The Like of Man

If you like it, it pleases me. It may help, too otherwise.

Due to some similar questions I have received by mail, here is a brief explanation.

The script deals with the manufacture of stationery in a print shop, the conditions of wage labour in general and in particular, and the notions of liberty | freedom embedded therein, or the illusion of freedom under the given social conditions. The presentation is fragmentary, and cites a variety of sources from relevant literature [German: Quellen, sing, Quelle]. The citations are numbered with Roman numerals. This is supplemented by texts of the author, a collection of materials, instructions to the workers and some examples - if still available - of the then [1974] production. As you can see, under the terms of manual typesetting Pimpinelli managed a very outstanding performance or typographical composition.

I have taken the manuscript of 1974 in a layout that is oriented in the lateral dimensions of the patterns of that time [width 225 mm, height 350 mm] and made some additions, as allowed by the current technology. It is primarily the headlines, mostly in colour, sometimes grey.

Written language organizes letters into syllables and words, words into sentences, according to certain semantic and grammatical rules. Deviations, 'liberties' if you will, lead to difficulties in understanding up to incomprehensibility.

In some languages, the elements of words and syllables, the letters, standardized signs whose shape, size, spacing, contrast and organization in lines determines their readability, a fairly strict order, without which the characters lose not only their meaning but stop to be characters yet. They were 'free', but they were not. This 'freedom' is not. However, not even 'arbitrary', but formlessness. And loss of form is loss of essence.

The typographic implementation of these considerations is restricted by the limitations of the material in the surface [i.e. size], the number of characters or their diversity in different font families and font styles and in colours available at the place of production. In principle these are always the limits of liberty | freedom, where it will actually look like real. Friedrich Engels called this knowledge 'insight into the necessity', always misinterpreted and often intentionally misunderstood as subordination under certain relationships of domination.

The given restrictions, the limits of liberty | freedom. Number of font families: 100, sorted by groups like nationalities. Typefaces – on average: 5, that allows to avoid identical letters in a word. See in particular pages 26 and 27. The German text - 'Wenn der Mensch frei ist, ist der Arbeiter kein Mensch' – appears on both sides. In the coloured parts throughout the essay each letter in a word or a phrase is unique, belongs to its own family. Almost a kind of 'absolute' freedom, as it corresponds to the pseudo-individualism of the modern crowds.
Special colours in use: about 80.

Font sizes. Basic module: 3.2 point, body text 9.6 pt / pt 14.4, corresponding to 2 to 3 (3 to 4.5).
Display,
small of 6 pt to 28 pt (random) / 28.8 pt,
medium 12 pt to 56 pt (random) / 57.6 pt,
large 24 pt to 112 pt (random) / 115.2 pt,
with some modifications reducing medium/large size by about 10 percent.
Baseline shift (offset): 0 to ± row height (random).

Surely, the phenomenon is not without a certain grace. But no matter how fanatical a Christian, written like this nobody would read the Gospel, thus win neither the world nor lose his soul. Previously, he probably would have lost his mind and thereby his ability to read.

He would have become free.
This is not limited to Christianity.

Indem das Bewußtsein in alternativer Weise darüber entscheidet, welches Ziel es setzen und wie es die dazu erforderlichen Kausalreihen als Mittel der Verwirklichung in gesetzte verwandeln will, entsteht ein dynamischer Wirklichkeitskomplex, zu dem in der Natur keinerlei Analogie zu finden ist.
-
Alternatively deciding which end the consciousness will set, and how – as a means of achieving – it will transform the necessary causal chains into those set by itself, a dynamic complex of reality comes into being, of which no analogy can be found in nature.

In erster Annäherung gesagt, Freiheit ist jener Bewußtseinsakt, als dessen Ergebnis ein neues, von ihm gesetztes Sein entsteht.
-
In a first approximation, freedom is that act of consciousness, by which as the result of it, a new being (existence) originates set by itself.

