In a colloquial context, a state of "alienation" is one in which an individual is excluded or isolated from a group to which that 'individual belongs or should be involved (Merriam-Webster, 2015). However, in the context of Marxist theory, “alienation” is the state of existence of an entire sector – in fact, the majority – of society. This concept developed by Karl Marx, aptly called the Theory of Estranged Labor, explores the idea that, within a capitalist regime, working class members of the workforce – the proletariat, who constitute the majority of the population – are intrinsically alienated . due to the intrinsic lack of wealth distribution and equity present within an economic system based on class hierarchy. As demonstrated by Marx's 1844 text “Estranged Labor,” as well as criticisms of this theory by Bertell Ollman (Alienation: “The Theory of Alienation,” 1976) and John Holloway (Historical Materialism: “A Note on Alienation,” 1997 ), the work process, the product of work and the production act interact with each other. These forces also function in the broader context of the class dichotomy between property owners and propertyless workers: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Furthermore, these interactions cause the alienation of the proletariat, in a way that has a clear influence on both individuals and society at large. Through this exploration, as well as an in-depth examination of the rhetoric contained therein, it becomes possible to ascertain whether Karl Marx wrote “Estranged Labor” with the intent of developing a direct commentary on alienation in capitalism as a perpetual struggle of the working class, or rather was describing the 'alienation as a condition that runs throughout economic history. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In his 1844 text Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Karl Marx discusses the concept of "estranged labor" in the context of labor relations and conditions within capitalism. It is important, first, to understand the concept of capitalism. Capitalism can be most easily and formally defined as “an economic and political system in which a country's commerce and industry are controlled by private, for-profit owners, rather than by the state” (Merriam-Webster, 2015 ). In his critique of capitalism specifically regarding the alienation – the estrangement – ​​of the worker, Marx defines this concept of “estranged labour” as the process that occurs during the economic moment in which: “The worker becomes the poorer the the more wealth it produces, the more its production increases in power and size. The worker becomes a cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates” (“Estranged Labor”, Karl Marx, 2). In this economic moment, the worker – the proletariat, as Marx would later define the “working class”, the The class of “propertyless workers” in contrast to the “owners” (“Estranged Labour”, Karl Marx, 1) – exists as an object in a capitalist market. Work is external to the worker; he does not “freely develop his physical and mental energy… He feels at home when he is not working, and when he works he does not feel at home. His work is therefore not voluntary, but obligatory; it is forced labor” (“Estranged Labor”, Karl Marx, 5). Marx expands on this ideology by explaining that the worker is, in fact, the object of the labor process and, furthermore, the object of the product he creates. This happens because the production process – as well as the product that is produced and that product's entry into the economic market – is outside of the worker's control:“the object that labor produces…[exists] as something alien, as a power independent of the producer” (“Estranged Labor” Karl Marx, 2). The worker is not the owner of the machinery necessary to produce the object, nor is he the designer of the product, nor the manager who regulates the sale or distribution of the object. In this senseless labor system, the work an individual produces is not his object. It is simply performing a virtually inhuman act of assembly with the greater purpose of 1) the production of a good for another, and 2) a livelihood or “physical means of subsistence for the worker” (“Estranged Labor,” Karl Marx, 3). The separation of the worker from his production can be most clearly exemplified by a worker's need to purchase a product, which he created, from the company under which he produced it, using the wages he used to produce it. In this economic moment, the concept of “estranged work” becomes evident: the worker is estranged from the object of his work, and therefore is estranged not only from the purpose of his work, but also from his sense of self within the limits of his Work. role within the means of production in a capitalist system. The object is foreign to the worker. This fact exemplifies the intrinsic concept according to which the worker himself loses value as a human being and as a member of society in direct proportion to the increase in the value of the objects of his labor (“Estranged Labor”, Karl Marx, 2). In this way the worker depends on the work more than the work depends on the worker; the worker is an object of the act of production. Furthermore, the worker is forced to consider his work as “an object which he can obtain only with the greatest effort and with the most irregular interruptions” (“Estranged Labor”, Karl Marx, 3). He is forced to value this exploitative labor more than the owner of his labor values ​​him. It must appropriate the