Philosophical Dialogues XIX
Essence and Existence
XIX
23rd November, 1999
By Franz J. T. Lee
Labour
SCENE: Philosophy
Seminar
(The lecture begins. Prof. Coseino explains
the Relation of Work or Labour to Cosmos
a n d Einai, within the context of Physical a n d Intellectual
a n d Rational Labour. The discussion period begins.)
Martina: In how far does the Marxist conception differ from that of its feudalist and capitalist predecessors or contemporaries?
Coseino: In a certain sense, essentially the Marxist concept of Labour does not differ from the meanings given to Work by thinkers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Thomas Malthus, or even Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
William: What does Rousseau essentially understand by Labour?
Coseino: In the latter case, Man is "good by nature", but Nature itself and Society are "bad", because they threaten Man, the "noble savage"; of course, the reverse is not true, that Man threatens Nature. Only the modern ecologists, in the name of the survival of the very same Man, now claim that Man threatens Nature. In reality, it is the very same old patrian claim, that Nature threatens Man. Only a few "locos", bio-dynamic food crack-pots, natural artists or religious animists really still "love" Nature.
Martina: Well, how did our fascinating fatherland originate?
Coseino: The Patria in its totality originated and reproduces itself due to a perverted, fiendish, aggressive non-relation to Nature; this is expressed in language, in formal logics, as dualism, non-contradiction, in short, in its "labour", in its production process, which it calls "History".
Martina: Did Marx and Engels agree with this meaning of Labour? Did they accept the connotation?
Coseino: Marx and Engels mutatis mutandis accepted this official interpretation of History as the labour or production process, as Man, as the Human Being, juxtaposed to Nature; but they brought dialectical life into the Patria, as its own Negation, and like the good old Adam Smith, they wanted to realize a "good capitalism", a "good" socialism or communism, edified on the ruins of the previous mode of production. This "emancipatory" process proceeds all along the Hegelian dialectical spiral chain of the Patria, along the "circle of circles", which eventually in spatial parameters and temporal paradigms approaches "Nearer my God to Thee", approximates Freedom, which approbates the slogan : "Patria o Muerte !" (Fatherland or Death !)
Karl: This is strange, indeed. Did Marx and Engels never ever question the very existence of Labour? Did they consider Labour as something detrimental, for example, as a "curse", as the "root of evil"?
Coseino: Marx and Engels did not question Labour as such; for them, Man and his Labour were noble; Rousseau would say that Man is simply a labouring "noble savage". According to the fathers of Marxism, it is the exploitative economic production, especially the accumulation of Capital, which has made Labour ignoble, which has alienated Man. By means of Class Struggle and the Socialist Revolution, they wanted to disalienate Labour, hence bringing about Human Emancipation. They did not realize that "Labour" or "Work", as it appears in the Patria, is per se Alienation, is Human Estrangement überhaupt.
Jeanette: Does this mean that Marx and Engels were "obsolete" from the very start; that, in fact, their "historic relevance" is negligible?
Coseino: By Jove! No! I have an immense respect for the fathers of socialism and communism. In fact, they are my teachers. And, as you can see, they performed an excellent "job". All this does not diminish the revolutionary grandeur of all devoted emancipatory Marxists; they have been and are accomplishing their historic role within the Patria; surely, they sacrifice themselves for the "Damned of the Earth" (Fanon), even for the grex vanalium (the herd of hirelings, the Kissingers and Mobutus) of Global Capital. We love Marx, but we love the truth even more.
Jeffrey: Could you please give us a synopsis of the Marxist concept of Labour?
Coseino: Fine. According to the general socialist outlook, the human labour tragedy occurred in the following historic manner.
Within the framework of the original, harmonious, collective, primitive exploitation and domination of Nature, which is Human Labour, and which is also called "primitive communism", a contradiction came into being, which should not be there, which contradicts harmony, i.e., the exploitation, domination and discrimination of Man by Man, of Society by Society. This causes Human Alienation, alienated human labour. This should be eradicated; the status quo of the Patria should be re-established, the Establishment should be, that Man (collectively) exploits and dominates Nature, and not that Man dominates Man. Labour and Man are the Untouchables, the Holy Cows.
Hence, the economic struggle, Labour against Capital, and the political class struggle, the Proletariat against the Bourgeoisie, should annihilate this contradiction within "History", within the Patria, and re-establish an intensive world peace and harmony, Socialism and Communism.
