chimx
4th August 2006, 18:32
I have been rereading bits and pieces of writings by marx on labor and reflecting on the consequences of marxism on our age of technology. marx says,
"the division of labour implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the “general interest,” but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labour is divided. And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape."
this particular wording of alienated labor almost seems to imply that it is not alienated labor itself which is an evil, but that it is "naturally" divided instead of "voluntarily" decided upon. that the crux of the problem with the alienation is our inability to move around within the process of alienation.
but in estranged labor (1844) we read:
"An immediate consequence of man’s estrangement from the product of his labour, his life activity, his species-being, is the estrangement of man from man. When man confront himself, he also confronts other men. What is true of man’s relationship to his labour, to the product of his labour, and to himself, is also true of his relationship to other men, and to the labour and the object of the labour of other men.
In general, the proposition that man is estranged from his species-being means that each man is estranged from the others and that all are estranged from man’s essence."
i fail to see how to apologize this passage with the previous assumption. that so long as production is done through the estrangement of labor, regardless of the voluntary nature of it, alienates man from man.
And this was written in the mid 19th century. I am curious to hear the many technophiles on this forum justify the unchecked pushing of scientific development. the very computer I am writing on is the product of countless countires and countless estranged relationships. on one circuit board on my computer we have the mining of copper, to the melting of plastic, to the chemical etching of the circuits, to the application of the diodes and resistors (which themselves go through their own process of alienated labor), etc. etc. how is it that man can have a direct relationship with the real fruits of his labor and cease the process of alienation given the requirment for labor's division in such a technological age?
The above passage from the Germany Ideology goes on to say that, " He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
and with such a blue print i find it easy to see how one can overcome such estrangment. I think it is interesting that the passage does not read "society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to make casts for 6 foot gears used in mills in the morning, make buttons for dress pants in the afternoon, melt sand into glass for window-makers in the evening, etc." you can imagine how much fun you could have with the passage if you advanced it by 200 years.
the result for marx is simple. "This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power [i]above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now. . . . And out of this very contradiction between the interest of the individual and that of the community the latter takes an independent form as the State, divorced from the real interests of individual and community"
sidenote: if any primitivsts that are restricted to OI would like to reply to this, please PM me and I will post your reply, as I would like to hear both sides of the argument.
"the division of labour implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the “general interest,” but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labour is divided. And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape."
this particular wording of alienated labor almost seems to imply that it is not alienated labor itself which is an evil, but that it is "naturally" divided instead of "voluntarily" decided upon. that the crux of the problem with the alienation is our inability to move around within the process of alienation.
but in estranged labor (1844) we read:
"An immediate consequence of man’s estrangement from the product of his labour, his life activity, his species-being, is the estrangement of man from man. When man confront himself, he also confronts other men. What is true of man’s relationship to his labour, to the product of his labour, and to himself, is also true of his relationship to other men, and to the labour and the object of the labour of other men.
In general, the proposition that man is estranged from his species-being means that each man is estranged from the others and that all are estranged from man’s essence."
i fail to see how to apologize this passage with the previous assumption. that so long as production is done through the estrangement of labor, regardless of the voluntary nature of it, alienates man from man.
And this was written in the mid 19th century. I am curious to hear the many technophiles on this forum justify the unchecked pushing of scientific development. the very computer I am writing on is the product of countless countires and countless estranged relationships. on one circuit board on my computer we have the mining of copper, to the melting of plastic, to the chemical etching of the circuits, to the application of the diodes and resistors (which themselves go through their own process of alienated labor), etc. etc. how is it that man can have a direct relationship with the real fruits of his labor and cease the process of alienation given the requirment for labor's division in such a technological age?
The above passage from the Germany Ideology goes on to say that, " He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
and with such a blue print i find it easy to see how one can overcome such estrangment. I think it is interesting that the passage does not read "society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to make casts for 6 foot gears used in mills in the morning, make buttons for dress pants in the afternoon, melt sand into glass for window-makers in the evening, etc." you can imagine how much fun you could have with the passage if you advanced it by 200 years.
the result for marx is simple. "This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power [i]above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now. . . . And out of this very contradiction between the interest of the individual and that of the community the latter takes an independent form as the State, divorced from the real interests of individual and community"
sidenote: if any primitivsts that are restricted to OI would like to reply to this, please PM me and I will post your reply, as I would like to hear both sides of the argument.