thanks for this. It was illuminating. This material on alienation doesn't just show up in the GRUNDRISSE. It's also in CAPITAL, vol. I. Sometimes, it's almost word for word.
------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 9:17 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L] Equality of Wages etc. > > > Sorry if this is a duplication my mail server went down and I > am not sure if > it went through. The passage I was thinking of talks of > equality of wages > not of wealth. > > Here are the relevant passages from the Manuscripts.. > > It, therefore, follows for us that wages and private property > are identical: > for there the product,the object of labor, pays for the labor > itself, wages > are only a necessary consequence of the estrangement of > labor; similarly, > where wages are concerned, labor appears not as an end in > itself but as the > servant of wages. We intend to deal with this point in more > detail later on: > for the present we shall merely draw a few conclusions. > > An enforced rise in wages (disregarding all other > difficulties, including > the fact that such an anomalous situation could only be > prolonged by force) > would therefore be nothing more than better pay for slaves > and would not > mean an increase in human significance or dignity for either > the worker or > the labor. > > Even the equality of wages,which Proudhon demands, would > merely transform > the relation of the present-day worker to his work into the > relation of all > men to work. Society would then be conceived as an abstract > capitalist. > > Wages are an immediate consequence of estranged labor, and > estranged labor > is the immediate cause of private property. If the one falls, > then the other > must fall too. > > http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1844-EPM/1st.htm#s1 > > The passages are some of the conclusions of a section that deals with > Estranged Labor. It has nothing to do with commercialism but with the > relationship of labor to capitalist and the products of labor in the > capitalist mode of production.. Here are some relevant passages: > > The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his > production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes > an ever cheaper > commodity the more commodities he produces. The devaluation > of the human > world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of > the world of > things. Labor not only produces commodities; it also produces > itself and the > workers as a commodity and it does so in the same proportion > in which it > produces commodities in general. > > This fact simply means that the object that labor produces, > it product, > stands opposed to it as something alien, as a power independent of the > producer. The product of labor is labor embodied and made > material in an > object, it is the objectification of labor. The realization > of labor is its > objectification. In the sphere of political economy, this > realization of > labor appears as a loss of reality for the worker, > objectification as loss > of and bondage to the object, and appropriation as estrangement, as > alienation [Entausserung]. > > So much does the realization of labor appear as loss of > reality that the > worker loses his reality to the point of dying of starvation. > So much does > objectification appear as loss of the object that the worker > is robbed of > the objects he needs most not only for life but also for > work. Work itself > becomes an object which he can only obtain through an > enormous effort and > with spasmodic interruptions. So much does the appropriation > of the object > appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker > produces the fewer > can he possess and the more he falls under the domination of > his product, of > capital. > > All these consequences are contained in this characteristic, that the > workers is related to the product of labor as to an alien > object. For it is > clear that, according to this premise, the more the worker > exerts himself in > his work, the more powerful the alien, objective world > becomes which he > brings into being over against himself, the poorer he and his > inner world > become, and the less they belong to him. It is the same in > religion. The > more man puts into God, the less he retains within himself. The worker > places his life in the object; but now it no longer belongs > to him, but to > the object. The greater his activity, therefore, the fewer objects the > worker possesses. What the product of his labor is, he is > not. Therefore, > the greater this product, the less is he himself. The externalization > [Entausserung] 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 of him and alien to him, and beings to confront > him as an > autonomous power; that the life which he has bestowed on the object > confronts him as hostile and alien > > Comment: > So the critique is not of commercialism or of markets but of > capitalist > relations of production. No form of capitalism even one with > equality of > wages overcomes the basic forms of alienation of the system > of wage slavery. > Some commentators think that Marx abandoned this concept of > alienation in > later works because it is not particularly mentioned as such > but this is not > true. Similar passages and concepts occur in the Grundrisse. The usual > criticisim of the Manuscripts is that it involves idealist > concepts that he > later jettisoned in his "mature" works But the Grundrisse > shows that is > incorrect. > > Cheers, Ken Hanly > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 11:25 AM > Subject: Re: Profit making under capitalism > > > Ken writes: >I recall somewhere in the Economic and Philosophical > Manuscripts that Marx > claimed that equality of wealth under capitalism although not > possible would > not change the essential nature of the system even if it > could occur. < > > if I remember correctly, the EPM is part of Marx's anti-commercial, > anti-market, phase. (So that there can be a "capitalism" with > egalitarian > distribution, otherwise known as simple commodity > production.) Later, he > shifted to anti-capitalism, with anti-commercialism being > part of that. Even > so, CAPITAL wasn't a critique of markets as much as one of capitalism. >
