history are not the ideas, but the economic and social structures;
4 ideas never have a universal value and supratemporal, as it reflects ¬ no more certain interests and historical relationships between people, the true
4 alienation does not lie in the ideas, but in concrete social situations in which people find themselves living , so the disalienation, or liberation of man is not a philosophical problem solved in terms of critical theoretical superstructure, but a pro ¬ practical problem-social, solvable in terms of structural revolution
4 the Young Hegelians, with their "sentences" instead of "shake the world", they merely issue of 'bleating philosophical ", not realizing that they are not fighting" the world really exists " but "only the phrases of this world 'means the actual knowledge can only be a member to know the real, and then programmed knowledge ¬ cally non-ideological, indeed anti-ideological
.

Capillaries Broken On Lip

the dialectic of history (4)

well as being the key to the static society, the productive forces and relations of production constitute the instrument of his interpretive ¬ mica dynamic, since they are the driving force of its development, or the law of history itself. Marx believed, in fact, that at a certain stage of development of productive forces tend to pay certain relations of production and property (a type of agricultural productive forces, for example, correspond to feudal relations of production). However, the relations of production are maintained only up to-do when promoting the productive forces on, and should be destroyed-when you convert into obstacles or in chains for the same.
Now, as the forces of production, in conjunction with technological progress, the fastest growing of the relations of production, which express relations of ownership and therefore tend to remain static, it follows a regular situation of friction or contradiction, the dialectic between the two elements that creates an 'era of social revolution, the' -. In fact, the new productive forces have always embodied by a rising class, the old property relations are always embodied by a ruling class at sunset. Consequently, it appears inevitable the clash, which is played not only social, but also political and cultural (as in the latter case, - 'Battle of, ideas). In the end, almost always wins the class that is an expression of the new productive forces,-which manages to impose its way of producing and distributing wealth ¬ king and its own specific vision the world, since "the ideas of clas ¬ if they are dominant in every age the ruling ideas, ie the class which is the dominant power mate ¬ rial is at the same time its dominant spiritual power."
This theoretical model, according to Marx, is its most typical examples, with regard to the past in eighteenth-century France, where at one point there was an open clash between the bourgeoisie (expression of the new type of productive forces understood ¬ Listica ) and the aristocracy (an expression of the old agrarian-feudal relations of property.) He won at the end of the bourgeoisie, who managed to impose its ownership and the pro ¬ vision of the world ere.
Similarly, in modern capitalism was taking shape a contradiction seem more pre ¬ "explosive" between the social productive forces and production of private law: ¬ indefatigable will, the modern factory, although a property., capitalist (or group of shareholders), produced only by the collective labor of workers, technicians, managers and so on. But, according to Marx, if the social production of wealth, social should be distributing it. And this means that capitalism brings with it, as a requirement dialectic socialism : capitalism creates the basis of socialism, since it generates for the first time in history, the "objective conditions" favorable to a revolution com ¬ nist world. The law of correspondence and contradiction between productive forces and relations of production allows Marx to give an overview of past history and pre ¬ feels, and to articulate humanity's progress over time in some major economic and social formation ¬ ni qualified by certain methods of production, by specific property relations, by particular legal and political institutions and corresponding forms of consciousness. In the "Preface" to the Critique of Political Economy, where the expression appears óikonomische Gesellschaftsformation (ie "social-economic formation ', in The German Ideology as we speak simply of" diproprietà-forms'), Marx distinguishes four major " eras' each characterized by a particular economic ¬ mica formation of the company: Asian (based on communal forms of ownership), the oldest of slavery, the feudal and bourgeois.
However, as both Marx and Engels sometimes hint at a "primitive community" (Urge ¬ meinschaft) communist-style (understood as a general type of company, of which the Asian is a sub-type, both as separate and distinct type ), we can say that the great ¬ of social-economic formations identified by the "classics" of Marxism are as follows: 4
the primitive community, the Asian company
4; 4
ancient society, the society
4 feudal, bourgeois society
4;
4 the future socialist society.

Although these periods do not constitute, strictly speaking, a necessary step in the history of the companies (many of which have in fact missed one or the other stage), however, is no doubt that from the point of view of Marx, they represent many steps of a sequence that goes to the upper dall'inferiore. Equally unquestionable is that the "classics" of Marxism, the story progresses from primitive communism (however it is intended) to the common future, through the halfway stage of class society, which is based on the division of labor and private property (concepts Moreover, for Marx are identical, as' the first is expressed in reference to the work exactly what each other is expressed in reference to the product of "). Also no doubt, then, is that this diagram historical development of civilization (which has much fascination exerted on minds later) rests on the argument that communism is the inevitable outcome of historical dialectics.
Communism is for us not a state of affairs that must be established, an ideal to which reality must conform. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things
. (For a Critique of Political Economy

