14.. 노동 및 다산성Labor and Fertility
가장낮고, 가장 경멸받던 지위로부터 모든 인간활동들 가운데 가장높고 가장 존경받을만한 신분지위를 향한 노동의 갑작스러운 장대한 일어남은 로크가 노동이 모든 프로퍼티의 원천이라는 점을 발견했을 때 시작되었다(180)The sudden, spectacular rise of labor from the lowest, most despised position to the highest rank, as the most esteemed of all human activities, began when Locke discovered that labor is the source of all property. 그다음으로 노동이 모든 웰쓰의 원천이라고 단언한 아담 스미스가 그 경로를 좇았고, 노동이 생산성의 원천이고, 노동이 사람의 바로 그 인간다움이 되는 곳이 "노동의 체계"라는 맑스에게서 그 경로는 절정에 이르렀다(180)It followed its course when Adam Smith asserted that labor was the source of all wealth and found its climax in Marx's "system of labor,"39 where labor became the source of all productivity and the expression of the very humanity of man. Of the three, however, only Marx was interested in labor as such; 하지만, 로크는 사적인 프로퍼티의 제도화에 관심을 갖는데 그쳤고, 아담 스미스는 웰쓰의 제한없는 축적의 족쇄채워지지않는 과정을 안전보장받으려는 데에서 그쳤다(180)Locke was concerned with the institution of private property as the root of society and Smith wished to explain and to secure the unhampered progress of a limitless accumulation of wealth. But all three, though 오직 맑스만이, 가장 강력하게 그리고 공통지속해서, 노동이 사람의 최상의 세계짓는 역량이라고 주장했다(180)Marx with greatest force and consistency, held that labor was considered to be the supreme worldbuilding capacity of man, and 그러나 노동은 인간의 활동능력들 가운데 행동현실적으로 가장 본성자연적이지만 가장덜 세계있음이기 때문에, 이들 모두는 일정한 순정한 모순들의 손아귀에 빠져든다(180)since labor actually is the most natural and least worldly of man's activities, each of them, and again none more than Marx, found himself in the grip of certain genuine contradictions. 이러한 모순들의 가장 명확한 해결책을 또는 그 모순들을 이들 커다란 이론가들이 알아차리지 못했던 까닭은 작업과 노동이 동등하다고 여겼기 때문이다. 그결과 오직 작업만이 포제션(소유)하는 일정한 능력들을 이들은 노동에게 부여했다. 이러한 작업과 노동의 동등화는 늘상 전매특허의 불합리함을 낳는다(180~ 181)It seems to lie in the very nature of this matter that the most obvious solution of these contradictions, or rather the most obvious reason why these great authors should have remained unaware of them is their equation of work with labor, so that labor is endowed by them with certain faculties which only work possesses. This equation always leads into patent absurdities, though they usually are not so neatly manifest as in the following sentence of Veblen: "The lasting evidence of productive labor is its material product— commonly some article of consumption,"40 where the "lasting evidence" with which he begins, because he needs it for the alleged productivity of labor, is immediately destroyed by the "consumption" of the product with which he ends, forced, as it were, by the factual evidence of the phenomenon itself.
The expression is Karl Dunkmann's(Soziologie der Arbeit [1933], p. 71), who rightly remarks that the title of Marx's great work is a misnomer and should better have been called System der Arbeit.
The curious formulation occurs in Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class(1917), p. 44.
Thus Locke, in order to save labor from its manifest disgrace of producing only "things of short duration," had to introduce money — a "lasting thing which men may keep without spoiling"— a kind otdeus ex machina without which the laboring body, in its obedience to the life process, could never have become the origin of anything so permanent and lasting as property, because there are no "durable things" to be kept to survive the activity of the laboring process. And even Marx, who actually defined man as an animal laborans, had to admit that productivity of labor, properly speaking, begins only with reiflcation(Vergegenstmdlichung), with "the erection of an objective world of things"(Erzeugung einer gegenst'dndlichen Welt). il But the effort of labor never frees the laboring animal from repeating it all over again and remains therefore an "eternal necessity imposed by nature. "42 When Marx insists that the labor "process comes to its end in the product,"43 he forgets his own definition of this process as the "metabolism between man and nature" into which the product is immediately "incorporated," consumed, and annihilated by the body's life process.
