What Did Marx Mean by Alienation - Essay Example

What did Marx mean by alienation? How does capitalism contribute to an individual being alienated, both from other people and his or her own human nature? Be sure to make some reference to both social class and the market system. Give a brief description of a job in todays society that is particularly alienating. Karl Marx, the renowned social scientist, elaborated on the importance of human labor and its varying form under each stage of the evolution of production relations. He cleverly formulated the concept of alienation as a force serving as a big hindrance on the labor providers’ realization of their true identity and self-worth. This theory of alienation places human labor at the center of a society dominated by much impersonality and indifference (Wood, 2004: p.16). In a capitalist mode of production, labor becomes an object. Workers in this manner are restrained to realize their self-identity through their labor. This valuable human asset becomes an entity independent of them; outside of their control. Instead of giving reality to the workers, their labors become merely an instrument of a constructed reality forged by the few. The working class, in a capitalist mode of production, is entangled in a system wherein their labor is not something that they genuinely own but a being separate from them; their labor becomes a wretched commodity (Marx as cited in Lemert, 1999: p 31). Alienation has outcomes. It does not only transform laborers to lifeless machines but also remove them from their social being, which is from their fellow human beings. This form of alienation originates from the bitterness developed by the social class structures of a status quo. Laborers are alienated from the individuals who take advantage of their labor and manipulate the objects they produce. The market system of buying and selling of the commodities workers’ manufacture connects them to the larger society, to their fellow human beings. However, this economic practice only perpetuates social hierarchies since the working class is not viewed by others as an individual but as the value of the objects they produce (Cox, 1998: p. 5). Furthermore, laborers are also alienated from their human nature under capitalism since their social beings are immersed into private ownership and class structures. Naturally, humans are endowed with the gift of willfully planning for their production. Wage laborers were shredded off their ability to shape nature based on their needs and their power to foresee their future actions through conscious and liberated production in capitalism. One of the primary arguments of Marx was that humans are distinguished through their behavior toward production and that this economic activity is their soul (Marx as cited in Lemert, 1999: p. 30-32). Under capitalism, labor is nothing but a tool of dehumanization and isolation for the working class. In the contemporary period, businesses have tapped the internet as a source of production from distant employees around the world. Ghost employees are born because of the internet’s efficiency and convenience; face-to-face interaction between the employers and the employees, and even among employees are now deemed unnecessary and a waste of time and resources. The problem with the technological world is that it fabricates a false reality or imagined communities. The advent of the industrial age eroded the intrinsic sociality and creativity of modern-day individuals (Samuel, 2008: para 2 & 6). Sadly, society began to transform into a place composed of individuals and not people. The individualistic nature of mankind is the paramount alienating form in the existing social order. According to Marx, what defines the structural relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat? Why are the interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat opposed to each other? What was the relationship between exploitation and the extraction of surplus value? In capitalism, why must the bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat? Economic relationships formed through the changes in the forces of production establish the economic base or infrastructure of every society. Resting above the infrastructure is the superstructure which is duly fashioned by the latter and which is composed of the societal institutions such as religion, education, and politics. Logically, changes in the infrastructure will absolutely affect the stability of the superstructure. The economic bases, which alter the makeup of the vital social institutions, are the social classes or the status hierarchy. According to Marx, class divisions are universal that even the simplest communities have it (Wood, 2004: p.82). The social relationships arising from these material structures create ideologies and consciousness. These elements create realities for every member of a material production unit. Humans are usually affected by their material behavior which in turn molds their conceptions of their existence and their conditions (Marx as cited in Lemert, 1999: p. 37). Because of this societal process, two social classes emerge with opposing interests and principles: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie, being the most powerful class, has the advantage to monopolize the role of the government or politics and other social institutions to bring about changes that will further boost their authority and control. The establishment of the superstructure grants the bourgeoisies the freedom to legitimize their claim of supremacy over other citizens, particularly over the proletariats. The resulting success of the bourgeoisies attempt to deviate from the truth produces what Marx called false consciousness. Wrong ideas were conveyed to the working class which state that they are actually standing on an equal ground with the owners since there is mutual exchange between them: they work and they are getting paid in return (Schaefer, 1995: p.218). It is rather true that the bourgeoisie class is the developer of communication and transportation. They destroyed religious beliefs that reigned for so long and replace it with science. Yet, these were all done to assume limitless control over others. The bourgeoisie reinforces their elite status. On the contrary, the proletariats do not work hard for the purpose of defending their class interests. Instead, they act accordingly in order to destroy the hierarchies that oppress them (Kivisto, 1998: p. 26-27). The exploitation of the workers by the capitalists appears to be aimed at the production of surplus. Yet, Marx disputed that the rate of exploitation is not actually in direct proportion with the rate of surplus value since there are two types of the latter, the surplus value realized and the surplus value produced. The surplus labor extracted from the physical and mental energies of the workers is either high or low in value depending on the revenue or sales output which is the surplus value realized. The allegation that Marx wanted to put forth by establishing this market system strategy is the imprecision of using the wage costs vis-à-vis the gross profit gained from the surplus value realized to measure the rate of labor exploitation in an enterprise (Marx, 2000: p. 174). A case in point are workers of Microsoft who work less hard since they are aware that their product will sell in the market without putting too much effort and uphill struggle; this example shows that the profits generated are in stark contrast with the labor input (Nickels, 2005: p. 24). Marx’s dissension against the ruling elite was due to his experienced-based belief that the wage contract was a subtle form of exploitation of the laborers by their capitalist employers on the basis that the labor provided is deficiently compensated in comparison to the value it was sold in the marketplace. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the value of the commodity at the economic sector which is its exchange value is not tantamount to commodity value. Exchange value is merely a façade of the labor value or a representation of the form in which price is actually measured. The exchange value is vulnerable to fluctuations in prices since it is not anchored on the essence of the commodity value or the labor power employed to produce such (McFarlane, 1988: p. 3). The question whether exploitation can be evaluated through the lens of surplus value or exchange value per se is undeniably answered by Marx himself; every commodity will always possess its absolute significance, which is its intrinsic labor value. Works Cited Books Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Sociology. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Kivisto, P. (1998). Key Ideas in Sociology. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Marx, K. (2000). Das Kapital. USA: Regnery Publishing, Inc. Marx, K. (1998). The Communist Manifesto. New York: New American Library. McFarlane, K. (1988). Value & Exploitation. Libertarian Alliance. Nickels, W. (2005). Understanding Business. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies., Inc. Schaefer, R. T. (1995). Sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Tucker, R. C. (1961). Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx. Cambridge, England: University Press. Wood, A. W. (2004). Karl Marx. New York: Routledge. Journal Cox, J. (July 1998). An Introduction to Marxs Theory of Human Alienation. International Socialism , Issue 79. Website Samuel, J. (2008, May 20). Economic Growth, Technology, and Alienation. Pambazuka News 371 . http://www.pambazuka.org. Read More