p.
5
Social Form of Labor as a Subject-to-Subject Relationship
Purpose: the understanding of labor as an instrumental activity, accepted by default and attributed to K. Marx, cannot be substantiated as human-forming. Reconstruction of the Marxian conception of activity that forms a person is required.
Methods: We rely on the analysis of the aporias that arise on the way to the derivation of culture from labor, and the criticism of the concept of labor directed towards Hegel and Marx. The basis for the reconstruction of the Marxian concept of labor are rarely used texts collected by Yu.R. Tishchenko in a special course read at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Rostov State University in 1990.
Results: The result is the discovery of omissions in the reading of Marx, both by his supporters and his critics, and omissions of the kind that allow us to argue that the turn from philosophy to sociology that took place between the 19th and 20th centuries has its source in the Hegelian revolution in the understanding of the thinking being, and then the Marxian understanding of production as the extraction of surplus labor, which occurs due to the social form of labor, which requires research in any special society every time anew. Such innovations of modern sociology as “figuration” (N. Elias) and “fi eld” (P. Bourdieu) go back to the social form of labor.
Discussions: The reconstruction may be differed from Tishchenko’s own reading of the texts concerned. But it will be possible to compare these versions only after publication of the materials of special course pointed, to which I would like to encourage interested researchers.
Methods: We rely on the analysis of the aporias that arise on the way to the derivation of culture from labor, and the criticism of the concept of labor directed towards Hegel and Marx. The basis for the reconstruction of the Marxian concept of labor are rarely used texts collected by Yu.R. Tishchenko in a special course read at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Rostov State University in 1990.
Results: The result is the discovery of omissions in the reading of Marx, both by his supporters and his critics, and omissions of the kind that allow us to argue that the turn from philosophy to sociology that took place between the 19th and 20th centuries has its source in the Hegelian revolution in the understanding of the thinking being, and then the Marxian understanding of production as the extraction of surplus labor, which occurs due to the social form of labor, which requires research in any special society every time anew. Such innovations of modern sociology as “figuration” (N. Elias) and “fi eld” (P. Bourdieu) go back to the social form of labor.
Discussions: The reconstruction may be differed from Tishchenko’s own reading of the texts concerned. But it will be possible to compare these versions only after publication of the materials of special course pointed, to which I would like to encourage interested researchers.
labor, instrumental activity, surplus labor, production, material and personal factors of production, culture, social form of labor, dialectic of Master and Slave, Fichte, Hegel, Marx