[…] erstens besteht die Grundlage der Freiheit […] in einer konkreten Entscheidung zwischen verschiedenen konkreten Möglichkeiten; [… sonst] verliert sie jeden Zusammenhang mit der Wirklichkeit, wird zu einer leeren Spekulation. Zweitens ist Freiheit ein […] Verändernwollen der Wirklichkeit […]. Der so entstehende Umkreis von realen Zielsetzungen ist also groß und umreißt eine große Vielfältigkeit; er hat aber doch in jedem Einzelfall genau bestimmbare Grenzen. Solange also keine derartige Intention auf Veränderung der Wirklichkeit nachweisbar ist, haben Bewußtseinszustände wie Erwägungen, Planungen, Wünsche etc. nichts mit dem realen Problem der Freiheit direkt zu tun.
-
[...] First, the foundation of freedom consists [...] of a concrete decision between various concrete possibilities, [... else], it loses any connection with reality, becomes an empty speculation. Second, freedom is a [...] volition to change reality [...]. The thus resulting radius of real goals is so big and outlines a wide variety; it has but in each case precisely definable limits. As long as no such intention on change in reality is detectable, states of consciousness such as reasoning, planning, requests, etc. have nothing to do directly with the real problem of freedom.

Wird der Gegensatz von Determiniertheit oder Freiheit abstrakt logizistisch aufgefaßt, so kommt man dazu, daß nur ein allmächtiger und allwissender Gott innerlich wirklich frei sein könne, der würde aber wiederum seinem theologischen Wesen nach jenseits der Sphäre der Freiheit existieren.
-
Is the antithesis of determinism or freedom abstractly conceived logicist, we come to the conclusion that only an omnipotent and omniscient God could really be inwardly free. However, he would – due to his theological nature – exist beyond the sphere of freedom.

Als Bestimmung des in der Gesellschaft lebenden und gesellschaftlich handelnden Menschen ist die Freiheit nie völlig ohne Determination.
-
As a provision of man living in society and acting socially, freedom is never complete without determination.

G. L. [aus: Zur Ontologie des gesellschaftlichen Seins, 2. Halbband]

No problem. You may ask/say whatever you want. It is always you and me, not you or me.
Verstehst du deutsch?
May I help? It is not intended to be difficult. So if you would ask in any case of closer interest, I would like to look for an appropriate solution.

In a general sense I did already (production, economics – see also zeitdisein.com). In the narrow sense I have to say I am not enough expert (agriculture, farming and so on).

Auf besonderen Wunsch: | Vor vierzig Jahren. | Ein Zitat.
By special request: | Forty years ago. | A quote.

Briefly. Man is manipulated ideologically. The ideology is that no ideology should be. At a central point of this manipulation is the term "freedom". The manipulated recognizes his freedom is to be manipulated. This is the meaning of "freedom of ideology" (Neopositivists ideology). This freedom as freedom from freedom - as an ideology that is free from ideology - is the highest level of delicate manipulation.

