Jenkins,MArx on Ful and Free Development

7/30/2019 Jenkins,MArx on Ful and Free Development

1/16

1

Title: MARX ON FULL AND FREE DEVELOPMENT, By: Jenkins, J.L.,

Social Theory & Practice, 0037802X, Summer96, Vol. 22, Issue 2

Database:Academic Search Premier

MARX ON FULL AND FREE DEVELOPMENT

Marx has been severely criticized for his unrealistic view

that under communism, self-development in work would

be full and free. A fully developed individual has

developed all of her talents. A freely fully developed

individual has developed all of her talents as ends in

themselves, not merely as means. The "full" aspect of

the ideal is taken to be unattainable because a person

who tried to be, for example, a brain surgeon in the

morning and a philosopher in the evening would turn out

to be good at neither of these things. The ideal is a practical impossibility.[1]

The ideal is not only seen as unattainable, but also as undesirable, on the

grounds that it leaves people without a social role to provide them with self-

identification, and it ignores the need of creative individuals to concentrate

exclusively on their chosen field of endeavor.[2] The "free" aspect of the

ideal faces another problem: Marx appears to deny that labor is a realm in

which humans can engage in free activity.

I want to defend Marx's ideal not by showing that on the usual interpretation

the ideal is desirable and practical, but rather by showing that the common

reading of the ideal is incorrect. I will first show that by full development

Marx did not mean the development of every potential talent of the

individual. Second, I will argue that Marx consistently held that human

freedom could be achieved in labor activity.

Contents

1. Full

Development

2. Free

Development

Notes
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23AN9609194492-2&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGNdiy6PPbM4kgwehAoeNaofaDoCwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23AN9609194492-2&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGNdiy6PPbM4kgwehAoeNaofaDoCwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23AN9609194492-3&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGFCOHMVLV0igoD3ses703mzPF5EAhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23AN9609194492-3&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGFCOHMVLV0igoD3ses703mzPF5EAhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23AN9609194492-4&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHjvI75lu7j8hKue0zjoAttW4qe_whttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23AN9609194492-4&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHjvI75lu7j8hKue0zjoAttW4qe_whttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23AN9609194492-3&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGFCOHMVLV0igoD3ses703mzPF5EAhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23AN9609194492-3&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGFCOHMVLV0igoD3ses703mzPF5EAhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23AN9609194492-2&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGNdiy6PPbM4kgwehAoeNaofaDoCwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23AN9609194492-2&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGNdiy6PPbM4kgwehAoeNaofaDoCw


2/16

2

1. Full Development

There are numerous passages in Marx's writings that appear to suggest

that he thinks every human is a nascent Leonardo da Vinci, prevented from

full Flower only by the constraining bonds of capitalism.[4] The following is a

famous one:

For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a

particular exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from

which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a

critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of

livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive

sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he

wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible

for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning,

fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I

have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or

critic.[5]

The particular examples that Marx gives make the fullness ideal neither

implausible nor undesirable. Ranchers in the American west probably do all

of the things mentioned with the exception of critical criticism. However, a

substitution of brain surgery in the morning, nuclear physicist in the

afternoon, concert pianist in the evening makes the view absurd. Even if a

person had the potential talent to do all of these things in separate lifetimes,

they are all so demanding that only one or two can be achieved in a single

lifetime. Hence, the ideal is obviously unattainable.

One might doubt that this and other passages from the German Ideology

express Marx's considered view, given that the German Ideology was co-

authored, not published in Marx's lifetime, and never polished. However, in

volume I of Capital, Marx quotes the writings of a French workman whose

experience bears a striking resemblance to the life praised in the German

Ideology:
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23toc&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEwfPhGLdV1ju9bB3B4beSI0n9ORwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23toc&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEwfPhGLdV1ju9bB3B4beSI0n9ORwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23toc&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEwfPhGLdV1ju9bB3B4beSI0n9ORw


3/16

3

I never could have believed, that I was capable of working at the various

occupations I was employed on in California. I was firmly convinced that I

was fit for nothing but letter-press printing. . . . Once in the midst of this

world of adventurers, who change their occupation as often as they do theirshirt, egad, I did as the others. As mining did not turn out remunerative

enough, I left it for the town, where in succession I became typographer,

slater, plumber, &c. In consequence of thus finding out that I am fit for any

sort of work, I feel less of a mollusk and more of a man.

