In his manuscripts on the practices and process of the bourgeois economic machine in industrialized society, Marx is heavily critical of what he labels the "primitive" accumulation of capital and the estrangement of laborers from their work involved therein. In "Estranged Labour," Marx discusses the notion that the proletariat have experienced a complete transformation of the essence of being human: the control over one's actions. He argues that in being subjected to a system where they are robbed of the means by which they could provide for themselves, they become slaves to the capitalist machine, deprived of the opportunity to be self-sufficient. They are forced to work in order to survive, and furthermore produce parts of a product that they will never own nor sell to another person -- in all things, their labor and its fruits are owned by another person. This alienates the worker from their labor and turns work into something detestable. Work becomes the function of humans in this situation, while actions traditionally characterized as animalistic -- eating, sleeping, etc. -- become what a worker looks forward to, their respite. Work becomes a commodity individuals are forced to sell in order to survive.
In "The Capitalistic Character of Manufacture," Marx continues this idea by discussing the beginning of production as well as the process by which it expands. Although the "natural starting point" of this production is the division of labor, which induces the technical need for an increasingly larger workforce, it is further implemented by the degradation of that set of workers. Marx notes that throughout history, a tactic of insuring worker ignorance kept trade secrets out of the hands of potential competitors, but that in modern times this works to alienate the workforce from their product. This is achieved in particular through the division of labor, by which a worker has little to no idea how his or her efforts contribute to the actual finished product.
Finally, in "The Primitive Secrets of Primitive Accumulation," Marx explores the notion of turning money into capital. This is "presupposed" by access to starting capital and access to a workforce, by which one can create products to raise additional capital. This is described as a process in which the division of labor is a natural outcome. Marx returns to the idea that in order for the laborer to contribute at their maximum potential they must not be aware of their impact in this cycle, and therefore must be kept ignorant, and this is achieved through the separation of labor and by robbing them of the means of producing for themselves. Each worker is expendable and easily replaceable.
I found the idea of the proletariat's alienation from their labor and its products to be extremely fascinating, and indeed on every level. Not only is the work monotonous, but the workers lack any ownership over both the fruits of their labor as well as their efforts themselves. Furthermore, they are mostly ignorant of the broader process by which the product they make is assembled, and this leads to an increasing level of complacency and lack of investment or even complete disintrest in their work. Although I had understood the notion that these workers sell their physical labor to the bourgeois, I found the idea that this process continually impoverishes them (culturally and intellectually as well as financially) while enriching the capitalists.
One section on alienation caught my attention -- one of the aspects of this separation of worker from their labors and products that Marx discusses is the mass-produced nature of this industrial economy. I wonder, if workers are alienated from their labor at the expense of contributing to another's private property, then those who benefit from these efforts (i.e. those who consume the products or come to accumulate this private property) are just as separated as their laborers. The clothes we wear, the food we eat, and the services we pay for are in large part provided for us by others. What, then, is the consequence of this alienation? Have we become more of a "throwaway" society because we do not produce our own food, stich our own clothes, or build our own houses? Do we value resources, goods and services less while holding ourselves less responsible for them? Finally, would we feel more satisfaction in our lives if we were reliant primarily on our own actions, as was the case throughout the majority of history. Although I don't bake the bread I eat or grow the vegetables I cook with, when I make my own meals I do feel that sense of self-sufficiency I think life would be worse without. But perhaps this is what "self-sufficiency" has been reduced to in our modern society -- the opportunity by those with means to feel like they could provide for themselves (i.e. not rely on the skills of others), at least to some degree, as a purely culturally fulfilling (and not necessary) endeavor.
No comments:
Post a Comment