Alienated Labor |
|
From Marx, Karl. "Alienated
Labor." As reproduced in Marx's Concept of Man, trans.
T. B. Bottomore, ed. Erich Fromm (New York: Frederick Ungar
Publishing Co., 1961), 93-96. |
In his
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts
(1844),
Karl Marx (1818-1883) expounds his concept of
alienation. Written before Marx's move to
England in 1848, this document allows a glimpse into
his philosophy before its later development into
Historical Materialism. In this discussion of
alienation, Marx seems particularly concerned with
the fate of the individual worker in relation to his
labor, and with the objectifying, or
dehumanizing, quality of alienated labor. For
Marx, the creator was not able to "own" his
creations (literally--or psychologically).
|
|
Political economy begins
with the fact of private property; it does not explain it.
It conceives the material process of private
property, as this occurs in reality, in general and abstract
formulas which then serve it as laws. It does not
comprehend these laws; that is, it does not show how
they arise out of the nature of private property. Political
economy provides no explanation of the basis of the
distinction of labor from capital, of capital from land.
When, for example, the relation of wages to profits is
defined, this is explained in terms of the interests of
capitalists; in other words, what should be explained is
assumed. Similarly, competition is referred to at every
point and is explained in terms of external conditions.
Political economy tells us nothing about the extent to which
these external and apparently accidental conditions are
simply the expression of a necessary development. . . . The
only moving forces which political economy recognizes are
avarice and the war between the avaricious,
competition. . . .
Let us not begin our explanation, as does the economist,
from a legendary primordial condition. Such a primordial
condition does not explain anything; it merely removes the
question into a gray and nebulous distance. It assumes as a
fact or event what it should deduce, the necessary relation
between two things, for example, between the division of
labor and exchange. In the same way theology explains the
origin of evil by the fall of man; that is, it asserts as a
historical fact what it should explain.
We shall begin from a contemporary fact. The
worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces and the
more his production increases in power in wealth and extent.
The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more goods
he creates. The devaluation of the human world
increases in direct relation with the increase in value
of the world of things. Labour does not only create goods;
it also produces itself and the worker as a commodity,
and indeed in the same proportion as it produces goods.
This fact simply implies that the object produced by
labor, its product, now stand opposed to it as an alien
being, as a power independent of the producer.
The product of labor is labor which has been embodied in an
object and turned into a physical thing; this product is an
objectification of labor. The performance of work is
at the same time its objectification. . . . [T]he more
objects the worker produces the fewer he can possess and the
more he falls under domination of his product, of capital.
All these consequences follow from the fact that the
worker is related to the product of his labor as to
an alien object. For . . . the more the worker
expends himself in work the more powerful becomes the world
of objects which he creates in face of himself, the poorer
he becomes in his inner life, and the less he belongs to
himself. It is just the same as in religion. The more of
himself man attributes to God the less he has left in
himself. The worker puts his life into the object, and his
life then belongs no longer to himself but to the object.
The greater his activity, therefore, the less he possesses.
What is embodied in the product of his labor is no longer
his own. The greater this product is, therefore, the more he
is diminished. The alienation of the worker in his
product means not only that his labor becomes an object,
assumes an external existence, but that it exists
independently, outside himself, and alien to him, and
that it stands opposed to him as an autonomous power. The
life which he has given to the object sets itself against
him as an alien and hostile force.
|
|