Hannah Arendt

Image: Cyrus Saurius


To Arendt what belongs to Arendt, to the left what belongs to the left

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) returned to the Brazilian debate in the last period. In a way, those who recovered it from its momentary silence were personalities from the Brazilian public-political scene (progressive and leftist) and humanities researchers. The thinker of political action was called to the fore as the person responsible for classifying the Stalinist regime as totalitarianism; which would be for some the “left” version of Hitlerism. On the one hand, sectors of the left comment critically on Arendt's reading of the phenomenon of Stalinism — as a totalitarian regime. On the other hand, researchers from the human sciences who appreciate Arendt's political theory, affirm the misunderstandings and the hasty reading that are sometimes made of the philosopher's thought. There is no doubt and it would be foolish to doubt that Hannah Arendt has forged for us one of the greatest achievements of political philosophy. Her theoretical work is something, unassailably, of the order of the giant. To deny this is foolish insistence. And reaffirming this every time you pick up the pen to appreciate her work, ditto. Great thinkers are not football clubs. That Arendt redefined the ways in which politics is theorized, that she provoked us with eloquent concepts and imaginative labyrinthine formulations, all this is recorded in texts such as The Human Condition, the spectacular about the revolution e Lessons on Kant's Political Philosophy. His “concept” of broad mentality (provided in political action) is decisive for those who think politics beyond the restriction of representative institutions – today deeply in crisis and who say little to those who only have the sweat of their brow to sell. She also wrote complex issues about left-wing culture that are difficult to accept. Now, to affirm this means to give Arendt what is Arendt's. But also give your leftist critics what's theirs. What does that mean?

when writing Origins of Totalitarianism Arendt intended to understand not only and exclusively the phenomenon of Nazism; if that were so, she would have no need to investigate anti-Semitism and imperialism – the first and second parts of the work that bears the same name, Anti-Semitism e Imperialism. This consideration is of the order of the obvious and is on the very surface of the book that presents these two parts before the one on totalitarianism, also named Totalitarianism. (Here is the formulation by Leo Strauss in Thoughts on Machiavelli (Thoughts on Machiavelli) – “on the surface of things, and only on the surface of things, is the core of things".)

By noting this one wants to draw attention to a bad luck of the book; invariably perpetrated by the Arendtians themselves, if they exist as a current or as a clearly delineated set. Let us, then, name them sometimes appreciators of reflections on Hannah Arendt's political philosophy. the text of As Origins of Totalitarianism is not restricted to criticism of the Nazi and Stalinist concentration camp even though this may be the most substantive and important part of the book (Arendt herself feared that this would happen, even though what touched her in irrefutably deep and existential terms were the extermination sites), is not a work that is “exclusively addressed” to the rebuke of Stalin's bureaucrats and the emphatic condemnation of Hitlerism and its leaders. Thus, Arendt, as a former student of Heidegger, was concerned with a new form of political existence that intensified in the modern era. Now, the very meaning of anti-Semitism and imperialism, little remembered by readers of the theory, responded to this anguish. Arendt was aware that “modern anti-Semitism must be viewed within the general framework of the development of the nation-state […]”[1]. And more: “[in] the imperialist expansion and [of] destruction of the old forms of government [are] the history of the relationship between Jews and the State that must contain elementary indications to understand the hostility between layers of society and Jews”[2]. It was these strata of society, which, as the Jews lost their role as issuers of "government loans"[3], a monopoly exercised mainly by the “Rothschilds”[4] – Arendt will also say that the “Rothschild house [represented as] family […] the symbol of the practical reality of Jewish internationalism in a world of nation-states and organized peoples” – who perceived them as disposable. Here, the understanding of the development of bourgeois society was fundamental in Arendt's critical explanations and arguments.[5].

