Daily Archives

4 Articles

Uncategorized

What does Marx mean by “alienation”? How do workers become “alienated” and what are they alienated from?

Posted by GLADYS DUMAN (She/her) on

Karl Marx, a German philosopher was best known for being a critic of political economy and socialist revolutionary during the 19th century. In that period, he was very analytical about the era of the industrial capitalist economy which in turn he had the vision that the nature of consciousness under capitalism brought the origin and impact of alienation to workers. To Marx, capitalist economies stimulated avarice and war amongst the greedy where competition was capital growth but in a few hands, unequal distribution of income. It created the world market which brought negative ideologies, misery, high social costs, and new social classes as well as private property, and propertyless workers where exploiters and the exploited came into being. Also, under capitalism, industrialists had more political power and used the private property to make profits from the exploited working class, making them just a means of gain. Marx emphasizes, “Relationships between workers and owners… are mediated through the things produced” (564).

From economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx developed the idea of “alienation of labour” which can be analyzed from different points of view where his ideas are that each worker acted as an instrument exploited and impoverished. What Marx meant by the word, “alienation”, is that the factory labour was separated and excluded from the product of their own labor, something like ceasing control which no longer belongs to them because it becomes an alien object. Marx says, “alienates” individuals from the work that they do; unable to control their own labor, which they must “give” (sell) to another, they lack control and knowledge of themselves and never achieve their full human potential (653).

Marx believes that capitalist labor dehumanizes people because capitalism breaks social bonds between members of the society, alienates workers from their own activities, and even alienates them from their own products they produce since “the laborer makes a wage and not a product.” According to Marx, the dehumanization occurs because workers are not compensated for their value of being human but rather by the wages imposed by employers converting employees into commodities. Marx believes this because the value of products is not dictated by the laborers but rather by the market which most of the time benefits the owners instead of the workers.

Marx argues that the main reason for the alienation is the fact that each worker is just a part of a complex system necessary for the production of goods and services and that workers do not own the means necessary to produce but rather they are only given access to the means necessary for production. Additionally, the conditions of production are not established by the workers themselves but by their employers. In essence, the few have the power over the many.

Marx’s view is that alienated labor will only cause “the perpetuation of the concept of private property.” Under this belief, Marx only solution is the complete overhaul of the entire economic system as we know it today by eliminating capitalism and private property.

Uncategorized

Blog Post 3 – The German Ideology

Posted by Gledis Spada (He/Him) on

Reading “The German Ideology” by Marx and Engels takes you on a different perspective of the idea of ideology. It lays out many foundational ideas of their theory of historical materialism. Marx and Engels used the term ideology to refer to the system of beliefs and ideas that are used to justify and maintain the existing social, economic, and political order. They argued that ideology is not a neutral or objective reflection of reality, but rather a distorted view of reality that serves the interests of the ruling class.

Marx compares ideology to a camera obscura, an early device used to project images onto a screen. He argued that just as a camera obscura distorts the images it projects, ideology distorts our understanding of reality. According to Marx, ideology presents a distorted view of social reality that hides the true nature of power relations and class conflict. Marx and Engels also argued that ideology is shaped by the material conditions of society and is used by the ruling class to maintain their power and privilege. They noted that different social groups have different perspectives on the world, depending on their position within the social hierarchy. The ruling class, for example, sees the world from the perspective of their own interests, while the working class sees the world from the perspective of their own exploitation.

Once we understand how ideology works, we can critique cultural products and practices for their underlying ideological assumptions and values. Our job as critics of culture is to analyze and question the dominant cultural narratives that shape our understanding of the world. We must examine how cultural products and practices. We must be willing to listen to and engage with diverse voices and perspectives, recognizing that different social groups may have different experiences of and responses to cultural products. By exposing the way ideology works in cultural production, we can challenge and help change the power relations in our society.

The German Ideology lays out many of the foundational ideas of Marxist theory, including the concept of ideology, the importance of material conditions in shaping ideology and social relations, and the centrality of class conflict in historical development. These ideas continue to influence social and political thought to this day, and remain an important contribution to the study of ideology and power.

Uncategorized

The German Ideology

Posted by Joshua Rubin on

Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx are prominently well-known 19th Century European Philosophers who pieced together the Communist Manifesto. Through “The German Ideology,” Marx and Engels continue their collective view on the wrongful integration of capitalism that bears a revolution due to its lack of correspondence to the history of society. Unfortunately, human consciousness is formed based on encountered reality and an unjust societal structure has ensured the burial of the worker.  To reverse this wrongdoing, both articulate indirectly that communism proliferates the bottom-mentioned benefits as follows; creating a classless society, promotion of equality, efficient distribution of resources, each citizen can keep employment and zero competition.

As demonstrated by (Marx & Engels, 659), “The production of ideas, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. The above-mentioned conveying of speech left my aura in pensive thought. From birth, a child unconsciously absorbs great stimuli that will influence language, disposition, social and cultural practices, and overall ideology. The information encountered, is organized into our society, potentially creating a harmful class system amongst the citizenry. In particular, if a similar stimulus and linguistics approach are orchestrated, similar behavior will follow suit and trickle down based on a conceptualized reality.

As the passage gains traction, they go on to add greater context to the essence of their argument. Contained (Marx & Engels, 660),” Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence.” In essence, history is curtailed and conformed to the history of the stimulus of present-day individuals. (Marx & Engels, 660), “Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.” Awareness and thought process has catalyzed our way of life and means of production. In addition, entailing mechanisms of religious and faith ideals that proliferate much weight, but don’t seize to represent the oppressed or less fortunate. From the viewpoint of Marx and Engels, society should take on a secular way of life and eliminate the capitalistic approach that involves the church. Thoughts born by religious ideologies bring true misery to the working class and have enunciated awareness of difficulties to meet the challenges for a societal aggregate.

Finally, in the latter half of their work, they add their Communist viewpoints from their Manifesto that offer connectivity and possible reform to the failings of current methods. (Marx & Engels, 661), “It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies.” Each communist should spread awareness of their ideologies and beliefs, and come to a consensus that appeals to the working class, so all the necessities, hopes, and dreams are guarded and protected. This revolution can curtail the consciousness on an upbeat track for present and future generations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uncategorized

Gramsci in the news!

Posted by Jeff Allred (he/him/his) on

Well, whaddya know: Antonio Gramsci made the news this week. The Chronicle of Higher Education is the premier “trade journal” of academica, where academics and university workers read about current goings-on. Here, the cultural studies critics Bruce Robbins is rehearsing an argument with the literary critic John Guillory, whose recent book Professing Criticism has spawned a vigorous debate on the role of politics in humanities teaching and writing in higher ed.

As you can see, Robbins invokes Gramsci’s distinction between “organic” and “traditional” intellectuals in order to clarify his objections to Guillory’s argument about the need for scholar/professors to work in a “self-authorizing” and autonomous way, rather than align themselves with political institutions and arguments (e.g., supporting Democratic Socialists of America or righting against the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe). Robbins believes that, although academics have generally been “traditional” intellectuals in Gramsci’s sense, aligned with a “neutral” institution (academia) that serves something “higher” than the partisan pursuits of capitalist accumulation and party politics, since the 60s, many academics have been plausibly “organic” to fundamental social groups.

We’ll talk more about these categories tomorrow, but I thought it was cool to find an unfolding argument in the ether that’s so perfectly targeted to our reading!

Skip to toolbar