A bit more in detail. The quote in German.
Entideologisierung: Manipulierbarkeit und Manipulation des menschlichen Lebens.
Dem manipulierten Menschen täuscht sein Manipuliertwerden den Schein seiner vollendeten Freiheit vor.
»Freiheit«: zentraler »Begriff« durchmanipulierter Entideologisierung
Höchste Entfaltung der Wirksamkeit und Reichweite der Ideologie in der »entideologisierten« filigranen Manipulation des Menschen
Nach G.L. Ontologie des gesellschaftlichen …, Bd.2, S.696—698
Die Einzelmenschen sollen, ebenso wie ihre sozialen Integrationsformen, »rein rational« handeln; dann gibt es überhaupt keine echten Konflikte mehr, keinen Spielraum für Ideologien; rein »sachliche« Differenzen ließen sich rein »sachlich« durch rationelle Vereinbarungen, durch Kompromisse etc. regeln. Die Entideologisierung bedeutet also die unbeschränkte Manipulierbarkeit und Manipulation des gesamten Menschenlebens.
Diese Einstellung zur Wirklichkeit nimmt deshalb prinzipiell nur die Existenz der partikularen Menschen zur Kenntnis. So wie der Warenmarkt zur objektiven universellen Abwicklungsform einer jeden Kulturtätigkeit wird, so soll – vermittelt durch die vollendete Manipulation aller Lebensäußerungen – im Privatleben der Menschen die Partikularität absolut das Menschsein beherrschen. […] [Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg werden Hitlers Bestrebungen und Methoden ersetzt, eine Weltherrschaft durch eine andere, deren natürlicher Führer im Westen die USA. Der brutalen Manipulation wird eine verfeinerte gegenübergestellt. Das hat zur Folge, daß hier, noch stärker als bei Hitler selbst, die Geschäftsreklame [vgl. A. Hitler, ›Mein Kampf‹, s.200 passim] zum Modell der politischen Propaganda, der Suggestion der zur Herrschaft gerufenen »entideologisierten« Ideologie wird; allerdings insofern in einer unvergleichlich freier scheinenden Weise, als dem manipulierten Menschen gerade die Methode seines Manipuliertwerdens den bewußtseinsmäßigen Schein seiner vollendeten Freiheit vortäuschen soll.
Es [ist] Ironie, […], daß selbst diese so vollendet durchmanipulierte Entideologisierung letzten Endes doch nicht ohne Ideologie auskommen kann; es ist die der Freiheit als »erlösenden Schlüsselwerts« für sämtliche Fragen des Lebens; in Fällen, bei denen […] einzelne Manipulationen […] etwa Zweifel an ihrer richtigen, alles ordnenden Allmacht aufkommen lassen, tritt der Fetisch der Freiheit auf. Dieser – höchst ideologische – Begriff der Freiheit bedeutet, gerade wegen dieser seiner universell problemlösenden Funktion, zugleich alles und nichts. Jede Manipulation des Imperialismus der USA, z. B. die Herrschaft einer völlig wurzellosen Marionettenregierung in Süd-Vietnam [um 1968], wird im Namen dieser Freiheit verteidigt: die innere Freiheit in den USA selbst soll sich in Gefahr befinden, wenn das vietnamesische Volk nichts von einer solchen Regierung wissen will. Und so weiter über Santo Domingo bis Griechenland. Man würde aber die Grundstruktur dieser manipulierten Demokratie verkennen, wenn man glauben würde, der höchst ideologische, allgemein gehaltene Fetisch der Freiheit diene bloß zum – ideologischen – Ausfechten spontan entstandener Konflikte. Das geschieht natürlich in vielen Fällen. Der Fetisch der Freiheit wird aber zu einer Gottheit mit realer Macht: es ist die CIA, die unter dieser entideologisiert-ideologischen Decke den neokolonisatorischen Weltimperialismus der USA de facto leitet, die auch in der inneren Politik dessen Tendenzen vertritt und als Macht, wenn nötig auch als brutale Macht, auftritt, wo die einfache Ideologie zu einem solchen Austragen sich als unfähig erweist. Noch heute sind die wirklichen Umstände des Mordes an J. F. Kennedy [und M. L. King] lange nicht aufgedeckt, aber bereits das [bisher, um 1968] öffentlich gewordene Material zeigt ein Bild, [mit dem verglichen der Versuch die wahren Schuldigen] der Dreyfuß-Affäre [zu ›verstecken‹], als harmlose Idylle erscheint.
All dies mußte nur darum angedeutet werden, weil erst in diesen Zusammenhängen der wahre entfremdende Charakter dieser universellen Manipulation deutlich hervortreten kann. Das Menschenformen durch eine organisatorische, ökonomische und ideologische Reduktion möglichst aller Einzelmenschen auf ihre unaufhebbar scheinende Schranke der Partikularität ist zugleich Ziel und Folge des herrschenden Systems. Unseren allgemeinen Bestimmungen entsprechend kann diese Entfremdung nur durch eine fundamentale ökonomisch-politisch-soziale Umwälzung des ganzen Systems als allgemeine und objektive Massenerscheinung aufgehoben werden. Allerdings haben wir ebenfalls wiederholt darauf hingewiesen, daß jedes Individuum doch die Möglichkeit und – vom Standpunkt der eigenen Entwicklung zu einer wirklichen lndividualität – die innere Verpflichtung haben kann, die eigene, wie immer entstandene und entfaltete Entfremdung selbst zu überwinden. Daß die Einzelmenschen dabei in der offiziellen Ideologie – und sei die ihre dem gewollten äußeren Ansehen nach noch so nonkonformistisch – schwere ontologische Hindernisse ideologisch zu überwinden haben, versteht sich von selbst. Diese Situation ist, abstrakt verallgemeinert angesehen, noch gar nichts Spezifisches; das Besondere an ihr scheint uns darin zu stecken, daß die Rolle der Ideologie in der Überwindung dieser entfremdeten Lebensführung vielleicht nie so groß war wie gerade in der Periode der entideologisierten ›feinen‹ Manipulation der Menschen.