But contradictorily, anti-Semitism still preserved a space for virtue and vice to position the Jewish peoples in a Europe already in crisis. In one of the most spectacular narratives of the The origins… Hannah Arendt mobilizes the in search of lost time by Marcel Proust, to understand the existential meaning of this phenomenon. Elisabeth Young-Bruhel, in the main biographical-intellectual document written about Arendt, will say that the philosopher understood the meaning of Proust's narrative when he builds the environment of anti-Semitism[6]in French salons throughout the pages of In search…, especially in volume The Way of Guermantes. So Mr. de Charlus, cynically tolerated by decaying aristocratic and bourgeois society[7] on the rise, for his “personal charm and unusual and attractive gestures, he was the mirror of the Jew. Charlus was a man/homosexual who, with elegance, combined with an eccentric walk and conversation, frequented the various salons of the Faubourg Saint Germain – and all this posture made him (the Jews) figures “ennobled [and] tolerated”[8]. However, European society with its sense of national belonging did not “modify its ideas and prejudices”[9]. In their eyes and attitude, says Arendt, “homosexuals were criminals and Jews were traitors”[10]. On here The origins… apprehended a complex phenomenon that is difficult to discern (from our societies to the present day): the “disease [of] boredom and the general tiredness of the bourgeoisie [and of the middle classes]” made it attracted by “marginals and pariahs”.[11] (Jews and homosexuals) at a certain point in the social and cultural evolution of Europe (in this case, France). “In search of the exotic, whoever they were, they never let boredom dominate them”[12]. Now, as a stock of excitement and the cultivation of (pleasant) scandal, bourgeois society at the time, in order to mitigate the torpor of routinized everyday life, brazenly welcomed the “stranger and the addict” – the “Jew (or homosexual)”[13]. What underlay this unique phenomenon, argues Arendt, was the roots of the historical concept of race. The other, the exotic, the strange – the eventually exterminable. (In the text as such, Arendt makes no hint of the relationship between this event and communism as, other than a certain left-wing anti-Semitism that circulated in Europe; but the theoretical and historical disposition was not only Proust's France, but also Germany – the political core of Nazism – and the number of artists and writers of Jewish origin who fostered the rebellious glow of Nazi glory days. Weimar Republic.)

The emergence of imperialism aggravated the European situation for races deprived, paradoxically, of the framework of the Nation-State. Arendt in this part of As Origins of Totalitarianism he needed to build his argument theories that had the European system of bourgeois states as the axis of analysis. Lenin was thus one of the important “references” in this part of the work.[14]: Arendt read Clausewitz as he did, and also agreed that “[imperialist] wars collapse[ed] the European system of nation-states”[15]. The impulse behind these historical (and economic) circumstances had been, in Hannah Arendt's theorization, the political emancipation of the bourgeoisie. Now, the cycle of bourgeois revolutions made them grow “alongside and within the nation-state, which, almost by definition, governed a society divided into classes”[16]. As the expansion of business to countries on the African continent became the norm, the political functions of modern national states lost relevance. The bourgeois class instilled into its form of existence the notion and practice that only power was needed to govern and administer the newly colonized lands beyond Europe. Indeed; “the consequence of the export of power was this: the State’s instruments of violence, the police and the Army – which in the structure of the nation, existing alongside the other national institutions, were controlled by them –, were […] [launched the ] weak or uncivilized countries”[17]. With this, there was not the slightest sense of scruples for a European bourgeoisie eager for the expansion of its capitalist businesses to make systematic use of violence and the “destructive principle”[18]. “Echoing” the imperialist theories of the beginning of the century (John Hobson, Rudolf Hilferding, Rosa Luxemburg, Kautsky and Lenin) Hannah Arendt can say – “[pure] administrative force and violence” were now at the service of “the incessant accumulation of money that makes money”[19]. The question of why a theorist with such highly consistent and sophisticated understandings of two decisive phenomena shaping the XNUMXth century (anti-Semitism and imperialism) made an asymmetrical condemnation of the arguments of intellectuals such as Frantz Fanon and Jean-Paul Sartre when they reflected without no praise on the problem of violence and psychic violence (and even of power, which Arendt sometimes pondered over her decantation of men who get together to act together) that imperialisms produce (or produced) in neocolonies over the course of the last century is intriguing, to say the least? (Admirers of Arendt in Brazil need to meditate on these circumstances; look for commonplace passages from The Human Condition, about the revolution e Between the past and the future it is not enough. Again, the left is not responsible for the intellectual – and political – instability of the monumental theoretical edifice built by it.)