The "dialectical" materialism Marx's historical and continuing its relationship with Hegel is therefore clear. For Marx, like Hegel, history is in fact set up - formally - as a totality of the case dominated by the force of contradiction with ¬ putting and end to a "final result". But with this difference in content: Marx estimated that it had to walk the dialectic of Hegel 'feet', rather than on ¬ 'head', because: 4
the subject of the historical dialectic is no longer represented by the Spirit, but from economic structure and the classes;
4, "dialecticity" the historical process is conceived as an "Empire" is the scientific mind ¬ "observable" through the facts themselves;
4 oppositions that move the story are not abstract and general, but concrete and specific, although all related to the dialectic between productive forces and relations of production which is the heart and the strategic center of the whole Marxist science society.

Small Screen Cubefield

structure and superstructure (3)

part of that "social production of life ', which is the story, one must distinguish, according to Marx, two basic elements: the productive forces and relations of production. Since these concepts are the basis of Marxist historical science, it is impor ¬ many good grasp from the outset, the precise meaning. For
"productive forces" Marx means all the elements necessary to pro ¬ tion process, that is, basically:
four men who produce (the workforce); 4
the means used to produce (the means of production: land, - machines etc.).
the scientific and technical knowledge in-there - you need to organize and improve production. For
"relations of production 'Marx means relationships that develop between the men ¬ tion during production and regulate the possession and use of means of work ¬ ro, and distribution-through of what they produce. The production relations find their expression in legal property relations.
productive forces and production relations are, in their entirety, the "mode of production of a certain period. The set of relations of production or, more generally, the economic base which is expressed in the "mode of production" and is relative ¬ dialectic between productive forces and relations of production-are the "structure", which is the economic backbone of society, understood as a complex organism. Compared to the social whole, in fact, the property is the concrete pedestal on which rises a legal and political superstructure ¬ co-culture. In other words, the term "superstructure" (from the German Uberbau, it consists of thermal ¬ iiber, "above", and Bau, "construction") indicates that the second mate ¬ imperialism historical legal relations, the political forces, doctrines, ethical, artistic, philosophical and religious should not be understood, idealistically, as a reality in themselves, but as more or less direct expressions of the relationships that define the struc ¬ tion of a given society history. As a result, not the law, the State, political parties, religions, philosophies, etc.. to determine the economic structure of society (historical idealism), but the economic structure of society to determine the laws, the state, religions, philosophical, etc. ¬ fie. (Historical materialism). From the above it is clear how ter ¬ mine "materialism", used by Marx for its call doctrine, no suggestion, as in traditional philosophical language, the metaphysical thesis that matter is the substance and the cause of things (only Engels found the material intended as a comprehensive doctrine of the universe: see par. "The thought of Engels , p. 116), but to the belief that the true motive forces of history are not under ¬ spi ritual, as it was mostly the earlier philosophers, but a socio-economic status. In other words, the historical materialism of Marx opposed controversially historical idealism.

Flagyl Uses More Drug_uses

ideology of science (2)

Criticism of Feuerbach marks the transition to the historical materialism of Marx's humanist, because it coincides with the transition from anthropology speculative at the "real knowledge" of history. The text takes the form in which this process is The German Ideology, written by Marx and Engels, in collaboration with Moses Hess, in exile in Brussels (1845-1846) and remained unpublished until 1932. More than a decade later, in the "Preface" to the Critique of ¬ the political economy (1859), Marx says it "decided to make it clear, with a common work, the contrast between the way we see - ela ideological conception of the German philosophy of dealing in fact with our earlier philosophical consciousness. " Even before the content, the originality of this work therefore lies in an attempt to capture the "movement real 'of history, beyond the ideological representations that have always veiled by the actual structure and the actual driving forces. The ap ¬ what historical materialism of Marx and Engels, in fact, requires a basic counterweight position between 'real science and positive "and" ideology "
In one of its main meanings, ideology appears as a" false representation " reality, alluding to the process by which the objective understanding of the real relations among men substitutes a distorted image of them. In other words, discourses of ideological representation of the world is to speak, according to the classics of Marxism, rendering it constitutionally mystifying. Other meanings, as well as the causes and the social function of ideology, we will say more-boast, we will know better when the Marxist discourse on history. Now we need to know that the intention of Marx is to reveal, beyond ideologies, the truth about history by reaching an objective point of view: the company, which allows to describe not what men ' may appear in the representation of their own or another but as they really are "(The German Ideology). This program obviously involves the destruction of the old idealist philosophy and the inauguration of a new "science", in relation to which the philosophy is to take the instrumental role of 'more general summary of the results that can be abstracted from an examination of the historical development of men. " But what is humanity, seen at last in a scientific and not ideological? Marx meets the first definition in that it is a species evolved, composed of individuals ace ¬ ciat struggling for survival. Consequently, the story is not, primarily, a spiritual event but a process based on the material-dialectic need meet ¬ SFAC: The live
implies first of all the eating and drinking, housing, clothing and more. The first historical act is thus the creation of means to meet these needs, the production of material life itself [... ] Even today, as thousands of years ago, they must re ¬ made every day and every hour just to keep people alive. (German Ideology)