Freiheit ist kein Denken oder Empfinden, sondern, wenn man so sagen will, ein Sein. So nach Schiller: es ist der Mensch nicht frei, solang noch einer Knecht ist, ›ist‹, nicht meint. Die unterschiedlichen Grade von Unfreiheit, die Differenzen der Unfreiheit, sind keine Freiheit im kleinen.
Was hier zur Debatte steht ist die Ungleicheit, die soziale Ungleichheit als Ausdruck sozialer Unfreiheit oder der Unfreiheit schlechthin.
Auch wenn das menschliche Individuum der nicht herrschenden Klasse in den entwickelten Ländern in mancher Beziehung – aber bloß in mancher – freier erscheint als der Durchschnittsmensch in weniger entwickelten Ländern, macht diese Differenz keine Freiheit im eigentlichen Sinn.
Freisein, einmal recht abstrakt ausgedrückt ist – neben der Überwindung der Naturschranke im Arbeitsprozeß als Voraussetzung – das Ineinandergehen der äußersten Individualität mit ihrer vollkommensten Gesellschaftlichkeit.

Heute dagegen ist Freiheit der Generalfetisch, ein modernes Weihwasser zum Austreiben des Belzebuben, und genauso wirkungsvoll.

Selbstredend treiben wir hier die Debatte auf die Spitze. Aber das ist, glaube ich zumindest, offensichtlich.

Sicher hast du Recht, die ethische Seite miteinzubringen. Ich habe dies sub Freiheit zur Vermeidung weiterer Verwicklungen bislang – aber eher zweckmäßigerweise – unterlassen. Schön, daß dies einmal bemerkt worden ist. Gehört ganz sicher dazu.

If you will do it and when you have done further statements would be called.

Originally posted by Chelilla:

It might have been merely manipulation from the society, culture, family...etc.?

It always should be asked for the acting subject. Is it a fetish (reitification, Verdinglichung) which is (mis)taken as such? See, mutatis mutandis Logical > Identical > Empty > Strange

›They do this without knowing it.‹ Or ›they‹ do not understand, that the single individual decision gets its goal by the (social) mediation of all such decisions of all acting individuals. Man makes himself defind by his social relations. And this making finally is defined by his labour (a social process). This act has to be understood as presupposition for to be ›free‹. And it must not to be preserved as simply an intellectual attitude.

Originally posted by Chelilla:

… in such a way that tells everyhing to some and nothing to many.

There are always ›many roads to Rome‹. However, if I could decide I would favour to speak reasonably and understandably to many instead of to be confined to a selected élite.

Man cannot help but to decide. But how? What about? In favour of Scylla, of Charybdis? In favour of plague, of purgatory? When one states: Do what you like, immediately the question appears: But what do you like to do? Which is your ›like‹ and how did you get it? When Cesar conquered Gallia he never took in account the use of air force (in case of terror bombing: they had no cities). In his decision he was confined to a certain (historical stage of) being, on man made relations and thereby man made products and thereby on man made ideas.

To decide on this process (of man making himself, which process is not arbitrary) on an equal base of social participation, is to become free. As written above it is: ›… das Ineinandergehen der äußersten Individualität mit ihrer vollkommensten Gesellschaftlichkeit.‹ (... the interlocking steps of extreme individuality, with its most perfect sociality.)

This is not a splendid isolation, an unrelated imagination, an abstract individuality of scatterd will-less vasalls, a lonesome hero.

On the limits of freedom | liberty within civil society see, as repeatedly mentioned: [*] The Jewish Question, English, edition babbelClub 6, complementary comment above.

›… freedom is a [...] volition to change reality [...]‹
Thus ›if thou hast tears be prepared to shed them now‹.

