DOCSLIB.ORG

Leontyev's Activity Theory and Marx's Political

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Leontyev's Activity Theory and Marx's Political CHAPTER TWENTYTHREE LEONTYEV’S ACTIVITY THEORY AND MARX’S POLITICAL ECONOMY The socialist worker . is now working not for exploiters but for himself, for his class, for society. (Leontyev 1947) Without ever having had the opportunity to observe life in the capi- talist world, plenty of opportunity to observe life in the USSR but no opportunity to honestly talk about it, let alone study it scientifically, Leontyev should not be blamed for the quality of his social analysis. But given that Leontyev was addressing real problems in Vygotsky’s theory, we cannot walk away from the problems in his solution. The great strength of the Activity Theory approach is the understanding that the structure of Activity and the structure of the psyche are in essence identical. So the psychological implications of the various broad types of social formation , such as tribal life, feudal society, degenerated workers’ state, late capitalism, etc., do need to be addressed. But this should not and need not be approached by means of mythological tales and utopian speculations. Leontyev’s analysis of capitalism is a selection of quotes from “Capital” inserted into a fairy tale about cultural evolution from ani- mal life through primitive communism and capitalism to socialism. The psychology of the epoch between Arcadian and Utopian commu- nism is that actions lose their real meaning, which is the objective motive of the activity, being supplanted by the personal meaning of the action for the individual. In capitalism, the meaning of his labor for a worker is wages , whilst for the capitalist it is profit. [The worker’s] conditions of life, however, are such that he does not spin to satisfy a social need for yarn, does not weave to meet a social need for cloth, but for wages; that also imparts sense to weaving for him, and to the yarn and cloth produced by him. The foreignness of meanings to the sense behind them also comes out of course at the opposite pole of society. For the capitalist, for instance, the whole sense of spinning and weaving consists in the profit he will make from them, i.e. in a thing devoid both of the properties of the output of production in itself and of its objective meaning. (Leontyev 2009: 226–7) 218 chapter twenty-three whereas under socialism: The socialist worker, just like the worker in a capitalist undertaking, is occupied in weaving, spinning, etc., but for him this work has the sense precisely of weaving, spinning, etc. Its motive and its objective product are not now foreign to each other for him, because he is now working not for exploiters but for himself, for his class, for society. The socialist worker receives wages for his work, so that his work also has the sense of earnings for him, but the pay is only a means for him to realize some of the output of social production for his personal con- sumption. This change in the sense of labor is engendered by its new motives. (Leontyev 2009: 237–8) So the objective meaning of production is providing for the needs of the society, and in Arcadian or Utopian communism, this is present in the mind of the producer and is manifested in the harmonization of sense and meaning , but in capitalism sense and meaning are alien to one another, a contradiction which is manifested in a kind of pathol- ogy. The core idea here makes abundant sense, but its use without a realistic sense of social life in any epoch undermines its value. All that is required here is to detach this key idea from the Stalinist fairy tale. Meaning and sense differ, just as activity and action differ, and may be in contradiction with one another. The contradiction arises from power relations. The social relations through which the actions are controlled means that people can be conscripted into projects for purely external motivations, and even the technical details of their labor can be under the control of another. These are phenomena which can be studied here and now, amongst real individuals, their real activity and the real material conditions under which they live. The Object of Labor under Capital Leontyev claims that the objective meaning of labor is the provision for the needs of “society.” Marx did not see it that way, and rejected altogether the idea of “society” as a subject distinct from its ruling elite: “the fiction of the person, Society” (1976: 153). Consider for example this excerpt from “Capital” : Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus-value . The laborer produces, not for himself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply produce. He must produce surplus-value. That laborer alone .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Primlitive Comnmunism Anld the Origini of Social Inequality
