It's a question not of what he looks like but of what he feels like. He feels unalienated. That's all I'll be posting here. Take care. :smile:

A machine (or automaton).

This is a really good question, and as someone who is sort of a Marxist I honestly think it's too ignored. Fromm was definitely right to point out that the Marxist Leninist model did away with alienation for no good reason, and it hurt them in the long run.

• https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/6515/1/PhD.Kandiyali.pdf
• https://www.academia.edu/43293587/The_Importance_of_Others_Marx_on_Unalienated_Production
• https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1017/S0265052500000327

Some helpful resources for everyone, all for free (to each according to his need and all that :smile: )There's a lot to plough throw here, but I honestly think the notion of an "unalienated" worker does have a coherent answer and isn't just some romantic hooey the juvenile Marx pulled out of his ass. I'd love to type something myself, but sadly I don't think I'd do the concept justice. In short, the unalienated worker has a lot do with self-realization.

An unalienated worker gets his/her fair share of the spoils i.e. s/he isn't exploited (his/her work = $10 and his/her pay < $10).

:snicker:

What does unanlienated worker look like? Can anyone provide a vivid description? As I said in that thread: — schopenhauer1

:up:

Alienated worker: :sad:

Unalienated worker: :smile:

Right, so any worker happy with their work is unalienated?

The problem is that a good deal of work required for social reproduction “offers limited scope for the kind of self-realization Marx had in mind.”
Such work is inescapably repetitive and boring, physically exhausting, or simply unpleasant on account of the conditions under which it must be performed (think, for example, of the work involved maintaining a sewer). It is, in other words, inherently alienating. Marx believed that alienated labor will be eliminated under communism. But the truth is that it will be a feature of all modes of production.

https://www.academia.edu/43293587/The_Importance_of_Others_Marx_on_Unalienated_Production

Speaking as one who has from time to time worked to maintain a sewer or two, it does not seem to me to have much to do with it being hard work or unpleasant or repetitive; what alienates is being divorced from the social necessity of the work.



The above is surely a description of alienating work overcome by the fellowship of patriotic common cause? Changing my baby's diaper is not alienating to the same extent as changing my granddad's. Self-realisation, in this sense is a personal development in a social world that makes drudgery non-alienating. Thus in the Zen monastery, only the Zen master has the self-realisation to be qualified to clean the toilets, the acolytes would be alienated by such work. Nothing alienates the enlightened.

The above is surely a description of alienating work overcome by the fellowship of patriotic common cause? Changing my baby's diaper is not alienating to the same extent as changing my granddad's. Self-realisation, in this sense is a personal development in a social world that makes drudgery non-alienating. Thus in the Zen monastery, only the Zen master has the self-realisation to be qualified to clean the toilets, the acolytes would be alienated by such work. Nothing alienates the enlightened. — unenlightened

Right, but then if one can just "will" their way to unalienation, Marx's WHOLE PROJECT is wrong as far as his specific Marxism.

And I don't think that just "willing our way to liking certain work" is really that feasible.. @Albero's source seems correct:

Marx believed that alienated labor will be eliminated under communism. But the truth is that it will be a feature of all modes of production.

if one can just "will" their way to unalienation, — schopenhauer1

How did you build that straw man from anything you read in my post, when "will" with or without scare quotes is not in my post? Self-realisation is not achieved by will-power, and no one but you has made any such suggestion here. I understand that you disagree with me and probably I don't understand Marx properly, but c'mon, don't just make stuff up.

What does unanlienated worker look like? — schopenhauer1

I don't know what percentage of workers are alienated or not alienated. I've been in both camps (more the former than the latter). Unalienated work (and this worker) experienced in a specific job:

a) considerable executive agency
b) minimal supervision
c) recognition and reward
d) independence to shape the work

I was not self-employed. The job was with an AIDS prevention non-profit. I was not highly paid, but received what I considered a good wage. The job was performing "street outreach" in situations where HIV could be transmitted sexually--bath houses, adult bookstores, parks, bars, and the like.