Marx notes with approbation that this shows that modern industry must

produce

the fully developed individual, fit for a variety of labours, ready to face any

change of production, and to whom the different social functions he

performs, are but so many modes of giving free scope to his own natural

and acquired powers.

The obvious similarity between the passages indicates that what is said in

the German Ideology should indeed be taken seriously.

A natural way to read the German Ideology passage is to suppose that the

point is about the freedom of development that communist production would

give people, not the fullness. So, on that reading, Marx is not seriously

suggesting that communist individuals would actualize every potential

talent, but rather that they could try to if they wanted to, since they would

not be trapped in a particular profession by necessity. If one wished to be a

hunter in the morning and a critical critic in the evening, one could try toachieve this without the threat of starvation hanging over one's head. Thus,

the passage can be read as relevant only to the "free" aspect of the ideal,

not as recommending or predicting anything about fullness.

The standard reading of the passage pictures someone who is a dilettante.

But if it is true that people find excellence in some productive capacity

rewarding, then they would not find rewarding a situation where they were

only a little bit good at many things. Hence, although communism might


4/16

4

make it possible for people to try to develop all of their potential talents, it is

doubtful that more than a handful would choose to do so if the above-

mentioned substitutions are made. So my claim is that Marx can allow that

people would not want to be dilettantes, but rather would want to specializein order to be good at something, just as they have a mind.

One might object, however, that Marx makes repeated claims that

communism will produce wholly developed, all-round individuals.

We have . . . shown that private property can be abolished only on condition

of an all-round development of individuals, precisely because the existing

form of intercourse and the existing productive forces are all embracing,

and only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can

appropriate them.

[W]ith a communist organisation of society, there disappears the

subordination of the artist to local and national narrowness which arises

entirely from the division of labour, and also the subordination of the

individual to some definite art, making him exclusively a painter, sculptor,

etc.; the very name amply expresses the narrowness of his professional

development. . . . In a communist society there are no painters but at most

people who engage in painting among other activities.[9]

The first passage and others where Marx extols the desirability of the

development of the whole individual present no problem for my

reacding.[10] To be all-round is to be neither a mindless grunt, nor a

hysterical bluestocking, nor a technocratic hive member knowing only onething. The goal of liberal education is to produce individuals who are well-

rounded in this sense, but it in no way precludes specialization.

The second passage does appear to preclude specialization. The prediction

is that there will be no "painters," only people who paint among other things.

In favor of Marx's claim, it is important to notice that if the activities sewer

worker, filing clerk, or gravedigger are substituted for painter, that is, "there

are no [sewer workers] but at most people who work in sewers among other


5/16

5

activities," there is no objection to the ideal. To abolish these roles seems

very desirable. Also, in the context of the passage, Marx is arguing that the

appearance of artistic talent in only a few individuals is explained by its

"suppression in the broad mass" by the division of labor. So he is makingthe general point that many more people would be capable of artistic

endeavor if they were not stuck doing something else. It is only when roles

admired in society are substituted that the claim seems objectionable. To

be a brain surgeon is valuable and rewarding, and thus there seems to be

no good reason why a person should not primarily engage in such an

activity.

But Marx does claim that painters are narrow. Does this mean that there is

no specialization in a communist society? It does not if we admit that

painters, and too many other specialists in our society, are too narrow. They

attend a technical school or an art school, and know about almost nothing

else. They fail to satisfy our own liberal ideal of a developed individual. As

Marx would have it, given the way division of labor responds to supply and

demand, that kind of narrow specialization is what is efficient. The current

trend in North American universities of de-emphasizing the study of the

humanities, in favor of churning out scientists and engineers who can

produce, reflects that fact. So, when Marx says that there will not be any

painters, he means that there will not be any hive-mind painters, who know

about painting and nothing else. Again, that seems desirable and not

unattainable. The projected freedom of development under communism

allows the potentially few Leonardos (if they are potentially few) the

opportunity to develop themselves fully. The rest of the population has theopportunity to follow Milton as their exemplar who "produced Paradise Lost

for the same reason that a silk worm produces silk . . . [as] an activity of his

nature."[11] A society which produced only pale, washed-out, dilettantish

versions of Milton has not produced fully developed Miltons. It is not one

Marx recommends.

