lévi strauss and the structuralist reading of marx

8/3/2019 Lvi Strauss and the Structuralist Reading of Marx

1/11

Thing, Value, Time, and Freedom: A Consideration of Some Key Concepts in Marx'sPhilosophical SystemAuthor(s): Wujin Yu and Jie TangReviewed work(s):Source: Frontiers of Philosophy in China, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan., 2006), pp. 114-123Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30209956 .Accessed: 01/01/2012 17:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Frontiers of Philosophy in

China.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30209956?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30209956?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer


2/11

Front.Philos. China(2006) 1: 114-123DOI 10.1007/s11466-005-0011-2

Yu WujinThing,Value,Time,and Freedom: Considerationf SomeKeyConceptsnMarx'sPhilosophicalystem

0 HigherEducationPress and Springer-Verlag006

AbstractCriticizinghemisunderstandingndwrong explanation f Marx'sphilosophicalsystemmadeby recent Chinesetextbookson Marxistphilosophy,he authorargues hatMarx'sphilosophy aspractical,conomical-philosophical,ndontologicaldimensions ndstressesonreconstructing arx'sphilosophical ystem hrough ynthesizinghe above hreedimensions.Thispaper ntends o setup a new outlineof Marx'sphilosophical ystem, ntermsof thefollowingfourconcepts-thing, value,time,and freedom.KeywordsMarx, hing,value, time,freedom

IntroductionBased on thepriorgraspof thethreebasic dimensions f Marx'sphilosophy,.e., practice,economy-philosophy,ndontology,he author asprimarilyounda newpath oreconstructMarx'sphilosophical ystem.Limited ythemeand ength, hispaperwillmainlydiscuss heimportantoints ollowing ourkey conceptsand heir nterrelationsn the reconstructionfMarx'sphilosophy--thing, alue,time,and freedom.

Fromabstractmatter o concrete hingThe view of matter oldby recentChinese extbookson Marxistphilosophy s a view of"abstractmatter"hatwas criticizedby Marx ong ago.In Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx wrote:

"Industrys therealhistoricalelationshipf nature, nd herefore f naturalcience, oman.If then t is conceivedof astheopenrevelation f human aculties,hen he human

TranslatedyTang ie fromZhexueYanjiu,004:11YuWujin.)Philosophy epartment,udanUniversity, hanghai, hinaE-mail: [email protected]


3/11

Front. hilos.China2006)1:114-123 115essenceofnature r the natural ssenceof manwill alsobe understood. atural ciencewill then lose its one-sidedlymaterialist abstraktmaterille],or rather dealistic,orientation nd become the basis of humanscience as it has already, hough n analienatedormn,ecome the basis of actualhuman ife"([1], p. 102).It is notable here that Marx created the very important oncept of "industry,"ndcomprehendedt as thenecessarymedium o enablescientificresearch eave the "abstractmaterial"rientation.n fact,real nature s the naturemediatedby industry,whereasrealmatter s the mattermediatedby humanproductiveabor.Rather han somethingelse,industrys anopenbookconcerninghe essential orceofhumanity,nd t isjustthe concreteexhibition f humanpractice, speciallyof humanproductiveabor.InCapital,Marx urther ointedout:"theweaknessof the abstractmaterialism f naturalscience,a materialism hichexcludesthe historical rocess,areimmediatelyvident romthe abstractnd deological onceptions xpressed y itsspokesmenwheneverheyventurebeyondthe boundsof theirown specialty" [2], p. 494, footnote).This indicates hat theessentialdifferenceof Marx's view of matter rom all the formerphilosophers,whethermaterialists r idealists,consists in this: Marxneverabstractlyalkedaboutmatterbeyondhumanactivities, .e., never talked about the materiality f the world as recent Chinesetextbookson Marxistphilosophydid. Marxalwaystook the most basic practice, .e., theproductiveabor, s hisstarting oint,andhehistorically xploredhe concrete onfigurationof matter,.e.,concretehing,and hereby arried uta critical xamination n theprevailingphenomenaof "reification" nd "fetishism" hat arose from the capitalisteconomicalrelations.We shouldsee that somecontemporaryWestern cholarshaveobservantly oticedanddisclosed hepractical ndrevolutionaryendency f Marx'sview of matter. rom hepointof view of Lukacs, hekeystoneof Marx'sview of matters notto talk oudly n classroomabout"w'orldeingunified n matter," dogmaalso heldby the oldmaterialists,utratherthroughdisclosing he reificationphenomenon nd reification onsciousness o arouse heclassconsciousness fproletariat,nd herebyo impel hem orecast hecapitalist ociety nthewayof practice.When alkingaboutMarx,Gramsci ointedout:"clearly, or the philosophyof praxis,'matter' hould be understood either n themeaninghat thasacquirednnatural ciencenor nanyof themeaningshatonefindsin the variousmaterialisticmetaphysics.The variousphysical chemical,mechanicaletc.)properties f matterwhichtogether onstitutemattertself shouldbe considered,butonlyto the extent hattheybecome a productiveeconomical lement'.Matter ssuch therefore s not oursubjectbut how it is sociallyandhistorically rganized orproduction, nd natural cience should be seen correspondinglys essentiallya his-toricalcategory, human elation"[3], pp.465-466).Heidegger,when talkingabout how to deal with Marx'smaterialism,made a veryimportantoint: o engageMarx'ssystem,one needs to get rid of suchnaiveideas about

