From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 21:27:36 EDT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <adsl675281@tiscali.nl> To: <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 2:14 PM Subject: Marxmyth or Marxfact? (M&E on economic equality for women) Marx revealed his own thinking in the 1844 Paris Manuscripts as follows: "In the relationship with woman, as the prey and handmaid of communal lust, is expressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself -- for the secret of this relationship has its unambiguous, decisive, open and revealed expression in the relationship of man to woman and in the manner in which the direct, natural species- relationship is conceived. The immediate, natural, necessary relation of human being to human being is the relationship of man to woman. In this natural species-relationship, the relation of man to nature, is immediately his relation to man, just as his relation to man is immediately his relation to nature, his own natural condition. Therefore, this relationship reveals in a sensuous form, reduced to an observable fact, the extent to which the human essence has become nature for man, or nature has become the human essence for man. It is possible to judge from this relationship the entire level of development of mankind. It follows from the character of this relationship of this relationship how far man as a species-being, as man, has become himself and grasped himself; the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being. It therefore demonstrates the extent to which man's natural behavior has become human or the extent to which his human essence has become a natural essence for him, the extent to which his human nature has become nature for him. This relationship also demonstrates the extent to which man's needs have become human needs, hence the extent to which the other, as a human being, has become a need for him, the extent to which in his most individual existence he is at the same time a communal being." Of interest also is the following passage from the same source: "Just as women are to go from marriage into general prostitution, so the whole world of wealth -- i.e., the objective essence of man -- is to make the transition from the relation of exclusive marriage with the private owner to the relation of universal prostitution with the community. This [petit-bourgeois, pseudo-] communism, inasmuch as it negates the personality of man in every sphere, is simply the logical expression of the private property which is this negation. Universal envy constituting itself as a power is the hidden form in which greed reasserts itself and satisfies itself, but in another way. The thoughts of every piece of private property as such are at least turned against richer private property in the form of envy and the desire to level everything down; hence these feelings in fact constitute the essence of competition. The crude communist is merely the culmination of this envy and desire to level down on the basis of a preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited measure. How little this [primitive attempt at] abolition of private property is a true appropriation, is shown by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilization, and the return to the unnatural simplicity of the poor, unrefined man who has no needs and who has not yet even reached the stage of private property, let along gone beyond it." Marx could, of course, be wrong about all that. Saul K. Padover provides detailed commentary on Marx's personal relationships in his very insightful book "Karl Marx: An Intimate Biography" (a useful complement to Francis Wheen), quoting Marx's letter to Kugelmann of December 12, 1868: "Social progress can be measured accurately by the social status of the beautiful sex (the ugly ones included)". The fact that Marx repeated this view several times, suggests that it was a real principle or belief of his. But just how utterly clueless Marx could be, in regard to women in real life, and how he might fancy himself a "knight in shining armour", coming to the emotional rescue of women, is illustrated by this quote: "...in his early years in London... [Marx] was riding in an omnibus with Wilhelm Liebknecht when he heard a shrill female voice screaming 'Murder! Murder!'. At this sound of the strumpet, Marx leaped from the carriage and, followed by a reluctant Liebknecht, rushed to the rescue of the lady, who, it happened, was a drunken wife whom her husband was trying to get home. As Marx, obviously an alien and speaking broken English, barged in, the wrangling couple, instantly reconciled by the onset of a stranger, turned furiously on him, the intoxicated female going after his provocatively magnificant beard. A crowd soon joined in the attack on the "damned foreigners", who were finally rescued by two burly constables." (op. cit., p. 266, abridged NAL edition 1978). Although Marx could be extraordinarily bawdy in male company, it appears from the evidence that his actual intimate experience of the range of women there are was, in truth, rather limited, and that, on the whole - give or take a few episodes, such as getting Helene Demuth pregnant - he was a pretty loyal husband, who deeply loved his wife and children, who, in turn, were very loyal to him, even although he was very poor at providing for them, materially. The general picture you get from the evidence is, that Marx, like sexual radicals like Charles Fourier and Paul Lafargue, was honest and radical enough to think through the relevant topics to the very end, but at the same time, could not help being the real person he truly was, within the given epoch of history - the evidence is, that he could see well beyond that epoch, yet at a personal and intimate level, he often also remained its prisoner, since he could not very well "jump out of society" as it really was, and had his own emotional sensitivities and vulnerabilities, which he could not very well deny, beyond getting into a terrible temper at times. In the famous parlour game he played with his daughter Laura, he said he thought his favourite virtue in men was "strength" and his favourite virtue in women was "weakness" (their capacity to yield). Today one might regard that as "sexist", but a moment's sober logical thought will lead to the conclusion that Marx really thought that women could be very, very strong... stronger than he, in which case their weakening could really be a "virtue", from his own point of view. Presumably, his replies to his daughter were also specifically intended for her own education, and not simply a confession of personal faith. It would be great, I've often thought, if somebody would finally write a genuinely comprehensive, objective, honest and truthful biography of Karl Marx as person, thinker and politician, or make a good movie about him, but at present it's still "music of the future" (Zukunftsmuzik), I guess. Mostly, media people seem to think they have to reconcile the past with the present, never mind a media product which is totally honest, unconventional and up-front, made in a conscientious spirit regardless of how people might think of it. The thought that always seems to lurk in the background is that somebody always ought to "pay". Personally, I like to think, Marx was such a revolutionary spirit, that people are still too still frightened to tell the true and real story about him. Jurriaan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 13 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT