Karl Marx On Estranged Labor Essay, Research Paper

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.

Bibliography

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:

Marx, Karl, “The Early Marx,” London, England, 1888

Marx, Karl and Engles, Freidrich, “The Communist Manifesto,” London, England, 1888