Log in

View Full Version : Is consumerism part of wage labor alienation?



el_chavista
11th January 2010, 20:23
I have never seen consumerism as a "natural" human tendency and after reading jung Marx's manuscripts from 1844 [ http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm ] I dare to state that it is part of the alienation of the wage labor *


As a result [of alienated labor], therefore, man (the worker) only feels himself freely active in his animal functions –eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and in dressing-up, etc.; and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.

Certainly eating, drinking, procreating, etc., are also genuinely human functions. But taken abstractly, separated from the sphere of all other human activity and turned into sole and ultimate ends, they are animal functions.
...
Only because of that [he is a species-being/conscious being] is his activity free activity. Estranged labor reverses the relationship, so that it is just because man is a conscious being that he makes his life activity, his essential being, a mere means to his existence.
_______________________________________________
* What, then, constitutes the alienation of labor?

First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague. External labor, labor in which man alienates himself, is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Lastly, the external character of labor for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own, but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, of the human brain and the human heart, operates on the individual independently of him – that is, operates as an alien, divine or diabolical activity – so is the worker’s activity not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self.

Muzk
11th January 2010, 20:58
I'm not quite sure, since if you look at the african wage slaves, they don't really have any consumerism going, it's simply the western world in which the... goods are sold
Consumerism might have started in the feudal age, where the bourgeoise were the "glorious" people (clothing, etc), the bourgeoise are kind of, if you compare it to the autocracy, the "kings" now, while the consumerist slaves are the "bourgeoise"(if compared to feudal age class relations). The workers from back then could now be seen as the african slaves financing the consumerism of the consumerist part.

I think this is a nice example. We, the bourgeoise(yes the terms fail, just think of the bourgeoise from back then, consumerist slaves) get our useless consumerism from the "true" wage slaves, while we, as a class, don't really have anything to do with it, it's the (kings) above us...
I'm sure this is confusing... refute it please

Invincible Summer
11th January 2010, 22:08
Consumerism is alientation in the sense that the consumers are disconnected from the methods and means of production that provides them such goods; consumers in the West, through capitalist exploitation in the developing world, do not experience the production of the goods that they purchase. This way, the commodities acquire a sort of "mystical" quality and do not reflect the human aspect of the commodity - the labour that has went into it.
Therefore, consumerism obscures labour relations as well as promotes further alienation in the sense that commodities become the means of relations between people, as opposed to more "intrinsically" human notions

AkirAmaruBolivar
11th January 2010, 22:15
Consumerism is a way to make the masses unaware they are oppressed, they say, in the soviet union you cant buy nike or addidas or any food or car you want.
Here in the west we are FREEEEE:rolleyes:

rednordman
11th January 2010, 23:58
I think there is something in this. When you work, generally the thought of splashing out helps deal with the alientation, so technically is consumerism sort of like a coping mechanism derided from the alienation process? After all, people may complain about comfort shopping, but I doubt the capitalists are.

So I suppose consumerism is there so people can give themselves comfort from the negativity of work.

Invincible Summer
12th January 2010, 00:23
Sort of to add onto what I wrote earlier, Robert Dunn's book "Identifying Consumerism" is a decent book on different theories surrounding consumerism and consumer culture. He's not an overt Marxist, although does certainly take a more "Frankfurt School/cultural studies" approach.

blake 3:17
12th January 2010, 00:29
The short answer is yes. I'm a regular waged worker and like all of us in the capitalist world get material needs met through commodities produced by alienated labour. Often the more we work, the more dependent we become on alienated consumption -- we don't have enough time or enough energy to meet absolute or relative needs through non-commercial processes. The one luxury item I find essential to working is tobacco -- cigarettes make me feel a certain amount of control over my life, which either isn't there or has nothing at all to smoking. Can I think through this rationally and think of activities other than smoking which will bring me greater rewards and meaning? Yes. Do I continue to engage in an activity which is unhealthy, expensive, and not all that helpful to anything? Yes.



We can't live without consumption. Once we get past meeting our basic animal needs (and do remember people are animals), the necessity and desirability of consumption gets a bit confusing. Marx, in many of his important writings, often in response to other socialists and anarchists, made it clear that workers need to produce more than they consume so that the surplus allows for those unable to work (children, the disabled, the elderly). And then there's reproductive labour which makes it even more complicated.

There's also questions about absolute need versus social need. Is having a phone number essential to survival? Yes and no. Literacy? Time for study, thought, or intellectual or artistic production?


Only because of that [he is a species-being/conscious being] is his activity free activity. Estranged labor reverses the relationship, so that it is just because man is a conscious being that he makes his life activity, his essential being, a mere means to his existence.

Yes! Going back to this reminds me of why I'm a Marxist. I like the work I do, and I hate working. Urrggh! Stupid capitalism.

The Ungovernable Farce
12th January 2010, 16:26
Are you familiar with the ideas of the Situationists (http://libcom.org/thought/situationists-an-introduction) at all? Their whole concept of the spectacle was in part an attempt to analyse how commodities and consumerism had become a vital part of modern alienation.