Marx’s Understanding of the Concept of Alienation and the Idea of an Immanent Criticism Essay

The concept of alienation

According to Marx, alienation refers to the separation of things that naturally belong together, or to put antagonism in things that are perfectly in harmony^[1]. Thus, alienation eventually brings about capitalism which in turn forces people to depend on work more and more each day in order to survive.

This shows that before capitalism was introduced, people could depend on nature for survival. People did not have to work for wages in order to survive, but they had enough supplies to survive on. Contrary, nowadays, one has to work so as to get paid and then use the money received from his work to buy the commodities he so needs to survive. In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 page 74-77, Marx identifies four types of alienation in labour under capitalism:

1. Alienation from the work: this is when the worker is separated from the goods he produce. The way the finished product is modeled and the process it goes through before it is finished is decided not by the person who works on it but by the capitalist class. Apart from the laborer not having any power over the motif and manufacture of the good, this type of separation also passes on to the change of the value of the good into a substitute value. In simpler terms, this type of separation subjects the worker to the extent of his expertise in producing goods that at the end have to satisfactorily serve the customer making the workers survival dependent on the customer’s ability to purchase the said product. This type of alienation also ensures that the worker gets minimal returns for his hard work as exploitative middle men enjoy the profits from the product by themselves.
2. Alienation of the worker from working: this type of alienation separates the worker from the action of producing the said good. This kind of alienation subjects the work process to the capitalist mode of production whereby the laborers hard work is equified to a system of wages that are minimal and no incentives to encourage the laborers hence no work satisfaction. According to Marx one class is being rewarded while it upholds domination over the topic of its labor by the capability to decide how it shall be made use of precisely or swapped for something else. Capitalism eliminates the privileges of the worker to implement jurisdiction over the worth or results of his labour, denying him of the capacity to either make use of the product he makes directlty or get complete price of the product when it is sold. The first kind of alienation is a factor to the second kind of alienation as it eliminates the laborers feeling of possession and the end price of the finished product. This lack of being in charge interrupts the skill of the laborer to concentrate therefore isolating all the actions he does;
3. Alienation of the worker: this kind of alienation separates the worker from himself as being the manufacturer. According to Marx, man has the predisposition and longing to fit in place numerous actions to improve their communal endurance, reassurance and feeling of togetherness. The worth of man lies in his capabilities to envisage the consequences of his actions as reasonable thoughts are unique at every known pace of knowing them: man is able to tell the difference between the ideas he has (the subject), and products of his ideas (the object). When a laborer is denied of this chance then his work though is satisfactory and up to the market standard, it not fulfilling to him and he feels cheated buy the system of wages put in place by the capitalist society. A laborer is then subjected to following the will of other people and not his own as he has to make money so as to survive;
4. Alienation of the worker from other workers: the idea of capitalism has reduced labour to profitable service to be bought and sold on the market, while it is quite a shared association amid people who are engaged in an everyday struggle for continued existence or improvement for their lives. The ever competitive labour market is a set of connections in the industrial capitalist economies to maximize the profits in from of capital from the people who run their own businesses and who manage the means of production of goods. This brings forth the unhealthy competition between worker and worker as each wants to outshine the other hence conflict an effect termed as false consciousness by Marx with in turn causes the relations of production.

In reference to the German Ideology, Marx (1844, 82) states that “things have now come to such a pass that the individuals must appropriate the existing totality of productive forces, not only to achieve self-activity, but, also, merely to safeguard their very existence”. In essence this means that capitalism is a system that seems to make and keep the rich richer while the poor continue getting poorer, forcing them to work so as to survive.

Each individual should find a way of getting a livelihood that will sustain him or her and ensure of his or her survival in this capitalist world. It also means that in this current universe, if one does not work or have a steady income of wages then his or her own survival is threatened and it might as well be eliminated.

Immanent critique

Immanent critique is an approach from a social point of view that seeks to evaluate cultural ways by finding criticisms in the regulations and organizations needed for the creations of those views. This technique aims to put into perspective not only the entity of its study but also the thought where the entity came from; both the entity and its thoughts are therefore revealed as outcomes of a historical progression.

In reference to Marx, Antonio, writes; “setting out from idealism…. I hit upon the idea in the real itself. If formerly the gods had dwelt above the world, they now had become its centre’ Marx finished by saying immanent critique was necessary in the world as it brought about radical changes that were desperately needed and called for. This immanent critique then became the axis of his emancipator critique of capitalism^[2].

Marx was opposed to the idea of individuals owning private property and working for themselves. He wanted individuals to work of the betterment of the whole society and not only one person. He wanted a communal society that would overthrow the selfishness and greed of man that made him want to privatize property for his own personal gain.

Sayers argues that a social theory that Marx develops cannot give results that are from a decisive view point. The accessible social order is not straightforward and stationary; rather it is filled with nervousness and disagreements, which include both pessimistic and optimistic features and energy that hold it up and maintain it. Disagreements give rise to radical changes in the society some may be good changes while others may be bad point is, disagreements bring about change.

According to Marx, the feudal society was taken over by capitalism which then gives way to socialism. This provides the structure in by which Marx disapproves of capitalism and envisions socialism, his condemnation of capitalism is not definite as he bases it on principles which are historical and reasonable.

