Alienated Labor essay
As I mentioned yesterday, here is an optional additional reading by Marx. This explores his theory of human nature: what makes us truly human? For those who don't want to wade through more Marx, here's the money quote:What constitutes the alienation of labour?
Firstly, the fact that labour is external to the worker – i.e., does not belong to his essential being; that he, therefore, does not confirm himself in his work, but denies himself, feels miserable and not happy, does not develop free mental and physical energy, but mortifies his flesh and ruins his mind. Hence, the worker feels himself only when he is not working; when he is working, he does not feel himself. He is at home when he is not working, and not at home when he is working. His labour is, therefore, not voluntary but forced, it is forced labour. It is, therefore, not the satisfaction of a need but a mere means to satisfy needs outside itself. Its alien character is clearly demonstrated by the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, it is shunned like the plague. External labour, labour in which man alienates himself, is a labour of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Finally, the external character of labour for the worker is demonstrated by the fact that it belongs not to him but to another, and that in it he belongs not to himself but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, the human brain, and the human heart, detaches itself from the individual and reappears as the alien activity of a god or of a devil, so the activity of the worker is not his own spontaneous activity. It belongs to another, it is a loss of his self.
The result is that man (the worker) feels that he is acting freely only in his animal functions – eating, drinking, and procreating, or at most in his dwelling and adornment – while in his human functions, he is nothing more than animal.
posted by David Watkins @ 11:58 AM
3 Comments:
i think that it is both a blessing and a curse to be born into this world. (do we work to live, or live to work?) why does this need to be so complicated? why can't we have a choice? surely this 'power' does exist, i will not deny this, but in knowing that 'it' exists, what benefit is there in knowing? wouldn't it be or wouldn't i be better off in not/never knowing? this thought leaves me with a bitter feeling.
i would hate to owe anyone anything. infortunately in my lifetime, every thing that i will have worked for will become someone elses reward.
I think that is a really powerful quote....and I kind of agree with it, as bad as that sounds. People hate working. And the fact that the only way to earn a living and obtain the things you NEED to survive is to work says that working is a necessity, and necessities are generally chores. Work tends to put people on a schedule and makes people accountable for what they do and don't do. That creates a lot of stress and if the work you do is not what you love, you feel like an animal in a zoo paid to perform when all you want to do is be free from all of it. I dont know if that makes sense but thats my interpretation.
Surely when looking upon the misshapen body of a factory worker, inappropriately formed to the shape of their workstation, Marx saw this as a sort of wage slavery. For what person would subject themselves to the creation of goods that mutilated them so? But Marx, mistakenly only sees, the status of that small section of society, defining labor erroneously as those involved only in the production of durable goods such as widgets, and needles. He also fails to see the adaptability of the factors of production, both capital and labor.
There are not only laborers who produce durable goods, like widgets and needles, but also laborers who produce items of largely subjective value: artists, craftsman, and philosophers, such as himself. Are these individuals not laborers? Do they not direct their being toward the production of goods? I would also ask: do these people get no enjoyment from their labor? I would state that there are those who love their work, even among diggers of ditches, welders of metals, and factory workers of all types. His judgement on this matter is flawed.
In looking at the worker, Marx saw only current unhappiness, and failed to see that workers could affect that unhappiness in any way other than changing the entire economic system. Marx would be astounded today at ergonomic machinery, worker safety laws, and other victories of organized labor that operated within the capitalist framework.
Post a Comment
<< Home