From Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 by philosopher Karl Marx is a piece of political theory that delves into the increasing alienation of human labor to the human themselves. It explores capitalism in its heyday while critiquing the morbid effects it has had on human existence, particularly concerning himself with exploitation and devaluation behind mass labor. 

As I read Marx’s inquiry on the inherent detachment the modern day wage slave laborer has to the product they create, I couldn’t help but imagine mindless humans, both mass producing and mass consuming these items, devoid of any critical thinking. Through this robotic lens that Marx provides, I found the underlying themes in his manuscript mirrored the underlying themes in one of my favorite Pixar movies, Wall-E. Despite the time difference of Wall-E being set in a post-apocalyptic and futuristic setting, it still manages to encapsulate consequences of rampant industrialization, reflecting the theories of Marx. 

One of the central ideas in the manuscript is alienation. Marx refers to the estrangement of laborers from the very nature that makes them human under the capitalist reign. Marx argues that these workers are despondently detached from their sense of individualism, from the fruits of their labor, from the action of labor itself, and from each other. This method of alienation is conceptualized in Wall-E where these futuristic humans have become completely and utterly disengaged from nature and their own sense of humanity. They live in a futile and artificial environment which is simultaneously a consumerist utopia. The Axiom spaceship of Wall-E is fully reliant on the ultramodern technology and devoid of any authentic relationship or creative labor. 

In The German Ideology, Carl Marx and Friedrich Engels write, “….in his work therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy, but mortifies his body and ruins his mind” (659). This resonates to the environment aboard the Axiom spaceship. Humanity in this spaceship preserves only through a sedentary life, where people are constantly indulging in instant gratification which results in the deterioration of their physical and emotional state. These humans, from birth, lack the emotional touch and warmth of human connection and any sense of originality. 

Furthermore, Marx continues to delve into the bourgeois class, who inherently benefit from the profit surplus stemming from the mind numbing and zombie-like state consumers spiral into. This exploitation is explained in Wall-E through the anonymous and faceless corporation of Buy and Large (BnL) acting almost as a religious entity. BnL directly profits from this overconsumption and it’s waste that planet Earth has succumbed to which humble workers such as Wall-E, the robot, have to clean up without any agency or benefit. 

This alienation from the core value of what makes a human an unique individual results in a rather dystopian society, filled with spiritual poverty and only artificial fulfillment  which ultimately echoes Marx’s critique of a post-capitalist world.

How does a worker become “alienated” from his labor? According to Marx and Engels: “[…] [the] labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his essential being; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not feel freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind” (659). They go further: “[…] the external character of labor for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own, but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another” (659). Even though the worker produces things, they do not do so out of love but out of the mere necessity to make ends meet. This alienates them from their work. They exert themselves physically and mentally, only for other people to make huge profits at their expense. In addition, Marx and Engels argue that the rise in the value of products is inversely proportional to the value of the people producing them (657). Therefore, the value of products does not guarantee an increase in the value/condition of the worker but the other way around.

We can see a real-life example of the alienation of labor in the case of fast fashion. Fast fashion refers to the section of the fashion industry that is focused on churning out clothing items faster and at a lower cost of production. The lower cost translates to lower prices for consumers, making clothes more affordable. In the article “The Truth About Fast Fashion” (published in The Guardian), Hannah Marriott writes: “In 1970, for example, the average British household spent 7% of its annual income on clothing. This had fallen to 5.9% by 2020. Even though we are spending less proportionally, we tend to own more clothes.” People are buying more clothes as they are now more affordable, but how is the affordability made possible? Workers in low-income countries with fewer labor regulations are paid much less than they would have to be paid in wealthy countries like the United States. Many American and European fashion companies have shifted their production to poorer countries, where they can get away with paying their workers low wages.

While the people working for the fast fashion industry are poorly paid, it is quite evident that profits are being made. In a Guardian article on garments workers in Bangladesh demanding higher wages, Annie Kelly and Redwan Ahmed quote a protesting worker: “The leggings I make retail for more than my entire month’s salary… To us, it is clear that there are huge profits being made on our backs.” The authors further report that the wages the workers earn are not enough for them to even feed their families.

Even though fast fashion ensures huge profits for the owners and CEOs of fashion companies and lower prices for consumers, the workers barely earn enough to make ends meet. This is an example of alienation of labor in action. Even though there is now a larger supply of clothes available for consumers, the value of the worker has gone down. The worker has little connection to what they are producing, causing them to be alienated from their work.

