In the section titled “Individuals, Class, and Community” (p. 82-86), Marx discusses competing conceptions of freedom and the relation of individuals to larger interactive groups / constructs. Marx points out that the right to, “the undisturbed enjoyment, within certain conditions, of fortuity and chance has up till now been called personal freedom,” (86) but argues that true personal freedom cannot exist until the competitive (i.e. Capitalist) class State is overthrown for a more equal structure. As Marx says, “only in community is personal freedom possible” (83). Marx believes that because we are given our identity through class, and we compete as members of that class against the other classes, especially the ruling class, we are not in a state of true personal freedom. We will always be driven by and held to the struggle of our class against the other classes. As Marx explains, “the class.. achieves existence over against the individuals, so that the latter find their conditions of existence predestined, and hence have their position in life and their personal development assigned to them by their class” (82) . Marx believes that, just as the serfs overthrow the feudal structure to progress towards freedom, so too does the proletariat have to make a drastic organizational change to continue this progress towards true freedom. As Marx puts it, “to assert themselves as individuals, they must overthrow the State” (85). Although we might think of ourselves as individuals acting freely in the current political and socioeconomic structure, we are actually slaves to the class of which we are a member. The eternal conflict between the separate classes keeps us from being free, and from this conflict is where the notion of community evolves as the inevitable solution. Is as long as the classes exist in conflict, competing with each other for more and more property and status, we cannot be free, then the only logical solution to this problem is a structure in which the classes are all equal (or there is only one class of which we are all members, which in the end has the same effect). As Marx puts it, “this subsuming of individuals under definite classes cannot be abolished until a new class has taken shape, which has no long any particular class interest to assert against the ruling class” (83).
It is interesting to think that it might be the case that only when we are all working together for the same collective goal are we truly free. Most conceptions of freedom today are something like the ability to do what one wants when one wants, under no constrictions to anything external. Marx, however, is arguing that it is only through the creation of the ultimate external force, community, that we can achieve true freedom. He says that, “the condition of their existence, labour, and with it all the conditions of existence governing modern society, have become something accidental, something over which they, as separate individuals, have no control, and over which no social organization can give them control” (85), but this seems to be exactly opposed to our notion of government. American society (perhaps the strongest example of a capitalist society in modernity) seems to hold that individuals can come together to create change in our society. Marx seems to believe in a one-way relationship from class / society to the individuals, but we seems to believe in a more reciprocal relationship. I wonder, then, if given a reciprocal relationship between individuals and class, we might be allowed to consider ourselves “free”?
Hello Oscar,
ReplyDeleteIn addition to a belief in the possibility of collective change, the notion of individual social mobility (i.e. the American Dream) holds a lot of currency (and I think it's more central to most American's ideas on the country than is collective social change). This also seems opposed to Marx's account.
But anyway, Marx seems to conceive of freedom, in a large part, as freedom from division of labor. He talks about one, ideally, being able to fish in the morning, criticize after dinner, etc. without being called a critic or a fisherman (also: "only in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions..." [83]). In this sense, I wouldn't say that we're free; as individuals we still define ourselves largely by occupation.
Your point about the American dream is a good one, and one I thought of bringing up in class today but wasn't sure how to contextualize it within Marx. Certainly, the idea of taking actions that redefine your social identity and class allegiance seems impossible to Marx.
ReplyDeleteOscar, in response to your quote of Marx’s quote, “this subsuming of individuals under definite classes cannot be abolished until a class has taken, shape, which has no longer any particular class interest to assert against the ruling class” (p.83).
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the Serfs did not fully over throw the Feudal system or fully “free themselves as a class.” They did so separately, and individually, as Marx mentions. Also, many Serfs remained in their original practice or occupational skill, which allowed them possessions and economic mobility up the social ladder. Only through the combination of the contribution of labor, willingness, and opportunity, were some able to free themselves from Serfdom, yet the Serf class remained.
In contrast, the proletarians being under the ruling elite of the bourgeoisie and the most disenfranchised class,it is assumable they would hold the least interest to compete within the class system. Therefore, I believe that Marx is suggesting that the Proletariat, who “has no chance of arriving at the conditions which would place him in the other class,” (p. 85) are the ideal group to execute a successful eradication of the class system.
I don’t see the eradication of a class system without the complete overthrow of the state. Also, as long is there is a class system, there will be deprivations of freedom. Although, blue collar workers may be the extremely deprived in this sense, no more are they less free than white collar workers. For white collar workers too, “don’t even own themselves, paying mental rent to corporate presidents” (Chuck D of Public Enemy).
@ Ravi, I love the quote you chose! It is one of my favorites. As you have mentioned Marx does believe that freedom is collective since that is when divisions of labor cease to exist. If we look at societies today, specially the developing societies, we see that class is often what shapes the identity of citizens. These differences lead to numerous inequalities, not only in the economic aspect but also inequalities of opportunity. Individuals that belong to higher classes (the capitalist) are a small percentile in these societies, and tend to be the ones capable of making changes because they have better opportunities for education. However, most of the changes they seek are changes that will benefit their class in particular. Lower classes in contrast (farmers, factory workers...etc. ) live for their paychecks, have high numbers of uneducated members, and are therefore easily prone to false promises, leading them to be ignored. These individuals do not enjoy the same freedoms that are seen in members of higher classes. These divisions, would not be seen in a community where classes do not exist. Every different type of occupation would be equally valuable and therefore each individual would be free.