While "street outrace" had been carried out in other contexts, and AIDS outreach was being carried out in most large cities, every agency seems to have started from scratch. The task of the agencies was to find workers who were competent and willing to carry out the job. There were enough who were competent, but few who were willing. As a result, the hired workers were generally given carte blanche.

It was "mission driven" work; I had a very real stake in the gay male community, and its future. So I was very engaged and was quite willing to perform the under very unstandard hours and working conditions.

I felt very fulfilled.

Another job which involved fulfillment and the the four characteristics listed above was teaching a smoking cessation class for a hospital. This was a part time job involving a month long class (16 hours) for small groups of smokers who had not managed to quit smoking on their own (which most people do manage).

I felt less of a "mission" in this job, but I enjoyed delivering the instructional and group-processing content.

In contrast to these two fulfilling experiences, I had another job in AIDS prevention which was a nightmare -- not because of the clients, but because of the agency.

The features of this job were:

a) minimal executive agency
b) intrusive supervision
c) minimal recognition
d) hostility

Almost all of the negative aspects of this job could be laid to the peculiar psychopathology of the management (and consequently, the staff). Tight control with minimal direction, poor communication, and internal competition characterized the workplace. It was an unwindable game, one leaving most of the staff dissatisfied with their individual situations.

Most organizations, whether government, corporation, or non-profit, operate under a very similar model of top-down authority and control, which practically guarantees that few employees will possess independence, executive agency, and minimal supervision. It may well be the case that large swathes of workers either prefer or readily adapt to top-down authority and control, and do not feel limited in their job experiences. I've met plenty of workers who were not bothered by the (often heavy) hand of management.

That isn't to say they are unalienated. It is to say they are not unhappy in their work--lucky them.

Alienation isn't primarily a "feeling". It's an objective circumstance. How unhappy employees may feel depends to a large extent on their expectations. I've worked in temp jobs where I had very few positive expectations, and wasn't oppressed by the meagre quality of work life. Landing in a job where one lacks competence to perform leads to many unhappy experiences, and may not be the fault of the employer. I've found myself in a couple of jobs where I was not competent to handle loathsome detailed paper processing systems and failed. Not the employer's fault -- more mine for lack of self knowledge.

Right, but then if one can just "will" their way to unalienation, Marx's WHOLE PROJECT is wrong as far as his specific Marxism. — schopenhauer1

This might be a good time to read Marx.


https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12938/fromm-on-marx-myth-busting-marx


“There is continuous reference to Marx and to Marxism in the press, in the speeches of politicians, in books and articles written by respectable social scientists and philosophers; yet with few exceptions, it seems that the politicians and newspapermen have never so much as glanced at a line written by Marx, and that the social scientists are satisfied with a minimal knowledge of Marx. Apparently they feel safe in acting as experts in this field, since nobody with power and status in the social research empire challenges their ignorant statements.”

Fromm

Alienation isn't primarily a "feeling". It's an objective circumstance. How unhappy employees may feel depends to a large extent on their expectations. I've worked in temp jobs where I had very few positive expectations, and wasn't oppressed by the meagre quality of work life. Landing in a job where one lacks competence to perform leads to many unhappy experiences, and may not be the fault of the employer. I've found myself in a couple of jobs where I was not competent to handle loathsome detailed paper processing systems and failed. Not the employer's fault -- more mine for lack of self knowledge. — Bitter Crank

I understand it enough.. The species-being notion that we are working for humanity and that will be enough to clean toilets and do paperwork, and make ball bearings etc. There are people who won't like any work, no matter what. There are people who might like some work, but it's not very useful to the species-being. There are so many problems.. It just takes a few "bad apples" and the system breaks down as a "worker-led" thing and then becomes a top-down, disciplinary apparatus which then goes right back to being alienating.. And of course you got your work camps and re-education camps and simply slave labor.. And of course, none of this was initially intended, but it does become a prominent "bug" to a system where not everyone cares about the "species-being" of others, but it is insisted that this system remain intact in some capacity.. And then you just have totalitarianism.