Link to The Guardian articles that have been cited:

Workers for fast fashion brands fear starvation as they fight for higher wages | Global development | The Guardian

The truth about fast fashion: can you tell how ethical your clothing is by its price? | Fashion | The Guardian

Reading the “Economic and Political Manuscripts of 1844” gave me a new perspective on Marx’s views on workers and the tolls they endure from a growing capitalist state. Marx explains the problem presented to workers is this growing sense of alienation. His first point explains the feeling of disconnect between the laborer and the object of production. As the laborer works hard to make this product, at the end of the day, the results is just an object. Thus, the laborer realizes that their “product of labour is labour which has been congealed in an object, which has become material,” and by seeing it as so, the worker devalues themselves (657). They no longer gain any satisfaction in working and in some part, lose themselves by working constantly towards every new product made. He further adds how awful it feels that everything they produce isn’t even something they can receive. A guy that works on making phones can’t necessarily afford to buy himself the latest brand (which is ironic since he literally made it!) I actually seen something alike this happen. My parents used to work as food vendors selling Mexican food. I remember how we used to order take out on the weekends, however, it was anything but Mexican food. The thought of cooking up the same stuff over and over just bored them to the point that the product itself decreased in value for them to no longer want anything to do with it.

This example also works with Marx second point: the alienation between the worker and the process of work. My parents, despite the constant stress, liked cooking. It’s a nice feeling, the process and work that is put into the food and more so that satisfaction that everyone else enjoys it too; but I know they definitely wouldn’t be too happy working in a restaurant. This new environment is different because the majority of times the food and ingredients are pre-prepared for you to use. There’s also a greater, constant pressure to keep up with loads of cooking and serving to people you won’t even see. Marx explains this as the process of work becoming no longer enjoyable but more stressing and this notion that you are being constrained to just work to work. Further, he argues how capitalism is devolving away from that essence of being part of a “natural process”, the process of making things out of nature’s resources and producing with it. He explains, “ But as nature provides labor with the means of life… it also provides the means of life in the more restricted sense— the means for the physical subsistence of the worker himself,”. Moving away from the natural way, makes the worker feel less attached, control and so, “[deprived] himself of means of life,” (657-658). I could see how this argument comes from the Industrial Revolution. Of course machines make production faster and efficient, but to whom does that benefit really? The worker is the one working with these machines which the use of it makes it feel unnatural and more like robots pushing buttons.

I do find this theory interesting and made me realize what Marx is saying, is still happening today, especially towards factory workers. Basing off of Marx, I do wonder if there is a way in which we can make this alienation feeling go away? Or is it just something we are to continue throughout the working industry?

For Marx, ideology is a distorted production of ideas that reflect a relationship between men and their circumstances, and ultimately is what keeps us following the status quo. Ideology is like a “camera obscura” in this way, because it is a reflection of something that does exist in real life, but does not necessarily not exist. According to ideology, for instance, “consciousness is taken as the living individual” (Marx, 660). Religion is an example of an ideology following this pattern, where we arrive to “men in the flesh” after looking at what men “say, imagine, and conceive”. After we look at the fantastical power of the church and its teachings–like we discussed in class: “last shall be first and first shall be last”–we arrive to men in the flesh who accept awful working conditions and painful labor. Like in a camera obscura, it is true that men exist in the flesh and certainly they imagine and speak; however, the idea that life is determined by consciousness is the upside down, not-untrue-but-not-entirely-true interpretation. Marx suggests that  it is our responsibility to identify our position in this camera obscura, and change the lens to give a more accurate reflection, or potentially even break the box. Using the same example, he says that consciousness is determined by life, and we must start with real, living men rather than obscure concepts.

