Marx`s Labour
Description: This paper discusses Marx's argument on "estranged
labour."
This is a rather microcosmic topic but it is important because
estranged labour
is the basis for all of Marx's writing, most importantly,
'The Communist
Manifesto.' Revealing Marx In Karl Marx's early writing on
"estranged
labour" there is a clear and prevailing focus on the plight of the
labourer.
Marx's writing on estranged labour is and attempt to draw a
stark distinction
between property owners and workers. In the writing Marx
argues that the worker
becomes estranged from his labour because he is not
the recipient of the product
he creates. As a result labour is objectified,
that is labour becomes the object
of mans existence. As labour is objectified
man becomes disillusioned and
enslaved. Marx argues that man becomes to be
viewed as a commodity worth only
the labour he creates and man is further
reduced to a subsisting animal void of
any capacity of freedom except the
will to labour. For Marx this all leads to
the emergence of private property,
the enemy of the proletariat. In fact Marx's
writing on estranged labour is a
repudiation of private property- a warning of
how private property enslaves
the worker. This writing on estranged labour is an
obvious point of basis for
Marx's Communist Manifesto. The purpose of this paper
is to view Marx's
concept of alienation (estranged labour) and how it limits
freedom. For Marx
man's freedom is relinquished or in fact wrested from his true
nature once he
becomes a labourer. This process is thoroughly explained
throughout Estranged
Labour. This study will reveal this process and argue it's
validity.
Appendant to this study on alienation there will be a micro-study
which will
attempt to ascertain Marx's view of freedom (i.e. positive or
negative). The
study on alienation in conjunction with the micro-study on Marx's
view of
freedom will help not only reveal why Marx feels labour limits mans
freedom,
but it will also identify exactly what kind of freedom is being
limited.
Estranged Labour Karl Marx identifies estranged labour as labour alien
to
man. Marx explains the condition of estranged labour as the result of
man
participating in an institution alien to his nature. It is my
interpretation
that man is alienated from his labour because he is not the
reaper of what he
sows. Because he is never the recipient of his efforts the
labourer lacks
identity with what he creates. For Marx then labour is "alien
to the
worker...[and]...does not belong to his essential being." Marx
identifies
two explanations of why mans lack of identity with labour leads
him to be
estranged from labour. (1) "[The labourer] does not develop freely
his
physical and mental energy, but instead mortifies his mind." In other
words
labour fails to nurture mans physical and mental capacities and instead
drains
them. Because the worker is denied any nurturing in his work no
intimacy between
the worker and his work develops. Lacking an intimate
relation with what he
creates man is summarily estranged from his labour. (2)
Labour estranges man
from himself. Marx argues that the labour the worker
produces does not belong to
him, but to someone else. Given this condition
the labourer belongs to someone
else and is therefore enslaved. As a result
of being enslaved the worker is
reduced to a "subsisting animal", a condition
alien to him. As an end
result man is estranged from himself and is entirely
mortified. Marx points to
these to situations as the reason man is
essentially estranged from his labour.
The incongruency between the world
of things the worker creates and the world
the worker lives in is the
estrangement. Marx argues that the worker first
realizes he is estranged from
his labour when it is apparent he cannot attain
what he appropriates. As a
result of this realization the objectification of
labour occurs. For the
worker the labour becomes an object, something shapeless
and unidentifiable.
