Explain Marx’s theory of ‘alienation’.
Student ID: 1610778
Module tutor: Jethro Butler
Word Count: 1400 words
, It is hard to universally agree on a particular definition of the term ‘alienation’. Ollman
(1977) however, provides that the Latin origin of the term ‘alienation’ derives from the very
‘alienare’, which is “to make something another, to take away or remove” (p. 5). Yuill
(2005) and Brudney (2001) correctly argue that the specific economic context in which Karl
Marx is writing is key to understanding and contextualizing his particular interpretations of
the term. In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscript of 1844, Karl Marx specifically
associates alienation with an economic system solely reliant on private property. Marx
writes: “Alienation arises when the object which labour produces - labor’s product –
confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer” (Vogel, 1988). In
order to comprehensively explain Marx’s theory of alienation, this paper firstly aims at
providing a detailed account on Marx’s interpretation of the idea of alienation within a
Capitalist discourse. Secondly, while Marx identifies four forms of alienation: alienation
from the product, the labour process, our fellow human beings, and our human nature. This
paper will aim to specifically examine Marx elaboration on the worker’s alienation from his
product and the labour process, respectively. Reference to Marx’s section on ‘Estranged
Labour’ in his 1844 Manuscripts will be used throughout to enhance each part’s
understanding and comprehension.
Marx on alienation and Capitalism:
Walliman (1984) correctly argues that in order to understand Marx’s theory of
alienation, one should not overlook his specific understanding of why man is alien, i.e. an
understanding of human nature. To Marx, regardless of their personal interest and
preference, individuals are bound to enter into relationships with one another, and it is
from this premise that Marx argues “society does not consist of individuals; it expresses the
sum of connections and relationships in which individuals find themselves” (Cox, 1998). Put
more precisely, Marx provides that “the individual is the social being” (ibid). Sayers (2011)
agrees with Cox (1998) in that the existent divide in individuals’ interests and those of
society’s is a result of the emergence of a class division; where a particular class has control
over producing and providing what the rest of society needs, and thus; further dividing
individuals and the society to which they ‘belong’.
It is this class division that explains the situation where the bourgeoisie opted for a
society where goods and services are bought and sold under a monetary value (Cox, 1998
and Ollman, 1977). In writing ‘The London Hanged’, Linebaugh (2006) elaborates more
particularly on the changes that took place regarding the workers’ relationship with their
products in the 18th and 19th century, respectively. Early in the 18th century, workers were
convinced that they were ultimately the owners of what they produced. During that period,
workers were not explicitly paid in money. Linebaugh provides that this was true of the
“American slave labour, Irish agricultural labour, and the metropolitan labour in London
trades”. However, in the late 18th century and the period commencing the beginning of the
19th century, wage labour has become a dominant form of payment, in fact, it has replaced
the pre-existing different forms of payment. Sayers (2011), Vogel (1988), and Walliman
(1984), agree that, similarly to Linebaugh, it is from this premise that Capitalists and workers
are no longer independent of each other. The process of production now takes place in
factories, where discipline is in order, and where people’s relationship with machines has
taken a significant alteration. Therefore, as argued in their respective literature, this has
