Search Results
7/13/2025, 9:10:47 PM
>>24540574
marx took hegel's view that history was the manifestation of self-alienated 'god' or spirit or whatever you wanna call it and inverted the terms - god or spirit is self-alienated man... apply it in material terms - the state is a form of externalized social power... feuerbachian humanism says the only way for humanity to become whole again is to reabsorb god and locate our fellow man as the proper object of love and worship... operating with this principle marx took it further - the only way for civil society to become whole is for the collective social being to reabsorb the state which would mean performing the functions of the state within itself, within the social process... then all the functions of government blend seamlessly into the flow of events that unfold in the course of human interaction and production i.e 'just getting things done'...
"Is the agricultural wealth due to the work of God as believed in feudalism or rather to the work of man as claimed by the bourgeoisie? Here's an old debate founded on false antinomies which have been caused by the succession of social forms both based on exploitation and private partition of the product. Today, the victorious bourgeoisie doesn't actually think about theoretical problems, it only cares about accumulation. For marxist science - although there's no rent of land without human exploitation, appropriation of value, payment to the farmer from society - the agricultural product is a fruit of nature, in the same way as the man and his work are. They really are the product of an infinitesimal part of the energy the Sun diffuses into the space and that, coming in contact with the Earth, gives rise to the chemistry of life. In the classless society no one will "appropriate", no one will "pay"; once the relationship between man and nature will be rationally resolved, the human species won't need to split the work of the man from the work of the sun. The whole land rent theory is contained in this comparison between today and tomorrow, and every other approach has to be considered as pre-marxist"
marx took hegel's view that history was the manifestation of self-alienated 'god' or spirit or whatever you wanna call it and inverted the terms - god or spirit is self-alienated man... apply it in material terms - the state is a form of externalized social power... feuerbachian humanism says the only way for humanity to become whole again is to reabsorb god and locate our fellow man as the proper object of love and worship... operating with this principle marx took it further - the only way for civil society to become whole is for the collective social being to reabsorb the state which would mean performing the functions of the state within itself, within the social process... then all the functions of government blend seamlessly into the flow of events that unfold in the course of human interaction and production i.e 'just getting things done'...
"Is the agricultural wealth due to the work of God as believed in feudalism or rather to the work of man as claimed by the bourgeoisie? Here's an old debate founded on false antinomies which have been caused by the succession of social forms both based on exploitation and private partition of the product. Today, the victorious bourgeoisie doesn't actually think about theoretical problems, it only cares about accumulation. For marxist science - although there's no rent of land without human exploitation, appropriation of value, payment to the farmer from society - the agricultural product is a fruit of nature, in the same way as the man and his work are. They really are the product of an infinitesimal part of the energy the Sun diffuses into the space and that, coming in contact with the Earth, gives rise to the chemistry of life. In the classless society no one will "appropriate", no one will "pay"; once the relationship between man and nature will be rationally resolved, the human species won't need to split the work of the man from the work of the sun. The whole land rent theory is contained in this comparison between today and tomorrow, and every other approach has to be considered as pre-marxist"
Page 1