materialism ndsuchsimpledenialsof it. The nature f suchmaterialism onsistsnotintheassertion hateverythings material Stoff)but in a metaphysical rescription ccording owhich all beings appearas materials Material) f labor(see [4], p. 27). Schmidt, n hisrepresentativeork,Marx sConceptof Nature,continually xpressed hesamneotion:"It is notjust because the working Subjectsmediate he materialof nature hroughthemselves hat t is impossibleo speakof matter s asupreme rinciple fbeing.Men


4/11

116 Front. hilos.China2006)1: 114-123arenotconcernedn theirproduction ithmatter assuch',butalwayswith tsconcrete,quantitativelyndqualitatively eterminedormsof existence" [5],p. 34).All theseopinionsndicate hat he essentialdifference etweenMarxandold materialistsconsists n thefact thatMarxdid not talkaboutabstractmatterroma staticepistemologicalpointofview;instead, etalkedaboutmodesof concretematter sfactors fproduction,.e.,concretehings, roma dynamical iew of practice. nfact,Marxnever ndulgedhimself ntracinga materialworld hatexistedbefore heemergence f humanbeings, ustas what heold materialists nd atereditorsof textbooks n Marxist hilosophydid.ForMarx, here sno significanceor men to tracea materialworld ndependentf them.Thus,Marxpointedout:"Ican in practiceonly relatemyselfhumanly o an objectif the objectrelates tselfhumanly o man"([1], p. 100). On all accounts, hingsare not objectsof man's staticobservation ut are factorsof humanpractice, speciallyof productiveabor.Then,whatdoes Marxmeanby concretehing?Owing othe factthathis starting oint snothuman ociety n generalbut hespecialsocialsystemof capitalism,Marx hinks hat, ncapitalist conomicrelations, he concrete hings appearas a huge accumulation f com-modities.Hewrote:"thecommoditydie Ware)s, firstof all,anexternal bject,a thing einDing)whichthroughts qualities atisfieshumanneeds of whatever ind" [2],p. 125).Assoon as commodities s thingsareproducedn greatmass,thephenomenon f"reification"or "fetishism"preadsout. Throughhis research,Marxprofoundly evealsthe essence ofthesephenomena:"the ormof wood,forinstance,s alteredf a table s madeout of it. Nevertheless hetablecontinues o be wood,anordinary,ensuous hing.But as soon as it emergesas acommodity,t changes nto a thingwhich transcendsensuousness.tnot only standswith ts feet on theground, ut, nrelation o all other onmmodities,t stands n itshead,andevolves out of itswoodenbraingrotesquedeas, armorewonderful han f it wereto begin dancingof its ownfreewill"([2], pp. 163-164).Thus, t can be seen that the practical ndrevolutionaryrientation f Marx'sview ofmatterust consists n the critiqueof the widely spreading henomena f "reification" r"fetishism"n capitalist ocietyand in the disclosureof the realrelationsbetweenpeoplefromthe relationsbetweenthings. The editors of recent Chinese textbookson Marxistphilosophy atisfy hemselveswithabstractlyalkingabout"worldbeingunified n matter,"a view alreadyheld by old materialists;his will hinder our grasp of that essentialorientation f Marx'sview of matter.What is moreimportants that Marx elicited theconceptof valuenot throughabstractmatterbutthrough oncrete hing.

