Matthias Wasser wrote:
>
> One: when Marx refers to human activity as "objective," and that Feuerbach
> doesn't comprehend this, does he mean that it is alienated, in the sense of
> corresponding to the Hegelian world of objects? If so, what does he mean
> when he says that Feuerbach only sees consciousness as genuine as human
> activity and practice as "fixed in its dirty-judaical manifestation," which
> would seem to imply that Feuerbach sees consciousness as subjective and
> practice as objective? My first instinct is to say that either I'm getting
> tripped up because there's a subjective/objective flip that occurs between
> the transition between Hegel's idealism and Feuerbach's materialism, or that
> Marx is again pointing out that practice (labor)
"Labor" is abstract -- Engels later was to note that in English a Saxon term was ised fpr the actuality (work) while a latin term (labor) was used for the abstraction. "Labor," as Marx _later_ used it, is a 100% negative term, it is created by capitalism and the ultimate goal of socialism is to abolish labor.
YOur post is nearly as unfocused as some of my recent posts have been. Try dividing it up and posing only one or two questions at a time. And please keep "labor" out of it; the term does not appear in the Theses, which talk about human activity, not labor.
Carrol