We know Marx uses this analogy mainly to push his communist agenda–which might be a form of changing the “camera obscura”.  In Capital, Marx talks more about commodities and how they fit into this schema of reality. Commodities are odd things because their actual value and the labor behind their existence that stamps them as a commodity actually are totally unrelated. We give commodities a life of their own, a result of a sort of “fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labor” (Marx, 669). He gives an example of wood, and how a table remains a piece of wood simply refashioned until we give it this enigmatic force that decides its value. The relation between a human and his coffee table, for example, is a person-object relationship that our culture has given a person-person relationship to. One way we do this is by socializing the coffee table in a way that places a value on the “social character of the labor that produce[d]” it. Products of labor are really just util items that end up gaining a mystical social status through exchange and our interpretation of the work put into creating it. And so suddenly, there is this really weird hierarchy that arises where a sports car, for example, has more “value” as a commodity than, say, drinking water, because more socialized labor was put into the process that created the car than in some random independent hiker wandering in the woods and finding a fresh pond. However, when looking at the sports car, there is no necessary relationship between the person who buys the commodity (the car) and the group of people who make all the different parts. Nevertheless, by fetishizing or creating a relationship between the producer and the purchaser we seem to be protecting ourselves from alienation. Marx brings up alienation, especially when talking about how industrial capitalism is not only ruining any (existing or falsely existing) relationship between the producers and the products they are producing, but even alienating workers from their own lives. The distorted reality that we uphold in this camera obscura is that some aspect of the bourgeois society is somehow connected to some aspect of that of the proletariat, and they need each other in some fundamental way. Really there is no intrinsic connection here. We push the narrative that the production process is some fantastical power, but there is nothing inherently magical about it. Regardless, aside from the “capitalism is a disease” theme, fetishism of commodities seems to be a protective factor we’ve created to keep us from the different kinds of alienation created by our own system.

Domination and subordination are often seen as coming about through physically violent means. When we see for instance depictions of dominance we envision perhaps a slave owner lashing a slave or a man physically restraining or harming a woman. To subordinate could then be defined as the ends that dominance requires, as a physically harmful act. Marxist Antonio Gramsci wrote about domination and subordination not exactly as physically violent. Of course, power dominates through bodily violence but it can also and perhaps more effectively achieve its end, namely of a subordinated mass, through a far more implicit almost trivial form of violence. This violence does not take the form of the whip, the baton, or the stock of a rifle, but instead, it actively engages as much as it suppresses.

Gramsci calls this hegemony, which we can see explored in one of the many texts he wrote whilst in an Italian Fascist prison; The Formation of Intellectuals.  He starts off with a question and it is quite a provocative question we must all ask ourselves. Are the people who “know” more or who are more “qualified” than us simply just that, or are they part of a bigger socioeconomic context? Gramsci, the great Marxist that he is, sees intellectuals in a bigger picture. He speaks particularly of ‘ idealist’ philosophers and how they saw themselves as “ ‘independent’, autonomous, endowed with a character of their own,etc”. These are the “traditional class’  of intellectuals which operate outside the bounds of dominant culture, in the sense that they do not particularly belong to a specific class, rather they are remnants of previous historical stages. They are not instrumental to any productive class, whilst the ‘organic’ intellectuals are exactly that.

The organic intellectual does not belong to an ahistorical elite but emerges from contingent productive classes. Take doctors or lawyers, who emerge from certain classes. In this sense, the ‘organic intellectual’ has a much more vested interest in the furtherment of its own class rather than their individual selves. These processes are of course not the ‘natural way’ of things exactly, but they are integral parts of the formation of intellectuals and social classes. Gramsci clarifies this when he says “All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals” and then states “homo faber cannot be separated from homo sapiens”. The separation or differentiated “intellectual”, the maker and the thinker are one in the same. Similar to Marx’s famous declaration that;

 “While in communist society…each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic”(Marx 1845).

Yet with the division of labor and specialized labor, we see that this goal of Marx is skewed. That there are so many fields that are created in which intellectuals burrow into, that many a person are made to be “experts” or “specialist” in this or that, leads to as Gramsci says“Vast cries of unemployment for the middle intellectual strata, and in all modern society this takes place” (Gramsci 934). For Gramsci it could be seen how the intellectuals are imperative for hegemony. He says that hegemony creates two levels of society; that of the state and that of “civil society”, which is the sphere concerning the relations of individual subjects. The intellectual serves the ‘subaltern function’ meaning they dictate what discourse can be brought about. In other words, the intellectuals, referring back to our traditional conception of violence, coerce the subjugated masses (workers and non-intellectuals) to accepting certain ideas as natural. In this way, violence is not connected brutally but consistently, as certain ideas are wrenched from the minds of the masses, before they could even be allowed to be conjured. Gramsci lays it out wonderfully when he says of these ‘subaltern functions’ ;

“1. The ‘spontaneous consent’ given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group;this consent is “historically” caused by the prestige… 2. The apparatus of state coercive power which ‘legally’ enforces discipline on those groups who do not consent either actively or passively” (Gramsci 935).

