Private Property and Communism

In Private Property and Communism, Marx describes the basis of human interaction and its relation to private property, and how to abolish it in particular forms of communism. The forms are “crude” communism, a second type “still of a political nature,” and “Communism.” The “crude” communism is simply a “
manifestation of the vileness of private property” (226). The second communism is the abolition of the state, but still an incomplete communism still based on private property. The third Communism, is the “positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human essence, through and for man” (227). Marx places his ideals in the realm of human identity, which are hard to argue against.

            For Marx, the human is rooted to the world through his labor, which is not simply the physical work he does, but also the physical transformations of the individual as part of the world. Labor is the “universal condition” through which man and nature interact. Mankind, seeing himself as universal, is different from animals, in that man produces not just when he is physically compelled or needs to do so, and produces for the universal. Therefore, the human world is a created world, where we see and interact with the labor of others.

            The supersession of private property is “therefore the complete emancipation of all human senses and attributes; but it is this emancipation precisely because these senses and attributes have become human.’’ (229). By freeing ourselves from private property, we can then focus the objects of our desire to become human objects and not lose ourselves in them.

            Marx, however, does separate the “essential powers” of humans, such as the objects of the eye and that of the ear, music. He uses this assertion to show that man “is therefore affirmed in the objective world not only in thought but with all the senses” (229). The existence of private property, however, detracts from the culturing and development of these senses, for instance, that “dealer in minerals sees only the commercial value, and not the beauty and peculiar nature of the minerals; he lacks a mineralogical sense” (230). This is where I have a problem with Marx’s ideals. While it is true that some people only partake in certain activities they do for monetary gain or gain of private property, I think it is wrong to say that just because on gains property from it, that one can not truly appreciate it. For instance, in our society, it is often the case that the people who care the most and are the most knowledgeable about certain objective traits in their specialized fields, are in those fields because they have the lust for more knowledge and genuinely have a calling towards it.

            There are many examples of this: owners of professional sports franchises, presidents/CEOS of certain major corporations, founders of for-profit institutions such as colleges and universities. I just think it is inherently wrong to posit that just because something in terms of private property is gained through an endeavor is enough to say that it alienates one from his nature as a man.