alienation

[Kadir Ateş]

Wanted to know whether or not Marx's concept of alienation shifted from its notable appearance in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 to his later critiques of political economy. For example, in 1844, Marx writes:

"The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates."

- "Estranged Labour" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm)

Then later he asserts as we all know, that it is labour power which becomes a commodity to be bought and consumed by a capitalist. How would this (if at all) change Marx's concept of alienated labour? Would be curious to hear what people think.

[The Douche]

If the worker is still the one who holds the labor power how does this shift in language represent a qualitative shift in meaning?

[Kadir Ateş]

Well as Engels said in the "Introduction" of Wage Labour and Capital, the shift from "a worker selling his labour for a wage" to "his labour power" is more than just "word-juggling". I am interested in whether or not this would imply something different or at least a more nuanced understanding of alienation between his earlier and later critiques of PE. If Marx could write in 1844 that the worker does not become a commodity, but then in 1867 say it is her labour power, I think that fundamentally must echo in his concept of alienation, or so I think.

Obviously this goes beyond a definition of slavery, wherein the slave becomes a purchased commodity and all that bad stuff. Alienation perhaps is trickier.

[blake 3:17]

Leave slavery out of the equation for the time being.

The theoretical advance made in the later works is understanding labour power as a commodity, to be bought and sold like an ounce of copper or any other "stuff". I don't think the 1844 work is wrong, but Marx only came to the question of commodification later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodification is very good.

[Kadir Ateş]

Blake, thank you for your thoughts and the link.

What I'm wondering however is whether or not this later theoretical clarification, i.e., from labour to labour power, doesn't have some sort of corresponding impact on the idea of alienation for Marx. He doesn't really seem to address this in explicit detail after 1844. Or is alienation simply the product of wage labour/alienated labour irrespective of Marx's adjustment from labour to labour power, and therefore retains the same definition? I hope that was clear.

[citizen of industry]

Well, he writes about alienation in the first half of Grundrisse in detail. And this was written in 1857: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch03.htm#p196


To have circulation, what is essential is that exchange appear as a process, a fluid whole of purchases and sales. Its first presupposition is the circulation of commodities themselves, as a natural, many-sided circulation of those commodities. The precondition of commodity circulation is that they be produced as exchange values, not as immediate use values, but as mediated through exchange value. Appropriation through and by means of divestiture [Entäusserung] and alienation [Veräusserung] is the fundamental condition. Circulation as the realization of exchange values implies: (1) that my product is a product only in so far as it is for others; hence suspended singularity, generality; (2) that it is a product for me only in so far as it has been alienated, become for others; (3) that it is for the other only in so far as he himself alienates his product; which already implies (4) that production is not an end in itself for me, but a means. Circulation is the movement in which the general alienation appears as general appropriation and general appropriation as general alienation. As much, then, as the whole of this movement appears as a social process, and as much as the individual moments of this movement arise from the conscious will and particular purposes of individuals, so much does the totality of the process appear as an objective interrelation, which arises spontaneously from nature; arising, it is true, from the mutual influence of conscious individuals on one another, but neither located in their consciousness, nor subsumed under them as a whole. Their own collisions with one another produce an alien social power standing above them, produce their mutual interaction as a process and power independent of them. Circulation, because a totality of the social process, is also the first form in which the social relation appears as something independent of the individuals, but not only as, say, in a coin or in exchange value, but extending to the whole of the social movement itself. The social relation of individuals to one another as a power over the individuals which has become autonomous, whether conceived as a natural force, as chance or in whatever other form, is a necessary result of the fact that the point of departure is not the free social individual. Circulation as the first totality among the economic categories is well suited to bring this to light.

[StalinFanboy]

Wanted to know whether or not Marx's concept of alienation shifted from its notable appearance in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 to his later critiques of political economy. For example, in 1844, Marx writes:

"The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates."

- "Estranged Labour" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm)

Then later he asserts as we all know, that it is labour power which becomes a commodity to be bought and consumed by a capitalist. How would this (if at all) change Marx's concept of alienated labour? Would be curious to hear what people think.
I don't think it changes it. At least not in any significant way. This linguistic shift reflects maybe a more refined way of talking about it, but within capitalism workers are only workers because we are reduced to purely economic functions. A worker and his labor power are inseparable (labor power is merely an abstract term to deal with the fact that we have creative/productive power). Being a worker is inherently a miserable existence precisely because of the alienating nature of it.

The more productivist strains of Marxism deliberately dismiss alienation as immaterial because anyone with a functioning brain who takes it into account and then looks at the sorts of socialism that have existed throughout history can see how they have just been another manifestation of the shit world that is capitalism. Even if workers could really manage the economy and therefore aren't "exploited", the fact that they are workers, meaning the fact they are still producing things to exchange on a market (yes, even the "workers' market" lulz), not only means that they are still alienated from themselves and the human race as a whole, but that capitalism understood as set of social relations still exists.

[StalinFanboy]

The way people typically talk about Marx, as if there was a 'young Marx' and an 'old Marx' that dealt with separate problems is false. I don't know if I'd go as far as the ICC and label those that claim this separation to be bourgeois, but it is certainly problematic. Fredy Perlman's intro to II Rubin's "Essays on Marx's Theory of Value" does a good job at destroying this myth. As he puts it, "Marx's central concern was human creative activity, particularly the determinants, the regulators which shape this activity in the capitalist form of economy. Rubin's thorough study makes it clear that this was not merely the central concern of the "young Marx" or of the "old Marx", but that it remained central to Marx in all his theoretical and historical works, which extend over half a century." And "Rubin shows that the central themes of the "young Marx" were being still further refined in the final pages of Marx's last published work; Marx continually sharpened his concepts and frequently changed his terminology, but his concerns were not replaced."

http://libcom.org/library/commodity-fetishism-fredy-perlman

[Rooster]

It doesn't change it significantly. Alienation is about how someone is confronted with the labour process, not commodity production as such. And it's not strictly about selling labour. Capitalists are alienated from the labour process as well.

A good book to read about alienation (and in general) is Ernst Fischer's Marx in his Own Words. It talks a great deal about alienation and the division of labour and such, and how they all tie in together. If I remember correctly.

[blake 3:17]

What I'm wondering however is whether or not this later theoretical clarification, i.e., from labour to labour power, doesn't have some sort of corresponding impact on the idea of alienation for Marx. He doesn't really seem to address this in explicit detail after 1844. Or is alienation simply the product of wage labour/alienated labour irrespective of Marx's adjustment from labour to labour power, and therefore retains the same definition? I hope that was clear.

That's something for us to work on. Many recent discussions of Marx here have been on people riffing on his macro-economics -- Hilferdung, Mandel, Sweezy etc.

I've been more interested in folks like Harry Braverman, Kim Moody and Mike Davis.

Also interested in nonMarxist thinking -- especially Michael Albert.

This is a great book: http://davidmcnally.org/?attachment_id=48 Can't remember how closely he deals with alienation per se, but amazing on labour power as commodity.