I understand it enough.. — schopenhauer1

I understand it enough not to have to read it. Good.

Dude, you made a whole thread to read something. That isn't doing anything on a forum like this. I should make a thread too.. "Read Schopenhauer".. So what? Do you have anything to add yourself. Do you have any debates, any passages to analyze? No? So who cares.

Dude, you made a whole thread to read something. — schopenhauer1

Kind of like a reading group.

And to encourage the ignorant to quit talking out their ass.

If it's a reading group then select pages, passages that you specifically want to discuss. Don't just say, "Here are books.. read this corpus and get back to me". There are whole courses on Marxism, politically, economically, historically, and so it is too broad to make a thread of "Study Marxism". Rather, you should focus on something you want in particular.. Alienation let's say.. Pick some passages that are most meaningful about alienation from Marx himself, explain how it is misinterpreted, and then restate its true meaning..

If you think I am wrong, then tell me using actual passages that prove me wrong. But the thing is, it's not that it's wrong as you think that they will work. I am saying the ideas don't pan out in a hypothetical world.. If you think that is an error of understanding, then tell me how in your own words and analysis.

I'm still in the reading phase. The phase you skipped over. Have fun.

I'm still in the reading phase. The phase you skipped over. Have fun. — ZzzoneiroCosm

You're fuckn ridiculous then.. Then wait till you're done and don't post anything. No use saying anything. You don't have anything to say, yet you post stuff. "I am going to the bathroom" isn't interesting. I am reading this manual about car insurance.. isn't interesting.

You're fuckn ridiculous then.. — schopenhauer1

Far more ridiculous to bitch at length about a man whose books you've never read.

Take care. :smile:

YOU posted about Marxism... Why don't YOU post some passages from MARX??

In fact, however, when the limited bourgeois form is stripped away, what is wealth other than the universality of individual needs, capacities, pleasures, productive forces etc., created through universal exchange? The full development of human mastery over the forces of nature, those of so-called nature as well as of humanity’s own nature? The absolute working-out of his creative potentialities, with no presupposition other than the previous historic development, which makes this totality of development, i.e. the development of all human powers as such the end in itself, not as measured on a predetermined yardstick? Where he does not reproduce himself in one specificity, but produces his totality? Strives not to remain something he has become, but is in the absolute movement of becoming? In bourgeois economics – and in the epoch of production to which it corresponds – this complete working-out of the human content appears as a complete emptying-out, this universal objectification as total alienation, and the tearing-down of all limited, one-sided aims as sacrifice of the human end-in-itself to an entirely external end. This is why the childish world of antiquity appears on one side as loftier. On the other side, it really is loftier in all matters where closed shapes, forms and given limits are sought for. It is satisfaction from a limited standpoint; while the modern gives no satisfaction; or, where it appears satisfied with itself, it is vulgar. — Marx- Grundrisse

"It is of course very simple to imagine that some powerful, physically dominant individual, after first having caught the animal, then catches humans in order to have them catch animals; in a word, uses human beings as another naturally occurring condition for his reproduction (whereby his own labour reduces itself to ruling) like any other natural creature. But such a notion is stupid – correct as it may be from the standpoint of some particular given clan or commune – because it proceeds from the development of isolated individuals. But human beings become individuals only through the process of history. He appears originally as a species-being [Gattungswesen], clan being, herd animal – although in no way whatever as a ζῶον πολιτιϰόν [4] in the political sense. Exchange itself is a chief means of this individuation [Vereinzelung]. It makes the herd-like existence superfluous and dissolves it. Soon the matter [has] turned in such a way that as an individual he relates himself only to himself, while the means with which he posits himself as individual have become the making of his generality and commonness. In this community, the objective being of the individual as proprietor, say proprietor of land, is presupposed, and presupposed moreover under certain conditions which chain him to the community, or rather form a link in his chain. In bourgeois society, the worker e.g. stands there purely without objectivity, subjectively; but the thing which stands opposite him has now become the true community [Gemeinwesen], [5] which he tries to make a meal of, and which makes a meal of him."

