In her discussion of Labor, Arendt pays respect to Marx, but says she will be critical of him. Why does Arendt challenge the significance of Marx’s vision of the growing power of the working class?
Arendt begins developing her doctrine by recognizing the interplay between vita contemplativa and vita activa. She notes that archaic philosophy centers on the preeminence of the vita contemplativa, portraying the vita activa as mere means of survival. Marx reinterpreted this duality, viewing vita contemplativa as a derivative of life in a society. Furthermore Marx attests to the apphorism that the human species is characterized by its capacity for labor (and not thought as conventional wisdom claims). Arendt propounds this claim by noting that in a contemporary society, the individual at all levels of society is defined by labor. Marx then makes the paradoxical claim that the labor of the proletariat will lead to freedom from oppression and duty, a claim that Arendt is highly critical of.
Arendt considers the subsets of vita activa and proceeds to make the distinction between labor and work. While work is defined by a specific beginning and end, labor is perennial: serving as the mechanism to meet the fundamental demands for preservation (and end that is perpetually out of reach). This undertaking has trivialized the non-labor related aspects of our life, making us dependent on labor for a meaningful existence. Arendt asserts that this state of humanity is akin to slavery making labor antithetical to freedom which she considers a crucial aspect of humanity. Arendt following the thinking of the Greeks, contends that labor belongs in the private realm, in contrast to its existence in the public realm, which has led to a diminishment of freedom (as the public realm was subjugated by its dependence on labor). This solecism of labor leads to an unfruitful public life where political and societal development is restricted.
It is through this lens, Arendt saw Marx’s vision of the growing power of the proletariat as averse to the attainment of freedom. Furthermore their is an inherent contradiction with Marx, arising in the theory of human action. The human action, which is a generator of innovation and the unpredictable, is incompatible with the Hegelian view imbued in Marxist via a teleological approach. Thus it is Arendt’s appreciation of the ephemerality of human thought and her desire to protect it by limiting the influence of labor on the individual that leads to the criticism of Marx and the delicate balance between vita contemplativa and vita activa.
It is through this lens, Arendt saw Marx’s vision of the growing power of the proletariat as averse to the attainment of freedom. Furthermore their is an inherent contradiction with Marx, arising in the theory of human action. The human action, which is a generator of innovation and the unpredictable, is incompatible with the Hegelian view imbued in Marxist via a teleological approach. Thus it is Arendt’s appreciation of the ephemerality of human thought and her desire to protect it by limiting the influence of labor on the individual that leads to the criticism of Marx and the delicate balance between vita contemplativa and vita activa.
I agree with George's analysis of Arendt's criticism of Marx, in which she notes the fallibility of his arguments surrounding the teleological progression of the proletariat towards a future free of labor. If man is characterized by labor, Arendt argues, how can freedom from labor engender the construction of freedom? Freedom cannot be discrete without the presence of a diametrically opposed condition, as Arendt notes in her descriptions of classical repertoires of government and household relations. In diagnosing one of the key deficiencies of traditional Marxism, Arendt compels us to think about the future of labor, especially in a world of increasing automation and technology where human workers may one day become anachronistic.
ReplyDelete