Marx,
in this reading, sets out to prove why the political economy, the economy that
is brought about by political influence on social policy, that he sees and
explicates in the text is not helpful to humans and leads only to their subjugation.
One of the ways he does this is by comparing how animals live unencumbered by
society to how humans live in a political economy. Marx makes the assertion
that man acts “freely only in his animal functions” like eating, drinking, and
procreating (62). I will explain, using Marx’s argument, how the worker has
lost this freedom as a result of political economy.
Marx first draws a comparison
between the labor of human and the labor of animals. He asserts, “the animal is
its life activity” (63). Whatever
labor the animal does directly benefits its survival. The animal’s work allows
him or her to live. Additionally “the animal produces only what is immediately
necessary for itself or its young” (64). Animals take care of themselves and
personally reap the benefits of their labor.
This is in direct opposition to the
labor of humans. In a political economy, a man’s work “is not voluntary, but
coerced, forced labor” (62). A laborer
doesn’t do work for himself but for someone else. Therefore, a worker’s labor
is “alien and not belonging to him…an activity turned against him, independent
of him, and not belonging to him” (62). Unlike an animal, a laborer’s work has
no impact on his life besides “as a means
to satisfy a need” (63). A laborer works so he can make money so he can provide
for his family; there is no direct correlation between work and being able to
live one’s life.
Marx asserts that, in a political
economy, the worker is miserable and “becomes a slave to his objects” (60-61).
The worker, due to political economy, usually does not have this direct
relationship. Political economy distances the worker’s labor from his or her
ultimate product, life. Animals, however, directly benefit from their work.
Marx asserts that this is freedom, which indicates that freedom is a natural
right and deserved by all creatures. When laborers participate in animalistic
function, not only is there no impediment from a middleman who is reaping a
benefit from their work, their labor is directly related to their ability to
live, and thus they feel free. Workers feel free because they are being their
natural selves.
Discussion
Question: Marx’s logic seems to apply mainly to manual laborers or factory
workers. Does it apply to any type of laborer or are some professions,
specifically one like farming, excluded from Marx’s ideas about political
economy?
Your question outlines my confusion about his philosophy so far: to which type of work does it apply. It mentions property owners as the ones benefiting from labor. If the property owner is a store owner, one who benefits at others' work, then his or her workers are put in the subordinate, dehumanizing position as you say. But the store owner still needs to do work. Does owning the store in itself create an outside force that alienates the owner? In response to farming, that's the only example I can think of wherein the work itself isn't alienating because it's selfsustaining. Is a selfsustaining work the kind Marx lauds? I'm confused.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Emma's discussion question, I think that farmers count as laborers. People who are farmers by profession produce food not only to sustain themselves but also to sell to others. As Emma previously pointed out, Marx states that an animal only produces things that are "immediately necessary for itself or its young" (64). Since Farmers are producing more than is needed to sustain themselves and their family and selling their excess, they participate in the political economy.
ReplyDeleteI think some of the confusion people are expressing over the discussion question can be cleared up by understanding the issue of political and economy and alienation of labor in the context of wages, as this frequently accompanies issues of political economy and “wages and private property are identical” (67). Marx believes “The direct relationship of labor to its products is the relationship of the worker to the objects of his production” (61). As Emma points out, animals benefits directly from their labor and use it to satisfy vital needs, while human laborers in a political economy do not receive the products of their labor. They receive wages, either as currency or some fraction of what they produced.
ReplyDeleteUsing this framework we can then examine the different roles in the political economy to understand alienation. As Emma points out, Marx focuses on industrial laborers. These workers are alienated from their work as they do not receive the direct product of their labor (which, in assembly lines and factories, is often a small part of a whole product), but rather monetary wages which are the equivalent of the value of their work. The alienation here is two-fold: they do not receive the products they make, and they receive in value less than they produced.
In the case of farmers, this can be true as well, in the case of laborers working large estates; however, it is also true in the case of independent farmers who do all of their own work. Even though these laborers may receive part of their product in its direct form through nutrients, they must still take “wages” by selling their products, in order to pay taxes and buy equipment and other supplies. In this way, they participate in the political economy, and are isolated. Kyra summarized this point well in her comment.
Eric expressed confusion over the point of shopkeepers in his comment. Unlike farmers and factory workers, I believe Marx would not consider the shopkeeper a laborer, as he is not actually producing anything, but rather using the capital he has accumulated to sell the products of others’ labor at a profit. Not much was said in this section on the class which Marxists commonly refer to as the bourgeoisie (or, depending on the size of the shop, petit-bourgeoisie) but referred to here-in as the “non-worker” (68). However, I may theorize myself that the non-working shopkeeper may be considered alienated from the products he lives off but did not labor to create, as well as isolated from any work he may do concerning his business, as the direct product of this labor (for example, the movement of others’ products form point A to point B) is not used directly to sustain him, but is rather assigned a trade value.
I would argue that any laborer is alienated if his or her product is assigned an extrinsic value beyond its immediate utility to the worker. For example a cave woman makes a fishing spear and its value to her is that it allows her to get fish, to satisfy her immediate natural need for food. If she sells it for a monetary value then she has become alienated. Marx says "the animal is immediately one with its life activity... the animal is its life activity"(63). When the woman sells the spear it is not longer immediately connected to her need to get fish and this perverts the object, alienates it. It is no longer directly part of her life activity. This alienation means that she is no longer carrying out her pure Species-life, her labor has become an entity separate from her natural life and thus alien.
ReplyDelete