Fromuse value o exchangevalue

As statedabove,in capitalist conomicrelations, oncrete hingsappearas a huge accu-mulation f commodities.Then,how did Marxeconomically-philosophicallyook into thecommodity,he cell of capitalistociety?Hethinks hat hethingascommodity as two basicproperties:irstly,"theusefulnessof a thingmakes t a use-value Gebrauchswert)"[2],p. 126).That s tosay, hethingascommodity lwaysmeetscertain umanneeds,whereas ts"use value" is just realizedin the process of men's consumingor using it. "Riches"(Reichtums)n thenormal ense indeedmeanspileof thingsas commodities.nthissense,


5/11

Front. hilos.China2006)1:114-123 117forMarx,use valuealwaysconstitutes he material ontentof riches,no matterwhat socialform riches take. Secondly, "'exchange-value'Tauschwert)ppears irst of all as thequantitativeelation,heproportion,nwhichuse-values f one kindexchangeoruse-valuesof another ind.Thisrelation hanges onstantlywith imeandplace" [2], p. 126).The hingas commodityhas exchangevaluejust because the commodity tself is produced orexchange.ForMarx, here are two essentialdifferencesbetweenuse value andexchangevalue:first,use value is commodity'snatural roperty r natural eing,whereasexchangevalue is commodity'socialproperty r socialbeing;second,as use value,different om-modities are different rom each other in quality,whereas as exchangevalue, differentcommodities redifferent romeach otheronlyin quantity.t is very importanto recognizethese twopoints.We mustpointout that therehave been always misunderstandingsf Marx's heoryofvalue in philosophical ircles. This could be seen from Marx'sMarginalnotes on AdolfWagnersTextbookfpolitical economy,whichhe wrote nhis lateryears.Anessential rrorof Wagners thathe mistakesMarx's"usevalue" or "value."Whenrecountinghiswrongunderstandingf Wagner,Marxrecapitulated:thegeneralconcept value' arisesfrom hebehavior f men towards hethings ound n the externalworldwhichsatisfy heirneeds .."([6],p. 236).Obviously,his sentence s Marx'sgeneralizationf Wagner'swrongview,butpeoplemistake t forMarx'sown view of value [7], p. 63).As amatter f fact,so longas wehave read hispaper n earnest,we would find thatMarxvery sharply riticizedWagner'stheoryof value,accusing hatWagnerwas keen ontalkingaboutgeneral heoryof valueandalways ntended o show hisbrightness y usingthe word"value."naddition,his "enableshimto stickwiththe traditional erman cademic onfusion f 'use-value' nd value',sincebothhavetheword 'value'in common"[6], p. 231).From hepointof view of Marx,use value"doesnotplaythe roleof itsoppositenumber,of 'value',whichhasnothingn commonwith t,other han hat theword] value'appearsnthe term use-value'"[6], p. 242).Marxhere ells usexplicitly hatwe shouldnot assert hat"usevalue" sjust"value"implyon thebasisthat henameof "usevalue" ontainsheword"value."There s an essentialdifference etween"usevalue"and"exchange alue,"whichMarxusuallycalled "value" or short.Indeed,whenWagnerried o understand ndtalkaboutMarx's heoryof value from herelationbetweenpeople'sneeds and external hings,he confused hese two concepts.Marxrevealed uthlesslyhe languagegame playedby Wagner:

"heachieves hisby re-christening hat npoliticaleconomy s commonly alled use-value' as 'value'pureandsimple, accordingo German sage'.And as soon as 'value'pureandsimplehas been found, t serves n turn orderiving'use value'againfrom'valuepureandsimple'.For hat,one hasonlytoreplacehefragmentuse',whichhasbeendropped,n frontof 'value'pureandsimple" [6], p. 237).To thoroughlydisclose the possibleconfusions hat arosefromWagner'sTextbookf

political economy,Marxpointsout:"Theonething hat s clearlyat the basis of thisGermandiocy s that inguisticallyhewords 'value' or 'worth' wereemployedat firstfor usefulthingsthemselves,whichexisted oralongtime ustas 'labor-products',efore heycame o be commodities. utthathasnothingo do withthe scientificdefinition fcommodity-'value'"[6], p. 245).