Mohammed: How is this related to our historic
relation: Cosmos a n d Einai, Intellect
a n d Reason? Does the Patria have a "different" relation, another
"Bezug", between Nature a n d
Society?
Coseino: As we indicated already in our lectures, it is not this kind of "Labour" that is alienated, and that it should be disalienated; the truth of the matter is that Labour itself is the umbilical cord, the life wire of the Patria itself; Labour ipse facto is Alienation, it destroys the Bezug: Nature a n d Society, i.e., it threatens History itself. In future expositions of our Philosophy, we will trace the essence a n d existence of Labour in the Patria; in Thinking, in Intellectual Labour a n d Rational Labour, the dethronement of Intellect, and the "Eclipse of Reason" (Max Horkheimer).
Albert: What about our Theory of Knowledge and Logical Method with reference to the elaboration of the concept "labour" in the Fatherland?
Coseino: In past expositions, we have already explained the importance of a Weltanschauung and a Method (Logic), which enable us to reach scientific-philosophic precision in our analysis. Also we had warned against the danger to criticize the world outlook and method of any thinker, and then surreptitiously use his concepts as our own, and on top of this, still criticize him, using his concepts which we consider erratic. This type of "scientific" method is simply dishonest and smells like back-biting. Very often, innocently, we commit this analytic error.
Patricia: Certainly, official economists, like Samuelson, have taught us how to plagiarize Marxist concepts.
Coseino: Certain bourgeois economists do it deliberately; they "pinch" concepts from Marx, and pretend that these terms are their own. In Germany, a modern tax is even called "Mehrwert" (Surplus Value), a central term developed by Marx in Capital. As we have pointed out before, Adam Smith, Hegel and Marx, all use similar concepts of "Labour" vis-a-vis Nature, but their Weltanschauungen differ.
Mahatma: Does a general concept of "Labour" exist? I mean one which anybody and everybody could acquire, and could understand?
Coseino: I am afraid not. Do you know two people who have the same conception of "love"? If this was so, well, then we would have millions of happy couples, kissing and frolicking across the globe, and nobody would have any trouble to find her "True Love" or his "Dream Princess". This also applies to the concept of "Labour".
Surely, Webster’s Dictionary and the "man on the street" do not use the same connotation. A woman in labour pain has no time to think about "labour", and a prisoner who serves in a labour camp, and who has been condemned to 20 years hard labour, surely does not know scientifically what "labour" is all about, but he could explain with precision what "toil" means for a poor outcast.
No thinker uses the exact concept of Labour of another thinker; to be able to achieve this, Thinker A has to be identical with Thinker B, and then, in this case, they do not exist as two different thinkers. The "miracle" of two identical concepts which operate in two different brains is performed by theology and ideology; in science a n d philosophy such a nonsense does not exist. This "miracle" the Patrian educational system wants to perform; if it is successful, then all students would get "A" grades, and their examination answers will all be identical.
We can fill our concepts with the contents of various different scientific and philosophic reflections and reproductions; but what we select, and how we select these "facts", have to do with our scientific-philosophic method. So, we have to apply the following "guide-line" : "Do It Yourself!" a n d "Think It Yourself!"
Alfred: What then is the "bottom line", is the "clue" about the essential relation, about the "capital crime" within this wonderful capitalist world?
Coseino: I will relate to you all this
"Psycho-Terror", and will not keep you longer in "suspense"! We can identify
the "life wire", the "umbilical cord" of the Patria as its Labour Process; also we can see how it operates
within the context of our "and-Relation", of our Bezug in general. We can
also note with exactitude why this historic process is maltreated and perverted.
We can explain why in Patrian Nature and Society all relations, whether economic,
political, social or human, are reduced to non-relations, to thing-relations,
to money-relations; we can indicate why all relations are ossified, have become
the exact opposite of "progress" and "development", and why they tend towards
repose, to a standstill, to Death. The Patrian Slogan should be:
PATRIA and Death!!
Indira: Let us look at the logical exposition of the aforesaid. Professor, could you summarize again what we understand by Identification?
Coseino: Anything, anyone, any relation,
any process, as
identification, as level, is one sided, is uni-lateral, is oblique, is
skew; it is neither perpendicular nor parallel; it is only
straightforward and it never deviates; it is simply uni-que.
Indira: Applied to the Patria, at what conclusion do we arrive?
Coseino: However, this only applies to something that only is: for example, das Vaterland, la Patria, the Establishment, the status quo, in one word, that what is generally known as "History".
