Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I haven't read Marx in I don't know how long, and without context I'll have some fun with this.
"As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production."
As individuals express their life, so they are.
You are what you do.
What they are, therefore, coincides with their production both with what they produce and with how they produce.
You are what you make/work on.
The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.
and
What you are is dependent on your work enviroment.
Sounds like he is going into the plight of the workers here, or is still going on, as again I have this out of context. Since I do not define myself by my work I find it a false concept, at least for me.
|
To marx, to "produce" isn't always the same as to "work" as people understand it today. These days, we have a concept that a human's life is basically split in half: "work" & "leisure". Marx didn't see production as a function of "work" but of how humans were fulfilled.
In another thread, you stated, "What you do is pick your government with what works best with human nature. Capitalism does this, and no one will claim its perfect, and its very unfair, but it works well and affords us the most freedom." --
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=49
I think this sentence implies that you see a goodness of fit between your concept of your self your economic context:capitalism. You take the things you feel good about in capitalism and claim it meshes with your human nature--the essential characteristics of what constitutes your self, or a person for that matter. It appears, from that sentence, that you actually are defining yourself according to your place in the economy.