Thursday, January 22, 2009
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Marx
As this is the first post and this is accessible to those outside of
Iowa State's Sociology 506: Classical Sociological Theory course, I
refer outsiders to the course
blog for information on these weekly posts.
1) What is "alienation" and what do you know about it at an experiential level (have you experienced/seen/felt it) and does reading Marx make you think or feel about alienation differently?
"Alienation" in Marx is the feeling of existing outside oneself, of becoming property owned by another through one's labor: "The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labour becomes an object, but that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to him, and that it becomes a power of its own confronting him; it means that life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien" (Tucker 1978:72). In the modern world, we talk constantly about being "connected" with the Internet, jet transportation, cell phones, Internet on our cell phones, etc. However, if one has time from the constant barrage of e-mails, checking things off a never ending to-do list, and scheduling every moment of our lives then we may realize that we are trapped within a system that promotes blind ambition and constant focus on goals over control of one's own life, although we have the illusion of control. Writing, as he was, soon after the industrial revolution had won out over the old merchant and fedual systems, Marx's focus was on the entrapment and alienation of the blue collar, industrial worker and the mindless trap of wage slavery. However, in the 21st century while industrial labor is still a case of wage slavery--now being exported outside of the Euro-American powers--a new type of slavery and alienation is taking place, but unlike the alienation of the proletariate in the 19th century forced down from above for subsistence, we are now seeing the self-alienation of the intellectual working class, not for subsitence, but for blind ambition and goal obsession. Wheras Marx discusses the alientation of the worker from his intellectual labor, the modern Euro-American worker's sole labor is an intellectual act no longer producing industrial goods but producing 'value adds' and 'ideas' in the new 'knowledge economy'. Our ancestors saw the alienation of body from being of the mind, but our generation is seeing the alienation of the mind from the being. Previous generations worked twelve hour days as wage slaves, modern generations are constantly on call, constantly responding tow ork e-mail, officially on eight hour days but voluntarily (or unofficially) working twelve hour days, fourteen hour days, practically twenty-four hour days. Whereas the previous generations left work when they left work, modern workers in Euro-American society carries work with them, the work of the modern intellectual laborer is chained to herself through her Blackberry, iPhone, or whatever electronic communication device she has with her--not taking a break for family events, weekends, or vacation. Marx envisioned the alienated worker, mental work separated from his physical work, slave to a wage, realizing his enslavement and banding together with his bretheren to overthrow his masters. The modern reality is far worth. Our minds have become slaves to ourselves, our ambitions tied to the materialist possessions we convince ourselves we need, when it is our own minds enslaving us, making us unable to close that line of communication because we fear that the world will fall apart if work calls and we aren't there to answer that our work is so important that we must be constantly connected to it. Who will free us from ourselves?
I should note that the ideas presented in the previous paragraph are not all fully formed, some are admittedly half-baked at best. I am stuck in this enslavement myself, scheduling my life and constantly keeping up with e-mail. Getting an iPhone was a relief for me as it meant I was no longer tethered to a laptop to get my e-mail and news fixes. This drug of information that I am so dependent on, so much so that while on a cruise of the Western Caribbean this past summer I had to sign on for at least a few minutes to check my e-mail, to make sure I had not missed anything critical (I, of course, had not). I am aware of the cage I have found myself in, aware of the disconnect caused by the need to be connected, yet even if I knew the weakness of the cage and could break free of it, I am not sure I would take the steps to do so. This is the modern enslavement, that while we do not have to fight for our existence in the way the proleteriat of Marx's day did, we do have to fight for our humanity, for our connection to people not through the wires but through face-to-face interaction.
I can't say reading Marx makes me feel any differently about any of this, I can say I find Marx to be naively idealic in his vision (at least his Early Works) and generally about as half-baked as my little mental exercise above, although his is likely better edited. Capital ruled the day long before capitalism entered the vocabulary, the division of labor, while unequal, has allowed society to advance from our hunters and gathering past to the swarm of mass consumer locusts bent on controlling nature (as opposed to being controlled by nature) that we have become. Without capital, Athens would have been unable to devote itself to philosophy and the arts, Rome would not have built its roads, and Marx would not have been able to write his idealic views of a proleteriat revolution. While it is clear that true laissez faire is doomed to failure, the current crash of Western economies in their quasi-free market economies is proof enough of that, I would also hesitate to view communism or pure socialism as the solution--generally, speaking, the extreme opposite of a failed solution is just another failed solution. But, I suppose I should likely temper my argument there given the fact that I have met few moderates and pragmatists in my life and most people tend to fall on one side of the wall or the other and while I do enjoy a good debate, I'd rather not find myself on top of a wall as both sides seek to tear the middle down to justify their rejection of the other side.
