Existentialism Philosophy






Alienation For Lost Marxists
 

Economic determination is essentially based upon a flawed notion of human nature. After decades of rehashing the major themes of Marxism, we are left with a void in anthropological insight, mutations in evolutionary dogma and social futility in oppressive governmental regimentation. The confined alignment of existence that Karl Marx assigns to man, requires that God becomes a fatality of an economic order of contrived conflict, that only the commissar can correct.

When Marx proffers four kinds of human alienation or estrangement: (1) from our product, (2) from our productive activity, (3) from our species being and (4) from other human beings; we are supposed to accept that the central feature of human life, is our productive activity. According to Marc Stier on Marx: “We do not think of productive activity as something enjoyable or as a means by which we transform our own way of life. Rather we think of it as a necessity and as drudgery.”

The era of capital vs labor has expired. The twenty first century is an integration of institutions controlled not by industrialists, but by social engineers, doing the bidding of the high priests of global manipulation. While Marx claims that - Political economy hides completely the estrangement of labor in its real existence in that it does not treat the direct, unmediated relationship between the laborer (labor) and production - he fails to recognize or acknowledge the missing ingredient; namely CONSENT.

Today access to material consumption and subsistence, may not be universal; but is certainly at a level never previously achieved. Most would conclude this condition as progress. But for Marx, in his economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 in history, the estranged labor is - “the species being of humanity, in that nature and its mental species-property, confronts humanity as a strange existence, as a means to its individual existence. It estranges humanity from its own body, as it does the external, natural world, as it does his mental existence, his human existence.” If the cause of alienation is his damned condition to be a cog in a wheel of production, why hasn’t that disaffection been reduced with the increase in access to material well being?

Marx views that “workers create products by mixing their own labor in with natural resources to make new, composite things that have greater economic value. Thus, the labor itself is objectified, its worth turned into an ordinary thing that can be bought and sold on the open market, a mere commodity. The labor now exists in a form entirely external to the worker, separated forever from the human being whose very life it once was. This is the root of what Marx called alienation, a destructive feature of industrial life.”

As long as this narrow definition for alienation is accepted as the basis for discontent, the forces that offer specious solutions have achieved a mastery over the frustrated and confused. Consider this fundamental error by Marx in - ECONOMIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL MANUSCRIPTS ESTRANGED LABOR:

“The fact that labor is external to the worker -- i.e., does not belong to his essential being; that he, therefore, does not confirm himself in his work, but denies himself, feels miserable and not happy, does not develop free mental and physical energy, but mortifies his flesh and ruins his mind. Hence, the worker feels himself only when he is not working; when he is working, he does not feel himself. He is at home when he is not working, and not at home when he is working.

His labor is, therefore, not voluntary but forced, it is forced labor. It is, therefore, not the satisfaction of a need but a mere means to satisfy needs outside itself.”

It’s hard to imagine convincing the multitude that finds satisfaction, worth and gratification in their activities that derive monetary compensation, as forced labor! Quite to the contrary, the estrangement that productive individuals have is seen less in their dislike for the populace among them, but for the animosity that social and political institutions demonstrate towards those who are the creators and wealth producers.

Alienation is a plight of the spirit and its estrangement from a world that rewards political and social parasites and punishes builders of affluence. Since money is not equivalent with wealth, how could it be possible for governments and their myriad institutions and bureaucracies cause prosperity? The Marxists promote a philosophy that feeds upon discontent caused by political ‘collectivist’ sycophants. Their supposed solutions redistributes from the productive to the saprophytes who align themselves with despots in order to perfect the theft and pillage of the prolific prosperity generators.

Any and all forms or versions of government based upon Marxism deems to dominate individuals; supposedly, for the betterment of a communal abstract of humanity, absent of divine creation. For Marxism to survive and place a spell of a utopian artifice as a substitute for natural rights, is the ultimate social fraud. Alienation exists when our intrinsic and rightful dignity is methodically eroded and finally, eradicated. The source of the breach of our internal tranquillity, resides within the irrationality of Marxism. Sensible citizens reach social frustration, that deserves to be turned into rage. Not because the cosmos is absurd, but because so much of mankind aspires to enslave his fellow man.

Lost souls are often Marxists. Their conduct imposes much of the alienation that the rest of us experience. The collective destroys the individual. Our task is to retain our personal sanity, resist the temptation of sinking with the socialist sickness. Their formula is the way of the psychotic. Fight alienation by stamping out the Marxist, who became a Bolshevik, turned into a Communist, adopted Stalinism, then embraced every form of collective Socialism. Drudgery of life comes from hopelessness, the synonym for Marxism.

SARTRE - August 22, 2003


posted by SARTRE at 8/21/2003 | (0) comments


Group or the Individual
 

A central theme of politics is the tension between the primacy of the individual or the group. How this conflict is resolved, bears directly upon the kind of policies that are implemented and accepted in most societies. Martin Buber was a deeply religious man and equates religion with interhuman relations and the performance of loving deeds.

“Buber’s two foundation notions, on which, as it has been said, his entire conceptual and existential edifice rests, are in fact two composite words: I-It & I-Thou, the attitude of I-It, of subject-object. It is an objective and procedural attitude that allows us to experience the world and our place in it, to learn, to plan, to manipulate and to use in order to survive and to progress. It is an attitude of distancing with the I over here, and everything and everybody else, the It, over there, to be observed, calculated and used.