    Primlitive comnmunism anld the origini of social inequality RIrCHrrARDi B. L ;EE Unziversity of T'oronzto H-ow did social iniequiality comre inito b>einig? SomTe argue thiat it hias always beeni presenit, that it represenits an inievitable anid niatural state of affairs. Thlerefore, iniequalityi as a social phienomienion does niot requiire explanation. Others, fromi Rouisseau to thie presenit, believe thiat thie causes of social ineqcuality cry out for explanationi. On~e way to approachi this seeminrg paradox is to explore thie conicept of primritiv·e commlrunismn , or the communiiial mi-ode of productioni - the niotioni thiat thiere was a period of hiumiani history before thie rise of thie state durinig whiichiprivate property was· uniknowni and iniequalities of wlealthi anid power were minimrial. Maniy anithropologists wouild unidoubtedly accept thie broad validity of this niotioni, judging fromr its p>revalence ini initroductory textbooks. Yet few would be prepared to explore thie imlplicationi s of th is acceptanice, anid fewyer still would be prepared to embirace theç ruibric of primitive communiismr. Primritive commriunismn is a simiple conicep>t, yet the very words evoke uneasiness anid emibarraçssmenit, conitaininrg two of the rnost loaded terms ini Westerni ideology. Yet that fact doesni't explaini whiy the conlcept is ani emibarrassmienit to so maniy who profess Marxismi. Neverthelessl will argiie thiat without thie concept of a commu-linal miode of produictioni, ani attemipt to accounit for the developmienit of social comnplexity in 225 RICHIARD B. L.EE prehistoric sedenitary societics is doomned to mrystificationi anid failuire. T'he very title of thie seminIar oni whiich this book is based, "Thie Development of Political Systemrs ini Prehiistoric Sedenitary Societies," was designied to sidestep thec issue of social iniequality.
    [Show full text]
  • Salgado Munoz, Manuel (2019) Origins of Permanent Revolution Theory: the Formation of Marxism As a Tradition (1865-1895) and 'The First Trotsky'
    Salgado Munoz, Manuel (2019) Origins of permanent revolution theory: the formation of Marxism as a tradition (1865-1895) and 'the first Trotsky'. Introductory dimensions. MRes thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/74328/ Copyright and moral rights for this work are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This work cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Enlighten: Theses https://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] Origins of permanent revolution theory: the formation of Marxism as a tradition (1865-1895) and 'the first Trotsky'. Introductory dimensions Full name of Author: Manuel Salgado Munoz Any qualifications: Sociologist Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the Degree of Master of Research School of Social & Political Sciences, Sociology Supervisor: Neil Davidson University of Glasgow March-April 2019 Abstract Investigating the period of emergence of Marxism as a tradition between 1865 and 1895, this work examines some key questions elucidating Trotsky's theoretical developments during the first decade of the XXth century. Emphasizing the role of such authors like Plekhanov, Johann Baptists von Schweitzer, Lenin and Zetkin in the developing of a 'Classical Marxism' that served as the foundation of the first formulation of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, it treats three introductory dimensions of this larger problematic: primitive communism and its feminist implications, the debate on the relations between the productive forces and the relations of production, and the first apprehensions of Marx's economic mature works.