6/11

118 Front. hilos.China2006)1:114-123People mayask,why did Marxelucidateagainandagainthe differencebetween "use

value"and"value"i.e.,"exchange alue")?Here,hispoint s that he "usevalue" nlyrefersto the natural ropertiesrnatural eingof thingas commodity,whereasvalue orexchangevaluerefers o the socialproperties r socialbeingof thingas commodity.t indicates wodifferent rientationsn thediscussionsof thetheoryof valuein Marx'sphilosophy.For raditional hinese extbooksonMarxist hilosophy,heproblem f value s ignored.Since the 1980s,peoplehavebegun o explorevaluetheory ontainednMarx'sphilosophy.However,Wagner'smisunderstanding,hich dentifies"usevalue"with"value," asalwaysdominated eople'smind. nfact,so longasthis kindof misunderstandings noteliminated,whatpeopleare concernedwithwill alwaysbe the "use value"as the natural roperty fthings,and his will result npeople's ndifferenceo "value" s the socialpropertyf things.Nevertheless, n a certainsense, all the secrets of Marx'sphilosophyof economy areconcealed n its theoryof "value."Whywouldwe saythis?If "usevalue" s onlyconcernedwiththerelation etweenmen andthe natural ropertiesof things, nshort, herelationbetweenmen and hings, hen"value"i.e.,exchange alue) sconcernedwith the relationbetweenmenand the socialproperties f things,in short, herelationbetweenpeople.In the economicdomain, ust as Marxpointedout: "exchange-values (exchange-value oes not exist unless [thereare]at least two of them) representsomething ommon o them commodities] hich s wholly ndependentof theiruse-values'(i.e. here,of theirnaturalorm),namelyvalue" [6], p. 230).That s to say, n the economicdomain, he concreteexpressionof value is the exchangevalue,whichis concernedwithinterpersonalconomicrelations.Beyondtheeconomicdomain,value is concernedwith aseries of importantotionsrepresentingnterpersonalelations, uch as humanrights, ife,feelings,convictions, oodness,equality, emocracy,reedom,ustice,andso on. Infact,forMarx,the essence of the valueproblemnever consists n the relationbetweenpeopleandthingsbut in the relationbetweenpeople.For a long time,Chinesephilosophers nderstoodMarx's heoryof valueonly by ap-pealing othe"usevalue,".e., the relation etweenpeople'sneedsandavailablehings.Thislimitation asresultednthe fact thatourresearch n the"exchange alue" n the economicdomainwasneglected, nd hefactthatourresearch n the seriesof value formsconcerningthe relationsbetweenpeopleoutside the economic domainwas neglected.Indifference othese two aspectsnot only madeit hard orpeopleto gaina realunderstandingf Marx'stheoryof value but also madethe reconstructionf Marx'sphilosophical ystem alonghisown line of thought mpossible. Actually,withoutencounteringhe problemof value,especiallywithoutencounteringheproblemof "exchange alue" n theeconomicdomain,we will not be able to understandMarx'sview of time,which s my nexttopic.

Fromnaturalimeto social timeConcerningheproblem f time,allrecentChinese extbooks nMarxist hilosophyocusedon natural ime. The so-called "natural ime" means time understood nd illustrated c-cording o the mode of matter'smotion akingplacein nature.Thisnaturalime,separatedfromhumanactivities, annothistoricallyhow the connotational ifference f the conceptsof time in varioussocieties,and it cannotprofoundlydemonstratehe specialsocial andhistoricalmeaningof thetheoryof timeincapitalistocietiesand ts intrinsic elation o the


7/11

Front. hilos.China2006)1: 114-123 119importantheoretical roblems f value and freedom.Thisconceptof time did notmakeathorough ritiqueand clarification f the theoretical ssumptions f the old materialisticconceptof time;that s to say, it only methodologicallyried o overcome he mechanicalcharacteristic f the traditional onceptof time, but it did not make any fundamentaltransformationsf the abstract arrier f the traditionalonceptof time(i.e.,abstractmatterseparatedromhumanactivitiesof practice).n thisway,Marx'soriginative heoryof timewasputon the basis of traditionalmaterialism,ndthus, tsepoch-makingignificancewasconcealed.