One can see this perhaps most brazenly in something like the U.S. judicial system where laws are bound “by unalienable, god-given rights”. These things are positioned as natural and innate fibers of American society, most people agree to not kill other people, to drive according to traffic laws, to steal, etc, because it has been generally ‘consented upon’ by the masses. Coercively might I add, but it is justified by certain ideals or figures. Hegemony is not just about predominant ideologies, it is not simply about values, but about a self-regulatory subjugation. A slave who’s chains appear to be a part of our very hands.

Note:

All though I did not delve too deeply into this idea of “unskilled labor” which Gramsci briefly talks about in the text, I would like to direct anyone who is interested in the topic and particularly on a certain discourse being had on this idea that there are “unskilled” laborers to this great video made by one of my favorite theory video essayist. Give it a watch 🙂 :

The Proletariat and the Problem of Unproductive Labor

No Description

In “Marxism and Literature”, Raymond Williams expands upon Anthony Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. The initial or more conventional definition of this word involves relations between states, where one state rules over another (108). Gramsci’s conception of hegemony pertains to elements of social, cultural, and political forces which lead to effective coercion of the masses indirectly through concentrated power and domination. Through a Marxist lens, the definition illustrates interactions between social classes, where a ruling or dominant class shapes the culture of that society. A concept meant to be purely political has now extended into the social sphere and aspects of everyday life, creating an intense imbalance between classes within a capitalist state. It also asserts that the ruling class is a uniform and indivisible faction of society. This imbalance shapes the culture of the society it is within, normalizing capitalist values that ultimately exploit the lowest denomination of that society.

Hegemony goes beyond Marx’s initial portrait of idealogy. While ideology may be seen as something only inside your head or within class parameters, it can affect every aspect of that society and culture. Williams brings up an important point, where the upper class just has a certain ideology as a result of their own lived experiences and values, whereas the lower class has nothing but the ideology of the upper class, which shapes practices in everyday life. The ideology of the ruling class is more widely accepted as a form of “culture”, presenting the idea that the ideals of the dominant are the only way toward the cultural formation. Williams describes hegemony as a “realized complex of experiences, relationships, and activities, with specific and changing pressures and limits” (112). While hegemony is not an established system like capitalism, it serves as an example of ideals put in place by fixed systems that can inform our everyday lives and how we see ourselves and others. The class that is most affected by this concept (the subordinate class) struggles to break away. Williams also reminds us that both hegemony and the ruling class are ever-changing processes that have “continually to be renewed, recreated, defended, and modified” (112).  In modern times, the ruling class is no longer as uniform as it once was during the time of Karl Marx. He also argues that it may be a bit restrictive to only think of culture and society strictly in terms of hegemony and that it should be adapted to more modern everyday practices.

 Marx’s way of thinking about ideology is “men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura.” Where he compares ideology being a “camera obscura” because ofits “phenomenon arises” as a literal of a “dark chamber” and the history on how it processes in their “physical life-process.”  Ideology is like a camera obscura because of the use of lens that goes through the image projected it “the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process”(pg#660). The secret from another of Marx’s metaphors of “Hieroglyph” do to what bound up commodity from Where then the secret is that “Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as lan-guage”(pg#670). Marx explains the bound in commodity that scientist  had found “the products of labour, so far as they are values, are but material expressions of the human labour spent in their production”.These products indeed have an “epoch in the history of the development of the human race, but, by no means, dissipates the mist through which the social character of labor appears to us to be an objective character of the products themselves”(pg#670). On how Robinson Crusoe thought about commodity and market-based that “as commodation, and whose establishment is a necessary preliminary to the circulation of commodities, have already acquired the stability of natural, self-understood forms of social life, before man seek to decipher, not their historical character, for in his eyes they are immutable, but their meaning”(pg#671).  Where the prices that are analyzed determine that magnitude of value and the “common expression” this forms of production and exchange of examples that will allow Marx to to show the types of productions it has and how they function and how it will help them know about the production. “The fact, that in the particular form of production with which we are dealing, viz., the production of commodities, the specific social character of private labour carried on independently, consists in the equality of every kind of that labour, by virtue of its being human labour, which character, therefore, assumes in the product the form of value-this fact appears to the producers, notwithstanding the discovery above referred to, to be just as real and final, as the fact, that, after the discovery by science of the component gases of air, the atmosphere itself remained unaltered”. As well as to how it says that “These different articles are, as regards the family, so many products of it’s labour, but as between themselves, they are not commodities.” Which makes these labour function as a family as a society. The production of commodities as “possesses a spontaneously developed system of division of labour”