It is remarkable, not to say startling, that these two parts of The origins…, parts of a textual excellence, of a critical inventiveness, of a political and cultural sensitivity, are little mobilized, rarely for the sake of the truth, by researchers who appreciate Arendt's thought and ideals - from when she comes to the fore as in the last period. But on this topic there is something to be said: if the Proustian “interpretation” of anti-Semitism and the “resonance” of theories of imperialism in the radical critique of even the imperialist moment are Hannah Arendt's, it belongs to her: the part on totalitarianism and, particularly , the chapter (added to the work later) Ideology and Terror: a new form of governmentthe, also belong. Unfortunately, it is these two texts of As Origins of Totalitarianism (here I am dealing particularly with that aforementioned work, which came to the scene recently) that provide the enormous prestige and unbridled passion among many Arendtians when they go to the public debate to comment on the author in the context of political and intellectual polemic. It is from these two theoretical moments, not very creative in comparison with the first two, that one starts to infer, in a certain way, moderation, refusal of extremes, appreciation of plurality and appreciation for Arendt's Republic. (Whatever.)

Totalitarian ideology was responsible for removing these attributes from public life and political action in Western societies. Nazism was the main historical explanation of this new form of government. What about communism, Stalinism – and even Marxism?

In the most substantive part of Totalitarianism the analysis of the phenomenon in the Soviet world is in fact of lesser comprehensive force, as well as the extent of the comments, in comparison to Nazism, are more modest. The praise to be paid to this part of As Origins of Totalitarianism it is the approach about the “collapse of the class system [which] automatically meant the collapse of the party system, because the parties, whose function it was to represent interests, could no longer represent them”[20]. Indeed, it is as a result of this historical and social factor that Europe saw “the psychology of the mass man develop”[21]. Hence, the organization of propaganda aimed at the masses – masses that are the opposite, in fact quite the contrary, of what some Arendt lovers leave between the lines, suggest, of the organized workers movement and its antagonistic ethos – becomes possible. As a logical argument, only then “totalitarian movements are massive organizations of atomized and isolated individuals”[22], and which was mobilized by Nazi and Stalinist leaders. “The great achievement of Hitler [Himmler and Goebbels]” lay in his having managed to “organize the Nazi [mass] movement”[23]; and that of Stalin in “transforming Lenin’s [revolution] into a complete totalitarian regime”[24]. Propaganda, fictitious “reality”, subsumption of opposition outside ideology and ideology itself, are only viable in a fundamentally mass society. In which it is established that the structuring and conflict between classes – becomes devoid of existential meaning. To assert on the one hand that the tragic fate of a nation was the result of stab in the back committed by a specific people (or race) and that the Moscow metro is unique in the world are only feasible in a society where there is no differentiation between those who supposedly took the knife and where a tiny bureaucracy has access to external reality from other subways.

However, even though part 3 of the The origins… suggestive from the point of view of interpreting the peculiar phenomena it deals with – phenomena never previously witnessed in Western societies –, the left (and Marxists) as a whole are not obliged to acquiesce to Hannah Arendt's political theory. (It is a fundamental and absolutely wrong idea that the left has always turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the cries that came from Siberia. To this day, in a way, people respond and pay penance for what happened to and in the Stalinist bureaucracy. . Who has never seen, heard or witnessed Veras Magalhães scattered throughout our plural and democratic media question a politician, a politician, an intellectual or an activist if he or she is a socialist. To paraphrase Moshe Lewin: we cannot convince someone who is convinced that a hippopotamus is like a giraffe that they are different – ​​what we can do is ask why do these people sometimes hold “a [university] chair in zoology?”[25]) There is an immense literature in the field of the left that dealt (and deals) with this. Iná Camargo Costa in her provocative Dialectic of Cultural Marxism is right in asserting that the leftist tradition “is rich in confrontations, divergences and endless polemics […] Marxism itself [is full of] multiple […] denominations”[26].We need not resort to Trotsky and his intellectual and political effort to explain the degeneracy of the October revolution. Some will say that Trotsky was obliged to do so in order not to compromise his own vain image as one of the architects of the event. Alex Callinicos and Slavoj Zizek; Ernest Mandel and Herbert Marcuse; Ferdinand Claudin and Isaac Deustcher; Moshe Lewin and Perry Anderson are authors, obviously suspicious, who took the time to understand Russia after the event of 1917. And the fruitful dialogue with other explanations? How is the diversity of understanding about the same phenomenon? Is the use of the multiplicity of visions so fundamental in the humanities possible to deny? Such circumstances can be cultivated in intellectual and public debate. That is beyond doubt – even for the left. And in this case Arendt can indeed suggest interpretations other than that cenacle of authors. But I insist; to the extent of those efforts, sometimes not always successful, one is not obliged to subscribe As Origins of Totalitarianism, The Human Condition e about the revolution.