Marx'view of time is not a view of natural ime heldby traditionalhilosophyandthetextbooks f Marxist hilosophybut a view of "social ime." notherwords,Marx'sviewoftime did not take he staticobservation f humanbeingson motionsof matter n nature sitsstarting ointbuttookhumanpracticeof production s its starting oint.According o Marx,we should not illustratehumanproductiveabor on the basis ofabstractmatter nd he view of naturalime; nstead,we shouldunderstand nd llustrateheproblem f matter nd imeon the basis ofproductiveabor. t is intheprocessofproductivelabor hatabstractmatter eparatedromhumanbeingstransformsnto the basic factorsofproductione.g., factorybuildingsand equipments f production, aw materialsof pro-duction, nstrumentsf production,products, astoffs of the processof production, tc.)immediatelyndconsequently ppears shuman-relatedxistence. nthecapitalistmodeofproduction,he general orm of matter s commodity, ndcommoditys createdby labor.Hence,Marxsaid,"labor s the living, form-giving ire; t is the transience f things, heirtemporality,stheprocessof their ormation y livingtime" [8],p. 286). Noticeably,Marxmentions"livingtime" here. This living time is in accordancewith productiveabor as"living, orm-givingire"and t endowsmatterwith"form." rom his mportant assage,wecan draw hefollowing hreeconclusions:First of all, social timeoriginatesn humanproductiveabor.As pointedoutby C. C.Gould,"forMarx, abor s theoriginof time--bothof human ime-consciousnessndof theobjectivemeasureof time"([9], p. 41). In otherwords,it is laborthat created ime andbrought t into the world. Gould thinks hat Marx'sview of time andthat of Kant'shavesomethingncommon;hat s, theyboth start romhumanactivities.However,Kant etsofffromhuman ctivities f consciousness,whereasMarx ets off fromhuman roductiveabor.As for Heidegger,althoughhe discussedtime on the basis of the existent activities of"Dasein tself,"he "comprehendedhetemporal ctivitiesof Daseinnotas theobjectifyingactivities and not as social activities which changethe nature" [4], p. 62). This is thefundamentalifferencebetweenhis theoryof time and thatof Marx's.Secondly, ocial time is different romuniformly lowingnaturalime;it has differentessential characteristicsn differentphases of history.Gould noticed: "Marx furthersuggests hat he use of time as a measure arieshistorically.Thus t mightbe saidthat orhim time is itselfqualitatively ifferentat different tagesof socialdevelopment"[9], p.64). In theprecapitalism hase,laborwas measured ot by time butby the differentusevaluesof goods. Onlywhensociety developed nto,as Marxmentioned,he secondphase,that s to say,thephaseof capitalism, thepossibilityof time as a measure orlaborarises"([9], p. 64). In addition, n the thirdphase of social development,.e., the communistsociety depicted by Marx, what constitutesa kind of measurement f abundance sprecisely"free ime or time for the freedevelopment f individualities.n thissociety, aborbecomes he creative ctivityof self-realization,hichaccordingo Marx s 'real reedom'"([9], p. 68).


