Talk:Marx's theory of alienation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Marx's theory of alienation, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy Related task forces (major traditions): Marxism Related task forces (periods): Modern philosophy

someone should mention marx's theory of wage slavery, if they have the time to word it correctly.

Contents 1 Response to Criticism 2 Criticism 3 small typo? 4 Strange Link 5 Great Article

[edit] Response to Criticism

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)