|
He's trying to describe the context, the groundwork for whatever he's about to say next. He's making the point that an 'individual' is not some abstract thing, but something that 'does' something. Something that 'produces' something. And if we are going to use this definition of the individual as a producer, then it is important to consider the environment around them that will enable or hinder the individuals ability to produce.
Why would we say that? Well we might be about to try and explain a new theory about organising people into a more productive system. And in doing so, he might be getting all the ground rules and assumptions defined and clarified and out the way, before we got into the real meat of the thing.
Like Euclid carefully defining what a point is, then a line, and then a right angle etc - before going on to create a full theory of geometry. Marx is defining a person in terms of what they can produce before expounding on his theories (whatever they may be?!) on the various socio-political systems in which these people operate.
|