What's your opinion on Marx' theory of alienation
I've been reading some of his stuff recently which ia certainly thought provoking, especially this theory. In essence, humans are robbed of their humanity by working for corporations that alienate them from the product they create. Difficult to put into words in such little context but if you do know of this theory I'd love to hear your stance on it!
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
10 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I’ve read Marx extensively and his theories on economy and labor are still relevant. There is an arrogant contemporary view that the world has changed. Aristotle said, “Times change; man does not”.
christhepiano
Level 6
Mar 12, 2018
1
I both tend to agree and disagree - this element definitely exists, but if exists in capitalism then it is much worse in communism, where the state is essentially a mega corporation not just paying you miserable wage, but effectively owning you. I do believe that modern capitalism needs a change towards more just distribution of goods and wealth, yet communism is not the answer - proven.
blago84
Level 5
Mar 9, 2018
2
I have a passing familiarity with His work.
With the social effects of industrial capitalism, I think he was spot on, more or less. In a more modern context, I think it largely loses relevence, especially when daily more of the exploited labor classes are being replaced by automation.
" Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your gears! " ???
CapriKious
Level 7
Mar 8, 2018
2
I'm not that familiar with the Marx Brothers. Oh, you meant Karl Marx. I suppose that if you worked for a car factory and didn't make enough money to buy a car, you could be robbed of your humanity and be aleinated because you could not buy one. Does that make sense?
IDK?
DenoPenno
Level 9
Mar 8, 2018
1
Ok so it may not be totally related to this subject(theory of alienation) but I hope more people realise that having a Capitalistic economy does not mean that the system must deprive the general public of a humane life. I will throw some lazy examples like Japan, South Korea, Germany, even the U.K. and finally the Netherlands.
What Americans argue Capitalism means is basically an economic zombie apocalypse where everyone is for themselves.
Please, learning from others is no shame. It is the contrary of that.
cuddlyfish
Level 4
Mar 8, 2018
3
I think several of the economies you cite are not strictly capitalist but more in the nature of mixed economies. That is, there is a mixture of state and private, and even co-operative ownership of the means of production, distribution, and so on. That is certainly the case with most of the northern European economies.
@Pensionista Honestly, those examples are the one I think lean more towards the American definition of Capitalism. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm bashing America but having cooperatives, public corporations don't amount to Socialism. But Americans are just so afraid of Socialism somehow and they call it Communism haha.
But yes, the Nordic Counncil member countries lean further left than Germany or the Netherlands.
All in all, we need balance. Can we agree to that? 
Cuddlyfish: feel free to bash the USA as much as you want - I'm British! Personally I am a socialist, and very much in favour of state ownership of infrastructure and the means of production and distribution as far as possible. I think a mixed economy is as far as we will get in this era of globalisation and multinationals, though.
Alienation is one of the larger problems people cite in modern technological, post industrial societies. It comes from a number of sources. A major source is hyper-specialization, such that few people get to produce a single product themselves, but only contribute bits and pieces. Division of labor is nice, but it doesn't tend to provide the satisfaction that comes with craftsmanship. I am fortunate as a software developer that there's a huge element of craftsmanship, even artistry and creativity, to it -- not just technologogy and logic. And that by being selective about the kinds of projects I take and the size of companies I work for, that I have had the joy of seeing entire systems through from the concept and design phase to implementation and maintenance. In some cases, more than once, so I get to refine an original concept after feedback from years of field deployment experience, and rebuild from the ground up to make it even better. I find this one of the best aspects of my work.
Another source of alienation is the sheer number of choices we have. In the good bad old days, everyone had a more assigned / expected / understood / agreed role, experimentation was discouraged. This had obvious downsides, but it had upsides too -- you knew what to expect, what do to, when to do it. You also knew for example that you had just one shot at marriage and so you would work hard on that relationship to avoid the stigma of divorce. You didn't give up and cut and run at the first sign of trouble. Hopefully you ended up with a meaningful shared experience, and a sense of belonging, something tested and refined by adversity as well as ease.
It's good in ways to have more options -- not just within, but outside of marriage -- but it's also easier to feel weird and isolated and like no one loves you for you, and is loyal enough to work through disagreements. This extends to social groups -- there are more of them and people feel free to move among them and don't feel any obligation to them.
Maybe the canonical example is FB friends. My stepdaughter bragged when she was in high school that she had hundreds of friends. She was referring to FB. I said, "you DO realize these aren't actual freinds, right? "Friend" is just branding, it's a label for "you're on my contact list". She looked at me like I had grown a second head. Now that she's in her mid 20s though I think she is starting to understand what I meant. She's having physical problems, a potential cancer diagnosis, and your FB friends are not a support system for something like that. Not at any deep, "be present with me in my hour of need" way. People are on FB for the constant little dopamine hits of "likes", not to feel awkward about your grief, loss, or tragedy.