Bogost’s theory of procedural rhetoric combines and redeems the terms “procedure” and “rhetoric” to explain how interactive rules and systems are used in video games to persuade players and affect their thoughts and actions. His framework acknowledges the special qualities of video games as a medium for communication and persuasion, expanding the concept of rhetoric beyond conventional forms. Bogost extends the definition of procedure beyond what is typically thought of to include the systems, rules, and algorithms that control how a game is played. He argues that policies are not neutral; rather, they represent ideas, values, and beliefs. According to Bogost, a game’s mechanics and rules themselves can represent a certain viewpoint or argument. For example, a game that mimics a specific political or social structure subtly conveys information about that system through the player’s experience. Beyond only persuading players intellectually, video games can also affect their actions and behaviors within the game environment. This can also apply to forming viewpoints and attitudes that they carry with them outside of the gaming environment. He discusses the daily life simulator “Animal Crossing’s seemingly straightforward and lighthearted gameplay and illustrates how its underlying themes and mechanics provide players the chance to consider a variety of life, society, and global issues. The “Bells” that are used as cash are the center of the in-game economy. This simulates real-world economic ideas and might make players consider wealth, consumption, and materialism-related issues. By helping players obtain house loans, the character Tom Nook introduces the idea of debt. Despite its lighthearted presentation, it might make players consider their actual financial obligations and the effects of debt on their lives. “Animal Crossing’s underlying themes and mechanics provide players the chance to consider a variety of life, society, and global issues. The allure of the game as a mode is its capacity to elicit thought without being preachy, letting users make their own links between the virtual environment and the more tangible situations they encounter.

One of my favorite games to discuss is Silent Hill 2. The game centers around James Sunderland, who gets an invitation to see his late wife Mary in the town of Silent Hill via letter. The problem is that Mary died three years before the game’s events. James visits Silent Hill, which is enveloped in a dense fog and a foreboding gloom, feeling intrigued and bewildered. He comes across unsettling animals and terrifying settings that make him question his sanity. The story reveals layers of psychological trauma, shame, and suppressed memories as James explores Silent Hill further. The characters’ unresolved traumas and inner demons appear to be reflected in the community. The decisions the player takes during the game impact the story, resulting in a variety of endings that present various angles on James’s adventure and the town’s evil influence. Deeply exploring the psychological and emotional dimensions of loneliness and hopelessness is Silent Hill 2. The game’s characters battle their inner demons and anxieties. James’s sense of guilt and his desire for atonement are at the center of the story. The town of Silent Hill represents his guilt-ridden brain and subconscious. As according to Ian Bogost, “Silent Hill 2” uses procedural rhetoric by influencing players’ opinions and delivering persuasive messages through the game’s interactive features. The game’s several endings, which are determined by decisions made by the player during the story, provide an argument against the objectivity of guilt, atonement, and the results of one’s deeds. It invites players to consider their choices by implying that moral decisions may affect the story’s resolution. Players are encouraged to interpret the plot in various ways due to the narrative’s ambiguity and open-ended nature. This procedural decision supports the characters’ subjective experiences and allows for individual introspection and interpretation. Through the ambiguity of the story, the flexibility of character interpretations, and the moral ramifications of the player’s decisions, the game subtly pushes players to consider the validity of its processes. In addition to provoking psychological terror, Silent Hill 2’s procedural rhetoric invites players to consider the nature of guilt, the intricacies of interpersonal relationships, and the subjectivity of reality.

1. AG argues that “traditional” intellectuals are distinguished, in part, by an “esprit de corps,” a sense of themselves as “autonomous and independent.” Why is this? What is the basis for this collective sense?
2. On p. 932, AG asserts that “homo faber cannot be separated from homo sapiens.” What does this mean? How does Gramsci link thinking with working? What implications does this have for Gramsci’s definition of “intellectual” as a social type?
3. Why, for AG, can intellectual no longer be defined in terms of “eloquence”? What is the new ground AG suggests for defining the intellectual?
4. Why are education and educational institutions so crucial to modern society, according to Gramsci? What would AG think about Hunter College? CUNY? Your local P.S.? What, in other words, is the social function of education?