Looking at the term “Alienation” from work in the passages of Karl Marx and Andrew Ross what does this term mean to them and how does it apply to the workers in their respected eras? How does this term evolve or change from Marx’s time to the more present time of Ross?

Marx’s alienation was about people receiving wages for labor hours.The hours of labor in production gets the worker money, which alienates the worker from what they have made.”In conditions dealt with by political economy this realization of labour appears as loss of reality for the workers; objectification as loss of the object and object-bondage; appropriation as estrangement as alienation”(653) Marx is talking about how we lose a sense of what we are making when we do not make the entire object. For example in the assembly line each worker has their own specific part of the construction of the object, and they are masters at that one task in the larger project. This causes the worker to feel far removed from the overall production of the object. It also points out that this labor that is put into making this object can not afford you the object. The worker in this industrialized world makes a fraction in labor of what they are producing. Both of these factors cause the worker to feel alienated from their work.

For Ross the term alienation for workers in the technology industries is non existent. “In return for the opportunity to purse personally gratifying work, the liberated individuals takes over, from state institutions or company organizations, all responsibility for his or her economic survival and welfare.(2584) Ross is saying that the new model of workers are thought of as artists in the work are not alienated. This meaning they are more free to handle their work by self managing themselves with little supervision. The work place became not something that was seeking to increase production but to bring a sense of ownership back to the worker. The worker is now more responsible for helping their company because they are in control of their work. The investment that the individual puts into their work will decide if the company will be successful or will fail causing them to be in control of their financial income.

The term alienation changes from the Marx’s perspective of the workers being alienated from the objects they make, how they make them and ownership of their labor; to Ross’s perspective of the worker not being alienated from their work because they have a much greater connection to it.  The assembly line in this post industrialized era does not work in relation to the internet industries. Therefore the work is more “gratifying” because the individual chooses it and they do not need a supervisor or anyone else help in the completion of their work. “The creative entrepreneur is no longer alienated; there are no structures to be alienated from.”(2584) The industrial structure of Marx’s time no longer restricts the technology industries because there are no set rules to follow. Since we are producing meaningful work without the structure that alienated the worker before it allows us to reclaim ourselves as individuals. This means the safety net has been taken away. There is no job security therefore you are solely responsible for maintaining and finding new work. All the great benefits that people get from alienated work such as 401k health care and so on is not available to the newly liberated individuals working in this unalienated jobs.

Drawing from ideas of different arguments, what would be the best solution to “Alienation” in mass production? First describe what it is according to Marx and be able to use examples.

According to Marx’s theory on political economy, workers become a “powerless commodity” and are then alienated by the laws of production, lead by the ruling class. He, the worker, gets no say as to what goes into the product or how it is made, and is instructed in detail on what to do with the parts provided. He becomes less a part of the product by industrialization because he is not allowed creativity, and so becomes the mode of production itself. This opens up to his argument that political economists have created alienation to the worker in three forms: process, wages, and accessibility by the mode of mass production. The consumer, I argue is also alienated then, by his concept of the “queer commodity” in which the consumer knows nothing of the labor by focusing on the “use” and “exchange” values and neglecting the “real” labor values. So, as the consumers disconnected from labors of the product, the workers of labor are conversely disconnected to the product itself. The propertyless worker is unacknowledged and his labor is demanded unfairly. When the worker feels closer to the product, alienation is less persistent.

In occupations today, access to products has become a little easier to the new type of worker because materialism is popular, especially among young workers. For a lot of these materialistic products of brands, showing it off means having it all. People of the middle and lower class have also accustomed to this type of materialistic attitude by the desire to consume the newest and latest, speaking from personal experience. Companies, who are well aware of this trend, have created rules to enforce the use of “employee discounts” as a way to assure that workers are spending their hard earned money towards the company. A smart tactic to keep their money flowing within and outside of the company. Ross also mentions that in the new political economy,

“…play and recreation [is] encouraged in the workplace because [the workers are] perceived to add value to the work product. Employees [are] encouraged to work as and when the spirit [takes] them.” (pp. 2583).

I instantly thought of the retail workers who can most probably relate to Ross’s observation of the new worker’s environment. Though the worker of this sort does not take part in making the product persae, they do become more invested with selling the products and are forced to advertise by being consumers too. The workers have to become models and trained advertisers of the brand. It is then easier to invest oneself into the work when they feel as though they are the faces of the company. The distinguished parts of production: product making and product selling become important when considering alienation. By allowing some access or sometimes enforcing it and paying higher wages, alienation becomes less prominent in new workers and new artists who are the product sellers.

Comparable to Ross’s observation, early philosophers who searched for the meaning of life thought the love for a craft (like art) is crucial for knowing one’s purpose. It was thought by some that everyone is born to do something they are good at in order to contribute to society in some way. People are to spend their lives in search of that craft and become the best at it. However, as Ross mentions, powers higher than the young worker who has found his/her craft is exploited by enforced commitments, responsibilities, and wage agreements in contracts. The agreement is to do work within the department of (name craft) for little to no pay, while also receiving less of the credit for any successful outcomes. Since it is required to have hours of experience, the creative and innovative artist too becomes a powerless commodity. Alienation though, is less severe because of the love for the craft aspect.