The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labor becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to him, and that it becomes a power on its own confronting him. It means that the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien.

In creating a world of objects by his personal activity, in his work upon inorganic nature, man proves himself a conscious species-being, i.e., as a being that treats the species as his own essential being, or that treats itself as a species-being. Admittedly animals also produce. They build themselves nests, dwellings, like the bees, beavers, ants, etc. But an animal only produces what it immediately needs for itself or its young. It produces one-sidedly, whilst man produces universally. It produces only under the dominion of immediate physical need, whilst man produces even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom. An animal produces only itself, whilst man reproduces the whole of nature. An animal’s product belongs immediately to its physical body, whilst man freely confronts his product. An animal forms only in accordance with the standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how to produce in accordance with the standard of every species, and knows how to apply everywhere the inherent standard to the object. Man therefore also forms objects in accordance with the laws of beauty.

It is just in his work upon the objective world, therefore, that man really proves himself to be a species-being. This production is his active species-life. Through this production, nature appears as his work and his reality. The object of labor is, therefore, the objectification of man’s species-life: for he duplicates himself not only, as in consciousness, intellectually, but also actively, in reality, and therefore he sees himself in a world that he has created. In tearing away from man the object of his production, therefore, estranged labor tears from him his species-life, his real objectivity as a member of the species and transforms his advantage over animals into the disadvantage that his inorganic body, nature, is taken from him.

Similarly, in degrading spontaneous, free activity to a means, estranged labor makes man’s species-life a means to his physical existence.

The consciousness which man has of his species is thus transformed by estrangement in such a way that species[-life] becomes for him a means.

Estranged labor turns thus:

(3) Man’s species-being, both nature and his spiritual species-property, into a being alien to him, into a means of his individual existence. It estranges from man his own body, as well as external nature and his spiritual aspect, his human aspect.

(4) An immediate consequence of the fact that man is estranged from the product of his labor, from his life activity, from his species-being, is the estrangement of man from man. When man confronts himself, he confronts the other man. What applies to a man’s relation to his work, to the product of his labor and to himself, also holds of a man’s relation to the other man, and to the other man’s labor and object of labor.

In fact, the proposition that man’s species-nature is estranged from him means that one man is estranged from the other, as each of them is from man’s essential nature.

The estrangement of man, and in fact every relationship in which man [stands] to himself, is realized and expressed only in the relationship in which a man stands to other men.

Hence within the relationship of estranged labor each man views the other in accordance with the standard and the relationship in which he finds himself as a worker.

||XXV| We took our departure from a fact of political economy – the estrangement of the worker and his production. We have formulated this fact in conceptual terms as estranged, alienated labor. We have analyzed this concept – hence analyzing merely a fact of political economy.

Let us now see, further, how the concept of estranged, alienated labor must express and present itself in real life.

If the product of labor is alien to me, if it confronts me as an alien power, to whom, then, does it belong?

To a being other than myself.

Who is this being?

The gods? To be sure, in the earliest times the principal production (for example, the building of temples, etc., in Egypt, India and Mexico) appears to be in the service of the gods, and the product belongs to the gods. However, the gods on their own were never the lords of labor. No more was nature. And what a contradiction it would be if, the more man subjugated nature by his labor and the more the miracles of the gods were rendered superfluous by the miracles of industry, the more man were to renounce the joy of production and the enjoyment of the product to please these powers.

The alien being, to whom labor and the product of labor belongs, in whose service labor is done and for whose benefit the product of labor is provided, can only be man himself.

If the product of labor does not belong to the worker, if it confronts him as an alien power, then this can only be because it belongs to some other man than the worker. If the worker’s activity is a torment to him, to another it must give satisfaction and pleasure. Not the gods, not nature, but only man himself can be this alien power over man.