Because labour is objectified, the labourer begins to
identify the product of
labour as labour. In other words all the worker can
identify as a product of
his labour, given the condition of what he produces as
a shapeless,
unidentifiable object, is labour. The worker is then left with only
labour as
the end product of his efforts. The emerging condition is that he
works to
create more work. For Marx the monotonous redundancy of this condition
is
highly detrimental because the worker loses himself in his efforts. He
argues
that this situation is analogous to a man and his religion. Marx
writes,
"The more man puts into God the less he retains in himself....The
worker
puts his life into the object, but now his life no longer belongs to
him but to
the object." The result of the worker belonging to the object is
that he is
enslaved. The worker belongs to something else and his actions are
dictated by
that thing. For Marx, labour turns man into a means. Workers
become nothing more
than the capital necessary to produce a product. Labour
for Marx reduces man to
a means of production. As a means of production man
is diminished to a
subsisting enslaved creature void of his true nature. In
this condition he is
reduced to the most detrimental state of man: one in
which he is estranged from
himself. To help expand on this theme it is useful
to look at Marx's allegory of
man's life-activity. Life-activity and the
Nature of Man Of the variety of
reasons Marx argues man is estranged from his
labour, probably the most
significant is his belief that labour estranges man
from himself. Marx argues
that the labour the worker produces does not belong
to the worker so in essence
the worker does not belong to the worker. By
virtue of this condition Marx
argues the worker is enslaved. Enslavement for
Marx is a condition alien to man
and he becomes estranged from himself. For
Marx, man estranged from himself is
stripped of his very nature. Not only
because he is enslaved but because his
life-activity has been displaced. For
Marx mans character is free, conscious
activity, and mans pursuit of his
character is his life-activity. Mans
life-activity is then the object of his
life. So by nature, mans own life is the
object of his existence. This is
mans condition before labour. After labour mans
life-activity, that is, his
free conscious, activity, or his very nature, is
displaced. In a pre-labour
condition mans life was the object of his condition;
in a labour condition
man exists to labour and his life-activity is reduced to a
means of his
existence so he can labour. In effect labour necessitates itself in
man by
supplanting mans true nature with an artificial one that re-prioritizes
mans
goals. Man's goal then is not to pursue his life but to labour. He
becomes
linked to his labour and is viewed in no other way. Man is reduced to
chattel, a
commodity, the private property of another individual. Conclusion
For Marx
labour limits the freedom of man. Labour becomes the object of man's
existence
and he therefore becomes enslaved by it. In considering the
validity of Marx's
argument I feel Marx is correct that man's freedom is
limited by the fact that
he is a labourer. But in opposition to Marx I
believe that man's freedom is no
more limited as a labourer than as a farmer.
Agrarian worker or labourer man's
freedom is limited. Whether he is
identified by the product he creates in a
factory or in a wheat field in
either case he is tied to his work and is not
viewed beyond it. In either
instance the product is objectified because in
either instance the worker
works only to create more work. Just as the labourer
must continue to work
without end to subsist, so must the agrarian worker. The
implication then is
that alienation is not the culprit that limits mans freedom,
it is work
itself. Do not mistake this as an advocation for laziness. Instead
consider
the implications of not working. If one did not work at all he or she
would
live a life of poverty and would be far less free than if he did
work.
Working, either as a labourer or a farmer, offers greater financial
means and
with greater financial means comes greater freedom. This point of
the argument
stands up of course only if you believe money can by freedom. I
argue it can.
Surely my freedom to buy something is limited if I do not
have the financial
means. On the other hand if I have greater financial means
I have more freedom
to buy things. So although labour limits freedom to the
extent that the worker
becomes tied to his work, labour also offers a far
greater freedom than that of
indigence. Labouring is no less acceptable than
agrarian work because the
implications of partaking in either are uniform to
both and alienation holds no
relevancy. Appendage 1. Marx on Freedom Marx's
view of freedom would seem a
rather broad topic, and I'm sure it is. For our
purposes it is convenient to
have just an idea of what type of freedom Marx
favors. For the sake of ease the
scope of this study will be limited to two
(2) classifications of freedom:
prescribed (positive) freedom and negative
liberties. Prescribed freedom would
be guided freedoms, or freedoms to do
certain things. Negative liberties would
be freedom to do all but what is
forbidden. In Marx's writing On The Jewish
Question he identifies (but
does not necessarily advocates) liberty as
"...the right to do everything
which does not harm others." In further
argument Marx's states that "liberty
as a right of man is not founded upon
the relationship between man and man;
but rather upon the separation of man from
man." By this definition liberty
is negative liberty, and for Marx it is
monistic and solitary. Marx then
argues that private property is the practical
application of this negative
liberty. He states "...[private] property
is...the right to enjoy ones
fortune and dispose of it as one will; without
regard for other men and
independently of society." Private property for
Marx is the mechanism by
which man can be separate from other men and pursue his
(negative) liberty.
Marx's writings on estranged labour and in The Communist
Manifesto are a
clear repudiation of private property. What can be deduced then
is that Marx
does not favor negative liberties. Negative liberties require
private
property to exist and private property is for Marx the enslaver of
the
proletariat. Negative freedom eliminated from the discussion we are left
with
Positive or prescribed freedoms. Positive freedom, as was identified
above, is
the freedom to pursue specified options. That is, freedom to do
certain things.
Man is not necessarily given a choice of what these
options are, he is simply
free to pursue them whatever they may be. Posistive
freedoms then are the
freedoms Marx likley wishes to uphold by denouncing
estarnged labour.
Bibliography
1Marx, Karl, The Early Marx,
(reserve packet) 2Marx, Karl and Engles,
Freidrich, The Communist
Manifesto, London, England,
1888