Karl Marx: Alienation | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction

• The idea of alienation refers to how people can feel disconnected from each other or from certain situations or processes.
• This concept is important in the writings of Karl Marx and is often linked to Marxist sociology.
• There are three main aspects to alienation: philosophical, sociological, and psychological.
• Hegel offered a philosophical approach to overcome the separation between what 'is' and what 'ought' to be. He believed that reality is always trying to improve and reach an ideal state.
• According to Hegel, the journey of the self-developing idea through history involves becoming separated, then being recognized again through understanding.
• This process inspired Marx to see the need for revolution. He flipped Hegel’s ideas and based his own thoughts on a materialist view.
• Marx believed that people are lost within the various stages of history.
• He argued that with the rise of communism, individuals would fully reconnect with their true selves as social beings.
• The sociological aspect of alienation focuses on how social systems can oppress individuals, preventing them from experiencing their true humanity.

De-Humanisation of Labour

• Marx built upon the foundation laid by Adam Smith, distinguishing between two key aspects of a commodity: use-value and exchange value. A commodity is an article that satisfies a human need; this is its use-value. However, a commodity is not merely a useful article; it is also something that is produced and sold in the market to be exchanged for other commodities. The challenge lies in measuring the exchange value of commodities that have different use-values. For instance, what do wheat and linen have in common? One is produced by a peasant, and the other by a weaver. They are products of different types of useful labor. What they share is that they are both products of human labor in general, which Marx refers to as "abstract human labor."
• The exchange value, or simply the value, as opposed to use-value, is determined by the abstract labor embodied in the commodity. This measure is not based on the time an individual laborer may have spent, which could be above or below average. Instead, it is based on the average time required for production at a given level of productivity, a concept Marx calls "socially necessary labor-time."

Marx’s Work Ethic

• According to Marx, work should reflect human creativity and be something individuals love and enjoy.
• However, the capitalist mode of production distorts the nature of work, turning it from an expression of creativity into a burdensome obligation.
• In this system, the worker is valued less than the commodity they produce, leading to a process called objectification.
• As capitalism progresses, the worker's value diminishes, and they become assimilated to the product, losing their individual identity.
• In capitalist production, labor-power becomes a commodity that can be bought and sold like any other.
• For the capitalist, labor-power has use-value because it can produce goods.
• The capitalist consumes this labor-power by paying wages, but this payment occurs after the labor is performed.
• For the worker, labor-power has only exchange value because they lack the means of production.
• The exchange value of labor-power is determined by the labor-time necessary for its production or reproduction.
• This includes the cost of subsistence for the worker and their family—the future workers.
• The level of subsistence and essential needs varies based on factors such as development and societal conditions.
• The wages paid to the worker cover only what is necessary for their maintenance, representing their value.
• However, the worker produces more value than what is represented in their wages.
• The difference between these two amounts is called surplus value, which the capitalist appropriates.
• To grasp the concept of surplus value, it helps to look at historical development.
• In early history, people produced barely enough for their own subsistence.
• When productivity increased, allowing for surplus production, the question of how to use this surplus arose.
• This surplus allowed for a portion of the population to be freed from the necessity of producing for their own subsistence, leading to the emergence of a ruling class.
• In the middle ages, serfs worked part of the week on their own lands and part on the lands of a feudal lord without compensation.
• This surplus labor produced a social surplus appropriated by the ruling class.
• This appropriation can take various forms, such as in-kind (e.g., sharecropping) or monetary (e.g., rent).
• In the case of money, it represents surplus value.
• The capitalist aims to increase the rate of surplus value through two main methods: absolute and relative surplus value.
• Absolute surplus value is generated by extending the working day, thus expanding the time dedicated to surplus labor.
• This method was particularly prevalent in the early stages of capitalism and can still be observed in sectors like India's unorganized industry.
• In the early phase of capitalism, surplus value was extracted without significant technological advancement.
• However, one crucial change occurred: the labor process became subordinate to capital.
• Workers were no longer independent producers or serfs tied to the land; they became subject to the control of capitalists.
• Marx termed this the "formal subsumption of labor under capital."
• Once capital had established a firm grip, it could move to the "real subsumption of labor", reorganizing and transforming the labor process.
• This distinction is relevant to contemporary debates about the dominant mode of production in India.
• For example, while capitalist farmers in Punjab use small airplanes to spray pesticides, sharecroppers may operate in ways resembling pre-capitalist society.
• Despite the lack of technological changes, capital can exert economic control through the formal subsumption of labor.
• This allows for the extraction of absolute surplus value.
• Marx's critique of capitalism centers on his theory of surplus value, which explains how capital grows by consuming living labor.
• Since only labor power produces surplus value, its exploitation is fundamental to the capitalist system.
• However, labor power is not merely an economic factor; it is provided by living human beings with their own needs and aspirations.
• Capitalism separates labor from the satisfaction of human aspirations, treating labor power as a commodity.
• For Marx, labor itself is the most essential aspect of human life.
• Without labor, humanity cannot only survive but also cannot become fully human.
• Human labor is imaginative, conscious, and not instinctual.
• While a spider may perform tasks similar to those of a weaver, the key difference is that humans conceptualize their work before executing it.
• Each labor process results in an outcome that existed in the laborer's imagination before the work began.