The term vergegenstandtichen occurs not very frequently in Marx, but always in a crucial context. Cf. Jugendschriften, p. 88: "Das praktische Erzeugen einer gegenstandlichen Welt, die Bearbeitung der unorganischen Natur ist die Bewahrung des Menschen als eines bewussten Gattungswesens... [Das Tier] produziert unter der Herrschaft des unmittelbaren Bedurfhisses, wahrend der Mensch selbst frei vom physischen Bediirfhis produziert und erst wahrhaft produziert in der Freiheit von demselben. " Here, as in the passage from Capital quoted in note 36, Marx obviously introduces an altogether different concept of labor, that is, speaks about work and fabrication. The same reification is mentioned in Das Kapital(Vol. I, Part 3, ch. 5), though somewhat equivocally: "[Die Arbeit] ist vergegenstandlicht und der Gegenstand ist verarbeitet. " The play on words with the term Gegenstand obscures what actually happens in the process: through reification, a new thing has been produced, but the "object" that this process transformed into a thing is, from the viewpoint of the process, only material and not a thing. (The Engish translation, Modern Library ed. , p. 201, misses the meaning of the German text and therefore escapes the equivocality. )
This is a recurrent formulation in Marx's works. See, for instance, Das Kapital, Vol. I(Modern Library ed. , p. SO) and Vol. Ill, pp. 873-74.
"Des Prozess erlischt im Produkt"(Das Kapital, Vol. I, Part 3, ch. 5) .
Since neither Locke nor Smith is concerned with labor as such, they can afford to admit certain distinctions which actually would amount to a distinction in principle between labor and work, if it were not for an interpretation that treats of the genuine traits of laboring as merely irrelevant. Thus, Smith calls "unproductive labor" all activities connected with consumption, as though this were a negligible and accidental trait of something whose true nature was to be productive. The very contempt with which he describes how "menial tasks and services generally perish in the instant of their performance and seldom leave any trace or value behind them"44 is much more closely related to premodern opinion on this matter than to its modern glorification. Smith and Locke were still quite aware of the fact that not every kind of labor "puts the difference of value on everything"45 and that there exists a kind of activity which adds nothing "to the value of the materials which [it] works upon. "46 To be sure, labor, too, joins to nature something of man's own, but the proportion between what nature gives— the "good things"— and what man adds is the very opposite in the products of labor and the products of work. The "good things" for consumption never lose their naturalness altogether, and the grain never quite disappears in the bread as the tree has disappeared in the table. Thus, Locke, although he paid little attention to his own distinction between "the labour of our body and the work of our hands," had to acknowledge the distinction between things "of short duration" and those "lasting" long enough "that men might keep them without spoiling. "47 The difficulty for Smith and Locke was the same; their "products" had to stay long enough in the world of tangible things to become "valuable," whereby it is immaterial whether value is defined by Locke as something which can be kept and becomes property or by Smith as something which lasts long enough to be exchangeable for something else.
Adam Smith, op. cit. , I, 295.
Locke, op. cit. , sec. 40.
Adam Smith, op. cit. , I, 294.
Op. cit. , sees. 46 and 47.
Jules Vuillemin's Litre et le travail(1949) is a good example of what happens if one tries to resolve the central contradictions and equivocalities of Marx's thoughts. This is possible only if one abandons the phenomenal evidence altogether and begins to treat Marx's concepts as though they constituted in themselves a complicated jigsaw puzzle of abstractions. Thus, labor "springs apparently from necessity" but "actually realizes the work of liberty and affirms our power"; in labor "necessity expresses [for man] a hidden freedom"(pp. 15, 16). Against these attempts at a sophisticated vulgarization, one may remember Marx's own sovereign attitude toward his work as Kautsky reports it in the following anecdote: Kautsky asked Marx in 1881 if he did not contemplate an edition of his complete works, whereupon Marx replied: "These works must first be written"(Kautsky, Aus der Fruhzeit des Marxmismus [1935], p. 53).