It might be objected that I have ignored Marx's insistence, contra Hegel,

that people should not identify with, or become engulfed in their social roles,


6/16

6

and that, hence, Marx must oppose specialization.[12] To be engulfed in

one s social role is to see ones role as a natural or inevitable aspect of

one's identity, such that independence from or abandonment of that social

role is not conceived as a possibility. As we have seen, the fully developedindividual is one who recognizes that he is "fit for a variety of labours, ready

to face any change of production, and to whom the different social functions

he performs, are but so many modes of giving free scope to his own natural

and acquired powers." One of the benefits of capitalist production is that it

makes the worker aware that her social role is not fixed or inevitable, and

so she is independent from her role in a way that the medieval craftsman is

not.

What characterises the division of labour in the automatic workshop is that

labour has there completely lost its specialised character. But the moment

every special development stops, the need for universality, the tendency

towards an integral development of the individual begins to be felt. The

automatic workshop wipes out specialists and craft-idiocy.[13]

The modern worker is driven away from the engulfment typical of themedieval craftsman. The question is whether escape from engulfment

precludes any sort of specialization or whether it is only the type of

specialization characteristic of the "idiotic" medieval craftsman that Marx

condemns.

G.A. Cohen argues convincingly that it does not follow from Marx's

contempt of the medieval craftsman that Marx thinks that craft labor must

disappear in communist society.

For the labourer to escape a "servile relationship" to his work, it was

necessary that artisanship be replaced by a labour of repellent material

character, but it does not follow that a return to the earlier physical form

betokens a renewal of the engulfment which attended it. Craft labour can be

unengulfing, but if engulfed craft labour is the point of departure, transition

to craft labour without engulfment requires the demise of craft labour andthe rise of proletarian. Proletarian labour effects a break with the


7/16

7

engulfment craft labour promoted, but it thereby enables craft labour to

reappear free of its original "idiocy."

Cohen's view is that when Marx says that in communist society there are no

painters, he does not mean that "in a communist society there are no full-

time painters but at most part-time painters."[15] Rather, there are no

engulfed full-time painters. According to Cohen, this means that Marx

envisioned a society in which "the status 'painter' is not assumed even from

time to time," although there may be people who paint full-time.[16]

Cohen suggests that this idea may be conceptual or sociological nonsense,

and it is easy to understand the charge. There is a name for someone who

paints full-time--"painter." To suppose that someone paints full-time but is

not a painter seems incoherent, since someone who paints is a painter.

"Painter" is what it is to be someone who paints. If, however, taking on the

status "painter" means being seen as necessarily a painter, it is not

conceptual nonsense to say that there will be no painters such as that. This

contrasts with Hegel's view that for a person to become an integral part of

society she must come to be seen and to see herself as exclusivelyconfined to a particular role.

A man actualizes himself only in becoming something definite . . . this

means restricting himself exclusively to one of the particular spheres of

need . . . in his way gaining recognition both m one s own eyes and m the

eyes of others.

Marx's position represents, I think, a significant advance over Hegel's. Marxcan recognize both the human need to specialize in a field in order to find it

rewarding, and the lack of freedom that results if people come to be seen

and to see themselves as fixed in their social roles. And Marx's position in

no way precludes the satisfaction of the human need for self-identification.

The communist painter has a definite identity. She is someone who mainly

paints, but not naturally and not inevitably, and not necessarily exclusively.

Specialization is not constitutive of engulfment. That means that the


8/16

8

supposed ideal of incredibly varied activities would be an additional

desideratum. And as I have already argued, none of the passages which

are usually cited as support. for the view commit Marx to that absurd ideal.