Human labor is inherently social. It involves self-realization through production for and with others. Isolated individuals cannot survive independently; productive interactions with nature require cooperation, division of labor, and exchange. Through these interactions, the human species realizes itself. One could argue that the significance of labor lies in this self-realization of the human species. Human labor, as a social process, creates society in its various forms, but it is also conditioned by society in its different manifestations. Throughout history, the development of class societies has posed a threat to the human quality of labor. This threat reaches its peak in capitalism, which is the primary target of Marx's critique.

Emergence of Classes

• When humanity first discovered fire, it took thousands of years to complete the process of turning heat back into motion. Similarly, the development of classes in society is a gradual process. As humans began to organize themselves based on their relations of production (i.e., the division of labor), classes emerged based on the different positions and roles individuals found and created for themselves. What was once a society with minimal or no class structure, such as a tribal or nomadic society, transformed into a society with a diverse range of classes fulfilling various productive roles.
• As the productive forces of humans increased and class distinctions deepened, the advancement of productive forces eventually led to the obsolescence of certain classes. For example, small craftspersons and shop owners were replaced by modern industries that could produce goods in greater quantities and at lower costs.
• Karl Marx and Frederick Engels explained the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, which was just beginning to unfold at the time. They noted that "Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist." In this new system, masses of laborers were crowded into factories and organized like soldiers under a strict hierarchy of officers and sergeants.
• Workers became slaves not only of the bourgeois class and the bourgeois state but also of the machine, the overseer, and, above all, the individual capitalist. The more openly this despotism proclaimed profit as its goal, the more petty, hateful, and embittering it became.
• With the continuous improvement of machinery, workers' livelihoods became increasingly precarious. Conflicts between individual workers and individual capitalists began to take on the character of class struggle. In response, workers started forming trade unions and permanent associations to protect their wages and prepare for future revolts. These local struggles were eventually centralized into a national struggle between classes, aided by improved means of communication.
• The "alienation" caused by private property could only be abolished if two practical conditions were met. First, private property must become an "intolerable" power, prompting a revolution. This could only happen if the majority of humanity became "property-less" and if the existing world of wealth and culture produced a contradiction. Both conditions required a significant increase in productive power and a high degree of its development.

Alienation as a Process

• Firstly, the worker is alienated from the product of his labour. The product in which he expresses and realises himself does not belong to him. It is appropriated by the capitalists and sold on the market. With realisation of surplus-value capital grows, and with capital the alien power which controls and dominates the life of the worker. The more he works, the better he produces, the stronger becomes this alien power of capital.
• Under the capitalist conditions the worker is alienated from the act of producing itself. The most human activity does no longer belong to the producer himself. It has become a commodity sold and bought on the market, the commodity of labour power. The buyer of this commodity, the capitalist, determines what the worker does and how he has to do it.
• Capitalist production alienates the worker from his being a member of the human species and from his humanity, as being a fellow being with other human beings. His social activity, production turns into a means for his individual existence, for earning a wage. This implies his alienation from other human beings with whom he competes for scarce jobs.