It's actually pretty hard to find real community and refuge in today's world. Much as I hate to admit, it, a fairly homogenous religious climate provided that, and it has actual value. We haven't quite found good substitutes for that.
mordant
Level 8
Mar 8, 2018
3
@SACatWalker Well we don't need a substitute for religion precisely, we need a different source of community and refuge, without the failed epistemology of religious faith. I think part of religion's success and popularity is that it hits a sweet spot in providing a shared experience and shared beliefs for community to coalesce around -- even if you remove hellthreat and notions about sin to make people afraid to leave the community.
I think the problem of having a greater sense of community without the religious cruft will become easier as more and more people exit religion or move to its more liberal precincts, and start having a shared experience around actual reality. Right now so many share the religious experience (which is largely personal and subjective, and in that sense, imaginary) that they aren't fully experiencing life and don't even have a vocabulary or a framing to talk about life as it is rather than as religion imagines it to be.
"the whole of what is called world history is nothing but the creation of man by human labor, and the emergence of nature for man; he therefore has the evident and irrefutable proof of his self-creation, of his own origins."
Marx distinguished between free and alienated labor.
"Marx's central criticism of capitalism is not the injustice in the distribution of wealth; it is the perversion of labor into forced, alienated, meaningless labor, hence the transformation of man into a "crippled monstrosity." Erich Fromm
cava
Level 7
Mar 8, 2018
2
I agree that Marx's view on alienatation, and it dictation by the "Bourgeoisie" are not as applicable in modern American terms as it was in 19th Century Tsarist Russia. He talks about the stratification of social classes, but here in the States we are moving towards an economic division of the poor remaining poor, as the rich accumulate more wealth. Where the real worry lies in that, the middle class will remain stagnant, while the cost of living continues to rise.
If you want to see as caste system, you will not find it in the United States. As it is not purely an economic division of people, but their sociopolitical / sociocultural / socioeconomic that determines their position in society. A caste system that tends to favor keeping those it (the powers of society - the "bourgeois" ) wants in a position of powerlessness, such as the Burakumin of Japan or Dalit caste of India. Both are sometime translated as "untouchables".
While other socio-divided peoples in history that were considered to be lowly, were able to rise to great power, such as the merchant class. Due to their ability to accumulate wealth.
Marx's theory of alientation appears to be more suited for a psychology, as he "worker" (person - the only reason why he used the term worker, was because of the sociopolitical climat they lived it, and it was more of a political statement than a philosophical one) " invariably loses the ability to determine life and destiny, when deprived of the right to think (conceive) of themselves as the director of their own actions". This is an issue many people face in the U.S. today, Xennials, Millennials, & Gen Z, because the workforce situation that has been handed down to us from the Baby Boomer Generation hampers our ability to make a "livable wage". While they decry that Millennials are lazy and won't move out of the house, they also claim that we should be lucky (to feel privileged) to have a job that pays $8.00 per hour. A wage that cannot provide us with the ability to live on our own.
Our only chance at economic stability, is to not create a Marxist Revolution, but to use the powers that we have and vote out the Baby Boomers from office, and vote in people who were born after 1977. To vote in the "New Hope Generation" to vote in Millennials, to stand up as Generation Z walks out of school in solidarity with Parkland High.
I lived in Communist China for seven years, and Communist / Marxist system, though they may have valid points, are designed to allow oligarchies and dictatorships to thrive. Marxism is not Democratic-Socialism. Democratic-Socialist ideas are valid and are currently in our own form of government system, and the United States would benefit form more social programs.
kueiga
Level 3
Mar 8, 2018
4
@kueiga I think the best option is truly to do away with the government in general, or at the very least, dismantle it completely and focus on a more fair system that benefits not only the rich. In my opinion, anarchy is as fair as it gets but I know many people have trouble understanding how that would work in practice (although it has in the past and could once again . . . In fact, while it's unlikely we would ever become an anarchist society I don't think it's terribly so but more on that another time). As far as voting goes, are votes are actually worthless, which is a bit long winded of an explanation as to why, but literally - The electoral college votes on our presidential candidate. Our representatives are bought out by corporations more often than not. We might get our candidate in but at the end of the day, America stopped being a republic a solid minute ago and is now much more of a plutocracy that the people only have the illusion of having any form of control over.
@tazzzyy I completely agree that the electoral college is an antiquated system and needs to be abolished, as its purpose was designed to stop a situation that we are currently in. Lobbying and campaign finance reform are two issues that can only be stopped when the voice of the people speak up, we are seeing that with the backlash (finally) happening with the NRA. Change only happens when we stick with the movement to the ballot box, and then beyond to make sure the person we voted for follows through with their agenda. Taking money out of politics and stopping corporate lobbyist from giving large sums as "campaign donations" has to stop.