8/11

120 Front. hilos.China2006)1: 114-123Thirdly,he essentialmodeof social ime n the domain f economy s "sociallynecessary

labor-timeGesellschaftlichotwendigeArbeitszeit]."As is known,the goal of capitalistproductions exchange alue,but hequantity f valueof thecommodity s theground f theexchangevalue is measured y "sociallynecessary abor-time."Marxsays, "sociallynec-essary abor-times the abor-timeequiredoproduce nyuse-valueunder he conditions fproduction ormal or a given societyandwiththeaveragedegreeof skillandintensityoflaborprevalentn thatsociety" ([2], p. 129). ForMarx,socially necessary abor-time sobjective, or it is determined ot by any individualproducer f commoditywith his ownsubjectivedesire but is demonstratedn certainhistoricalconditions.This time is like aspecialkind of ether,determiningheproportionf all the "social hings" gesellschaftlicheDinge,i.e., commodity)nthe lifeworld:"what xclusivelydetermineshemagnitude f thevalue of any article s thereforehe amountof laborsocially necessary,or the labor-timesociallynecessaryor itsproduction"[2], p. 129).From hisstatement,we canalso see thatMarx's"social ime" s alwaysrelated o "exchange alue"of thecommodity s socialbeing.Both thedenialof theproblem f value madeby the writers f recentChinese extbooksonMarxistphilosophy ndthemisunderstandingadeby contemporarycholarsof axiology,who mistook value for "usevalue,"are obstacles or a preciseunderstandingf Marxistphilosophy.We can see fromwhatwe have discussedabove hatMarxneverspeaksof theproblem ftimemetaphysically eyondall the historical onditionsbutalwaysconsiders hisproblemunder hespecial ocialandhistoricalonditions f thecapitalist ociety.Theepoch-breakingsignificanceof Marx'sview of "social ime"consists n thathe offered he new conceptof"sociallynecessaryabor-time"ndrevealed he secretof thevalueof commodity, ndwiththis new concept,he dividedworker'sproductive rocess nto"necessaryabor ime"and"surplusabortime,"and thus revealed he secret of "surplus alue."The importance fMarx'sview of "social ime"consists also in thattheproblemof freedom,which we willdiscussbelow, s preciselydeveloped n this kindof specialhorizonof time,andsincerecentChinese extbooks n Marxist hilosophydid not understandMarx'sview of timecorrectly,Marx'sview of freedomandhis discussionof the relation etween reedom nd time are alloutside heir ieldof vision.

From pistemologicalreedom o ontologicalreedomThe conceptof freedom s very importantn Marx'sphilosophy,but it has been mis-understoodor a longtime.As we all know,formerSovietphilosophersM'PoseuTanIndH-IIOa4Haefined reedomn theirA SmallDictionaiyof Philosophyas such:

"Freedom onsistsnot in theescape romnaturalaws n imagine,but n theknowledgeof them and in the abilityto applythem to practice...henecessityandregularity fnature reprimary, hereas hehumanwill andconsciousness resecondary. eopleactblindlyandunwarily efore heyknow thenecessity.Buttheywill learnhow to controlthenecessityand ouse it to servethesocietyoncetheygetto know it. Therefore,reeactivity s possibleonlyon the basis of knowledgeaboutnecessity.Freedom s nothingbut thenecessitywhichis recognized" [10],pp. 171-172).


9/11

Front. hilos.China2006)1: 114-123 121This is a typical understanding,nd almost every textbook on Marxistphilosophy

expoundsheconceptof freedomn thesameway.Wecan nfer hreeconclusionsrom hesesentences: irst,Marx'sconceptof freedombelongsto epistemology, ndthe ontologicalimplication f freedomhashardlybeen appreciated. econdly, reedom s connectedwithnecessity, .e., thenaturalegularity. hirdly,reedom s nottheescape rom henecessityofnature n imaginationut the correctknowledgeof necessity.At first sight, it is worthyof no rebuketo understandhe conceptof freedomepis-temologically, ecause he moredeeplywe know henecessityof nature,he more reelyweact and know.Actually, uch a view is completely pecious.Forif it weretrue,we wouldinfer from t thatthe scientistsare the most free,since theyare mostacquaintedwith thenecessityof nature.Furthermore,t would be nonsense orpeopleto strive or freedomandliberty hrough ocial movement ndrevolution, ndwhat s requiredor themto do wouldjustbe to studysciences.Thus, heconceptof freedom,hough t is so importanto humanexistence,degeneratesntoa mereepistemological oncept.Ledby sucha concept,evenethics could not be set up, for the free will of humanbeingsis the basisof ethics,and iffreedom s nothingbut theknowledgeof necessity,nobodyneeds to be morally esponsiblefor his own behavior.