    [Show full text]
  • Mode of Production and Mode of Exploitation: the Mechanical and the Dialectical'
    DjalectiCalAflthropologY 1(1975) 7 — 2 3 © Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam — Printed in The Netherlands MODE OF PRODUCTION AND MODE OF EXPLOITATION: THE MECHANICAL AND THE DIALECTICAL' Eugene E. Ruyle In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material produc- tive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstruc- ture and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that deter- mines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.2 The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus labor is pumped out of the direct producers, determines the relation of rulers and ruled, as it grows immediately out of production itself and in turn reacts upon it as a determining agent. .. It is always the direct relation of the owners of the means of production to the direct producers which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden foundation of the entire social structure.3 In the first of these two passages, Marx in crypto-Marxist bourgeois social science, and appears to be arguing for the sort of techno- then by exploring the possibilities of supple- economic determinism which has become menting the "mode of production" approach increasingly fashionable in bourgeois social with a "mode of exploitation" analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Unified Theory Analysing Workplace Ideologies: Marxism And
    Marxism and Racial Oppression: Towards a Unified Theory Charles Post (City University of New York) Half a century ago, the revival of the womens movementsecond wave feminismforced the revolutionary left and Marxist theory to revisit the Womens Question. As historical materialists in the 1960s and 1970s grappled with the relationship between capitalism, class and gender, two fundamental positions emerged. The dominant response was dual systems theory. Beginning with the historically correct observation that male domination predates the emergence of the capitalist mode of production, these theorists argued that contemporary gender oppression could only be comprehended as the result of the interaction of two separate systemsa patriarchal system of gender domination and the capitalist mode of production. The alternative approach emerged from the debates on domestic labor and the predominantly privatized character of the social reproduction of labor-power under capitalism. In 1979, Lise Vogel synthesized an alternative unitary approach that rooted gender oppression in the tensions between the increasingly socialized character of (most) commodity production and the essentially privatized character of the social reproduction of labor-power. Today, dual-systems theory has morphed into intersectionality where distinct systems of class, gender, sexuality and race interact to shape oppression, exploitation and identity. This paper attempts to begin the construction of an outline of a unified theory of race and capitalism. The paper begins by critically examining two Marxian approaches. On one side are those like Ellen Meiksins Wood who argued that capitalism is essentially color-blind and can reproduce itself without racial or gender oppression. On the other are those like David Roediger and Elizabeth Esch who argue that only an intersectional analysis can allow historical materialists to grasp the relationship of capitalism and racial oppression.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of Communism
    The Rise and Fall of Communism archie brown To Susan and Alex, Douglas and Tamara and to my grandchildren Isobel and Martha, Nikolas and Alina Contents Maps vii A Note on Names viii Glossary and Abbreviations x Introduction 1 part one: Origins and Development 1. The Idea of Communism 9 2. Communism and Socialism – the Early Years 26 3. The Russian Revolutions and Civil War 40 4. ‘Building Socialism’: Russia and the Soviet Union, 1917–40 56 5. International Communism between the Two World Wars 78 6. What Do We Mean by a Communist System? 101 part two: Communism Ascendant 7. The Appeals of Communism 117 8. Communism and the Second World War 135 9. The Communist Takeovers in Europe – Indigenous Paths 148 10. The Communist Takeovers in Europe – Soviet Impositions 161 11. The Communists Take Power in China 179 12. Post-War Stalinism and the Break with Yugoslavia 194 part three: Surviving without Stalin 13. Khrushchev and the Twentieth Party Congress 227 14. Zig-zags on the Road to ‘communism’ 244 15. Revisionism and Revolution in Eastern Europe 267 16. Cuba: A Caribbean Communist State 293 17. China: From the ‘Hundred Flowers’ to ‘Cultural Revolution’ 313 18. Communism in Asia and Africa 332 19. The ‘Prague Spring’ 368 20. ‘The Era of Stagnation’: The Soviet Union under Brezhnev 398 part four: Pluralizing Pressures 21. The Challenge from Poland: John Paul II, Lech Wałesa, and the Rise of Solidarity 421 22. Reform in China: Deng Xiaoping and After 438 23. The Challenge of the West 459 part five: Interpreting the Fall of Communism 24.