Marx does claim that communism will abolish the division of labor, and thatagain suggests that he predicts the disappearance of specialists. However,

his primary concern is the division between mental and physical labor. He

says that "division of labour only becomes truly such from the moment

when a division of material and mental labour appears."[18] A situation

where some elite are privileged to do the interesting things such as painting

and science, while the vast majority put heads on dolls and so on,

represents the kind of waste of human lives Marx thought communism

could overcome. By "full" or "all-round" development Marx did not mean that

communist producers would develop every single potential that they

possess, but rather that they would develop both their mental and physical

capacities until their lives are full of fulfilling activities. That point can be

reached in a Leonardo-like fashion or a Milton-like fashion.[19]

2. Free Development

There is another reason for thinking that Marx rejects the desirability of

occupational roles. He appears to deny that people can be free in their

work. If they cannot, then specializing in some occupational role cannot be

a part of the person's full and free development.

In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is

determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the

very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production.

Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to

maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all

social formations and under all possible modes of production. . . . Freedom

in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers,

rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their

common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of

Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under


9/16

9

conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it

nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that

development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of

freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm ofnecessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic

prerequisite.[20]

Cohen, for example, interprets this passage to mean that Marx had a

pessimistic view about the possibilities for human fulfillment in the

production process.[21] Since Marx is pessimistic about fulfilling labor, the

working day must be shortened. He takes this to be Marx's considered view

rather than the later claim in "The Critique of the Gotha Program," where

labor in the higher form of society is said to become "life's prime want."[22]

I contend that Marx was consistent throughout his career. In the

Manuscripts of 1844 he asserts that humans are by nature freely producing

beings, and near the end of his career he asserts that labor becomes life's

prime want. The apparently negative assessment of the passage in volume

III of Capital sometimes echoed in the Grundrisse, is merely apparent.[23]

There are two ways to understand the assertion that the working day should

be shortened. First, one might hold, as Cohen does, that this means that

labor cannot be an end in itself.[24] Second, one might think that labor

cannot become life's prime want until people are allowed enough leisure to

develop themselves. Once they are allowed that freedom, they have the

capacity for activities that are not just mundane and necessary, but also

ends in themselves. I shall argue that the second is Marx's view. This

interpretation has several advantages. First, it avoids the necessity of

describing Marx as inexplicably changing his mind from year to year about

the place of labor in human life. Second, it explains why Marx says both

that labor can constitute real freedom and that the working day must be

shortened for real freedom to be achieved. Third, it does not violate the

common sense view, of which Marx was surely aware given his own work

life, that there are many forms of labor which are rewarding ends in


10/16

10

themselves.

Marx had good reason for asserting that the labor he describes as

necessary and mundane could not become an end in itself. He pictures it as

follows:

[I]t is the machine which possesses skill and strength in place of the worker,

is itself the virtuoso, with a soul of its own in the mechanical laws acting

through it. . . . The worker's activity, reduced to a mere abstraction of

activity, is determined and regulated on all sides by the movement of the

machinery, and not the opposite.[25]

The increase of automation turns human producers into machine-tenders.

Anyone who has tended such a machine knows that not much room for

human creativity exists in such an occupation. There would be something

wrong with someone who made opening and closing the door of her

machine an end in itself. So, Marx rightly describes this kind of labor as

mundane and necessary, as labor that cannot become an end in itself.

Since the Capital (vol. III) passage quoted above asserts that the

shortening of the working day is the basic prerequisite for entry into the true

realm of freedom where activity is an end in itself, one might think that

Marx's pessimism about labor extends to all forms of labor, not only to the

kind of labor in which the worker finds herself an appendage to a machine.

However, Marx himself inveighs against Adam Smith for not having realized

that labor is an end in itself for human beings.

It seems quite far from Smith's mind that the individual, "in his normal state

of health, strength, activity, skill, facility," also needs a normal portion of

work, and of the suspension of tranquility. Certainly, labour obtains its

measure from the outside, through the aim to be attained and the obstacles

to be overcome in attaining it. But Smith has no inkling whatever that this

overcoming of obstacles is in itself a liberating activity--and that, further, the

external aims become stripped of the semblance of merely external natural

urgencies, and become posited as aims which the individual himself posits--


11/16

11

hence as self-realization, objectification of the subject, hence real freedom,

whose action is, precisely, labour. He is right, of course, that, in its historic

forms as slave-labour, serf-labour, and wage-labour, labour always appears

as repulsive, always as external forced labour; and not-labour, by contrast,as "freedom, and happiness."

