'Every breakers' yard confirms the M arxist notion that 'the continuous absorption o f the individualized [i.e. What has been approved by man, A.S.] into the elemental' 'for M arx use-values are combinations of two elements, nature and labour which shapes it'
'Every breakers' yard confirms the M arxist notion that 'the continuous absorption o f the individualized [i.e. What has been approved by man, A.S.] into the elemental' 'for M arx use-values are combinations of two elements, nature and labour which shapes it'
'Every breakers' yard confirms the M arxist notion that 'the continuous absorption o f the individualized [i.e. What has been approved by man, A.S.] into the elemental' 'for M arx use-values are combinations of two elements, nature and labour which shapes it'
was erected on the basis o f the first nature is transformed
back into the latter. The transformation o f the materials o f nature by men is undone by the destructive force o f the extra-human influences exerted by nature. Every breakers yard confirms the M arxist notion that the continuous absorption o f the individualized [i.e. what has been appro priated by man, A .S.] into the elemental is just as much a moment o f the natural process as is the continuous indi vidualization o f the elemental.68 M arx interpreted this natural process o f the decay o f usevalues not applied to human purposes in another way as well, which is just as relevant for the understanding o f his philosophy. We have repeatedly pointed out so far that for M arx use-values are combinations o f two elements, the stuff o f nature and the labour which shapes it. It is true that nature has slumbering powers, and that its own forms can be reshaped by man. However, this does not mean that the combined concept o f matter and nature (both o f which are included in pre-human nature) becomes a semi-mythical Nature-Subject, 80and thus restores the Hegelian identity o f Subject and Object, which M arx criticized, indeed, from a materialist point o f view. Nature, the material o f the world, which comprises both the Subject and the Object o f labour, is not a homogeneous substratum. T he moment o f non identity is retained under all social conditions, precisely on the basis o f labour, which nevertheless, on the other hand, unites the Subject and the Object. The view that physical natures meaning . . . has at the present not yet appeared and that this meaning like that o f men is still in a position o f utopian latency 81 only has a place in an eschatologically oriented metaphysic such as that o f Bloch. In relation to the problem we are discussing here, the non-identity o f Subject and Object has the consequence thar'the human form is indifferent towards the stu ff o f nature, that it remains external to it. This is particularly noticeable when a use-value is subjected to the process o f natural decay. M arx strongly emphasized this mutual indifference o f form and material. He wrote in the Grundrisse o f the distinc tion between the natural form o f the material, which all