> But Ted, don't you think that the stronger explication of the difference between Marx and Hegel is this:
>
> Marx distinguishes between work, that ever-present human necessity, which entails the inescapable fact of objectification, or use-value production on the one hand, and on the other, labour, which is specific to capitalist society, being not just in physical opposition to its object, is also alienated in the other sense of being equalised through exchange and made abstract. The former cannot be got rid of, the latter can. Marx's concept of labour in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts is under-developed. But in Chapter One of Capital, he clearly and plainly distinguishes between work and labour in a way that is closed to Hegel.
Avineri himself points to a difference like this, but it depends what you mean by "objectification."
In Marx, a particular form of "objectification," namely objectification of the "universal" by individuals actualizing self-conscious reason, is the essence of the "the true realm of freedom" as well as of "the realm of natural necessity." The distinction between the two realms is based on whether the activity involved is instrumental or end in itself. The particular form characteristic of "objectification" in both realms requires the fully developed "powers" of the "universally developed individual."
"Alienated" labour is got rid of through its contributing positively to "the integral development of every individual producer" which, following further "education" through "revolutionary practice," ends ultimately in individuals with the developed "powers" required to imagine and build ""the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man."
"The most compete development of man" is the "totally developed individual," the "rich" individuality described by Hegel in these early texts and in The Philosophy of Right," i.e. "educated men" who "can do what others do," "a comprehensive, rich, all-encompassing spirit, who rules over a wide range and masters it."
This individual is the basis of Marx's account of how we would produce (in both realms) if we produced as "human beings"; this, quoting Hegel from these early texts, would be production in which each becomes 'a universal for the other, but so does the other,' i.e. production within relations of production as relations of mutual recognition.
"'Labour is the universal interaction and education (Bildung) of man . . . a recognition which is mutual, or the highest individuality'. [21] In labour, man becomes 'a universal for the other, but so does the other'."
"Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other person. 1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also when looking at the object I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses and hence a power beyond all doubt. 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man's essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man's essential nature. 3) I would have been for you the mediator between you and the species, and therefore would become recognised and felt by you yourself as a completion of your own essential nature and as a necessary part of yourself, and consequently would know myself to be confirmed both in your thought and your love. 4) In the individual expression of my life I would have directly created your expression of your life, and therefore in my individual activity I would have directly confirmed and realised my true nature, my human nature, my communal nature.
"Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.
"This relationship would moreover be reciprocal; what occurs on my side has also to occur on yours." http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/james-mill/
Ted