Here Marx claims that labor can be not only fulfilling, but also posited as an

end in itself. He describes it as an activity in which the person gains real

freedom.

This leaves a puzzle. If labor can be fulfilling and free, why does Marx think

that the shortening of the working day is the basic prerequisite to freedom?

To understand why, it must be noticed that Marx does not say that labor

time must be minimized.[27] It must merely be shortened. That is because a

long working day leaves people with no time to develop themselves,

especially if the work is of the mundane but necessary stripe described

above. If I work twelve hours opening and shutting the door of my machine

as it emits parts, my time to educate myself in the arts and sciences is

minimal. As long as I do not have time to educate myself in the arts andsciences, the only kind of labor within my capacity will be the mundane. If I

do have such time, then I will be capable of labor that is an end in itself. So,

my working day must be shortened to make it possible for labor to become

life's prime want. The reason, then, for the shortening of the working day is

to make labor life's prime want.

Marx describes the worker's changed attitude toward the production

process, once educated, in this way:

Free time--which is both idle time and time for higher activity--has naturally

transformed its possessor into a different subject and he then enters into

the direct production process as this different subject.

The shortening of the working day has the result of turning the worker into a

new subject--one for whom labor can be rewarding rather than debilitating--

one for whom labor could even become life's prime want.


12/16

12

I conclude, then, that Marx's vision of human activity under communism is

much more attractive and optimistic than commentators have thought it to

be. Full development is not an absurd dilettantism. Free development does

not occur only during one's leisure hours. I have several times comparedMarx's ideal to the liberal ideal of education. Marx himself would perhaps be

unhappy at being referred to as "liberal" in any way, but the comparison is

suggestive. It suggests, at least, that there is a common ideal of human life

held by liberals and communists. Their differences lie in their views about

the means of achieving the ideal.[29]

Notes

1. See, for example, Jon Elster, Making Sense of Marx (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 522.

2. For these criticisms, see, for example, G.A. Cohen,

"Reconsidering Historical Materialism," in History, Labour,

and Freedom (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), p. 140.

3. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. III (New York: International

Publishers, 1981), p. 820.

4. Marx's position might be seen as influenced by Schiller's view

that by the "confining of our activity to a particular sphere

we have given ourselves a master within, who not infrequently

ends by suppressing the rest of our potentialities" (Friedrich

Schiller, On the Aesthetic Education of Mankind, Wilkinson &

Willoughby trans. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), Letter 6,

sec. 8). However, first, Schiller seems to have thought that

any form of specialization was harmful to the individual,

whereas that was not Marx's view, and, second, as Bernard Yack

argues, worries about the fragmentation of the modern

individual were a commonplace in German writing (Bernard Yack,

The Longing for Total Revolution (Princeton: Princeton


13/16

13

University Press, 1986), p. 158).

5. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The German Ideology (Collected

Works, London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1976), p. 47.

6. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. I (New York: International

Publishers, 1967), p. 487 n.

7. Capital, vol. I, p. 488.

8. The German Ideology, p. 439.

9. Ibid., p. 394.

10. See ibid., pp. 225, 256 for other claims about wholesale

development.

11. Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, Part I (Moscow: Foreign

Languages Publishing House, n.d.), p. 389.

12. I shall henceforth call tiffs phenomenon "engulfment,"

following several recent commentators. See, for example, G.A.

Cohen, "The Dialectic of Labour in Marx," History, Labour, and

Freedom, pp. 183-208, and David Miller, "Marx, Communism, and

Markets," Political Theory 15 (1987): 182-204, for a

discussion of the dangers of engulfment in communist society.

13. Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy (Moscow: Progress

Publishers, 1955), p. 125.

14. Cohen, "Dialectic of Labour," pp. 202-3.

15. Ibid., p. 206.


14/16

14

16. Cohen elsewhere endorses the view that a part of Marx's point

is that there are no full-time painters (see Cohen,

"Reconsidering," p. 141). His considered view appears to bethat although specialization is not sufficient for engulfment,

Marx thinks that both varied rules and avoiding engulfment are

desirable.

17. G.W. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, T.M. Knox trans. (New York:

Oxford University Press, 1967), sec. 207.