The disapproval of capitalism is reasonable to the dispute conditions which come before it, it comprises of an advance radical historical progress. With the settings for socialism gaining roots and becoming more common among people, capitalism continues to become an obstacle to more development.

In this light, capitalism can be condemned on the fact that it creates different classes of people who separate themselves in terms of wealth.

Capitalism creates wealth classes which is not the best thing to do as hatred and jealousy emanate from such classes. Communism on the other hand does not have such classes of wealth as all men are equal wealth wise and they all work towards a communal goal, the truth therefore has to fine-tune itself to communism. Therefore communism can be termed as the actual movement which brings to an end the present condition of things.^[3]

Sayers states that both Hegel and Marx by default know that human nature is communally and traditionally created, while economic development guides to the improvement of additional requirements.

Their requirements and their fulfillments are therefore made up of chronological and reasonable substance, the average development they supply is more likely to be relative and historical. In the same way capitalism is evaluated by the extent to which it fulfills or fails to fulfill the needs of individuals, these are the desires that capitalism has brought forth single handedly.

According to Rousseau, the growth of needs is a purely negative phenomenon^[4]: the more our desires the more we get tied down to them and become prisoners of our needs. Hegel and Marx look at this from a dissimilar point of view and they take into account that the increase of human desires is an inevitable vital part of human nature on a universal point of view.

In turn Hegel disputes that straight forward and prehistoric life is conflicting with indisputable human satisfaction, while on the other hand it is animal nature and simply an ordinary state. This means that one cannot live a simple life because every day brings forth new needs and desires to be satisfied and therefore he has to work hard to enable him to take care of his needs satisfactorily.

Concept of alienation and the idea of immanent criticism

According to Marx, the concept of alienation brought forth capitalism which resulted in people having to work for minimum wages so as to satisfy their needs and wants. This concept of alienation then brought forth the idea of immanent criticism whereby Marx and Hegel disputed the idea of capitalism where individuals would privatize property for their own gain and make maximum profits form having other individuals work at minimum wages.

They also disputed the idea of capitalism as it brought about social classes and differences among people there were the royalty or elite then the common man who had to work for his mere survival. Marx argued that capitalism would provide social tensions that would eventually lead to its own destruction^[5] giving way to socialism leading to a stateless, classless society which would be termed as pure communism.^[6]

In a way Marx succeeded in his quest of bringing forth a stateless, classless society where all men worked for the good of the community and not for the good of the community. Some states in the world today are referred to as communist or socialist states as they adopted this view of Marx that men should look out for his fellow man and work towards the betterment of both of them, although this has severally failed, for instance in the Cold War wave.

On the other hand, Marx did not succeed as majority of the people seemed to want to acquire individual properties where they could make maximum profits while contributing little effort as possible. These people and states are referred to as capitalist states and their main aim is to make profits so as to fulfill their needs fully. Both the capitalist and communist or socialist states coexist peacefully with each other as they are interdependent on each other for their survival.^[7]

In conclusion, the concept of alienation and the immanent critique are connected as one gave rise to the other bringing about numerous fundamental changes in the world over. Both these two different concepts have a meeting point whereby they both agree that mans needs are recurring and need to be fulfilled as they occur so as to ensure ones survival.

Capitalism brought about business minded individuals who then brought about different society classes determined by how much wealth one has to his name. At the same time, communism brought forth equality of all man and the working towards common good and fulfillment. ^[8]

Both aspects are based on similar assumptions which in turn contradict each other and at the same time find common ground with each other. The ideas of communism and capitalism has been universally accepted and at times they are used together so as to bring forth good results and achievements not only for the individuals themselves but also for the society at large.

From the paper above immanent critique is not looked as a way of condemning capitalism but as a way of expanding, broadening it and developing it so as it can fulfill the human needs fully, effectively and efficiently.

Bibliography

Anon., 1981. “Immanent Critique as the core of critical theory”. British Journal of Sociology Vol. 32, No.3 pp. 333.

Baird, E. and Walter K. 2008. From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Marx, K. 1975. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, in Early Writings. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Marx, K. 1965. The German Ideology. New York: International publishers

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1975). The German Ideology, Collected Works, Vol. 5. Moscow: Progress, 49-90.

Rousseau, A. 1994. Needs in the Philosophy of History. New York: Oxford University.

Sayers, S. 2003. Progress and Social Criticism University of Kent: New York: Sage.

Footnotes

1. K, Marx, 1965. The German Ideology. New York: International publishers, 74-78.
2. Anon., 1981. Immanent Critique as the core of critical theory. British Journal of Sociology Vol. 32, No.3 pp. 333.
3. K. Marx and F. Engels, 1975. The German Ideology, Collected Works, Vol.5. Moscow: Progress, pp.49.
4. A. Rousseau, 1994. Needs in the Philosophy of History. New York: Oxford University, 71.
5. E. Baird and K. Walter, 2008. From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 132.
6. S. Sayers, 2003. Progress and Social Criticism. University of Kent: New York: Sage, 56.
7. K.Marx 1965. The German Ideology. New York: International publishers, p. 98.
8. K. Marx, and F. Engels, 1975. The German Ideology, Collected Works, Vol.5, Moscow: Progress, 49- 55.