Features of Alienation

Marx’s analysis of the capitalist economy is deeply intertwined with his anthropological ideas and philosophy of history. His theory encompasses the entirety of human activity across its various interconnected spheres. Over time, his writings, culminating in "Capital," present more elaborate versions of the same core idea: We live in a time where the dehumanization of individuals—specifically, the alienation between people and their own creations—is reaching a peak. This situation is bound to trigger a revolutionary upheaval. This revolution will stem from the interests of the class most affected by dehumanization but will ultimately benefit all of humanity.
The fundamental innovation of "Capital" lies in two key points that offer a radically different perspective on capitalist society compared to classical economists:

1. Workers do not sell their labor; they sell labor power.
2. Labor has two aspects: abstract and concrete.

Exploitation occurs when the worker sells labor power, thus alienating themselves from their essence. The labor process and its outcomes become hostile and alien, leading to a deprivation of humanity rather than fulfillment. Marx, recognizing the dual nature of labor reflected in the contrast between exchange value and use value, characterizes capitalism as a system driven by the unbounded increase of exchange value. In this system, all human activity is subordinated to a non-human purpose—the creation of something that individuals cannot assimilate, as only use value can be assimilated.

• The entire community becomes enslaved to its own products, which are abstractions that present themselves as external and alien forces. The distortion of consciousness and the alienation of the political superstructure are consequences of the fundamental alienation of labor. However, this alienation is not a historical mistake but a necessary condition for the future society of free beings who control the vital processes of their own lives.
• In this context, "Capital" can be seen as a logical progression of Marx’s earlier ideas. Alienation, in Marx’s view, is the process by which individuals strip themselves of their true nature and humanity. Unlike Hegel, who equated alienation with externalization—the process of converting human strength and skill into new products—Marx believed that alienation involves a deeper disconnection from one’s essence.
• Marx argued that labor is fundamentally an affirmation of humanity and a central aspect of the ongoing process of self-creation. It is only under a system of private property and division of labor that productive activity becomes a source of misery and dehumanization. In a society free from alienated labor, people will continue to externalize and objectify their powers, but they will be able to assimilate the fruits of their labor as expressions of their collective abilities.

Division of Labour

Alienation also manifests in the dehumanization of labor itself, a process exacerbated by the new division of labor under capitalism. While division of labor is not a creation of capitalism—it has historical roots—it serves as a dual source of material and cultural progress and human alienation.

Historical Context of Division of Labour

Division of labor, though not invented by capitalism, has been present since early human history. It is a fundamental principle that underlies the productivity of human labor. This principle allows for the production of a surplus, which is essential for the advancement of culture, art, politics, and religion. The existence of various societal roles, such as philosophers, artists, priests, and kings, relies on this division of labor.

Impact on Direct Producers

• As culture progresses through division of labor, direct producers experience a narrowing of their horizons. They become specialized and lose their connection to the overall production process. 
• In contrast, the philosophers, priests, and kings gain control over society, enjoying a freedom that comes from their understanding and management of the entire process. 
• This shift transforms the direct producers into isolated individuals within a vast empire, or into slaves, serfs, or laborers bereft of rights. Their lives become increasingly dominated by external forces beyond their control, leading to a profound sense of alienation.

Stages of Division of Labour

1. Social Division of Labour:

• In this stage, the division of labor occurs between different branches of production.
• Workers in different branches may be alienated from one another, but there is still potential for meaningful self-realization in their work.
• For example, a farmer and a blacksmith may have different roles but can still find purpose in their respective tasks.

2. Technical Division of Labour:

• Here, the division of labor occurs within a single branch of production.
• The technical division of labor subdivides humans based on their tasks, often leading to alienation from the labor process itself.
• For instance, in a factory, workers may be assigned specific tasks that contribute to a larger product but may lack a connection to the final outcome.

3. Capitalist Division of Labour:

• This stage is characterized by the capitalist drive for profit, which creates a large-scale unskilled labor force.
• Workers may be condemned to a lifetime of cheap, unskilled labor, with little opportunity for advancement or meaningful engagement in their work.
• The capitalist division of labor polarizes those whose time is highly valuable and those whose time is worth little, creating a stark divide in the labor force.

Technical Division of Labour

As manufacturing evolves, the technical division of labour emerges. Workers are assigned specific operations where they specialize, leading to a hierarchy of labour power from skilled to unskilled. Management becomes increasingly important, not just for control but also for planning and conceptualizing work. While skilled workers retain some freedom and control within their assigned tasks, the overall process becomes more rigid.

Changes in Productive Work (16th to 18th Century)

During the period from the 16th to the 18th century, three fundamental changes occurred in the nature of productive work:
1. Strict Discipline of Labour:

• Capitalist management imposed strict discipline over labor through despotic control.
• Artisans, who once had the freedom to choose their own rhythm and style of work, were now forced into workshops and manufacturing settings where they had to subordinate themselves to the will of the managing capitalist.