Perhaps I would say by the process of production – which is a certain relation between men – man made and still make law appropriate to these relations. However, man is not man in general but a member of a certain group (class). Men do not equally take part in this process. Hence freedom, could be said, is the possibilty to change these relations, to abolish the presuppositions of the given unequality:

›In themselves, money and commodities are no more capital than are the means of production and of subsistence. They want transforming into capital. But this transformation itself can only take place under certain circumstances that centre in this, viz., that two very different kinds of commodity-possessors must come face to face and into contact; on the one hand, the owners of money, means of production, means of subsistence, who are eager to increase the sum of values they possess, by buying other people's labour-power; on the other hand, free labourers, the sellers of their own labour-power, and therefore the sellers of labour. Free labourers, in the double sense that neither they themselves form part and parcel of the means of production, as in the case of slaves, bondsmen, &c., nor do the means of production belong to them, as in the case of peasant-proprietors; they are, therefore, free from, unencumbered by, any means of production of their own. With this polarisation of the market for commodities, the fundamental conditions of capitalist production are given. The capitalist system presupposes the complete separation of the labourers from all property in the means by which they can realise their labour. As soon as capitalist production is once on its own legs, it not only maintains this separation, but reproduces it on a continually extending scale. The process, therefore, that clears the way for the capitalist system, can be none other than the process which takes away from the labourer the possession of his means of production; a process that transforms, on the one hand, the social means of subsistence and of production into capital, on the other, the immediate producers into wage-labourers. The so-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production. It appears as primitive, because it forms the pre-historic stage of capital and of the mode of production corresponding with it.‹
Full chapter and other see here, passim.

From the German original ›Geld und Ware sind nicht von vornherein Kapital, sowenig wie Produktions- und Lebensmittel. Sie bedürfen der Verwandlung in Kapital. Diese Verwandlung selbst aber kann nur unter bestimmten Umständen vorgehn, die sich dahin zusammenspitzen: Zweierlei sehr verschiedne Sorten von Warenbesitzern müssen sich gegenüber und in Kontakt treten, einerseits Eigner von Geld. Produktions- und Lebensmitteln, denen es gilt, die von ihnen geeignete Wertsumme zu verwerten durch Ankauf fremder Arbeitskraft; andrerseits freie Arbeiter, Verkäufer der eignen Arbeitskraft und daher Verkäufer von Arbeit. Freie Arbeiter in dem Doppelsinn, daß weder sie selbst unmittelbar zu den Produktionsmitteln gehören, wie Sklaven, Leibeigne usw., noch auch die Produktionsmittel ihnen gehören, wie beim selbstwirtschaftenden Bauer usw., sie davon vielmehr frei, los und ledig sind. […] Das Kapitalverhältnis setzt die Scheidung zwischen den Arbeitern und dem Eigentum an den Verwirklichungsbedingungen der Arbeit voraus. […] Der Prozeß, der das Kapitalverhältnis schafft, kann also nichts andres sein als der Scheidungsprozeß des Arbeiters vom Eigentum an seinen Arbeitsbedingungen, ein Prozeß, der einerseits die gesellschaftlichen Lebens- und Produktionsmittel in Kapital verwandelt, andrerseits die unmittelbaren Produzenten in Lohnarbeiter. Die sog. ursprüngliche Akkumulation ist also nichts als der historische Seheidungsprozeß von Produzent und Produktionsmittel. Er erscheint als ›ursprünglich‹, weil er die Vorgeschichte des Kapitals und der ihm entsprechenden Produktionsweise bildet. […] Das Vorspiel der Umwälzung. welche die Grundlage der kapitalistischen Produktionsweise {in England, hj) schuf, ereignet sich im letzten Dritteil des 15. und den ersten Dezennien des 16. Jahrhunderts. Eine Masse vogelfreier Proletarier ward auf den Arbeitsmarkt geschleudert durch die Auflösung der feudalen Gefolgschaften. die. wie Sir James Steuart richtig bemerkt. ›überall nutzlos Haus und Hof füllten‹.' [Karl Marx, Das Kapital I, MEW 23, S.742f].‹

More related literature in many languages

›In a first approximation, freedom is that act of consciousness, by which as the result of it, a new being (existence) originates set by itself.‹

In practice this would lead to the abolishment of the results of the primitive accumulation, to abolish the capitalist mode of production. This of course is not a restoration of the times (social relations) before. All social and individual improvements since then, especially those belonging to the productivity of labour, must be preserved and developed further. The process of production today is driven and controlled, simply spoken, by profit. It is based on inequality of men, on the oppression of the working people, who appear as commodity owners of their own labour force. They are just something on the market.