When something exists, as differentiation, as level a n d degree, it is a n d exists, i.e., it exists manifold, polique. This specifically applies to what we understand by History.
Mahatma: But, does the Patria not exist within our History? And does our History also not exist within the Patria?
Coseino: Surely, as Patria, our History is, but this is not its only level of being; it is much more than this. However, what concerns us here is mainly the particular existence: "History" (Patria) a n d History. We are Patrians, we exist in the Patria, and we have all sorts of patrian "problems" to resolve. But, we are not only Patrians, we are MORE, we are Patrians a n d Historians! We "labour" in the Patria, but we emancipate ourselves in History! This is a definite form, a logical degree of our existence.
Bill: As what kind of relation can I identify Labour in the Patria, and in our conception of History? Does Labour also have degrees and mensions?
Coseino: Derived from what we have treated until now, Labour, essentially is a level, has a specific and-relation, within the general context of our Science a n d Philosophy. This specific patrian non-relation simply can be called, be identified as Alienation. Again, Labour is just one non-relation among zillions of other relations. Please notice that Labour, Capital and Alienation are just three different words which describe various aspects of the very same thing, of the Patria, which is basically a non-relation at rest, in repose, at peace with itself, enjoying World Peace, approximating its own identity, its own creation and invention: Death! Patria y Muerte!
Karl: Does Labour also have other Levels? Does it also exist in various Degrees?
Coseino: For sure.
Like all beings, cosmic beings, patrian beings, historic beings,
labour or alienation have various levels; for example, another "higher" level
of Labour is Labour as Labour /a n d Capital, in other words, in our
terminology or methodology as Intellectual Labour, as Capital. This
does not imply that Labour or Capital has our degree of differentiation,
has any " a n d - relation", the above Diagory
is simply our analytic instrument to indicate that at a certain level the
essence of the Patria is Labour, and at another level a n d
degree, the Patria exists within History as Capital;
viz., Capital /a n d History. By us, and only by us, Capital
exists here differentiated as Labour /a n d Capital. In this
way, as level, we can identify the Patria or Labour, but we can also identify
Labour or Capital, Labour and Capital; furthermore, we can even differentiate
Labour /a n d Capital, as Level /a n d
Degree. We can also think about many other relations, depending on what
precisely we are analysing. But this is already "Advanced Philosophy"; in
future lectures and debates we will discuss these issues in detail.
Alfred: Sorry, for a rather stupid question,
do "Birds" work?
Can they consciously attack us? Do feelings of revenge or hatred enter
in their cosmic acts?
Coseino: I can imagine why you ask this question. I saw your "action" film. Let us get to the core of your question. What did Charles Darwin discover in "The Descent of Man" (1871)? He discovered that the patrian Man descends directly from animals, from the "Birds", from the apes, across the ape-men and man-apes!
What a "discovery" my Country Apes, then You a n d I AND All Of Us fell, also our religious delirious fantasy surrounding us, also being the "Crown of Creation" !
Adam: Do you mean to say that "In the beginning was the Great Ape"?
Coseino: Worse than that! There "was" NEITHER Beginning NOR End. At any event, Marx and Engels were soberly fascinated by Darwin; Karl (Charles) Marx even wanted to dedicate Capital, Volume Two, to his "comrade-in-name", but not comrade-in-arms"; but this was a bit too much for the "fittest survival" in Capitalism of Charles Darwin! Then, Engels in his work, "Dialektik der Natur" (1882), elevated Man to the "Highest Blossom of Nature"; this was surely "a step forward", away from the divine ex nihil, nihil fit. He stated that Labour was the Earthly Creator of Man, and not God! What interests us here is the fragmentary work of Engels annexed to the "Dialectics of Nature":
The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man.
Karl: What did Engels state about "Labour"?
Coseino: He said: "Labour Created Man Himself".
Let us see what is the very first thing that Engels explains to
us :
"Labour is the source of all wealth, the
economists assert. It is this – next
to nature, which supplies it with the
material that it converts into
wealth.
But it is also infinitely more than this.
It
is the primary basic condition for
all human existence, and this is to such an
extent that, in a sense, we have
to say that labour created man himself."
Adam: Now I see! Engels actually confirms, that our Creator is not "Our Father", is not God, also not Mother Nature, but Labour itself. We are the "Children of Labour"; for our social benefit, Labour converts the "material" of Nature into "wealth".