And it is this action "material" that humanizes the man. In fact, says Marx ironic ¬ mind, we can distinguish humans from animals by consciousness, for reli ¬ gion, for what you want, but, in fact, they began to distinguish themselves from animals when, by virtue of necessity, began to produce their livelihoods. But the basic story is thus the work that Marx understood as the creator of civilization and culture, and that through which man makes it, emerging from animality pri ¬ mitiva and distinguished from other living beings.

What Are Brain Tumor Condition_symptoms

Marx (1) The function of philosophy

Like Hegel, Feuerbach also played in the mind of the young Marx, a prominent role. In Manuscripts of 1844 states that Feuerbach, "is the only one who is in a serious relationship, in a critical report, the Hegelian dialectic and who has made genuine discoveries in this field," so as to appear to Marx as "the superatone true of the old philosophy. "
In the Theses on Feuerbach (1845) and subsequent German Ideology (1846), however, the relationship of Marx to ¬ with the master of the past is finally consumed. Let us briefly examine the various stages of the conceptual process. The main
Feuerbach's theoretical revolution is in the eyes of Marx, in Riven ¬ indication of the naturalness and concreteness of the "living human individuals" and rejecting teologizzante idealism of Hegel, which had reduced the man to autocoscien ¬ za and expression of a infinite spiritual subject. In particular, Feuerbach is credited with having theorized that "materialist inversion" of subject-predicate, with ¬ crete-abstract that allowed the "demystification" of the Hegelian dialectic.
Although he stressed the naturalness of man (and this is a step forward compared to Hegel), Feuerbach (and this is the step back), however, lost sight of its historicity, they do not even due account of how the man rather than nature, and society, and Quin ¬ history, as 'the human being' is an abstraction inherent in each individual golds, "but" the sum total of social relations "(VI thesis). Breaking with Feuerbach and the traditional philosophical anthropology, who spoke of man as an essence atempo ¬ eral provided certain immutable properties, Marx argues that the individual is made that the historical society in which they live: there 's man in the abstract, but the man child and product of a given society and a specific historical world.
In this way, Marx corrects Hegel and Feuerbach Feuerbach to Hegel, as against the one, defending the human and natural living, against the other, its social constituent ¬ tA and historicity. At the same time, he can argue that all human discourse is inevitably resolve ¬ ve a discourse on society and history, thus preparing the transition from the anthropological to historical issues and socio-economic status, a process that Althusser has described as "transition from philosophy to science"
A second point that unites and divides Marx from Feuerbach is the interpretation of reli ¬ gion. Although "discovered" the general mechanism of alienation of religion - it is not God created man but man to "project" on God according to their needs -, Feuerbach, mainly because of its concept "nature" of man, has not been able, according to Marx, to understand the real causes of the religious phenomenon, or to offer us-effective tools for overcoming . The author of the Essence of Christianity is in fact to have escaped the fact that religion is not an abstract subject, divorced from history and leads invariably equal to itself, but a concrete individual, a "social product" (VII claim). And if the man is none other than the human world, the state, society ", it is obvious, for Marx, that the roots of religion can not be found in man ¬ mo as such, but in a particular type of historical society. From the "Annals-French-German" Marx has been developing his theory of religion known as Opium des Volks (opium of the people), according to which religion, in essence, is the "sigh of the oppressed creature", that product of alienated humanity and suffering a_ ¬ ferent because of the social injustices of a society that seeks illusory afterlife what, in fact, she denied nell'aldiquà. But if religion as opiate of the masses is a symptom of an alienated human and social condition, the only way to eliminate it is not the philosophical critique (as Feuerbach thought, in its abstractness of intellectual), but ¬ cials revolutionary transformation of society. In other words, if religion is the result of a sick sick society, the only way to eradicate it is to destroy the social structures that produce it. The religious disalienation therefore as a prerequisite for the economic disalienation, namely the overthrow of class society. That is why, according to Marx, another basic limitation of the thought of Feuerbach, which unites him to the tradition, lies in the contemplative and teoreticismo trend that has led him to ignore the practical and active aspect of human nature and to seek solutions ¬ tion of the real problems in the theory, ignoring completely the appearance of revolutionary praxis. Consequently, the old speculative and contemplative materialism of Feuerbach which is the latest incarnation, Marx opposed a new material, which con ¬ dera man primarily as a practice, believing that the solution of problems not to be found in speculation, but in the action: "philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways-but this is to change it" (Thesis XI).