Talk:Marx's theory of alienation/Archive 1

Response to Criticism
But wouldn't one assume that almost all contemperary economies are capitalist?

No, most economies are fascist: private ownership of means of production, but product and process restricted by coercion of government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.7.248 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism
I removed most of the section reading
 * "Marx attributes alienation to the social organization specific to capitalism. Critics suggest that mass society has its own dynamics which may be distinct from capitalism. In other words, we may be alienated not as a consequence of selling our labour power to capitalists, but just because any massive, mobile, urban population will be constantly confronted with its own unfamiliarity.


 * "More specifically, our lack of identification with our work may be due, not to the intermediation of the capitalist system of production and wage labour, but simply to the productivity demands made on us by any modern economy."

Most of this is inaccurate. Marx followed the Hegelian idea of history as a path towards an end of history where humanity overcomes alienation. Capitalism is not the only system with alienation. Marx mentions alienation in other places (obviously in slave societies). The second paragraph is also wrong. Alienation for Marx resulted from free and creative production. Any system with productivity demands would be alienating.

I'll back this up with more textual evidence if someone objects. For now, from "On the Jewish Question," Marx refers to alienation with regard to religion, so not only is alienation not limited to capitalism, it is not limited to economic production: "Selling [verausserung] is the practical aspect of alienation [Entausserung]. Just as man, as long as he is in the grip of religion, is able to objectify his essential nature only by turning it into something _alien_, something fantastic, so under the domination of egoistic need he can be active practically, and produce objects in practice, only by putting his products, and his activity, under the domination of an alien being, and bestowing the significance of an alien entity -- money -- on them."--Bkwillwm 09:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That "Marx followed the Hegelian idea of history as a path towards an end of history" is questionable (Althusser notably criticized it). It is in fact even questionable that Hegel himself believed in that, although this reading was popularized by Alexandre Kojève. Furthermore, several Marxists do argue that capitalism is the only system with "alienation", in that makes the difference between Marx's conception of alienation and Feuerbach, Hegel or Rousseau. See the 1844 Manuscripts, end of first chapter: alienation is clearly defined as the consequence of salary, that is, capitalism. This doesn't justify by any means the first removed paragraph... The second paragraph is also clearly wrong. Now, your quote of On the Jewish Question which you use to justify that alienation is not limited to capitalism nor to economic production may be easily counterbalanced by current arguments against the young Marx: Marx replaced this theory of alienation by the one of commodity fetishism exposed in The Capital, in which you can clearly see that alienation is doubtlessly specific to capitalism. However, as I said, these remarks are not intended to oppose your removal of this text, so on... Cheers! Santa Sangre 09:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Feuerbach's theory should be exposed for itself in details in the first section, as Marx adapted it for his use, shouldn't it? Santa Sangre 09:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * hmmm... I disagree that the theory of alienation was replaced by the theory of commodity fetishism, I think it was rather supplemented by it. I think to claim this you'd have to find where Marx says anything inconsistent with his early theory of alienation.  Might be worth looking at the unpublished fragment of Capital I Results of the Immediate Process of Production.  I agree that a better statement of Feuerbach's theory would be useful - would you be up for writing it?  Breadandroses 15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

small typo?
"Selected chapters can be read online but you should do it"

This sentence is in the 'Secondary Literature' section.

Brad6079 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange Link
Hello all.

I've arrived at this page having navigated my way from Objectification. I'm very disturbed to find that the clarity I found wanting there is perpetuated here! In the first section, this article quotes Marx:
 * Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other person. 1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also when looking at the object I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses and hence a power beyond all doubt.

... and it links to the Objectification article. But the definition provided on that page is patently incorrect in terms of the sense Marx uses it here. Marx is using it in the sense of something that was subjective, belonging to a subject, becoming an object. It has a positive valence here, or at least a neutral one. When I paint a work of art, I embody a part of myself in that object - this is objectification in the sense Marx means it here. It is only, as the discussion above clarifies, under unfree social conditions of labour that objectification takes an alienating form.

I emphasise that I am not a philosopher nor do I have any but a splattering of philosophical training, so I don't feel qualified to supplement the definition given on the Objectification page, but if there's anyone that is, please do!