Even so; the vehement and uncompromising condemnation of Stalinism and its corrupt and murderous bureaucracy belongs or should belong to the left intellectual and political culture. If we can't shock the world with our ideas (and interventions) we won't be able to transform it. And here it is not recommendable to be easily seduced by the “performative contradiction”: extirpating the morality of the analysis about Stalinism in order to resort to a scientific, even materialist, cold and realistic historiography (can) is transfigured into a moral-normative pretense with the instrument of research itself. Since the times of Paris Commune Marx warned of certain eccentricities on the left. Now, Stalin and his minions, not the Bolsheviks (Arendt, relatively speaking, is wrong on this point even protecting the figure of Lenin), mercilessly destroyed the greatest glimmer of another form of life that has existed until our days since capitalism was established [ on this see the aforementioned essay by Iná Camargo Costa and the work of Cinzia Arruzza, especially Dangerous Liaisons: Feminism and Marxism, Marriage and Divorce. Part of these two works emphasize innovations and efforts for women's liberation in the context of October]. There's no point pondering this, definitely.

Returning, to finish, to Arendt and the famous part of her monumental work. although As Origins of Totalitarianism in the first two parts, Anti-Semitism e Imperialism, provide us with highly suggestive theoretical constructions to understand decisive political phenomena in the history of the XNUMXth century, and even part three, Totalitarianism, which deals with Nazism and Stalinism as we have seen, contains interpretations that inspire us to investigate our past experiences with an attentive intellect, there is unfortunately the last chapter, Ideology and Terror: A New Form of Government. And here Hannah Arendt attributes totalitarian elements to Marx's thought and philosophy. This has two implications. The first is indirect and external, in a way, to the referred text and Arendt's interventions. The second, from my point of view the most problematic, concerns the immanent meaning of the Arendtian theoretical argument that completes the The origins…in the cited chapter.

With the end of World War II there was no longer any need to fight Nazism; Hitlerism was absolutely buried both in military terms and in terms of ideas. However, the Soviet Union and the regimes that followed it were present. Well, it was more than natural for the architects of Cold War – use artifices concerning the battle of ideals and cultural disputes in this context of uncertainty about the international concert of nations. Thus, “liberal political theorists soon adopted the term […] totalitarianism, [it] was the great concept that unified and mobilized”[27] those interested in the conflict in the United States. It is necessary to be condescending to state that “the generalized image of totalitarianism [mobilized by the theorists of Cold War] did not find [conceptual support] in seminal imaginative texts of the period”[28]. As Origins of Totalitarianism (and even The Human Condition), especially part three and chapter Ideology and Terror which are obviously the ones that most captivated the Democrats and the “liberal tradition”, was one of those seminal texts according to Jeffrey Brooks; it was in fact the seminal text. And precisely the chapter we are alluding to is the one that presents the aspects, according to Arendt, of totalitarianism in Marx and in the Marxist tradition. The author of about the revolution she was aware of and convinced of these complex political, intellectual and historical circumstances. for the Ideology and Terror added to the work in the second edition of 1958, it had been a research project – which intended, in the midst of that turmoil, to investigate the “totalitarian elements of Marxism”[29]. During the period that she spent in European libraries working and collecting material for the study, Hannah Arendt sought to complete her text of The origins… investigating one of the “political and philosophical traditions of the West […] Marxism”[30]. That Arendt was not anti-Marxist is perceived by her own intellectual trajectory; her exchange of letters in 1967 with Hans-Jürgen Benedict are revealing: in it the theorist says that “she never attacked communism as such, much less reduced it to a totalitarian position. I have always been very clear against identifying Lenin with Stalin or even Marx with Stalin.”[31]; but it is symptomatic in the same document that she says she did not send the As Origins of Totalitarianism whole to Jürgen Benedict for “not being worth it […] since [had] not [changed] anything”[32] than what was written before. Hannah Arendt “knew” of the Cold War, of how conservatives, liberals and the American right “used” his monumental work, especially the part that interested them, the third and the text of the Ideology and Terror. She could have written a long introduction differentiating herself from those (the exchange of private letters with Blucher, her husband, from when she was in Europe, in which the two criticize Irving Kristol's anti-communist rudeness in the Comment it was not enough[33]). Furthermore, at crucial moments Arendt took up the pen (I would not like to refer to Little Rock[34] but…) to take a stand by expressing their concerns about the fate of american republic – as she did at the end of the Reflections on Little Rock. These circumstances involving, externally, part three of The origins… belong to Arendt. Concerning the Cold War, however, the left of the period acted badly – ​​it would be naive, with such pretensions that Marx warned, to expect that the thinkers of the Cold War act differently. Perry Anderson suggests that socialist writers very peacefully accepted the “ideological acceleration of capital [driven] by the western conversion of the terms of conflict: no longer capitalism against socialism, but democracy against totalitarianism [...] new building"[35] the position of the left at the time had been mistaken for accepting, relatively, the conditions of the dispute. Cold War: if we want to cherish some future as a political option for subordinates, we cannot accept “the arrogant claims of the right, [the] conformist myths of the center [and] the well-thinking nonsense of part of the left [and progressives]”[36].)