We must bear in mind the previous proposition that man’s relation to himself becomes for him objective and actual through his relation to the other man. Thus, if the product of his labor, his labor objectified, is for him an alien, hostile, powerful object independent of him, then his position towards it is such that someone else is master of this object, someone who is alien, hostile, powerful, and independent of him. If he treats his own activity as an unfree activity, then he treats it as an activity performed in the service, under the dominion, the coercion, and the yoke of another man.

Every self-estrangement of man, from himself and from nature, appears in the relation in which he places himself and nature to men other than and differentiated from himself. For this reason religious self-estrangement necessarily appears in the relationship of the layman to the priest, or again to a mediator, etc., since we are here dealing with the intellectual world. In the real practical world self-estrangement can only become manifest through the real practical relationship to other men. The medium through which estrangement takes place is itself practical. Thus through estranged labor man not only creates his relationship to the object and to the act of production as to powers [in the manuscript Menschen (men) instead of Mächte (powers). – Ed.] that are alien and hostile to him; he also creates the relationship in which other men stand to his production and to his product, and the relationship in which he stands to these other men. Just as he creates his own production as the loss of his reality, as his punishment; his own product as a loss, as a product not belonging to him; so he creates the domination of the person who does not produce over production and over the product. Just as he estranges his own activity from himself, so he confers upon the stranger an activity which is not his own.

We have until now considered this relationship only from the standpoint of the worker and later on we shall be considering it also from the standpoint of the non-worker.

Through estranged, alienated labor, then, the worker produces the relationship to this labor of a man alien to labor and standing outside it. The relationship of the worker to labor creates the relation to it of the capitalist (or whatever one chooses to call the master of labor). Private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labor, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself.

Private property thus results by analysis from the concept of alienated labor, i.e., of alienated man, of estranged labor, of estranged life, of estranged man.

True, it is as a result of the movement of private property that we have obtained the concept of alienated labor (of alienated life) in political economy. But on analysis of this concept it becomes clear that though private property appears to be the reason, the cause of alienated labor, it is rather its consequence, just as the gods are originally not the cause but the effect of man’s intellectual confusion. Later this relationship becomes reciprocal.

Only at the culmination of the development of private property does this, its secret, appear again, namely, that on the one hand it is the product of alienated labor, and that on the other it is the means by which labor alienates itself, the realization of this alienation.

This exposition immediately sheds light on various hitherto unsolved conflicts.

@ZzzoneiroCosm is there ANYTHING from those sources you have to discuss then?

Well, I'll just dialogue with myself then.. I find this passage interesting from SEP article on Karl Marx:

Marx holds that work has the potential to be something creative and fulfilling. He consequently rejects the view of work as a necessary evil, denying that the negative character of work is part of our fate, a universal fact about the human condition that no amount of social change could remedy. Indeed, productive activity, on Marx’s account, is a central element in what it is to be a human being, and self-realisation through work is a vital component of human flourishing. That he thinks that work—in a different form of society—could be creative and fulfilling, perhaps explains the intensity and scale of Marx’s condemnation of contemporary economic arrangements and their transformation of workers into deformed and “dehumanised” beings (MECW 3: 284).

It was suggested above that alienation consists of dysfunctional separations—separations between entities that properly belong together—and that theories of alienation typically presuppose some baseline condition whose frustration or violation by the relevant separation identifies the latter as dysfunctional. For Marx, that baseline seems to be provided by an account of human flourishing, which he conceptualises in terms of self-realisation (understood here as the development and deployment of our essential human capacities). Labour in capitalism, we can say, is alienated because it embodies separations preventing the self-realisation of producers; because it is organised in a way that frustrates the human need for free, conscious, and creative work.