These certainly are minor points if compared with the fundamental contradiction which runs like a red thread through the whole of Marx's thought, and is present no less in the third volume of Capital than in the writings of the young Marx. 맑스의 노동에 대한 태도 곧 그의 생각의 바로 그 중심을 향한 태도는 처음부터 끝까지 애매모호하고 이중적이었다(183)Marx's attitude toward labor, and that is toward the very center of his thought, has never ceased to be equivocal. 48 While it was an "eternal necessity imposed by nature" and the most human and productive of man's activities, the revolution, according to Marx, has not the task of emancipating the laboring classes but of emancipating man from labor; only when labor is abolished can the "realm of freedom" supplant the "realm of necessity. " For "the realm of freedom begins only where labor determined through want and external utility ceases," where "the rule of immediate physical needs" ends. 49 Such fundamental and flagrant contradictions rarely occur in second-rate writers; in the work of the great authors they lead into the very center of their work. In the case of Marx, whose loyalty and integrity in describing phenomena as they presented themselves to his view cannot be doubted, the important discrepancies in his work, noted by all Marx scholars, can neither be blamed upon the difference "between the scientific point of view of the historian and the moral point of view of the prophet"60 nor on a dialectical movement which needs the negative, or evil, to produce the positive, or good. 그의 작업의 모든 단계들에서 맑스는 사람을 애니멀 라보란스로 규정한 다음, 이 가장위대하고 가장 인간다운 권력이 더는 필수욕구되지 않는 어떤 사회 안을향해 이끈다(184)The fact remains that in all stages of his work he defines man as an animal laborans and then leads him into a society in which this greatest and most human power is no longer necessary. We are left with the rather distressing alternative between productive slavery and unproductive freedom.
● * 이 부분은 디컴인이 꽤 어려울 수가 있겠네요. 아렌트가 지적하는 맑스의 자기모순이라는 것은, <최고의 인간다운 역량을 완전실현하는 것이 끝목표가 아니라, 그것을 철폐하는 것이 끝목표이다>라는 궤변을 맑스가 늘어놓는다는 아렌트의 지적입니다. 노동이 인간활동들 가운데 가장 인간적이고 생산적인 활동이라고 규정해두고서는, 그렇지만 노동을 철폐하는 것이 인간해방이다!!라고 맑스가 주장한다는 것이죠. 이건 불합리이고, 자가당착이고, 모순이 맞습니다. <가장 인간다운 최상의 역량(노동)이 완전실현되는 것이 인간다움의 완전실현이다>라고 해야 수미일관되는 것이니까요. 왜 이런 자가당착모순에 맑스가 빠졌느냐는 것을 아렌트가 지적하는 것입니다. 바로 맑스가 <노동= 작업>이라고 동등화한 데에 그 원인이 있다는 것이죠. <인간해방이라는 것은, 노동하기 역량을 완전철폐하고, 작업하기 역량을 완전실현하는 것이다>라고 주장해야만 무모순하다는 것이 아렌트의 지적입니다.
Das Kapital, III, 873. In the Deutsche Ideologic Marx states that "die kommunistische Revolution... die Arbeit beseitigt"(p. 59), after having stated some pages earlier(p. 10) that only through labor does man distinguish himself from animals.
The formulation is Edmund Wilson's in To the Finland Station(Anchor ed. , 1953), but this criticism is familiar in Marxian literature.
Thus, the question arises why Locke and all his successors, their own insights notwithstanding, clung so obstinately to labor as the origin of property, of wealth, of all values and, finally, of the very humanity of man. Or, to put it another way, 그렇게나 커다란 중요성을 증명한 노동하기 활동에 내재된 근대의 경험들은 도대체 무엇인가?(184)what were the experiences inherent in the laboring activity that proved of such great importance to the modern age?