Anarchy as a form of societal structure is a myth. As ancient cultures going back to hunter gatherers, had hierarchical structures. That appear to be even more rigid than they are today. Recent genetic studies show that in the Stone Age, it was a small group of men who fathered the largest percentages of societies themselves. Men of power, that dominated over all "resources" around them.
Voting may be worthless in the electoral college system, but not on the local level. Where only people who have strong believes and agendas, tend to come out an vote. i.e. the Conservative or single issue votes - abortion & guns.
@tazzzyy ,first off I'm not attacking you. If you do away or dismantle the govt then who would have the authority to enforce a new system? With anarchy no one is in charge and all are equal, as far as anarchy actually working in the past, to when and what are you referring to? As far as I can discern of the past there was always someone in charge, be it the male of a nuclear family or the head of an empire. Even in the animal kingdom where living in a group is advantageous there is a leader, with a few exceptions of course.
Perhaps our definitions of anarchy differ, for me anarchy is the total breakdown of society with morals and ethics thrown out the window. If I want what you have and can overpower you no one will stop me because what I'm doing isn't wrong. Actually nothing I can do to you or you to me is wrong. Anarchy is based on physical strength and combat abilities.
Voting is a waste of time, if you want to shut a politician up ask them how voting for them will benefit you personally. They may come off with some great spiel but ask them to put it in writing, guaranteeing you those benefits they just spouted and if you didn't get those benefits the candidate will be held personally liable for them.
@MacTavish I believe she is referring to the Philosophy of Anarchy, which is not pure anarchy but a group or society that comes to an agreed upon institution / rules / self-governance, and then everyone does their own thing within the framework. I would equate it in real-life to a commune, or hostel living conditions, or an orgy. Yep, let's go with that, Anarchism is an orgy!
@kueiga it is certainly possible to have an anarchist society as there have been quite a few in the past (as well as currently, depending on how loose you are with the term). I can still see where you're coming from, naturally you're right that there's usually some form of leadership but a form of leadership doesn't equate to government and a state, if that makes any sense. For example, you could say a teacher is the leader in her classroom, but her classroom isn't a state. Likewise, in sports you have a coach who leads but that doesn't make his team a civilization under his rule. Anarchy goes off a similar idea, people naturally will step up to lead but there is no state, no government, and if someone were to try and enforce such things the people would, in theory, stand against it. @MacTavish
A common misconception is that the state is a body of armed people, which it isn't - It's a body of waged people. The "chain of command" in a state is the ability to tell people, "obey my orders or else you will lose the ability to feed yourself and sleep under a roof" which robs you of any alternative means of survival in its most basic form. The wage is a relation of command, not money. The wage relation in the history of civilization is not as common as you might think, although nowadays - Granted for some time - it has become such a dominant part of every state that it's difficult inspiring people to think outside of that box and look at alternative ways of society - Insert Anarcho-Communism. I'd be okay with most (emphasis on most) types of Anarchy, but I have my opinions on what would be more ideal. Abolish forced labor and all you have left is cooperative labor which is no basis for state authority. The state exists as a body of social power alienated from the body of society from which it is recruited. It's autonomy is based on money, taxes and the wages of the tax-extractors and "order-givers". As far as what it would take to reach that point, there are many, many, many theories on that. There is one common thread, the working class is united as a mass, not neccessarily everybody but "enough" to put it simply - And from there, it would be a revolution, likely not an easy or peaceful one, but in the end would dismantle the system of forced labor we are currently under. Now, I love that you asked for examples of societies in our history that were Anarchist because I love sharing just how feasible it is - With history! For starters, many historians agree that in pre-recorded history that most civilizations were self governed without any monetary system, which I wonder if that's why primitive anarchy is such a thing. So there's that. Anyway, onto some more specific examples. Mass Societies
Strandzha Commune (August–September 1903)
Free Territory (November 1918 – 1921)
Shinmin Prefecture (1929–1931)
Revolutionary Catalonia (21 July 1936 – May 1937)
Anarchist Aragon/Regional Defence Council of Aragon (6 October 1936 – 11 August 1937)
Free Territory (Ukraine, November 1918 – 1921)
Revolutionary Catalonia (July 21, 1936 – May 1939)
Shinmin Prefecture (1929–1931) Ungoverned Communities
Acorn Community (1993)
Freetown Christiania (September 26, 1971)
Longo Mai (1973)
Home (1895)
Trumbullplex (1993)
Different communities in the United States (19th century)[12]
Whiteway Colony (1898)
Zomia (Southeast Asian highlands beyond control of governments)
Republic of Cospaia (1440–1826)
The Diggers (England, 1649–1651)
Libertatia (late 17th century)
Neutral Moresnet (June 26, 1816 – June 28, 1919)
Kibbutz, a community movement in Israel initially influenced by anarchist philosophy (Palestine, 1909–1948)
Kowloon Walled City was a largely ungoverned squatter settlement from the mid 1940s until the early 1970s
Comunidad de Población en Resistencia (CPR), indigenous movement (Guatemala, 1988&ndash
Slab City, squatted RV desert community (California 1965–present)
The 27 Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (January 1, 1994–present)
Abahlali baseMjondolo, a South African social movement (2005&ndash
Ras Khamis And yeah, Anarchism is one big, fair, happy orgy where everyone sticks it to the man.