So understood, and returning to the four separations said to characterise alienated labour, we can see that it is the implicit claim about human nature (the fourth separation) which identifies the other three separations as dysfunctional. If one subscribed to the same formal model of alienation and self-realisation, but held a different account of the substance of human nature, very different claims about work in capitalist society might result. Imagine a theorist who held that human beings were solitary, egoistic creatures, by nature. That theorist could accept that work in capitalist society encouraged isolation and selfishness, but deny that such results were alienating, because those results would not frustrate their baseline account of what it is to be a human being (indeed, they would rather facilitate those characteristics). — Karl Marx SEP

And that is basically what I am positing.. What if there is no ending problems related to alienation? That the root of the problems aren't even the problems? That is to say, that some people will just always not like certain forms of work that are deemed "necessary" for the running and maintaining of a certain kind of society? His view seems to be very positive about how people will just "do what they have to" because it is basically "natural". I'm not so sure that "species-essence" is so fixed.

Right, so any worker happy with their work is unalienated? — schopenhauer1

Alienation is a feeling of isolation, so if you don't feel it, you don't have it, and even if you did, but were happy about it, it's nothing to worry about.

The better rhetorical question to ask is whether you should address the unrecognized alienation experienced by the contented people.

True, the worker might feel isolated, true. But workers may well have close companionship in their isolation. Marx's description is abstract; millions-- hell, billions of people are, by Marx's definition alienated and it doesn't feel good. The alienated worker is insecure (he can be abruptly laid off. His workplace can be closed, at great cause to himself and his community. Life may not be the same again, quite literally. A worker's identity as a this sort of worker in such and such a trade may be suddenly stripped away.

The conditions of work, particularly intrusive monitoring, control, pressure to perform at a high rate, is part of the experience.

Karl Marx's theory of alienation describes the estrangement (German: Entfremdung) of people from aspects of their human nature (Gattungswesen, 'species-essence') as a consequence of living in a society of stratified social classes. The alienation from the self is a consequence of being a mechanistic part of a social class, the condition of which estranges a person from their humanity.[1]

The theoretical basis of alienation is that the worker invariably loses the ability

- to determine life and destiny when deprived of the right to think (conceive) of themselves as the director of their own actions;
- to determine the character of said actions;
- to define relationships with other people; and
- to own those items of value from goods and services, produced by their own labour.

Although the worker is an autonomous, self-realized human being, as an economic entity this worker is directed to goals and diverted to activities that are dictated by the bourgeoisie—who own the means of production—in order to extract from the worker the maximum amount of surplus value in the course of business competition among industrialists.

per Wikipedia

The theoretical basis of alienation is that the worker invariably loses the ability

- to determine life and destiny when deprived of the right to think (conceive) of themselves as the director of their own actions;
- to determine the character of said actions;
- to define relationships with other people; and
- to own those items of value from goods and services, produced by their own labour. — BitterCrank

What constitutes the alienation of labor?...the worker does not fulfill himself in his work but denies himself, has a feeling of misery rather than well-being, does not develop freely his mental and physical energies but is physically exhausted and mentally debased. The worker therefore feels himself at home only during his leisure time, whereas at work he feels homeless.”

“...communism is already aware of being the reintegration of man, his return to himself, the supersession of man’s self-alienation.”

“Private property has made us so stupid and partial that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for us as capital or when it is directly eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, etc., in short, utilized in some way...Thus all the physical and intellectual senses have been replaced by the simple alienation of all these senses; the sense of having.”

“Communism is the positive abolition of private property, of human self-alienation, and thus the real appropriation of human nature through and for man. It is, therefore, the return of man himself as a social, i.e., really human, being, a complete and conscious return which assimilates all the wealth of previous development.” — Marx

Stirring words!

"Stirring" is here an adjective, not a verb. Good philosophers, of course, are never caught merely "stirring words".

Right, so any worker happy with their work is unalienated? — schopenhauer1

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

The subjective nature of happiness doesn't allow us to use it as a reliable metric of (true) well-being. Nevertheless, given the principle of uniformity of nature, sensu amplo, a happiness index approximates alienation among workers.

So, I would recommend :smile: and :sad: as only a rough guide to worker well-being. The truth may need to be calculated from info on income, working hours, price of commodities and basic amenities, and so on, oui?