역사적으로 17세기 이후의 정치이론가들은 전대미문의 성장하는 웰쓰의 과정, 성장하는 프로퍼티의 과정, 성장하는 획득의 과정에 직면했다(185)Historically, political theorists from the seventeenth century onward were confronted with a hitherto unheard-of process of growing wealth, growing property, growing acquisition. In the attempt to account for this steady growth, their attention was naturally drawn to the phenomenon of a progressing process itself, so that, for reasons we shall have to discuss later,61 the concept of process became the very key term of the new age as well as the sciences, historical and natural, developed by it. 그 시작부터 이 과정은 그것의 현상적인 끝없음 때문에 본성자연의 어떤 과정으로 이해되었고, 더욱 피상적으로 생명삶의 과정 그자체의 이미지 안에서 이해되었다(185)From its beginning, this process, because of its apparent endlessness, was understood as a natural process and more specifically in the image of the life process itself. The crudest superstition of the modern age— that "money begets money"— as well as its sharpest political insight— that power generates power— owes (이러한 거의 미신에 가까운 관념들 아래에는) 생명삶의 본성자연적인 다산성의 은유가 깔려있다(185)its plausibility to the underlying metaphor of the natural fertility of life. 모든 인간활동들 가운데 오직 노동만이, 행동도 아니도 작업도 아니고, 생명삶 그자체와 일치해서, 그리고 의지에찬 결단들 또는 인간적으로 의미에찬 퍼포즈들의 범위을 벗어나서, 끝나지않고 자동적으로 진행하기 때문이다(185)Of all human activities, only labor, and neither action nor work, is unending, progressing automatically in accordance with life itself and outside the range of wilful decisions or humanly meaningful purposes.
- See ch. vi, § 42, below.
맑스의 이론 전체가 다산적인 생명삶의 두 양식인 노동과 생식의 이해에 바탕한다(185)Perhaps nothing indicates more clearly the level of Marx's thought and the faithfulness of his descriptions to phenomenal reality than that he based his whole theory on the understanding of laboring and begetting as two modes of the same fertile life process. 노동이 인디비두얼의 생존을 보전해주는 '자기자신의 생명삶의 재생산'이라면, 생식은 종의 생존을 보전해주는 '외계의 생명삶의 재생산'이다(185)labor was to him the "reproduction of one's own life" which assured the survival of the individual, and begetting was the production "of foreign life" which assured the survival of the species. 62 이런 통찰은 연대기적으로 그의 이론의 결코잊어선안될 기원이다(185)This insight is chronologically the never-forgotten origin of his theory, which he then elaborated by substituting for "abstract labor" the labor power of a living organism and by understanding labor's surplus as that amount of labor power still extant after the means for the laborer's own reproduction have been produced. With it, he sounded a depth of experience reached by none of his predecessors— to whom he otherwise owed almost all his decisive inspirations— and none of his successors. He squared his theory, the theory of the modern age, with the oldest and most persistent insights into 고전적인 전통과 마찬가지로 유태교에 따르자면, 노동의 본성자연은 출생을 주는 것으로써의 생명삶에 친밀하게 묶여있다(186)the nature of labor, which, according to the Hebrew as well as the classical tradition, was as intimately bound up with life as giving birth. By the same token, the true meaning of labor's newly discovered productivity becomes manifest only in Marx's work, where it rests on (맑스적인 노동의) 생산성은 다산성과 동등하다(186)the equation of productivity with fertility, so that the famous development of mankind's "productive forces" into a society of an abundance of "good things" actually obeys no other law and is subject to no other necessity than the aboriginal command, "Be ye fruitful and multiply," in which it is as though the voice of nature herself speaks to us.
- Deutsche Ideologic, p. 17.
The fertility of the human metabolism with nature, growing out of the natural redundancy of labor power, still partakes of the superabundance we see everywhere in nature's household. The "blessing or the joy" of labor is the human way to experience the sheer bliss of being alive which we share with all living creatures, and it is even the only way men, too, can remain and swing contentedly in nature's prescribed cycle, toiling and resting, laboring and consuming, with the same happy and purposeless regularity with which day and night and life and death follow each other.
