Monday, February 22, 2010

The Endless Labor Cycle

In his piece entitled “Estranged Labor”, Karl Marx presents an argument against the idea of labor. More specifically, the labor of the blue-collar crowd, like the factory workers. It is a fairly easy argument to follow. Marx clearly outlines his position and goes through each step of the alienation process. One thing that keeps coming to mind as I read this item is the focus on the factory workers. I understand that the work that they do is labor-intensive, does not pay all that well, and of course the workers answer to the Boss Man which supposedly leads them to feel as though the work they do does nothing for them but really only supports the Boss or the Company. Other than probably minimal financial compensation, this work is not very satisfying. More than likely it does not hold any kind of personal interest for the worker. One does not typically think of a factory worker as being particularly excited or even all that interested in his or her job. But this idea provides an interesting question. What about those rare workers who are really into these jobs? Marx might disagree, but chances are that out there somewhere is someone with a factory job who is not feeling bitter and alienated but actually alright with his or her job. Do we run the risk of generalization when applying Marx’s theory? I think we do. I understand of course that sometimes generalizations must be made, but it is really kind of a depressing outlook if we think that all those people toiling away at factory jobs are feeling estranged and alienated not only from their jobs but from other people and maybe even life itself. What a grim thought. Also, one wonders why all the focus is on the factory-type worker. Maybe I haven’t read enough Marx to know if he writes at all about this but surely people in other jobs could feel similarly estranged? What about teachers? Sure many of them enjoy their jobs and like the feeling that they are making an important impression in the life of another but surely like the factory-workers some exceptions must exist. Some teachers must not really care all that much about the students and simply teach to pay the bills. They also end up with no product of their own. It just seems to me that it is unlikely that their is any job out there which has a 100% success rate when it comes to worker happiness. One more question. Would the factory workers be happier without these factory jobs? Would the freedom from the hostile Capitalist work system but living without pay be better than suffering in a repetitive, non-self-satisfying job? It seems to me that few people would choose to get over their issues and continue to work for the money. Without work there is little room for upward financial mobility. I guess I just think that while his argument is nice and concise, Marx is being a tad overdramatic. Sure I could argue that doing my schoolwork is causing me to become hostile and lose my identity but where does that get me? Nowhere. The factory worker is getting paid. It might not be all that personally-fulfilling, but it is still something to take home. Not everyone gets to be creative and do whatever they want. Nothing would ever get done. One could dream of not being a factory worker and enjoying a life of leisure or whatever they dream of, but one must always remember that without the factory workers nothing would get done and you would not be able to live that luxurious dream lifestyle without some people somewhere in factories, making those products that you use and enjoy.

2 comments:

  1. Because Marxism consists of a critique of capitalism and not just the working conditions of laborers, he's not simply arguing that these laborers would be better off without paying jobs; he's arguing that we'd be better off without a capitalistic system that necessitates the need for money, and hence the need to do work that is alienating or unfulfilling. Keep in mind that Marx was writing during the industrial revolution, where factory jobs comprised a much larger portion of available employment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In Marx’s notion of “alienated labor” he was trying to demonstrate how the laborer would never actually benefit from/experience the fruits of his own work. Once the laborer was finished with his work, the manufacturer would then use the result of the laborer’s work to mass-produce it and then sell it for the manufacturer’s own gain. Thus Marx found that the laborer was being alienated from his own labor. Where the confusion arises when you say, “What about those rare workers who are really into these jobs?” is where Marx would defend the revolutionary end of the proletariat. In Marxist theory, the proletariat class is blind to the bourgeois corruption. Consequently, the laborer can only be liberated from his enslavement to the bourgeois upon a revolution by the entire proletariat class. Then will the laborer be truly content with his work. Lenin took Marx’s idea of liberation to extreme by attempting to commence the education of the proletariat through his Vanguard Party.

    So, if you think about the whole Marxist process of alienation leading to liberation it should make sense why Marx found that no one in the proletariat class was actually content with their labor.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.