    [Show full text]
  • A Journal of African Studies
    UCLA Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies Title On a Marxian Approach to the Study of African Traditional Societites Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3zt3n6cs Journal Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies, 4(2) ISSN 0041-5715 Author Tsomondo, Micah S. Publication Date 1973 DOI 10.5070/F742016443 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California - 57 - a~ 11£ NR.ICATIOO (f lHE MflRXIA~ aJ~(EJTIJil ~ TO lHE HISTORICAL STIJDY oF AFRICAN TRADI Tl ClW.. SOCIETI ES by MICAH S. TSOMONOO In our struggle again~European rule in Africa, we must take into account the fact that colonialism was not only ter­ ritorial but also mental. The geographical occupation of space in Africa had to be facilitated by the creation of a psychological disposition toward subjugation. Colonialism was therefore accompanied by a process of intellectual season­ ing, a point emphasized by Franz Fanon when he argues that to shouJ the tota'Litai'ian character> of coZoniaZ erpZoit­ ation the sett'Ler paints the native as a sort of quint­ essence of evH. Native society is not simp'Ly des­ cribed as a society Zacking in va'Lues ... The native is decl.a:J>ed insensibZe to ethics; he NpPesents not on'Ly the absence of values, but also the negation of vaZues . He is .. the enemy of vaZues, and in this sense he is the absoLute evil.. The prevalence of such concepts as "primitive", "pagan", "Dark Continent", "civilising mission", etc., shows the extent to which attempts were made to create within the African an infer­ iority complex which woul d sharply contrast with a parallel and contemporaneous superiority complex in the colonizer.
    [Show full text]
  • Bolshevism and the Chinese Revolution
    ( BOLSHEVISM AND THE CHINESE REVOLUTION: THE CONCEPTUAL ORIGINS OF THE PROGRAM OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY AT THE TIME OF ITS FIRST CONGRESS, • 1 917-1921 by TIMOTHY JOHN STANLEY B.A., McGill University, Montreal, 1975 A THESIS SU3MITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (The Department of History) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1981 (c)Timothy John Stanley, 1981 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of History. The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date ©ctober. 20,, 1981 DE-fi (2/19) Abstract This is a study of the intellectual origins of the program of the Chinese Communist Party during the period between the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the First Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in the summer of 1921. This study examines the positions put forward in Gongchandang ("The Communist"), the theoretical organ of the Provisional Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. Although these positions were influenced by Lenin's theories to some extent, they were maialy influenced by the Chinese intellectual's reaction to the Bolshevik Revolution, understanding of classes and concepts of social change.
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Marx's Grundrisse
    5 Historical materialism in ‘Forms which Precede Capitalist Production’ Ellen Meiksins Wood Introduction ‘The general theory of historical materialism’, wrote Eric Hobsbawm in his introduction to the first English translation of the ‘Forms which Precede Capital- ist Production’, requires only that there should be a succession of modes of production, though not necessarily any particular modes, and perhaps not in any particu- lar predetermined order. Looking at the actual historical record, Marx thought that he could distinguish a certain number of socio-economic for- mations and a certain succession. But if he had been mistaken in his obser- vations, or if these had been based on partial and therefore misleading information, the general theory of historical materialism would remain unaffected. (Hobsbawm 1964: 20)1 This seems, on the face of it, a very large claim. Can it really be sustainable to say that Marx could have been seriously mistaken in his historical observa- tions and still be right in his general theory? At first glance, this claim suggests a rather casual approach to the relation between empirical specificity and theo- retical generalization, or, perhaps, a reduction of historical materialism to an empty methodological abstraction, all form and no substance. Yet, on closer consideration, much can be learned by putting Marx to this test and asking how well his general theory stands up irrespective of historical error. So let us begin with an even larger claim: Marx was indeed seriously wrong in his historical observations, for reasons having less to do with his own shortcomings than with the existing state of historical scholarship at the time of his writing the Grund- risse; but the edifice he constructed on the foundation of this faulty knowledge reveals the power, not the weakness, of historical materialism as he conceived it, which pushed him beyond the limitations of existing scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Currents in Marxist Theory Author(S): Michael Burawoy Source: the American Sociologist , Feb., 1978, Vol