DionysosProteus 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Marx means that by making something unique, creative, and distinctive, a person can express his artistic personality through his work, and that it shows in the articles he makes. Marx is using "subject" as synonymous with "person", and "object" as synonymous with "thing".  "Objectification" is usually used to mean the dehumanization of a person by words, people, an organization, etc., dismissing his or her validity as a human being.  The disruption in philosophy occasioned by the advance of mass production is crucial in understanding the sea-change in a world where it became no longer a sin to covet one's neighbor's possessions, but a boon, to Madison Avenue, at least.  In biblical times, if you coveted your neighbor's horse, you were in trouble.  You'd be plagued by the temptation to have that wonderful creature, and you probably never could.  Today, if you covet your neighbor's Lexus, you can drive to the dealership and get one just like it.  Once, if you needed a beautiful Valentine's Day card to send to your sweetheart, you'd have to find somebody who could make one; today you go to the drugstore.  If you wanted to serenade her, you'd have to find some nice, enchanting musicians, and perhaps a singer; now you can e-mail her an MP3 you found on the Internet.  The loss of artistry and uniqueness in everyday life was more trenchant and disruptive than we can possibly imagine.  No longer are harpsichords and carriages made laboriously in tiny workshops by brilliant, creative, and industrious geniuses.  What is dreamed up with the aid of CAD software can be manufactured, massively, a continent away, by CAM-driven machinery within seconds.  Huge industries have been obsoleted by progress; the nature of work, materials, and values has changed, and will probably always change, forever.  Much of Marx's thinking, and the philosophies of the age, were profoundly influenced by nostalgia and aesthetics, not to mention elocution and the power of oratory.  A booming voice, eloquent vocabulary, an artistic turn of phrase, could influence the masses and revolutionize a canon of law, an interpretation of religion, or the constitution of a new nation.  It is hard for us to appreciate the mesmeric influence of words upon the zeitgeist of Marx's age. Unfree (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Great Article
I really enjoyed the article. I also like the "Further Reading" suggestion at the end, giving internet links to a searchable database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtak (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

young Marx or not
Parts of this article attribute the theory of alienation specifically to the Young Marx, while others claim that it "runs right throughout his work". I imagine which interpretation one holds depends a bit on the wider debate over whether there really was a big break between the "young Marx" and later Marx, but it'd be nice to clarify a bit who says what on that point. --Delirium (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hegel?
Would editors here be open to making this an article on alienation in both Marx and Hegel?Fixer1234 (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Boring
Marx had a weird boring way of saying things, so I can't read much of what he said. Can't you just say that in capitalism, no one knows their neighbors because people have to move often to get or keep a job? And owners don't want to make renters their friends. And when money is involved then no one can be friends. And people raise their kids in 'poverty' (debt) & small houses & IF they get rich it's after their kids are grown & moved far away that they can finally live in a big house. And even the rich die lonely far from friends & family IF they ever knew any. Capitalism is "hate your neighbor & your own kids & entire family". I know, you can't say it like that, right? Stars4change (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you can't. Marx talks about the root causes of alienation, which are not dislike or hate, but the artificial separation of things which are intrinsically linked.  Try reading the article, and pointing out here on talk bits you find incomprehensible.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you do a great job! It's what Marx said that I can't read. Here "Marx attributes FOUR types of alienation in labour under capitalism.[1] These include the alienation of the worker from his or her ‘species essence’ as a human being rather than a machine; between workers, since capitalism reduces labour to a commodity to be traded on the market, rather than a social relationship;" Does he say anything in those 2 (of the 4) types of alienation that people can't get to know each other? Stars4change (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He was so right! "What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."  Capitalists are killing themselves & their own children & grand-children.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stars4change (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a wonderful article, especially the first 2 paragraphs speaking of "human nature." Thanks for this great article, & for making Marx understandable to everyone.. Stars4change (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Subject-object
I don't understand what it means to say that something "made the proletariat the subject of history". Is "subject" being used here as a synonym for "topic", or as the "subject" of a verb: the initiator of action? In other words, does it imply that something made the proletariat the (new and) proper main topic in the analysis of history, or that it became the driving force behind the march of history? Unfree (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"The criticism of Marx's theory of total impoverishment" section
What is this? Is this section supposed to be criticism of the theory? It seems not, and thus this section is improperly titled. It is also an unsourced text and contains unsourced phrases such as "Today, what would it take for capitalists today to have a continuous supply of healthy and obedient workers? In other words, to pacify them.", "When one percent of the world's population owns eighty percent of the world's wealth, there is a problem." and a puzzling "There are 5 major points on the dark side of capitalism" at the end, which therefore do not allow this section to qualify as NPOV and encyclopedic. EDIT: Forgot to sign this when I wrote it some time ago. 190.161.104.124 (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Daunting?
"Marx's work can sometimes be daunting - many people would recommend reading a short introduction (such as one of those indicated below) to the concept first."