The topic of Marxism is still very much relevant to this day.
No matter how much they try to paint it as a pretty picture... We're still divided into the "haves" and "have-nots"
Capitalism is just a modern word for slavery.
We work the life out of ourselves and push our bodies closer to the grave. And for what?
Profit.
Profit that the worker drones will never see.
No, instead worker drones see funds that prolong their existence just a little while longer.
NeoXerops
Level 6
Mar 8, 2018
0
Comparing Capitalism to slavery is beyond stupid. Tell a black person your comparison and see what their reaction is. You can walk away from your job anytime you want. If you feel trapped in your job that is something you created. Slaves had no such option. Maybe you are too lazy or not smart enough to start your own business, but that would be on you again.
@Sticks48 I wouldn't go so far as to say it's equivalent to slavery either, but in looking at the bigger picture there are a few parallels. For instance, yes you can quit a job and yes you get paid . . . Two things that true slaves do not have the benefit of. Now look at it a little further back. Yes you can quit your job but if you aren't working for the man (the government) then you can't provide for yourself. Even in owning your own business, the man is still taking taxes and most of the time over regulating. Of course to achieve results, one must work, regardless of if we're talking about profit, survival, art, or what have you. Something has to happen to get from point A to point B, even in science - Hell, even with people mooching off a welfare state. The problem I see in capitalism as America has it isn't the system as it ought to be, but the fact that our options are so truly limited if you really think about it. Work for the man or struggle to be the man too. So no, it's certainly not true slavery as you mentioned, but the parallel is there - There's the master (big brother) and the "slave" (us) and no matter what we do, if we don't play the capitalistic game that the government has in play, our lives will fail. If we were to live in a state of true capitalism, perhaps it would be different. In the current climate we're in, however; most industries are dominated by oligopolies. Glasses, chicken, cell phones, auto industry, oil and gas, and so on. Yes, you can still start your own business, but in many cases the competition is too rigged against the average workers favor, leaving many people stuck working for another corporation. Clearly, this isn't to say that it's impossible to start a business, technically I have with my art as a side hustle (coughlmkifyouwannaseeIcanshipcoughcough) BUT, in the late stages of capitalism we currently are in, the competition gets stronger and stronger, people work more and more for less and less while the prices of things are getting higher and higher - Meanwhile, our votes are near useless. So what are we to do? An ologarchy government in a later stage capitalism where a good portion of industries are ruled by oligopolies? It seems rather bleak to me. I wouldn't call it slavery, but I can see where @neoxerops is coming from in the comparison that the system is rigged and we have no choice but to go along with it, for better or worse.
@Sticks48 There are debt bodages which the U.S. seem to encourage actually. You must have a good credit score to do anything substantial, say get a loan to start a business maybe? Sure black people had no choice but telling someone to "Either work for 2.50/hour(waitress for example) or quit, it's your choice", is hardly a choice. Someone can point a gun to your head and say "Give me your money or your head, your choice" but it's not really your choice, is it? Someone can hold your child as hostage and say "if this kid dies, it's your fault", but again that's not your fault.
@cuddlyfish Give me a better option. People bitch about taxes, but they want roads, water, sewers, electricity, etc. Could it be more efficient, Sure? But Americans don't vote. That is the only power you have. The President has very limited power. The Congress has the power. Vote them out.
You vote them out in large numbers, you get their attention. People keep sending the same assholes
back to Washington then complain that nothing changes. See what a bunch of high school students did in Fla. Get off your asses and do something besides whine.
@Sticks48 Voting would be a good way to solve many issues.
But here in the U.S. I see even much less convenience provided for its citizens to go to vote.
I see so many workers who just can't get a day off. In Oklahoma, only 7%(i believe) voted for the recent election for the new mayor.
In some other countries, they have an early vote a week earlier than the election day and the early vote is on a weekend for both Sunday and Monday. So people can go to vote. They also open at 5 am so if some people can't take a day off, they can just go in the morning.
There is also gerrymandering.
So all in all, let's have hope and start solving all the issues one at a time.
After all, is it not American to have a Can-do attitude?
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
3036 members
Progressives, Socialists, and Black/Palestinian Lives Matter
2457 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.