Today one can buy labour force from a worker, the price for it is called ›wage‹. Thereafter the wage worker has to act in accordance to the will of the buyer of this labour force. The wage worker and his labour force are inseparable.
But no one can buy capital force from a capitalist, and the price for it is not called profit. And a capitalist never acts in accordance to the buyer of a capital force. The force of a capitalist has nothing to do with him as individual physical being.

The final goal of production has to be shifted from making a maximum of profit to serving the needs of all working people (working class). This includes inevitably a change in the mode of production. Only then human activities can serve the freedom and happiness of all people equally. Therefore this must be the starting point of all human efforts, for freedom and happiness of man.

And, to say because of some fatal errors up to this day, it must develop individuality side by side with the productivity of labour, which is just another expression for controlling the process of production (the making) of the human race itself; that it simultaneously will lead to an extreme individuality as well as to a most perfect sociality. No best leaders, no best business men. No best individual at all. Because ›omnis determinatio est negatio‹, every privilege is discrimination.

This essentially differs fom the emptyness of a ›I am what I am‹, from the freedom to favour Coca Cola instead of Pepsi Cola.

The control of the process of production includes the decision on the product. The control of the process of production by the workers instead by other is the starting point for human (true) freedom.

As to see you distinguish clearly between man – of course always both female and male – as a kind of incarnation of ›capital‹ (company owners (3) … business … company …) and on the other side workers (employees (4) …), which, as you say, ›both depend on each other‹, as perhaps I would say, like cattle and butcher. No cattle, no butcher. However, the positions are incommensurable.

Within their economic relation as buyer and seller of commodities they do not hate. Violence and cruelties of the primitive accumulation (f. i. clearing of estates, no purchases and sales) are at least out of consciousness of the mass of people, love and hate turned to be a gigantically puffed up extremely reduced privacy without any further meaning.

For simplifying matters I reduce social relations of man in civil (bourgeois) society (French: bourgeois, not English: Philistine, Babbitt) to its very base, this is wage labour and capital. And in the center of this relation today one will see the ›big money‹, huge companies running the financial and industrial sector (including agriculture). The aim of capital is capital. Capital (in the form of money) > buys commodities (labour force and all other means of production) > process of production > (other products in form of) commodities (of higher value than those before the process of production) > sales of these commodities (transformation into money) > next cycle, capital (increased by profit). (Rent, interest, taxes or any other parts of employment of the surplus value neglected for the present.) [*]What is capital? See above.

The less wage(s) the more profit. Depending on the circumstances (the supply of labour force suitable for a certain use) capital would ›seek for full development of the potentials of the employees‹ as a farmer ›does not feed his pigs for their happiness but for the bacon‹. In other words, the ›full‹ development of the potential(s) of the worker (class) by the bourgeois (capitalist, class) is confined to the interest of the latter, the aim of increasing surplus value by increasing unpaid labour (time of the working man), in general a mixture of extending labour time (as part of one's life time) and intensifying the working process. This is in no way similar to a straight geometrical line. It is a mixture of struggles between human beings belonging to different groups of interest (classes), varying widely in intensity and other moments.

If, as you write and I would agree with you, if taken in a social sense, not restricted to individual isolation, to a figment of the mind, freedom is that ›someone does what he/she is supposed to do according to their own talents and gifts he/she is reaching his freedom‹, we are far away from being free. The ›capitalist‹ (bourgeois) class hunted by the greed of ›their‹ capital for profit, always in competition, suffers likewise, in a house with twenty sleeping rooms, with a build in 300 000 $US safe for their some pairs of shoes, each worth more than some hundred thousands Dollars, or in an extraordinary night-club without a slip and most carefully shaven. They decide on luxury as available and, which is much more serious, ›by their capital spending‹ (›investments‹) on the course of the world.

Within such circumstances man is not free, man can't really become free. The first step to freedom is to alter the presuppositions responsible for the situation as it is. This first step would be the first experience of freedom, even not free of any risk.

Originally posted by anonymous:

I dont have any mention to attack anyone, I am following this talk.

Of course not. Speak/write freely. If something should be ambiguous, any reader may ask before feeling insulted.

It would be another ›law‹. The law of a class society is a means of the ruling class to run the society in its favour, to cement the presuppositions and conditions of its social predominance thereby at a certain point of historical development hindering mankind – let us say in terms of this post – to become ›free‹, self-determined.