It is well known thatepistemologys concernedwiththe relationof humans o nature,whileontologydealswiththerelationshipetweenmen.Kant xpressly aid:"independencefrom the determiningauses of the worldof sense (an independencewhich reasonmustalwaysascribe o itself) is freedom" [11], p. 71). Actually,Sartre,a contemporary hi-losopher, xplainedmoredefinitely: there s no determinism--mans free,man s freedom"([12], p. 34). That s to say,people'sfreedomhasnothing o dowithpeople'sknowledgeofthe sensuousworldbut is relatedonlyto theontologicaldomain, o the freewill of man.InKant'sopinion, f someonepersists n speaking f freedomon the basis of natural ecessity,such freedom"isjustlike a revolvingbrochette,t can revolveautomatically y itself oncesomeonewinds it"([13], p. 222).Marx acceptedKant's conception,and his idea of freedom should above all beontologically lucidated,.e.,people ive in the world irstof all asagentswith freewill,andthentheycome to knowthings according o his own intention or living.Marxwrote:"aspureideas, equalityand freedomaremerelyidealizedexpressionsof this exchange;de-veloped njuridical, oliticalandsocialrelations,heyaremerely hisbasisat ahigherevel"([8], p. 176).This mportantassageshows hatMarx egardedhephilosophy feconomyasan entrance o reveal heontologicalmeaningof theconceptof freedomand thatfrom hebeginning, e linked heconceptof freedom loselywith thatof time, nterpretedime as thehorizonon whichfreedom an be actuallyunfolded.Marxwrote:"time s infact the active existenceof the humanbeing.It is not only themeasureof human ife. It is the spacefor its development"[14], p. 493). This is to saythat time is ontologically he necessarycondition underwhich humanbeings achievefreedom. f men spendall their time (exceptfor time used on theirnecessarysleep) onearning heirliving, it is impossiblefor them to have any freedom.As a result,humanfreedomor "human ositiveexistence" s just basedon thetime,which couldactuallybefreely disposedby humans.Marx furthermaintained: in relation o the whole of society,theproduction f disposable ime[can]also [be considered] s the creation f time fortheproduction f science, art,etc"([8], p. 328). ForMarx,the development f science, art,and otherpublicactivitiesof humansare all realized n the freetime of society,and "the


10/11

122 Front. hilos.China2006)1: 114-123free time of societyis basedon the absorption f the worker's imeby compulsoryabor;thus he loses room for intellectualdevelopment,or that is time"([15], p. 301).Then,how does such condition f time come intobeing?Marx'sanswer s:"wage abor,ingeneral,makes tsappearancenlywhen heproductive owerhasalready eendevelopedto such an extent thata significantamountof time has been set free. Thissetting-freesalreadyan historicalproducthere"([16], p. 29). Actually, t is the capitalisticmode ofproductionhat"candissociate onsiderablemount f time,"and hiscreatesheconditionsfor somepeopleto possesotherpeople'stime,in otherwords,forsomepeopleto depriveothersof their reedom. ust n thissense,Marx aid,"the heftof alien labor ime,which sthe basis of presentwealth"[16],p. 91). On the one hand,thecapitalists mass heirowncapitaland wealththrough he valueproduced y the workers' urplus abor ime;on theotherhand, heyalsodepriveworkers f freedomhrough surping urplusabor ime of theworkers.