From this follows the second implication of the Ideology and Terror: A New Form of Government. There is a sensitive problem here with regard to Arendt's understanding, now no longer of totalitarianism itself, but of Marx's philosophy and thought and its consequences. The formulations in part three, the suggestive ones evidently, were dissolved without any more specific theoretical explanation, in Hannah Arendt's eagerness to maintain that the laws of totalitarian movement preserved Marx's notion of class struggle in its Bolshevik moment. She insists that the idea of ​​“the survival of the most progressive class”[37] it was present in Marxist social theory: since it was anchored in that construction on the laws of motion. Hence Arendt said that such laws expressed the emanation of “men's work-energy”, which, according to her, Marx did not see as “a historical force, but a natural-biological one – produced by metabolism with nature”[38]. But Hannah Arendt, in her impulse to deny any law that imposed meaning on history, did not realize that the theme of metabolism is the immanence of being (in its multiplicity and not a univocal law) and not work – and even here, she who refused to accept the ways of existence of capitalist society was betrayed, because her negative understanding of work brought the very determinations of the capitalist form. Otherwise, how could we explain his repulsion for work in the face of political action and human plurality? (And insofar as metabolism is of the immanence of being: work[39] is, inevitably, one of its aspects, as is writing poetry, loving madly, building architectural constructions, contemplating art and reflecting on philosophy.) Arendt in Ideology and Terror did not question how a political philosophy that was forged in the contingent interpretation of social conflicts and that understood since the insurrections of 1848 that revolutionary processes could not be drugged with “the memory of world history” defended in some aspect of its work, even without intending to , any kind of rational and unique logic in and of history.

It so happens that Hannah Arendt, in her quest to investigate the new form of government as the suppression of freedom that is sheltered “in the hearts of men”[40], the passion for starting something new, had to compel one of the few theories that understood the material (cultural and spiritual) obstacles to the realization of freedom, within the scope of modern society, to a framework of the supposed laws of movement as understood by philosopher of action. Indeed, we are faced with two ways of understanding freedom; Is the left obliged to consent to Arendt's freedom? Furthermore, it is evident that the social transformation of women, men and children (today with other political subjects) presupposes some movement, and one might say radical and abrupt, of the established order – breaking the chains or taking off the iron gloves to use the beautiful image of Conceição Evaristo in Poncia Vicencio requires a certain disposition –; hence claiming that “terror is the legality […] of the law of motion”[41] it is something difficult to sustain theoretically. And here in this specific aspect, and only here, Arendt approaches problematically and unfortunately, the conservative reading of politics (Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, Michael Oakeshott) – for which any modern undertaking in the incessant search for social transformation, and having to move- if for that, and sometimes clashing with “constitutional governments [and their] positive laws destined[to] erect frontiers and establish channels of communication between men”[42] derails into terror. As she liked to say, only great thinkers demand our attention. So, what belongs to the left when facing, particularly, these lines of Arendt?

*Ronaldo Tadeu de Souza He is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Political Science at USP.



1]Conf. Hannah Arendt- The Origins of Totalitarianism: Anti-Semitism, Imperialism, and Totalitarianism Companhia das Letras, 2013, p. 35.


[3]Ibidem, p. 56.


