It is the idea that a labourer may do her work because she believes that God has given her that lot in life, but she does what she does regardless, i.e. it was not the idea of "God" that set her to labor, but the practical necessity of achieving her means of sustenance. With the necessity for labor (which is “Being”), her consciousness could assume a variety of forms, in this case the idea of God. ()
Social station is what the idea of Marxism relies upon. This idea of a person staying in his or her station because it was destined to be as such, but also relies on the idea that in order for the social infrustructure not to collapse, their station in life must be fullfilled. It would seem that a government such this must make its followers believe in a greater common good, and would go to any length to obtain permission from any and all followers.
In the segment from Minima Moralia, by Theodor W. Adorno, it is written with a certain communist slant in mind. The central idea of Marxism is to elimate any class distinction in favor of a classless society, on which every individual exists on the same plane, hence denying individuality in its entirety. Adorno argues that the idea of the new is to blame, or rather the catalyst that started the Marxist movement. The idea of the new started the demolition of the upstanding government, sending fourth Marxism.
Adorno describes the new as, “…a blank place in conciousness, awaited as if with shut eyes, seems the formula by means of which a stimulus is exptrated from dread and despair” (Richter 1124). In other words, the idea of the new is the idea of the despair that awaited the individual when he became one marginalized by the rest of society. Adorno goes on to say, “[the new] circumscribes the precise reply given by the subject to a world that hs turned abstact, the industrial age” (Richter 1124). This idea of the new exists only to be a footstone on the path to a unified class, on which bugeois and Proloteriats did not exist. Adorno argues that newness only becomes evil in a totalitarian format, where all the tension between indicidual and society that once gave rise to the category of the new, is dissipated. He asserts that, “Today, the appeal of newness…has become universal, the omnipresent meduim of… mimesis” (Richter 1125). So this idea that one might find power through his subverting the his subversion, mimesis, is not a possiblity.
It is my understanding that without a class system a society cannot function. There needs to be people that make informed decisions for a general public. The idea of having every indivudual on the same plane seems to stifle any idea of decision. It is inevitable that there will be separate camps when it comes to making a grand decision that will effect an entire population, so how then would the idea of Marxism exist in any form of success. The idea of the new only exist to frighten those that would exist outside of the realm of what is accepted. It is a scaring mechanism whose only purpose is to scare individuals in to complying with the majority.
Also to omit all classes in favor of one large class, is to stifle creativity, which in many cases is what a society is based on. If indivudals cannot exist then, art, and creativity will cease to exist, leaving a drone like society in a Marxist wake.