2) What of the Marx readings in Tucker did you find really hit home; that is, what had a strong and significant impact on you and what parts have left you a bit fuzzy as to what was going on and what could possibly been the point?
This is the first time I've ever read Marx, and I have to say that so far from my readings of him, I could never see myself being a Marxist. While he makes some points that seem valid, he takes the arguments to ideologic extremes that just grate with my moderate sensibilities--to me it is like he ignores or glosses over facts of history to make a point, he seems more political than realpolitikal. For example in his Ecomic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx states:
1) What is "alienation" and what do you know about it at an experiential level (have you experienced/seen/felt it) and does reading Marx make you think or feel about alienation differently?
"Alienation" in Marx is the feeling of existing outside oneself, of becoming property owned by another through one's labor: "The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labour becomes an object, but that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to him, and that it becomes a power of its own confronting him; it means that life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien" (Tucker 1978:72). In the modern world, we talk constantly about being "connected" with the Internet, jet transportation, cell phones, Internet on our cell phones, etc. However, if one has time from the constant barrage of e-mails, checking things off a never ending to-do list, and scheduling every moment of our lives then we may realize that we are trapped within a system that promotes blind ambition and constant focus on goals over control of one's own life, although we have the illusion of control. Writing, as he was, soon after the industrial revolution had won out over the old merchant and fedual systems, Marx's focus was on the entrapment and alienation of the blue collar, industrial worker and the mindless trap of wage slavery. However, in the 21st century while industrial labor is still a case of wage slavery--now being exported outside of the Euro-American powers--a new type of slavery and alienation is taking place, but unlike the alienation of the proletariate in the 19th century forced down from above for subsistence, we are now seeing the self-alienation of the intellectual working class, not for subsitence, but for blind ambition and goal obsession. Wheras Marx discusses the alientation of the worker from his intellectual labor, the modern Euro-American worker's sole labor is an intellectual act no longer producing industrial goods but producing 'value adds' and 'ideas' in the new 'knowledge economy'. Our ancestors saw the alienation of body from being of the mind, but our generation is seeing the alienation of the mind from the being. Previous generations worked twelve hour days as wage slaves, modern generations are constantly on call, constantly responding tow ork e-mail, officially on eight hour days but voluntarily (or unofficially) working twelve hour days, fourteen hour days, practically twenty-four hour days. Whereas the previous generations left work when they left work, modern workers in Euro-American society carries work with them, the work of the modern intellectual laborer is chained to herself through her Blackberry, iPhone, or whatever electronic communication device she has with her--not taking a break for family events, weekends, or vacation. Marx envisioned the alienated worker, mental work separated from his physical work, slave to a wage, realizing his enslavement and banding together with his bretheren to overthrow his masters. The modern reality is far worth. Our minds have become slaves to ourselves, our ambitions tied to the materialist possessions we convince ourselves we need, when it is our own minds enslaving us, making us unable to close that line of communication because we fear that the world will fall apart if work calls and we aren't there to answer that our work is so important that we must be constantly connected to it. Who will free us from ourselves?
I should note that the ideas presented in the previous paragraph are not all fully formed, some are admittedly half-baked at best. I am stuck in this enslavement myself, scheduling my life and constantly keeping up with e-mail. Getting an iPhone was a relief for me as it meant I was no longer tethered to a laptop to get my e-mail and news fixes. This drug of information that I am so dependent on, so much so that while on a cruise of the Western Caribbean this past summer I had to sign on for at least a few minutes to check my e-mail, to make sure I had not missed anything critical (I, of course, had not). I am aware of the cage I have found myself in, aware of the disconnect caused by the need to be connected, yet even if I knew the weakness of the cage and could break free of it, I am not sure I would take the steps to do so. This is the modern enslavement, that while we do not have to fight for our existence in the way the proleteriat of Marx's day did, we do have to fight for our humanity, for our connection to people not through the wires but through face-to-face interaction.
I can't say reading Marx makes me feel any differently about any of this, I can say I find Marx to be naively idealic in his vision (at least his Early Works) and generally about as half-baked as my little mental exercise above, although his is likely better edited. Capital ruled the day long before capitalism entered the vocabulary, the division of labor, while unequal, has allowed society to advance from our hunters and gathering past to the swarm of mass consumer locusts bent on controlling nature (as opposed to being controlled by nature) that we have become. Without capital, Athens would have been unable to devote itself to philosophy and the arts, Rome would not have built its roads, and Marx would not have been able to write his idealic views of a proleteriat revolution. While it is clear that true laissez faire is doomed to failure, the current crash of Western economies in their quasi-free market economies is proof enough of that, I would also hesitate to view communism or pure socialism as the solution--generally, speaking, the extreme opposite of a failed solution is just another failed solution. But, I suppose I should likely temper my argument there given the fact that I have met few moderates and pragmatists in my life and most people tend to fall on one side of the wall or the other and while I do enjoy a good debate, I'd rather not find myself on top of a wall as both sides seek to tear the middle down to justify their rejection of the other side.