[5]Robert Pippin – The Persistence of Subjectivity: On the Kantian Aftermath. CambridgeUniversityPress, 2005.

[6]Config. Elisabeth Young-Bruhel – Hannah Arendt: For the Love of the World. Relume & Dumara, 1997, p. 160.

[7] It is remarkable how those who use the notion of totalitarianism invariably imply that its basis is the ignorant people attracted by the leader. Without wanting to problematize the very horizon of bourgeois society where the form of government takes shape; quite different from Arendt, at least, in this part of his work.

[8]Config. Hannah Arendt- The Origins of Totalitarianism: Anti-Semitism, Imperialism, and Totalitarianism. Companhia das Letras, 2013, p. 129.





[13]Ibid., pp. 130 and 131.

[14] It is noticeable in some of Hannah Arendt's works the respect she cultivated for Lenin. For those who are always anxious and even willing to claim that totalitarianism already existed in the times of the author of Imperialism the Higher Stage of Capitalism will be surprised, with several formulations like this one in the As Origins of Totalitarianism: “[…] finally, that the liquidation of Lenin's Russian Revolution had been sufficiently complete for them to be able to give Stalin their enthusiastic support”; “[…] the effort of collectivization e elimination of the kulaks, from 1928 onwards, in truth stopped the NEP, Lenin's New Economic Policy”; and “It is true that the methods used by rulers in the years after Stalin's death still met the standards set by this after dead of Lenin […]”. Config. Oops. cit., pp. 361, 423, and 426. And these are not Arendt's only formulations addressing two entirely different periods, and they are not loose phrases plucked up in an unfruitful rhetorical exercise.

[15] Config. Elisabeth Young-Bruhel – Hannah Arendt: For the Love of the World. Relume & Dumara, 1997, p. 160.

[16]Config. Hannah Arendt- The Origins of Totalitarianism: Anti-Semitism, Imperialism, and Totalitarianism. Companhia das Letras, 2013, p. 191.

[17]Ibidem, p. 204.


[19]Ibidem, p. 205.

[20]Ibidem, p. 443.

[21]Ibidem, p. 444.

[22]Ibidem, p. 453.

[23]Ibidem, p. 454.

[24]Ibidem, p. 447.

[25]Moshe Lewin – What Was the Soviet System? Left Bank Magazine, nº 10, 2007, p. 41.

[26]Iná Camargo Costa –Dialectic of Cultural Marxism. Popular Expression, 2020, p. 46.

[27]Config. Jeffrey Brooks – Totalitarianism Revisited. The Review of Politics, nº 68, 2006, p. 319.

[28]Ibidem, p. 321.

[29]Config. Elisabeth Young-Bruhel – Hannah Arendt: For the Love of the World. Relume & Dumara, 1997, p. 253.

[30]Config. Hannah Arendt Apud Elisabeth Young-Bruhel – Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World. Relume & Dumara, 1997, p. 253. See on Young-Bruhel's work especially notes 26, 27 and 28 at the end of the book.

[31]Config. Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper, Supplement More! of 04/05/2008. Arendt's letter to Hans Jürgen-Benedict was dated November 25, 1967.

[32] About this excerpt from the letter, see https://hannaharendt.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/arendt-na-folha-de-sao-paulo-a-arte-do-possivel/. Or consult the CEHA.

[33]  Config. Elisabeth Young-Bruhel – Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World. Relume & Dumara, 1997, pp. 251 and 252 and note 20.

[34] In the United States, the country where Arendt adopted this debate is on fire after her return to the intellectual scene with the election of Donald Trump – and words are not spared there. See https://www.diggitmagazine.com/column/racism-and-how-read-hannah-arendt.

[35] Config. Perry Anderson – Ideas and Political Action in Historical Change. Left Bank Magazine, nº 1, 2003, p. 86.

[36]Ibidem, p. 92.

[37]Config. Hannah Arendt- The Origins of Totalitarianism: Anti-Semitism, Imperialism, and Totalitarianism. Companhia das Letras, 2013, p. 616.


[39] As far as I follow, and if my memory is not betraying me, this is a debate between Marxians and sociologists of work: there is in Marx an ontology of work, or an ontology of being.

[40]Ibidem, p. 620.

[41]Ibidem, p. 618.

[42]Ibidem, p. 619.

See this link for all articles