    Contemporary Currents in Marxist Theory Author(s): Michael Burawoy Source: The American Sociologist , Feb., 1978, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Feb., 1978), pp. 50-64 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27702312 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]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Springer and American Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Sociologist This content downloaded from 136.152.23.198 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 18:47:30 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms CONTEMPORARY CURRENTS IN MARXIST THEORY* Michael Burawoy University of California, Berkeley The American Sociologist 1978, Vol. 13 (February):50-64 This short paper presents a few of the issues which divide contemporary Marxists and shows how their debates relate to Marx's original work. In the first part, I discuss the family, law and the world system in the light of two notions of social structure. In the second part, I consider the dynamics of capitalism and the struggles between classes, races and genders as potential motors of change. This is followed by an outline of Marx's understanding of the persistence of capitalism; the notion of reproduction of social relations; and how the state becomes involved in the organization of struggles and in the preservation of the conditions of accumulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Marx and the Iroquois
    Karl Marx and the Iroquois http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/marx_iroquois.html Karl Marx and the Iroquois There are works that come down to us with question-marks blazing like sawed-off shotguns, scattering here and there and everywhere sparks that illuminate our own restless search for answers. Ralegh's so-called Cynthia cycle, Sade's 120 Days, Fourier's New Amorous World, Lautremont's Poesies, Lenin's notes on Hegel, Randolph Bourne's essay on The State Jacque Vaches War letters, Duchamp's Green Box, the Samuel Greenberg manuscripts: These are only a few of the extraordinary fragments that have, for many of us, exerted a fascination greater than that of all but a very few "finished" works. Karl Marx's Ethnological Notebooks -notes for a major study he never lived to write, have something of the same fugitive ambiguity. These extensively annotated excerpts from works of Lewis Henry Morgan and others are a jigsaw puzzle for which we have to reinvent the missing pieces out of our own research and revery and above all, our own revolutionary activity. Typically although the existence of the notebooks has been know since Marx's death in 1883, they were published integrally for the first time only eighty-nine years later, and then only in a highly priced edition aimed at specialists. A transcription of text exactly as Marx wrote it- the book presents the reader with all the difficulties of Finnegan's Wake and more, with its curious mixture of English, German, French, Latin and Greek, and a smattering of words and phrases from many non-European languages, from Ojibwa to Sanskrit.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall of the Soviet Union: the Fall of a State Or the Fall of an Ideology
    The fall of the Soviet Union: The fall of a state or the fall of an ideology Sajjad Ali Khan∗ Abstract During the last century or so, two dominant doctrines i.e. Capitalism and Socialism had been in a state of constant confrontation resulting in engaging the two Super powers, the United States and the Soviet Union in wars such as the Vietnam War and the Cold War. The Cold War that continued for several decades finally led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. This article was an attempt to question the so called perception of conceiving socialism as a major cause of the disintegration of the USSR. It was found that the Russian Model of Socialism (Communism) was different from the Socialism of Marx and Engel in a number of aspects. It had also received immense criticism from some of the prominent Marxists. Based on the review of literature, the article concludes that the failure of communism in the Soviet Union should by no means be considered as the failure of socialism and as such socialism has nothing to do with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Instead, it is in fact the special model of socialism adopted and implemented in the Soviet Union that led to its disintegration. The basic line of argument here is that the Russian socialism was completely at odds with the socialism of Marx and Engels both in its spirit as well as in practice. Key words: Socialism, Marx and Engels, Soviet Union, Disintegration, Causes Introduction The fall of the Soviet Union is an important event in the history of humankind.
    [Show full text]
  • Communism 1 Communism
    Communism 1 Communism Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.[1] This movement, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the "socialist world" (socialist states ruled by communist parties) and the "western world" (countries with capitalist economies). Marxist theory holds that pure communism or full communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals.[2][3] The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism. Leninism adds to Marxism the notion of a vanguard party to lead the proletarian revolution and to secure all political power after the revolution for the working class, for the development of universal class consciousness and worker participation, in a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism. Council communists and non-Marxist libertarian communists and anarcho-communists oppose the ideas of a vanguard party and a transition stage, and advocate for the construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the abolition of capitalism. There is a very wide range of theories amongst those particular communists in regards to how to build the types of institutions that would replace the various economic engines (such as food distribution, education, and hospitals) as they exist under capitalist systems—or even whether to do so at all.
    [Show full text]