What is it daunting about marxism? I dont get that line.

In any case Marx's writings are not very intellectually challenging anyway. Agrofelipe (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Marx is incredibly intellectually challenging, which is part of the reason that so many people find him controversial; that, and the paranoia the west created towards communist states. Marx is talking about the conditions put in place for all of us to have accesss to what we need as human beings. Now, I do not call myself marxist, because I do not agree with everything Marx says. But, I certainly am a proponent of the notion that if accessibility to our needs is made conditional upon the use of money, then our humanity is made conditional and therefore we are not free; because that which we need to sustain our humanity is not free to us. Therefore, Capitalism is just as bad as dictator communism was, when the dictator owned everything, and everyone else owned nothing. I deserve to have access to my basic needs, by virtue of my human birth and private ownership and financial conditions are preventing that from happening. So Marx was completely right in this. The fact that so many westeners are afraid of Marx, goes to show how brainwashing Capitalist governments can be. The wealthy elite create public education and they teach against Marxism, the fact that people agree with them shows how unfree we are when people have not been given the opportunity to think and form an opinion themselves, without quoting wealthy Capitalists. It is wrong for people to own, since this alientates us from what we need, pits us against each other (hence the moral issues surrounding homeless people), and governments/capitalists take everything leaving a few scraps for the majority of the populatipon to fight over amongst ourselves. That is the truth. Before our world is completely environmentally destroyed, we should consider Marx's view of alienation. We should put the burden of proof on Marx's critics instead of Marx himself. Marx made many intellectually charged points and observations about our world. He was seeing how Europe/Germany was changing before his eyes and how alienated the German peasents were from there needs, and how that alienation was a product of the European elites, not because he believed they were evil people, but because of the system that was in place that allowed people to abuse their power over others and limit other's freedom, rights and accessibility - Capitalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think its more along the lines of a system that is "easy to learn, hard to master." You can get the basics of his principals down pretty easy, as this article shows, but like all political systems the nuances are quite complex. In the same way that its hard to absolutely understand left/right politics at any given time in the US; Most may know the basics, but the devil's always in the details. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the nuances: Marx's supposed idea of "human nature" is an awful way to start this article. The article it links to is also imperfect but at least makes clear that the term is misleading and far from what he's talking about -- this article should, at minimum, do the same. 149.31.194.70 (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The problems of understanding Marx are actually twofold. Generally speaking, he did his best to be intelligible to the average working person...but this did not stop many terms which were once fairly commonplace from becoming archaic. The other issue is that he often was involved with polemics with people who used much more academic terminology, and responded in kind. (Though I think as he got older he got better at making even these conversations easier to understand for the "layman".) Something else that might be worth considering is whether or not it's actually Marx's concept which is difficult, or the interpretation of later critics and advocates who would make much more out of his theory than was actually their before. (Especially a lot of the French academic Marxists Chilltherevolutionist (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Self, the Idea of a Critical Theory: No citation
The long quote that begins the "Philosophic Significance" section leads to a link called "Science Encyclopedia" that doesn't appear to have anything to do with Marx's Theory of Alienation, let alone the particular quote. Who wrote Self, the Idea of a Critical Theory? All the searches I've done in attempt to find the original author have led to people quoting this article from Wikipedia.Mr.ned (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Mr.Ned 10/26/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.ned (talk • contribs) 14:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

They're probably thinking of the book by Raymond Geuss, which is named a bit differently...It's not actually very relevant IMO. Chilltherevolutionist (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

POV
Can someone explain why this has a POV warning? This is an article about Marx's theory of alienation - obviously it's his POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.22.18 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It lacks a decent criticism section. It would be good to see a section on criticism, as well as one on "further developments" so that we don't have to worry so much about admixture from later theories seeping in as if they're Marx's own ideas. Chilltherevolutionist (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)