The reward of toil and trouble lies in nature's fertility, in the quiet confidence that he who in "toil and trouble" has done his part, remains a part of nature in the future of his children and his children's children. 고전고대와 달리, [하나님과 사람 사이의 오래된 약조]는 생명삶을 거룩하다고 붙들었고, 따라서 죽음도 노동도 어떤 사악함이라고 여기지 않았다(186)The Old Testament, which, unlike classical antiquity, held life to be sacred and therefore neither death nor labor to be an evil(and least of all an argument against life),6* shows in the stories of the patriarchs how unconcerned about death their lives were, how they needed neither an individual, earthly immortality nor an assurance of the eternity of their souls, how death came to them in the familiar shape of night and quiet and eternal rest "in a good old age and full of years. "
- Nowhere in the Old Testament is death "the wage of sin. " Nor did the curse by which man was expelled from paradise punish him with labor and birth; it only made labor harsh and birth full of sorrow. According to Genesis, man(adeem) had been created to take care and watch over the soil(adamah), as even his name, the masculine form of "soil," indicates(see Gen. 2:5, 15). "And Adam was not to till adamah... and He, God, created Adam of the dust of adamah... He, God, took Adam and put him into the garden of Eden to till and to watch it"(I follow the translation of Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, Die Sckrift [Berlin, n. d. ]). The word for "tilling" which later became the word for laboring in Hebrew, kaivod, has the connotation of "to serve. " The curse(3 :17-19) does not mention this word, but the meaning is clear: the service for which man was created now became servitude. The current popular misunderstanding of the curse is due to an unconscious interpretation of the Old Testament in the light of Greek thinking. The misunderstanding is usually avoided by Catholic writers. See, for instance, Jacques Leclercq, Le$ms de droit naturel, Vol. IV, Part 2, "Travail, propriete,"(1946), p. 31: "(노동이 아니라) 노동의 <고통>이 원죄의 결과이다(187)La peine du travail est le resultat du peche original... L'homme non dechu eut travaille dans la joie, mais il eut travaille"; or J. Chr. Nattermann, Die moderne Arbeit, soziologisch und theologisch betrachtet(1953), p. 9. It is interesting in this context to compare the curse of the Old Testament with the seemingly similar explanation of the harshness of labor in Hesiod. Hesiod reports that the gods, in order to punish man, hid life from him(see n. 8) so that he had to search for it, while before, he apparently did not have to do anything but pluck the fruits of the earth from fields and trees. Here the curse consists not only in the harshness of labor but in labor itself.
어떤 전일체로써 생명삶의 은총은 노동 안에 내재된 것일 뿐이며, 결코 작업(을 달성하거나 성취할 때 찾아오는 안도감이나 기쁨과 착각하지 말아야하고) 안에서는 발견될 수 없다(187)The blessing of life as a whole, inherent in labor, can never be found in work and should not be mistaken for the inevitably brief spell of relief and joy which follows accomplishment and attends achievement. 노동의 은총은, 생계수단자산의 생산하기와 소비하기가 그러하듯이, 노력과 댓가가 서로를 잇따른다는 점이다(187)The blessing of labor is that effort and gratification follow each other as closely as producing and consuming the means of subsistence, so that happiness is a concomitant of the process itself, just as pleasure is a concomitant of the functioning of a healthy body. "최대다수의 최대행복"은, 지상의 생명삶은 늘상 은총받는다는 그러한 축복을 통속적으로 일반화한 것이자, 노동하는 어떤 사람다움의 근본기초적인 실재현실의 어떤 "이상"을 개념화한 것이다(187)The "happiness of the greatest number," into which we have generalized and vulgarized the felicity with which earthly life has always been blessed, conceptualized into an "ideal" the fundamental reality of a laboring humanity. (이제) 행복을 추구할 라이트는 진실로 생명삶의 라이트로써 부정할 수 없게 되고, 심지어는 동일정체시된다(187)The right to the pursuit of this happiness is indeed as undeniable as the right to life; it is even identical with it. 그러나 행복은 좋은 큰돈행운과는 아무런 공통된 거시기가 없다(188)But it has nothing in common with good fortune, which is rare and never lasts and cannot be pursued, because fortune depends on luck and what chance gives and takes, 그럼에도 불구하고 대부분의 인민은 좋은 큰돈행운을 뒤쫓고, 심지어는 큰돈행운이 그들에게 떨어졌을 때조차도 스스로들을 불행하게 만든다, 왜냐하면 큰돈행운이라는 것이 "좋은 거시기들"의 소모되지않는풍부함이라는 그 요행을 지키고 즐기려하기 때문이다(188)although most people in their "pursuit of happiness" run after good fortune and make themselves unhappy even when it befalls them, because they want to keep and enjoy luck as though it were an inexhaustible abundance of "good things. " There is no lasting happiness outside the prescribed cycle of painful exhaustion and pleasurable regeneration, and whatever throws this cycle out of balance — poverty and misery where exhaustion is followed by wretchedness instead of regeneration, or great riches and an entirely effortless life where boredom takes the place of exhaustion and where the mills of necessity, of consumption and digestion, grind an impotent human body mercilessly and barrenly to death— ruins the elemental happiness that comes from being alive.
