The idea that the worker becomes a commodity and an unhappy
one at that pervades Marx’s essay Alienated
Labor. Marx notes, “the worker becomes a cheaper commodity the more
commodities he produces. The increase in the value of the world of things is
directly proportional to the decrease in the value of the human world. Labor
not only produces commodities. It also produces itself and the worker as a
commodity” (59). In other words, the action of the labor becomes more important
than the laborers themselves. The production cheapens the value of the worker
as a human until he/she functions more as a replaceable part in the system of
production. Marx argues, “The more the worker exerts himself, the more powerful
becomes the alien objective world which he fashions against himself…the worker
puts his life into the object; then it no longer belongs to him but the object”
(60). In other words, as the power and energy of production increases the power
and energy the worker has to do anything else decreases and the product has
more power than the laborer. The workers sole obligation becomes to maintain
the objects that alienate them and therefore they are slaves to their products.
Marx contends as “the worker sinks to the level of a commodity, the most
miserable commodity; that the misery of the worker is inversely proportional to
the power and volume of his production” (58). Thus, the labor that a worker
performs negatively effects his/her disposition by the diminution of the
worker. It becomes the finding of oneself in a less important position than
that of the object he/she creates that could reduce one’s level of happiness.
Marx idea calls for a working population consumed with misery and discontent,
my question, however, is if this idea is true why do we as a society allow the
cycle to persist? If the process of production of commodities alienates its
laborers, what then is the justification to keep producing when by through that
production the laborers are made to feel insignificant in comparison to the
products which they create?
In response to Iska's question, I find that the reason this system of objectifying workers prevails is because of the presence of private property. Marx says, "political economy proceeds from the fact of private property. It does not explain private property" (58). The cycle is therefore set by the existence of land-owning individuals who require workers, and the relationship of worker's wages to profits made by the landowner are created under a capitalist umbrella focused on maximizing profit. Marx explains this as an "accidental fact"of the economy, which spurs "greed" and competition (59). In short, I found that the cycle of diminution faced by the workers is due to their need for work and the presence of jobs among land-owners. In effect, they have no choice by to allow themselves to become objectified by the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteIska makes some great points about the objectification of laborers in the political economy and the negative implications of this alienation. In answer to her question about the cyclical cause of this injustice, I would consider Marx's explanation of the opposite side of this political system; in other words, the root cause of alienation of laborers. Marx argues that if "If [the laborer's] activity is torment for him, it must be the pleasure and the life-enjoyment for another. Not gods, not nature, but only man himself can be this alien power over man," (65). Marx explains the origin of the exploitation of labor as a faculty of man. More precisely, it is "greed and the war among the greedy, competition" that ignite this economic system (59). The greedy men continue to compete for resources and wealth, abusing laborers at their own expense. Thus is the reasoning behind Marx's account of the current political economy.
ReplyDeleteI find Iska's points about the misery that results from production very interesting. The unhappiness of the laborer results from the product that is produced with higher value than themselves. Upon this topic, Marx argues, "The increase of value of the world of things is directly proportional to the decrease in value of the human world" (59) In other words, the value of objects produced is indirectly proportional to the value of humans. The value of humans relate possibly to their happiness or wellbeing. If great production exists of an object, then the entirety of the human world decreases great in values. Although, the human world that Marx argues upon may be the labor section of humans in society. Since the labor section produces great amounts of an object,I find Iska's points about the misery that results from production very interesting. The unhappiness of the laborer results from the product that is produced with higher value than themselves. this action of production devalues their identity as humans by afflicting their well-beings.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Iska's question, I think it's important to look at how Marx prefaces what he's going to say in the beginning portion of the essay. He says, "Let us not put ourselves in a fictitious primordial state like a political economist trying to clarify things" (59). Instead he says that he will "proceed from the a present fact of political economy" (59). Instead of dealing with why workers are subjugated theoretically, Marx instead says that he will be dealing with the system the way that it is. In this regard, I don't really think Marx meant or did answer the question of how it started, but rather that he meant to explain why what is happening is bad.
ReplyDelete