2. Separation of Conceptualisation and Execution:

• Under capitalist management, a fundamental division emerged between the conceptualisation and execution of work.
• This was manifested in the development of detail workers who were no longer connected to the production of the whole.

3. Creation of Large-Scale Unskilled Labour:

• The capitalist drive for profit led to the creation of large-scale unskilled labor.
• This marked the first time workers were condemned to a lifetime of cheap, unskilled labor.

In summary, the technical division of labor, alongside the changes in productive work during the 16th to 18th centuries, reflects the evolution of labor under capitalism. The strict discipline imposed by management, the separation of conceptualization from execution, and the emergence of large-scale unskilled labor highlight the transformative impact of capitalist structures on the nature of work and labor relations.

Social Division of Labour

• In the social division of labor, while producers may be alienated from the entire society, there remains a potential for meaningful self-realization in their work. For example, a skilled artisan may find personal fulfillment in crafting unique pieces, even if they are disconnected from the broader social context.
• Conversely, the technical division of labor involves a more profound alienation from the labor process itself. Here, the focus is on subdividing humans based on their specific tasks, often leading to a sense of disconnection from the overall production. In a factory setting, workers might perform repetitive tasks without understanding how their work contributes to the final product, resulting in a lack of engagement and fulfillment.

Braverman's Perspective on Capitalist Division of Labour

• Braverman argues that capitalism creates a scarcity of skills by divorcing each step in the labor process from special knowledge and training, reducing it to simple labor. 
• Conversely, those with special knowledge and training are freed from the obligations of simple labor. This polarization structures all labor processes, making time infinitely valuable for some and almost worthless for others. 
• This dynamic is seen as the general law of capitalist division of labor, where the division of labor under capitalism creates a stark contrast between those whose time is highly valued and those whose time is not, shaping the nature of work and labor relations in capitalist societies.

Objectification

• Marx analyses the impact of machinery and modern industry on labour.
• He shows how the development of technology under capitalism is geared towards the maximum production of surplus value.
• Machinery transforms the worker into a living appendage of a lifeless mechanism.
• In handicrafts and manufacture, the workman makes use of a tool; in the factory, the machine makes use of him.
• The movements of the instrument of labour proceed from him, whereas in manufacture, he is part of a living mechanism.
• In the factory, we have a lifeless mechanism independent of the workman.
• The fundamental characteristic of machinery is that it removes the tool from the hands of the worker.
• This opens new avenues for exploitation.
• It leads to the further degradation of the worker by completing the separation of the intellectual powers of production from manual labour.
• Machinery becomes a source of enslavement, not of freedom.
• Workers experience helplessness and confinement within a blind round of servile duties.
• Technically, it is the transformation of labour from processes based on skill to those based upon science.
• The degradation of workers is the consequence of the subordination of science and technology to the purpose of capital.
• Marx characterized the alienation of the worker as the rule of dead labour over living labour.
• The worker sees machinery as representing the wealth and capital of the capitalist.
• What confronts him is objectified labour, the result of past labour.
• In pre-capitalist society, the producer was not confronted with means of production dominating him as an alien power.
• The rule of the capitalist over the worker is the rule of things over man, of dead labour over living, of the product over the producer.
• This highlights the alienation of man from his own labour.
• The worker stands on a higher plane than the capitalist, as the latter has roots in the process of alienation.
• The worker confronts this as a rebel and experiences it as a process of enslavement.

Marx summarizes the alienation of labour in the following words:

•  The worker's labor is not a part of his true self; it is something external to him. 
•  When he works, he does not feel fulfilled; instead, he feels unhappy. 
•  His work does not allow him to freely use his physical and mental energy; it actually harms his body and mind. 
•  The worker feels disconnected from himself while working; he only feels at home when he is not working. 
•  His labor is not done out of choice; it is forced upon him. 
•  Work is not about fulfilling his own needs; it is simply a way to meet needs that are outside of himself. 
•  The alien nature of labor is evident because when there is no pressure to work, people avoid it completely. 
•  This kind of external labor, where a man loses his connection to himself, is a form of self-sacrifice. 
•  The worker's activity is not his own; it belongs to someone else, making him feel like he is not in control of his own life. 
•  Just like in religion, where human creativity and emotions can feel separate from the individual, the worker's effort also feels alien to him. 
•  The feeling of alienation is a common issue in modern society, driven by the need for better technology and growing consumerism. 
•  As jobs become more specialized, people become more dependent on the products they create, and this feeling of alienation is unlikely to decrease.

Conclusion