FREE ESSAY ON EXPLAINING MARX

EXPLAINING MARX

Revealing Marx
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.
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
1Marx, Karl, The Early Marx, (reserve packet)
2Marx, Karl and Engles, Freidrich, The Communist Manifesto, London, England, 1888