Coseino: Yes, Adam. As Patrian, you are a "Child of Labour"; Labour is your birth-mark! It is also the divine wrathful "curse" cast upon you by Jahwe, on your ancient, parental "creatures", who were forcefully cast out of Paradise.
But, let us proceed. In the above quotation, there are two more significant things to note: firstly, the "infinitely more than this" principle, and secondly, that Engels speaks about "human existence", and not about "human being".
Of course, Engels wrote his article on the level of "natural science" of his time; many facts, even those which he had used in the "Dialectics of Nature", had become outdated and obsolete; yet we are not interested in the appearance forms or the phenomenological aspects of his theory.
Of greater importance are the epistemological comments with regard to Labour, to Man, to "History". Now, let us see how Dr. Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey, who probably did not even read this fragmentary article, meets Engels on human evolutionary matters.
Patricia: I follow. Oh yes! Professor, please tell us about Homo Zinjanthropus – about the African Adam.
Coseino: It is of great interest what the famous British anthropologist, archaeologist and prehistorian, Dr. Leakey, had to tell us about his discoveries in the Olduvai Gorge of present day Tanzania in Africa, especially about the first primitive tool user whom he had identified in 1959.
For Leakey, the only way to find the "missing link" between "ape" and "man", between homo kenyapithecus or homo neanderthal and homo sapiens sapiens, was to discover which one of these "homoi" was working, was labouring. It happened to be homo habilis or homo zinjanthropus, who, according to radio-carbon dating, had evolved in Africa some 2 000 000 years ago.
Albert: I smell something funny here. Do not tell me, that our modern technology has its roots in "monkey business"!
Coseino: You are smelling the real labouring "skunk". Next to the fossils of these age old ape-men or men-apes, tools were found, but only homo zinjanthropus had developed, had improved his tools, in other words, he had evolved technical skills or productive technology. Hence, Labour was decisive for Leakey to determine when exactly our "forefather", the African Adam, had evolved; in this way, the bourgeois ideologist Leakey totally agreed with the socialist Engels, that Labour had produced Man.
Of course, to develop tools, not only manual labour is necessary; the conditio sine qua non is intellectual labour. In his manuscript, Engels had formulated this as follows :
"Thus the hand
is not only the organ of labour,
it is also the product of labour. ...But the
hand did not
exist by itself. It was only one member of an
entire,
highly complex organism.
...First comes labour, after it, and then
side by side with it,
articulate speech. ... The reaction on labour
and speech
of the development of the brain and its attendant
senses,
of the increasing clarity of consciousness,
power of
abstraction and of judgement, gave an ever-renewed
impulse
to the further development of both labour and
speech."
Indira: I can see clearly now. In a somehow complex way, Engels is explaining to us the origin of physical and intellectual labour, and the role of speech or language, as tool, to express consciousness, the "power of abstraction", in nuce: thinking. He also underlines the dialectics between "hand" and "brain", between the two sides of Labour.
Coseino: Quite so. Obviously, neither Darwin nor Marx, nor Engels, nor Leakey, question the very essence of Labour, of Man. Here Labour, which is obviously Alienation, in the sense that it progressively becomes an egoistic, arrogant, greedy process, a brutal "struggle for the "survival of the fittest" of all evolutionary, labouring creatures, becomes the most glorified thing under the Sun.
This is the birth of the /and-Relation, of maltreated Nature /a n d perverted Society, the Essence of the Patria. It is not only a mutation, an evolutionary dialectical leap, it produces a fiendish relation, an /and-relation, towards Nature, towards all species on this planet. It produces Labour, which exploits, dominates and discriminates; it creates itself, Man, Capital, "Reason", the Patria.
Adam: You were "right", Professor. Neither God nor Nature had produced Man. Labour had produced Man, and Man had produced Labour. What an excellent married couple! "For better, or for Worse!" Thus, Man had produced and on a global scale Man is still very busy reproducing Himself, as you said before: is creating Alienation per se.
Coseino: Next time, we will discuss Marx's conception of the product of Labour, of the wonderful "Human Being". I am sure that you enjoyed your seminar. Till soon!
(Coseino looks through the window. A cat, sitting on the roof, suddenly slips and falls down. It elegantly lands on its four paws. Coseino wonders: The cat falls onto its feet, but the "human being", who just lives concretely, who has not learned to think, falls into eternal yesteryear, vanishes into infinite oblivion.)