While
reading the Selected Writings by Karl
Marx, I found his examination of religion and the status of the worker
very interesting. Marx explains that the status of the laborer is inversely
proportional to the product. Therefore, this means that as the commodity
increases, the worker’s misfortune and strife also increases, and “the more the
worker exerts himself, the more powerful becomes the alien objective world
which he fashions against himself, the poorer he and his inner world become,
the less there is to belong to him” (60). Elaborating upon this, we see that
the worker is “externalized” by the work that is done, as it is not in his
nature to do so. Furthermore, Marx compares this externalization to religion,
as it separates man from his nature. In doing so, “the more man relates to God,
the less he retains in himself” (60). We see in this comparison that the
presence of religion within society plays a similar role to the presence of the
capitalist. The “accidental fact” that the political economy demeans the status
of the worker is therefore developed by people rather than intrinsically being
a property of the economy itself.
I found
that this idea of the objectification of labor in relation to religion even
more intriguing when Marx poses the question as to who forces the laborer to
alienate himself. He points out that even in a religious context, this
alienation is not imposed by a higher power—“gods alone were never
workmasters”—but rather by humanity (65). Furthermore, the position of the landless
worker to the landowner is due to a determination by the persons involved,
which establishes this accidental fact of the political economy. Much like the
presence of religion, the cause of the effect is not brought on by the act
itself, but by the people involved. In short, those who regulate the workforce
reduce them, “to the level of a commodity,” not because they are in fact
lesser, but because they have an invested self-interest in the product made by
the worker (58). I found this comparison of religion to the economy to be
essential in Marx’s argument that the state of the political economy is a
consequence of humanity not of nature.
Discussion Question: Why do the laborers allow themselves to become externalized by the product and by those who require them to create the product? How does religion mimic the political economy, and is it therefore a flawed institution?
Discussion Question: Why do the laborers allow themselves to become externalized by the product and by those who require them to create the product? How does religion mimic the political economy, and is it therefore a flawed institution?
ReplyDeleteLauren makes very interesting points on the comparison of religion to the economy from reading. I agree with her points on that Marx argues for that humanity creates the economy and the economy is not simply the result of nature's actions. Marx argues, "Political economy conceals the alienation in the nature of labor by ignoring the direct relationship between the work (labor} and production" (61). In his statement, Marx relates that the human-created economy "conceals" or rather masks the separation from nature. As it masks this separation, it looks past the relationship of labor and production, which Lauren analyzes to be where the laborer looses his worth as the product becomes greater in value. I found that this argument relates greatly back to the mention of religion, which the effort put into the worshiping of some god allows for the god's identity becomes greater and the man's less in value.
Possibly an answer to her first discussion question would begin with Marx's argument of human beings having consciousness. Of all the creatures, humans are "species-being" (63). Marx continues with this topic and points out, "Alienated Labor reverses the relationship in that man, since he is a conscious being, makes his life activity his essence, only a means for his existence" (63). From this statement, humans decide to be "externalized" in the sense that they need these productions in order to exist. Their labor becomes their only way to exist, but because the nature of these economic ways have been concealed.
Lauren’s exploration of Marx’s views on religion and their connection to political economy can be furthered by considering religion as a social phenomenon rather than an absolute fact or expression of truth. Marx points out that “private property appears to be the ground and cause of externalization of labor, just as gods are originally not the cause but the effect of an aberration of the human mind” (66). If the concept of gods is but the effect of changes in the human mind, but these gods are later interpreted as causing the change which sparked them, religions built around these gods must be false. This means religion is indeed, as Lauren asks, a flawed institution, as it is built poor reasoning and leads to a system where men lose part of themselves by submitting to gods and the men who claim to speak for them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauren's assertions about Marx's mission to show the true cause of the alienation of workers. I find Marx's observations that the alienation of the worker is the result of human action not nature to be similar to Simone de Beauvoir's observation that the designation of women as "Other" was a social not a biological consequence. Both of these thinkers seek to illuminate what they see as the truth about the workings of the human mind and the societies that spring forth from. Both offer fascinating insights into phenomena that people had long taken for granted as the natural and inevitable way of things.
ReplyDeleteI think that Marx in the reading doesn't look to explain religion or the economy for that matter as a flawed institution, at least not yet. I think the basis that he is trying to establish is this dichotomy of the laborer and the commanding party (employer, owner, manager or otherwise). Like Liezel I keyed in on the same quote, "Alienated Labor reverses the relationship in that man, since he is a conscious being, makes his life activity his essence, only a means for his existence" (63). I see the individual's assessment of self-worth, importance, or even identity to be rooted in the life activities of the individual not as its manifestation of the self but as the self's actions to support itself. For example, instead of a job being a means to express the self it rather becomes the actual expression of the self. I think that the parallel marx then draws from religion is the loss of identity in religion or maybe more specifically worship. Here the same transition from self-expression to conformity within the God's existence in the form of rules, worship, but maybe most importantly goals. In both situations the job or the worship becomes both the goal and the activity which limits the individual. Ultimately I think marx uses religion as a comparison becomes the apparence of this conformity is more clear in religion than via the labor
ReplyDeleteI believe that laborers allow themselves to be externalized as a product of their labor due to their status as social beings. It is easy for animals to live a base subsistence existence thanks to their basically self-protecting behaviors. Humans, due to their higher consciousness, have the capacity to devote their work output to help others. However, it is when they assign a value to their work and begin to require compensation that wage labor begins to take over. The alienation of the product is achieved when the compensation becomes currency related rather than directly bartered -- goods become the purpose rather than the means to a purpose, therefore belittling the purpose of humans themselves.
ReplyDelete