ReplyDeleteThis entire account of freedom seems exactly to create a foundation for the idea of communism, in which I am guessing Marx was an advocate for. Marx’s presupposition about human relations, namely, that we cannot function without a sort of dependency on others, gives way to the idea that freedom is inconceivable without the embracing of such an instinctual way of life. Marx seems to draw upon this to further validate freedom as a collective fulfillment—it is simply our nature. I agree that our American society is probably a best fit example for modern capitalism, and that we view a more reciprocal relationship between individuals and society. It seems that Oscar is saying that the society or community shapes the individuals (which Marx supports), but the individuals can also shape the community and bring about a collective freedom. In saying this, I would have to lean more towards Marx because there is still a sense of confliction and submission to a larger set of interests, which is seen to be divided within the society/ community. There is also a sense that individuals are still defined by the collective (i.e. a specific class). Essentially, all of the classes are aiming for the same freedom. This suggests that we are not opposed to the idea of freedom; in fact we remain in sync with it, though we have not yet broken away from the capitalist or “accidental” phase. Marx, I think, rejects a capitalist society for this very reason. This is not representative of a community because freedom is stifled by the boundaries set with classes. I do not think that even given a reciprocal relationship between individuals and class would deem us “free” because we are still connected to a class and an idea of individuality, in which alienates a community entirely.
ReplyDeleteMy objection to this still stands. The community and the class (even acting on its own and apart from whatever tensions are between it and another class) are exactly what create the division of labor. Whether rightly or wrongly, the community is what assigns specific roles and tasks to individual members. The family, institution, society, corporation, neighborhood, any body of people does this. You can see this in everything from a group of three friends, a rock band, your office, a sports team, a submarine, a research project comprised of five people or a high school. This happens in good communities, in bad communities, in communities that have aspects of both. Any group differentiates tasks and work according to man, woman, skilled or unskilled, child, adult, etc. Even when these arrangements are made in a good institution for good reasons, they exist. Take the institution of Hunter College, which we all might agree is a good institution. Would Hunter College let you teach a class? Would they let the janitor teach a class? This, therefore, is a division that naturally arises not from capitalism, really, but from skilled vs. unskilled.
ReplyDeleteReferring back to today's discussion, the difference between positive and negative freedom is at the crux of the argument. I would refer back to compulsory education, just because I think that is one of the best illustrations of positive freedom. (As one of my professors said, you have the right to a compulsory education - wait a second, I have the right to be forced? Yes, that is exactly right.) This seems counter-intuitive in this society, but we also understand and agree with it.
ReplyDeleteAs the idea of assignation of tasks among the community, I see it a bit differently. It is more like you are identified by the job you do rather than you are told what to do. The loss of identity through this categorization is problematic, because work is not the only thing that you do.
I believe that the reason why freedom is such a difficult notion is exactly the confusion between positive and negative freedom. While these terms seem to be designating similar things, they are in all reality total opposites. What is common between the two is that they are both supposedly ‘good’ to have, and that they both include the word freedom. “Freedom”, as negative freedom (the common conception of freedom) is commonly associated with liberation and autonomy, and correctly so, but this is not the only aspect of negative freedom. (negative) Freedom is just as much freedom to fail, and freedom to suffer. (negative) Freedom is not desirable in itself, it is desirable only insofar as it promises contentment. One might say this is untrue, and that they desire freedom for freedom’s sake, and I am sure this is the opinion of many, but it is also certain that this very opinion is the result of the ideology of today. Positive freedom, is really not freedom at all in the same sense as negative freedom (although there may certainly be room for negative freedom within the holes of positive freedom), but positive freedom has the potential to enhance the quality of life for the community. The problem of course though (and it’s a big problem) is determining the way in which to organize positive freedom.
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity- and this is getting into a totally new topic all together- what would be your freedom to fail and suffer? What would be included in this? Where would you draw the line?
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the freedom of compulsory education- would you let a 16-year-old go unpunished for playing hokey from school? Punishing him or her and restricting their actions would, ironically, be a good thing that frees them (at least according to Maria).
Do you agree with that? Or do you think that he or she should be free to screw up?
We make children go to school though many of them are reluctant, so yes, we are forcing them. Most common explanation/defense of this is that we are enabling them with the rational tools to be able to make the choice (upon finishing their primary education) to not go to school, i.e. college. Thus, until they are of a certain capabilities (more so than age, even though the laws reflect that differently), they should be forced to go to school. And we do not really punish them but just force them to go to school.
ReplyDeleteIt is enforced by punishment, though. If the police see a minor out when school is in session and they don't have papers giving them permission to be out, they will hold them in custody and contact the school and/or their parents or legal guardians. And the school will punish them through things like detention and notifying their parents.
ReplyDeleteWell, we allow kids to drop out at age 16 (at least in New York). So, to an extent, we allow people (even minors) to make bad choices. Or good choices, because that might actually be a good choice for some people.