> This is related to, but different from,
> meanings of "necessity" and "freedom"
> in the passage contrasting the "true
> realm of freedom" with "the realm of
> necessity" in "communism." There
> "necessity" means the inescapable
> necessity of instrumental activity (a
> "necessity" that, as Marx points out
> in the passage I quoted, exists in
> "all forms of society and under all
> possible modes of production").
Ted,
How can "freedom" exist under full communism if its seed isn't present and doesn't germinate under previous social formations? If there is a seed of freedom prior to communism, where does it ultimately lay? Doesn't freedom presuppose that we cover our necessary tasks? So, what gives us the power to do that, the power to confine our necessary tasks to a shrinking portion of our conscious time? Isn't that the productive power of *labor*? Finally, if "necessity" (in the context of the "realms") means instrumental activity existing in "all forms of society," then shouldn't instrumental activity under *alienated* forms of society be included as well?
Those were really my points. So, I don't think my interpretation distorts Marx's fundamental views.
I'm glad to say though that, after a Google search on the Marx archives (in English), you seem to be right that -- literally -- Marx used the "realms" phrase only in the context of full communism.