The premises presented by Karl Marx on his manuscript were genuinely with accord to the ordeal of the workers as they lose themselves in the hands of the capitalists. But, as we stated in the first part of this paper, we think there is a flaw in his second premise, the estrangement of the worker from the activity production. We believe that labor done by workers - explicitly those who take pleasure in doing their job- doesn’t necessarily imply that everything that they do is not out of their essential being primarily because they love what they do, and any work that is done out of passion and love comes from the essential being of a
This is because despite the energy of labor and the being of the labor which are put into the product, that product itself doesn’t belong to the laborer nor do they receive any benefits from the product i.e., ‘the fruits of their labor’. In a sense, the laborer loses something of himself during the time spent creating this estranged object, as it doesn 't identify with it as a meaningful part of its own presence as a person, yet simply as an independent entity alienated to itself. Marx states that the “worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object” (29). Therefore, the more labor one puts into a product the more powerful and estranged the world of products becomes of them. This estrangement can become so acute that the bare necessities of living are taken from the laborer as the more products they produce, the less they possess.
The Industrial Revolution cast its shadow upon European cities and towns. Some enjoyed this shade while others suffered tremendously because of it. Those who enjoyed the luxuries and wealth that the Industrial Revolution provided, the bourgeoisie, depended on the needs of the poor, the proletarians, to increase the size of their monstrous factories and ultimately their wealth and influence. In “The Communist Manifesto” Karl Marx discusses the effects of the Industrial Revolution in further dividing society by creating new social and economic hierarchies. In addition to his observation of the division of labor, Karl Marx believed, that due to the technological shift from craftsmanship to machinery this also caused division of labor and the appreciation of proletarian handmade goods was disregarded.
Karl Marx’s Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 presented through his writings this kind of alarming condition which he called the Estranged Labor. He further discussed what merely the cause of an alienated labor. In the text, Political economy is further explained through the level of usefulness of such worker and that shows to very poor quality of work but it is opposite in reality hence the workers shows their ability to produce high quality and meaningful products. Private property is the primary cause why alienated labor exists. Without private property, workers or laborers would not also exist.
Perhaps the part Marx got the most right is his claim that machines only exist to give the owners surplus value, and along with that a factory, including the people is becoming one giant machine. This is very accurate. Companies will automate any part of their process as soon as an excel spreadsheet tell them it will save them money. Factory workers have been abandoned in hopes of profit. And the modern factory has become one giant machine.
Industrialization also enhanced the capitalism which is focused on the issue of more profit and conflict between capital and workers. While owner of productions take more profit with less labor, workers take less profit even with much more labor force. Karl Marx is one of the thinkers who criticizes this situation of capitalism in terms of workers and capitals in industry, especially he focuses on the situation of
To Marx, labor dehumanizes and alienates workers by making them exist as workers first and physical beings seconds. In the piece “Estranged Labour” from his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, he states that “labour produces not only commodities: it produces itself and the worker as a commodity–and this at the same rate at which it produces commodities in general” (Marx, 63). As the worker puts value into his commodity, his labor and thus he himself lose value. By doing so, the worker has put a part of himself into the commodity, and parting with said commodity means the object becomes alien to him; thus, a part of him has been taken away from him and he becomes, in a way, alienated from himself. In making his commodity, the worker
I must have been about 10 or 11, playing a pickup game of basketball with my dad in our driveway in the midst of the scorching July heat. Recently I had seen or heard an ad discussing minimum wage. Out of boredom and curiosity I asked my dad at a break in play about the core concepts behind this new idea I had stumbled upon. With patience my dad explained to me the concept. After a few more questions and prods I picked up the ball and asked “So if there’s a minimum wage, what’s maximum wage?”
I believe what Marx is saying is that we must continue to study humanity and the correlation between industry and exchange due to the impact it has on social class. Marx theorizes that due to human separation of self from nature, we are a society that is based on social stratification. We are categorized by class through prestige, power and property and have social inequality through unequal distribution of resources for all. In society today, we see that the elite, ruling party, uses their power to create an ideology that the rest of society subscribes to. Society can’t progress unless they have changes in the social system.
Another aspect that advances division and increases capital is economic competition between individuals. If there was no competition than innovation would not happen because people would not compete. Competition allows for producing more profitable and advanced products according to Marx. The greater the division of labor, the more a laborer accomplishes. Laborers compete to sell themselves as much as accomplishing the work of five or more laborers for example.
Durkheim identified this change through the division of labour which he believed would lead to anomie -the breakdown of morality in society- (Barbaris and Jones: 2011). Durkheim (1893: 276) argued that “the division of labour unites at the same time that it opposes” because though the concept of a division of labour rids society of simple mechanic solidarity, thus opposing the simple way of life that was found in a pre-industrialised society, by having industrialisation, it allows for the build-up of a new way of collective conscience. In a similar vein, according to his manifesto (Marxists.org), Marx also believed in the division of labour, thinking that industrialization made the dichotomy between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie much more apparent. Like Durkheim’s concept of anomie and the breakdown of norms, Marx argued that the division of labour encourages alienation leading to a feeling of disassociation among the labourers with the product of their labour, due to it all being monopolised by the bourgeoisie. Yet, unlike Durkheim, Marx thought that the division of labour would promote less autonomy and minimise their collective conscience, therefore leading them to think they need the support of their employer rather than their
After reading all three readings, I come to realize that these two phrases are true now about politics, as they were 2000 years ago in Roma , “Laws are made to protect the rich” and like Karl Marx’s paper Estranged Labour, “Law protects the property of those in power”. All three reading are mostly about political and how upper class societies make rules to only protect them. Also, why some people like the low class are not in power. When reading Karl Marx’s paper Estranged Labour and also my Education and Society talks about him. Marx says talk about how law(s) is a tool used by the people in power (property owners) to maintain power and control over the weaker class (propertyless workers).
Marx makes a few key points when speaking about his theory of alienated labor. He draws these points by evaluating the welfare of individual workers and the effect of capitalism. His first point is that when a person creates and produces something on his own; he is solely entitled to it. The person benefits from both the full capital gain and his own self achievement. On the other hand, if the same person works for a company he is stripped of being solely entitled to both gains.
When thinking of the positive effect of specialized labor, Marx suggested that it could bring solidarity to industrial workers (as citied in Sernau, 2012, p.46). Before labor division, it was probable that people worked individually with limited interactions with others in a similar trade. Now with specialized industrial work, workers have the opportunity to work in close proximity with others, thus creating bonds. Unfortunately, one of the downfalls of specialized labor is the possibility of generating deskilled workers. Marx believed that creating jobs that required little skills opened the opportunity to vulnerable and easily replaced workers (as citied in Sernau, 2012, p.46).
In the Communist manifesto, a well known quote of Marx, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” This is introductory to the first part of the pamphlet and a conclusion to Marx’s theory about class struggle. Marx’s highly structured on how the class struggle emerges and affects the development of a society. The development of a society from the old and from the new is the result of the conflict of classes in the society.