18. The German Ideology, pp. 44-45.

19. It is interesting to note that although Marx condemns the

engulfment of the medieval craftsman, he praises Milton for

engaging in an activity of his nature. This suggests that Marx

would not want to say that Milton is engulfed, even though his

activity is seen as natural. And that suggests that what Marx

wants to condemn is the engulfment which occurs in a society

where people are taught that certain roles are natural for

them even though they are not, not a society where people are

encouraged to develop talents for which they actually have a

natural bent.

20. Marx, Capital, vol. III, p. 820.

21. Cohen, "Dialectic of Labour," p. 207.

22. Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program," The Marx-Engels

Reader, Robert Tucker ed. (New York: W.W. Norton Co., 1978),

p. 531. James Klagge argues that Cohen is wrong. His

compromise view is that Marx in his early writings had an

optimistic view about the fulfillment humans could extract


15/16

15

from productive labor, but the later view is that although

labor should be minimized, it can still be fulfilling and free

given certain conditions (James Klagge, "Marx's Realms of

'Freedom' and 'Necessity'," Canadian Journal of Philosophy 16(1986): 769-77).

23. Karl Marx, Grundrisse, M. Nicolaus trans. (New York: Vintage

Books, 1973), p. 612.

24. Klagge, although he disagrees with Cohen that Marx had a

pessimistic view about productive activity under communism,

admits that one can only explain the "Gotha Program" passage

either by supposing that Marx became optimistic again later

on, or that Marx got carried away in a heavy-handed rhetorical

flourish (Klagge, "Marx's Realms," p. 777).

25. Grundrisse, pp. 692-93.

26. Ibid., p. 611.

27. Klagge does make the inference that labor time must be

minimized, so that in spite of his recognition that Marx

describes labor under communism as really free, he can only

understand Marx's demand for a shorter working day as

expressing some perfectionist value--that activities that have

no hint of the necessary are higher in value than activities

that are both means and ends (Klagge, "Marx's Realms," p.

774).

28. Grundrisse, p. 712.

29. I would like to thank Robert Shaver, Annette Baier, Jennifer

Whiting, and an anonymous referee for this journal for their


16/16

16

helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

~~~~~~~~

By J.L. Jenkins

Department of Philosophy, University of Manitoba

Copyright of Social Theory & Practice is the property of Florida State

University / Dept. of Philosophy and its content may not be copied or e-

mailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder`s

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or e-mail

articles for individual use.

Source: Social Theory & Practice, Summer96, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p181, 12p

Item: 9609194492

Top of Page
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23top&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHHKKkau73E7Pf62kTP2djlLo7-5ghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb4.epnet.com%2Fcitation.asp%3Ftb%3D1%26_ua%3Dsd%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bbo%2BS%255FDE%2Blst%2BSociological%2B%2BMethods%2B%2BResearch%2Bdb%2Baphjnh%2Bfst%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2BPractice%2Bshn%2B1%2Bdt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bbt%2BSocial%2B%2BTheory%2B%2Band%2B%2BPractice%2Bdo%2BS%255FDE%2B5B3A%26_ug%3Dsid%2BC18CF7C7%252D271E%252D47B4%252DA4AF%252D564B0D5EE58A%2540sessionmgr3%2Bdbs%2Baph%2Bcp%2B3%2BEBA8%26_us%3Dfcl%2BAut%2Bhs%2BTrue%2Bor%2BDate%2Bss%2BSO%2Bsm%2BKS%2Bsl%2B%252D1%2Bdstb%2BKS%2Bri%2BKAAACBYA00012105%2B3691%26_uh%3Dbtn%2BY%2Bmd%2BB%2BEEBF%26_uso%3Dhd%2BFalse%2Btg%255B0%2B%252D%2Bst%255B0%2B%252DJN%2B%2B%2522Social%2B%2BTheory%2B%2B%2526%2B%2BPractice%2522%2B%2Band%2B%2BDT%2B%2B19960601%2Bdb%255B0%2B%252Daph%2Bop%255B0%2B%252D%2B578B%26cf%3D1%26fn%3D1%26rn%3D3%23top&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHHKKkau73E7Pf62kTP2djlLo7-5g

Documents

Jenkins,MArx on Ful and Free Development