Itis doubtlesshatMarx'sphilosophy, s arevolutionaryhilosophy, rimarilytrives orthe workers' ime and freedom.Thus,Marxwrote in his Capital:"arealmof necessity,beyond tbegins hatdevelopmentf human nergywhich s an end nitself, hetrue ealmoffreedom,which, however,can blossom forthwith this realmof necessityas its basis. Theshortening f theworking-days itsbasicprerequisite"[17],p. 535). Here,"theshorteningof theworking-day"means heshortening f the workers' abor ime. ForMarx, hisis the"basicprerequisite"orworkers o have access o freedom, ecause"thesavingof labor imeis equivalento the increase f freetime, .e. time for the fulldevelopmentf the individual"([16], p. 97). We can see from he aboveanalysis hat, n Marx'sphilosophy,reedomandtime are nseparablyelated o each other.Marcuse ad aprofound nderstandingf Marx's heoryof timeand reedom.Hedividedmodernpeople'sordinaryivingtime intotwoparts: ne is "workingime" Arbeitzeit),.e.,the timepeoplehaveto spendto earna living,the other s "free ime" Freizeit),.e., theleisure imethatpeoplecanfreely disposeafterwork. He wrote:"The irstpreconditionffreedom s to decrease heworking-timeo asto make heamount f mereworking-timeolongerblock the humandevelopment" [18], p. 152). These words show that Marcuseunderstood ot only thephilosophicalmeaningof Marx's heoryof timedeveloped n histheoryof economybutalso the nterrelationshipetweenMarx'sdoctrine f freedom nd hatof time.Through nanalysisof theincreasingly tronger henomenon f automatizationnthe moderncapitalistic ociety,he pointedout that the automatization ould be likelytoreversethe relationbetween freetime andworkingtime,which is the foundation f theexistingcivilization;hat s, it is possible o minimize heworking ime and o make he freetime be the dominant ime. Thatreversalwould lead to the radicalrevaluation f variousvalues.He wrote thus: "afterbeing free from the requirementsf ruling, he quantitativedecreaseof working-time ndworking-energy ill lead to a qualitativehangeof humanexistence:what determineshe existentcontentsof humanwill be the freetime,rather hantheworking ime" [18], p. 218). As a matter f fact,what Marcuse xpounded ere is theideaexpressed y Marx.Whenhe talkedabout he future ociety,Marx aid,"thenwealth sno longermeasured y labor ime butby disposable ime" [16], p. 94).Althoughhe harshlycriticizedvariousphenomena f alienationn moderncivilization(whichare even embodiedn thecontrolof men's freetime),Marcuse tillmaintainedhatboth thedevelopment f technologyand hedecrease f working imeprepareheobjectiveconditions or modernpeople oenjoymore reedom.From heaboveconsiderations,e can


11/11

Front. hilos.China2006)1:114-123 123conclude hat the essence of Marx's dea of freedomcanonlybe brought o lightfromanontologicalpointof view.Inaword,bymeansof thefourkey concepts,"thing," value," time," nd"freedom,"ehavesketched henewpath o the reconstructionf Marx's ystemof philosophy.Ofcourse,thisreconstructionrocess s verycomplicated,ndmanytheoreticalroblems restillopento exploration.Welook forwardo scholar's omments.

References1. MarxK., Economic andphilosophicalmanuscripts f 1844. In: Mclellan D. (ed.) Karl Marx: SelectedWritings,OxfordUniversityPress, 20002. MarxK., Capital,vol. 1, New York:VintageBooks, 1977 (translated y Ben Fowkes)3. GramsciA., Selections fromthePrisonNotebooks,New York:International ublishers,19714. HeideggerM., UeberDen Humanismus,FrankfurtA.M.: SuhrkampVerlag,19755. SchmidtA., The Conceptof Nature n Marx,London:New Left Books, 19716. 'Notes' on Adolph Wagner.In: Marx: Later Political Writings (pp. 227-257), CambridgeUniversityPress, 19967. LiankeL., Introduction o Philosophyof Value,Beijing: The CommercialPress, Ltd., 19998. Karl Marx FrederickEngelsCollected Works,vol. 28, Moscow: ProgressPublishers,19869. Gould C. C., Marx'sSocial Ontology,Boston:The MITPress, 1978

10. PoserrranraM. and IOunmaH., A Small Dictionary of Philosophy,Beijing: SDX Joint PublishingCompany, 197311. KantI., Foundationsof the Metaphysicsof Morals,New York:The MacmillanPublishing Company,1989 (translatedby Lewis WhiteBeck)12. SartreP., ExistentialismandHumanism,London:EyreMethuenLtd., 197813. KantI., Kritk derpraktischenVernunft,FrankfurtA.M.: SuhrkampVerlag,198914. KarlMarxFrederickEngelsCollected Works,Moscow: ProgressPublishers, 1991, vol. 3315. Karl MarxFrederickEngelsCollected Works,Moscow: ProgressPublishers,1988, vol. 3016. Karl MarxFrederickEngelsCollected Works,Moscow: ProgressPublishers, 1987, vol. 2917. MarxK., Capital,vol. 3. In:Mclellan D. (ed.) Karl Marx:Selected Writings,OxfordUniversityPress,200018. MarcuseH., Triebstrukur ndGescllschaft,FrankfurtA.M.: SuhrkampVerlag, 1970

lévi strauss and the structuralist reading of marx

Documents