[p. 225]
|225| because he is here a singular, thus labours for one need; the content of his labour goes beyond his need; he labours for the needs of many, – and so does each. Each therefore satisfies the needs of many, and the satisfaction of his many particular needs is the labour of many others. – Since his labour is this abstract labour, he relates as abstract I, or after the manner of thinghood; – not as comprehensive, rich in content, circumspect spirit which commands a large range, and is master over it – it has no concrete labour; rather its force consists in analysing, in abstraction, – in the dissection of the concrete into many abstract sides. – His labouring itself becomes wholly mechanical, or belongs to a manifold determinateness; but the more abstract it becomes, the more he is only abstract activity, and he is thereby in a position to withdraw himself from labour and to substitute for his activity that of external nature – he needs mere movement, and this he finds in external nature; or pure movement is precisely the relation of the abstract forms of space and time; – abstract external activity. – Machine.
Between these many kinds of abstract worked products there must now take place a movement whereby they become concrete need again, i.e. the need of a singular, this again [in the] subject that contains many such within itself. The judgement that analysed them83) set them over against itself as determinate abstractions;84) – their universality, to which it ascends, is their equality, or value. In this they are the same; this value itself as thing is money. – The return to concretion, to possession, is exchange. –
83) In the margin: Determinateness in itself, going back to singularity
84) In the margin: He has himself made it into a being for the need of others, whereas in family possession he, on the contrary, kept it to himself. Ground is that his simple existence is universal; his possession has the significance of being for others.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.