생명삶의 강제력은 다산성이다(188)The force of life is fertility. The living organism is not exhausted when it has provided for its own reproduction, and 살아있는 유기체의 "잉여"는 그것의 잠재적인 다원성 안에 놓여있다(188)its "surplus" lies in its potential multiplication. 맑스는 생명삶의 강제력 곧 다산성의 특별하게 인간적인 양식으로써 노동력들을 발견했고, 본성자연 그자체가 그러하듯이 어떤 "잉여"를 창조하는 역량으로써 노동력들을 규정했다. 이러한 맑스식 자연주의는 (그의 생각 전반에) 공통지속된다(188)Marx's consistent naturalism discovered "labor power" as the specifically human mode of the life force which is as capable of creating a "surplus" as nature herself. Since he was almost exclusively interested in this process itself, the process of the "productive forces of society," in whose life, as in the life of every animal species, production and consumption always strike a balance, (이러한 노동력 개념 탓에) 세계있음의 거시기들의 분리된 실존이라는 문제, 곧 세계있음의 거시기들이 생명삶의 게걸스런 과정보다 더 내구적이며, 더 오래 생존할 것이고, 세계있음의 거시기들이 생명삶의 게걸스런 과정과 맞부딪칠 것이라는 문제는 맑스에게는 전혀 일어날 수가 없었다(188)the question of a separate existence of worldly things, whose durability will survive and withstand the devouring processes of life, does not occur to him at all. From the viewpoint of the life of the species, all activities indeed find their common denominator in laboring, and the only distinguishing criterion left is the abundance or scarcity of the goods to be fed into the life process. When every thing has become an object for consumption, the fact that labor's surplus does not change the nature, the "short duration," of the products themselves loses all importance, and this loss is manifest in Marx's work in the contempt with which he treats the belabored distinctions of his predecessors between productive and unproductive, or skilled and unskilled labor.
The reason why Marx's predecessors were not able to rid themselves of these distinctions, which essentially are equivalent to the more fundamental distinction between work and labor, was not that they were less "scientific" but that 그들(로크, 흄, 스미스)은 사적인 프로퍼티 또는 적어도 국민적인 웰쓰의 인디비두얼한 사적화를 주장하려고 여전히 글을 쓰고 있었다(189)they were still writing on the assumption of private property, or at least individual appropriation of national wealth. For the establishment of property, mere abundance can never be enough; labor's products do not become more durable by their abundance and cannot be "heaped up" and stored away to become part of a man's property; on the contrary, they are only too likely to disappear in the process of appropriation or to "perish uselessly" if they are not consumed "before they spoil. "
● 여기까지가 14장인데, 이 장은 전적으로 맑스(뿐만 아니라 로크, 흄, 등등)의 노동(력) 또는 애니멀 라보란스 개념의 지성사적 개념사적 뿌리를 파헤치고 있습니다. 사회적인 교환장1) "17세기 이후의 전대미문의 성장하는 웰쓰의 과정, 성장하는 프로퍼티의 과정, 성장하는 획득의 과정"이라는 사회적인것들(국민경제)의 일어남사회적인 공론장2) 맑스가 속했던 쪽수집단(여기서는 특히 유태교를 강조함)의 R커뮤니티 센스, 곧 유태교적인 다산성= 생식개념 및 유태교적인 노동 개념의 영향이 두가지가 맑스의 노동개념형성에 근본기초적인 영향을 끼쳤다는 것이, 이 장의 주된 내용입니다. 1)과 2)의 영향 탓에, 맑스로써는 어쩔수없이 <노동= 작업>이 인간활동의 전부이자 최상위라고 여기게 되었다는 거죠. 이미 앞에서도 아렌트가 쭈욱 분석논증하고 있습니다만, 결론적으로, 실재현실로써의 문명(아렌트 개념용어로는 '세계')에 대한 맑스와 맑시즘 일반의 그릇되고 잘못되고 틀려먹은 이해하기 곧 실재현실에 대한 맑스식의 손가락-뉴런표상화가 만들어졌다는 것이 아렌트의 분석입니다.