external, sensible world, separating itself from its activity, taking on an activity belonging to another, instead of a “spontaneous activity… of the human imagination, the human brain and the human heart, [operating] independently by him” causing him to further lose his sense of self (“Estranged Labor”, Karl Marx, 3). Perhaps in this circumstance, assimilation is a more appropriate term than appropriation, since it is a member of a marginalized group having to take on the standards of another to survive comfortably in a system in which they are doomed to failure. this loss of his sense of self – and ultimately a loss of his sense of humanity in the context of the characteristics of the species (freely active and self-separating actions and activities based on individuality and voluntary choice) – the worker: “only feels he himself is freely active in his animal functions: eating, drinking, procreating, living, etc., and in his human functions he no longer feels anything other than animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal” (“Estranged Labor”, Karl Marx, 5). These aspects of alienation – including alienation from the object, alienation from oneself, and alienation from humanity/characteristics of the human species (and nature, therein) – provide the framework for classifying work alienation within capitalism as a fact within the confines of the laws of political economic theory. This then raises the question: who owns the work, if not the worker? Marx explains that it must “belong to some other man… If the worker's activity is torment for him, for another it must give satisfaction and pleasure. Not the gods, not nature, but only man himself can be this foreign power over man.” In this sense, it is necessary to deduce that “someone else is the master of this object, someone who is foreign, hostile, powerful andindependent [of the worker]” (“Estranged Labor”, Karl Marx, 9): this other is, obviously, the “owner of the property”; the “capitalist”; the bourgeoisie. This other – who behaves like a sort of malevolent divine character – demands that the worker “provide a service, under his dominion, his coercion” (“Estranged Labor”, Karl Marx, 9). In this context, the worker is not only a slave to his work, his salary, his capital wage, and to the capitalist system, but also, ultimately, the slave of another man. This, in itself, is “the very soul of production” (“Estranged Labor,” Karl Marx, 10). Marx's critique and discussion of the economic system of capitalism – and its downfalls – has been studied, analyzed and constructed adopted by many communist-oriented sociologists over the century and a half following the publication of “Estranged Labour”. These analyzes have often produced the same question, which Marx himself did not explore: “is the position of the estranged worker within capitalism a position of struggle or that of a condition?” Two prominent Marxist scholars, John Holloway and Bertell Ollman, raised this question and responded with very different interpretations of Marx's thought and theory. Holloway's text “A Note on Alienation,” published in the anthology Historical Materialism in 1997, suggests that there are two standard approaches to considering and interpreting alienation. First, in the context of human beings as objects suffering under capitalism, we are victims of capital, but second, in the context of alienation as a condition, transcending alienation is possible. He continues to say, however, that there is a third interpretation: “not a condition, but a process… a constant struggle”. He argues that, within Marx's text on estranged labor, there is an overarching narrative of the importance of understanding alienation in terms of activity” (“A Note on Alienation,” John Holloway, 147). He continues to express his belief that, if alienation is in fact an activity, the worker himself is creating his own alienation within capitalism, because capital depends on labor. Indeed, “Alienation is not an aspect of class struggle: it is the struggle of capital to exist” (“A Note on Alienation,” John Holloway, 148). Holloway's solution, then, to the concept of alienation within capitalism and the ultimate goal of achieving a state of disalienation is found in his assertion that "disalienation is here now, in our existence as insubordinate labor, in our existence not only within, but against, capital” (“A Note on Alienation,” John Holloway, 148). This approach to the concept of alienation is, at best, problematic. It assumes not only that there is a predetermined future in which alienation will no longer affect the working class, but it also states that modern society has reached a point where the proletarian class is able and willing to separate itself from capitalism to bring about its downfall, not with a revolution, but with sheer force of will and dedication. Holloway writes from a position of privilege in this regard, as this interpretation of “Estranged Labour” completely ignores the real and realized struggle of the proletariat: workers trapped within a system that dehumanizes and devalues ​​them. , but grants them the means of life. To assume that an individual – let alone a society – must give up access to existence and basic security (no matter how small it may be) is at best idealistic, and a detached, ideological and elitist recommendation from of a member of the movement. the bourgeoisie appropriates the struggle of the proletariat in the worst case scenario. Bertell Ollman's interpretation of the.