2) What of the Marx readings in Tucker did you find really hit home; that is, what had a strong and significant impact on you and what parts have left you a bit fuzzy as to what was going on and what could possibly been the point?
This is the first time I've ever read Marx, and I have to say that so far from my readings of him, I could never see myself being a Marxist. While he makes some points that seem valid, he takes the arguments to ideologic extremes that just grate with my moderate sensibilities--to me it is like he ignores or glosses over facts of history to make a point, he seems more political than realpolitikal. For example in his Ecomic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx states:
If the product of labour does not belong to the worker, if it confronts him as an alien power, this can only be because it belongs to some other man than the worker. If the worker's activity is a tormet to him, to another it must be delight and his life's joy. Not the gods, not nature, but only man himself can be this alien power over man. (Tucker 1978:78)While, generally, I feel these statements make sense on the surface level, I think it would be the short sighted of us not to place this in light of historical sight and realize that since the advent of civilization man has always produced for other men--that is what the division of labor that necessiatated the creation and advancement of civilization is all about. With civilization, came the hierarchies of man over man, although even in nature there are animals over animals (wolf packs have leaders, for example), there is simply no historical precedence for a civilization in which man is truly self-sufficient. Isolated individuals can be self-sufficient (there is plenty and only animals to compete with), small communities can be self-sufficient (and even then there is a division of labor and usually an emerging or existing leader--if not one man as leader, then rules above man as leader so if not one man dominating many men then the rules of many men dominate all men), etc. And if not the motivation of competition and accumulation of capital, then of what motivation drives advancement? Perhaps human kind truly does have a natural curiousity and drive to advancement, but I think a look at progress throughout history would show that much of that drive stems from man's desire to dominate man (e.g. war technologies) and man's desire to prove himself worthy to other men (e.g. achieve a degree, that is really just a piece of paper that only has worth because we've mutually agreed it has more worth than somebody who has learned the same amount simply by pouring over volumes of literature from their local library).
Later Marx goes on to
attack (and nicely sum up) consumerism with the following statement,
"[...] Dear friend, I give you what you need, but you know the condito sine qua non;
you know the ink in which you have to sign yourself over to me; in
providing for your pleasure, I fleece you" (Tucker 1978:94). While
truer words may never have been spoken, Marx in his desire to promote
the us vs. them game chooses to ignore the fact that myself as a
consumer (and him in his own lifetime) make the conscious choice to
spend the capital that he despises, that has the power to buy these
luxuries, on these luxuries--nobody forced Marx by gunpoint to buy
luxuries for his family which he felt they deserved because of their
status, nor did anybody force me to buy a high definition LCD TV to
reward myself a couple years ago for landing a rather sweet internship
gig. Now, they may use unethical or deceptive marketing practices, but
to say that consumerism is driven by other than the consumer's desire
is untrue (although modern society has made Marx's argument more true
than it was, as storyofstuff.com
has a nice overview of how the powers-that-be transformed us
into a nation of savers buying big ticket luxuries when we could afford
it into a nation of buying packs of gum and almost everything else on
credit only to see most of it wind up in the trash).
So maybe I haven't really answered this question, per se, I hope my thoughts are at least worth the bits and bytes they are written on. I will end this post with a line from Marx that I think very much ties into my answer to the first question and while not something I am necessarily fuzzy about, is something I think is worth pondering: "[...] wealth has not yet experienced wealth as an entirely alien power over itsef: it sees in it, rather, only its own power, and not wealth but gratification [is its] final aim and end" (Tucker 1978:101). In our modern society, is this statement still true or have we found ourselves now controlled by wealth and our attempts to keep up with the wealth of others?
Tucker, R. (1978). The Marx-Engels Reader. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
So maybe I haven't really answered this question, per se, I hope my thoughts are at least worth the bits and bytes they are written on. I will end this post with a line from Marx that I think very much ties into my answer to the first question and while not something I am necessarily fuzzy about, is something I think is worth pondering: "[...] wealth has not yet experienced wealth as an entirely alien power over itsef: it sees in it, rather, only its own power, and not wealth but gratification [is its] final aim and end" (Tucker 1978:101). In our modern society, is this statement still true or have we found ourselves now controlled by wealth and our attempts to keep up with the wealth of others?
Tucker, R. (1978). The Marx-Engels Reader. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