In contrast, the I-Thou attitude is highly personal, direct and relational. It establishes communion between the I and the rest of creation, including our fellow humans.”

While a concentrated analysis of Buber will reveal a sincerity rarely found in a religious thinker turned social critic, the inescapable conclusion that he puts forth is that social relationships, not individuals, are pre-eminent. He calls the human relation a primal notion in his famous lines, 'in the beginning is the relation' and 'the relation is the cradle of life' . For Buber he claims: “the relational reality, the in between, the reciprocal bond, the interpersonal - cannot be decomposed into simpler elements without destroying it. Given the primacy of relationships, unless we use our freedom to help others flourish, we deny our own well-being. Since social relations constitute our existence as persons, morally right action intends community building. The sacredness of life must, therefore, be understood in sociological terms.”

In “Between Man and Man”, Buber writes: “Man is in a growing measure sociologically determined”. Maurice S. Friedman in his work, The Life of Dialogue cites the following: “In the technical, economic, and political spheres of his existence he finds himself ‘in the grip of incomprehensible powers’ which trample again and again on all human purposes. This purposelessness of modern life is also manifested in the worship of freedom for its own sake. Modern vitalism and Lehensphilosophie have exchanged a life-drunk spirit for the detached intellect against which they reacted. Progressive education has tended to free the child’s creative impulses without helping him to acquire the personal responsibility which should accompany it. This sickness of modern man is manifested most clearly of all, however, in the individualism and nationalism which make power an end in itself. ‘Power without faithfulness is life without meaning,’ writes Buber. If a nation or civilization is not faithful to its basic principle, it can know no real fruitfulness or renewal.”

To Buber’s credit he is an opponent of collectivism. When he states: “Collectivism is typical of our age in giving the appearance but not the reality of relation . . . Collectivism imperils ‘the immeasurable value which constitutes man,’ for it destroys the dialogue between man and God and the living communion between man and man.,” he is a defender of social justice. However, his immersion within his own group and Jewish identification, contrasts with the most pronounced and pivotal assertion in Christian Western Civilization. Namely, the sovereignty of the individual as the embodiment of a personal relationship with God and the basis upon which all social relationships rest.

Since Buber elevates the group as the preeminent unit, his union is influenced by his ethnic cultural identity. The distinction that separates Christians from the Jewish faithful, often reflects the difference towards the inclusion factor. If the individual is the measure of humanity, the requirement to assimilate into any group would be artificial.

As opposed to traditional Zionism, Buber offers a potentially healing philosophy which has significant personal, communal, and global implications. The goodwill he presents to bridge the gap between individual tolerance and special status is his significance. Buber can be a healing force when applying his empirical and phenomenological understanding of God as a quest for relational amelioration, stability, and redemption.

He is correct when he professes: “It is only the sick understanding of this age that teaches that the goal can be reached through all the ways of the world. If the means that are used are not consistent with the goal that has been set, then this goal will be altered in the attainment . . . The person or community which seeks to use evil for the sake of good destroys its own soul in the process.”

However, this section from Between Man and Man, ‘The Question to the Single One’ misconstrues the essence of individualism: “These two types of illusory confirmation correspond to the false dichotomy which dominates our age, that between individualism and collectivism. Despite their apparent opposition, the individualist and the collectivist are actually alike in that neither knows true personal wholeness or true responsibility. The individualist acts out of arbitrary self-will and in consequence is completely defined and conditioned by circumstances. The collectivist acts in terms of the collectivity and in so doing loses his ability to perceive and to respond from the depths of his being. Neither can attain any genuine relation with others, for one cannot be a genuine person in individualism or collectivism, and ‘there is genuine relation only between genuine persons.’ ”

Buber does not recognize the difference between Freedom and Liberty. The individual attains meaningful social purpose only through conduct that achieves responsibility to his own community. Notwithstanding, Buber’s absorption within his own narrowly defined group, the individual represents the uniqueness of the singular choice to rise above the debasement of human nature. The group he relates to is not universal nor does it represent of all of mankind. The notion that any group can become a substitute for the ultimate standard - individual responsibility - negates the heritage of Western Civilization. Our communal tradition can benefit our chosen group, only when the individual declares their consent to accept the self imposed constraints that respects the value of his neighbor and each distinct person within his selected society.

While Buber’s insight is correct that “the very nature of value as that which gives man direction depends on the fact that it is not arbitrarily invented or chosen but is discovered in man’s meeting with being”, the danger in accepting his interpretation that the group is the measure of that benefit and supersedes the individual is fatally flawed.

Society is not global, it’s local. Harmony among distinct peoples is enhanced when each different group is able to achieve social justice among their own kind. The individual is the bedrock and the group is the soil upon which future purpose will grow. Meaning is consummated individually, not cumulatively. The I-Thou is still defined by the I-It. Noble intent can only be realized one soul at a time. Social relations are subordinate and groups are accountable to the individual. Buber has value if viewed within this context. God creates each person, man fabricates the groups. Who do you think did it better?

SARTRE - August 11, 2003


posted by SARTRE at 8/11/2003 | (0) comments



Search WWW Search Existentialism Philosophy

Powered by Blogger

[Valid RSS]


© Copywrite 2002-2005: Another BATR Site