One always should consider, it's not ›man‹ who ›must‹ fight against a figment of the mind, but in a class society class against class. This (bourgeois) society is the result of heavy and cruel fightings. In this society including the socialist experiments till today already intense and still intensifying struggles continue. Wether one likes it or not. Wether one realizes it or not. And most of the concrete struggles are about the small things of every day life.

Thus it is less the question: what do both of these classes (the two decisive powers) want but how do they act or should act to get it.

Sure, it has to be broken down to a step by step strategy in accordance with the concrete circumstances of place and date, and assuming: ›the liberation of the working class can only be done [finally] by the workers themselves‹ (ending as a class-less society, because ›workers‹ have nobody to work for them as it is now with the bourgeois).

Liberty, as in question in Tunisia or Egypt belongs to the limited form of the (bourgeois) rights of man, pointing once again to the difference of political and social emancipation. Basics see: Karl Marx, The Jewish Question, English.pdf, edition babbelClub 6.

Nevertheless, the concrete struggle(s) there are of high interest and should not to be underestimated. Every single human individuum, too, begins to stand errect and to walk upright rather tottering. But we must not take (all present) official reports as true. This ›simple‹ truth is simply shallow.

In Egypt or in Tunesia at the moment it is less a struggle between classes but a struggle within the ruling circles themselves by using ›displeased masses‹ to build up and intensify ›own‹ pressure. A well known pattern throughout history.

Historically liberty is not a useful nonsense at all, but what in most ›official‹ versions (press, tv, ›information‹, news and the like) is published as liberty (freedom), are pseudo versions. It is ›useful‹ (for the ruling class) and nonsense from the point of view of the ›ruled‹, in particular if they want to get rid of it.

What kind of freedom|liberty we are talking about? Who is free? Who will become free? Some fossilized encrusted ›structures‹ are bursting open, some rotten fetters will be replaced by perhaps some more comfortable but firmer ones. Basically (this is the separation of the labourer from the possession of his means of production and so on) nothing will change so far.

However a real struggle is on the way. Fighting for a wrong object with inadequate means, yet fighting. Like in military at least this alone improves fighting qualities significantly. A fresh unit without any fighting experience is not worth very much. Thus it may be a good training for the time to come. Perhaps it will help to improve a more developed insight too.

I hope I understood your words.

›We are talking about freedom at a fixed time‹, this is now. – Thus we are talking on general limitations of liberty in bourgeois society as well as on contradictions within the circumstances as they are. Hillary Clinton and Angel(ik)a Merkel at Munich (NATO meeting), the headline: ›Revolution, but slowly …‹. This is not a joke (see ›Die Rheinpfalz‹, 6. February 2011, cover page).

›I will say that today i feel liberty/freedom in this social, this peace. but tomorrow i will not say it , because there is some wrong with this social, this life.. I mean I say for changing in suitable. – To feel free one does not need to be free (look at all these happy animals populating our zoos). Therefore this overwhelming permanent boom in feelings (also one variant of political propaganda of the ruling/bourgeois class to destroy ›class consciousness‹ of the workers). I don't want to feel free instead of to really be free (see remarks on ›primitive accumulation‹ above).

›We are on the way to find the freedom, the liberty … finding real freedom.. the fight of Tunisia or Egypt will finish with a new goverment. […] The journey to the freedom is not easy. and this new one will be changed by the newer one.‹ – Most probably.

However, a slave (oppressed) stays slave, no matter of the name and the changing names of his master (ruler, oppressor). To become free he must overcome his master, abolish oppression and its foundation (see: about some basics, above; Karl Marx, The Jewish Question, English.pdf, edition babbelClub 6, p.8 cont., on political versus human, i. e. social emancipation; and on freedom), above.

See also Thyself 2. Another kind of continuation.

Everybody who wants may comment/continue commenting here.

Verbosity? Or just not talking in snatches of conversation where everybody may fancy what he anyhow doesn't know?

Freedom is changing reality. Changing thoughts is too little. And, there is no organization by which the more or less diffuse power of the masses could be concentrated efficiently.

Originally posted by Astakyari:

… becouse it is an act of leaders …

what should be an act of the people (not confined to sporadic and spontaneous uprises cheaply soothed soon).