Free essay on Alienation of Labor by Karl Marx Review and Critique To get access to thousands of free essays, visit www.cheapcustomwriting.com

1. Alienation of Labor by Karl Marx Review and Critique
Karl Marx is among the most influential individuals in the world with a focus on the academic
pursuit and historical development. Marx was able to identify various aspects that affected
mankind and wrote possible solutions or views regarding the issue. Max’s writings incorporate
various aspects such as law, society, and history society in addition to intellectual, economics,
and political philosophy. Examples of the Marx’s works include Communist Manifesto and the
German Ideology indicates the depths the author goes through in presenting his views and
arguments. Criticizing his works might employ the progressed society meaning that
understanding factors such as capitalism, labor conditions and other economic factors can
sometimes be argued from different fronts. The essay reviews and critiques the work of Marx
titled “Alienated Labor.”
Marx presents that labor is both a conscious thing and physical act. Through labor, Marx states
that it derives survival and subsistence of human beings (Caldwell, 2017). Labor also establishes
the relationship with their productive powers, create a connection with nature, utilize the raw
nature and integrate into the development of their lives (Nygren & Gidlund, 2015). Therefore,
Marx presents that labor should not be seen as an only physical act rather has an impact on self-
actualization.
The author compares capitalistic and feudal societies and the situations associated with these
societies (Shantz, Alfes & Truss, 2014). Marx argues that capitalistic societies see labor as a
medium of exchange in which it benefits a third party while in a feudal state, labor provides
immediate benefits and aimed at advancing individual productive power (Emmenegger, Marx &
Schraff, 2015). The means of production is usually seen as under external ownership indicating
that result and purpose of labor appear to be external to the worker (Ince, 2016). The premise of
the argument is tied to his view of alienation from the product. Engaging in alienated labor
means that individual losses the ability to define their self-existence and also ability to affirm
their being (Nygren & Gidlund, 2015). It means the work feels that they are outside of their work
or feels outside themselves (Shantz, Alfes & Truss, 2014). The outcome is the laborer embracing
animal functions of eating, procreating and drinking. Hence, alienation from the product is
evident in the capitalistic societies.
The outcome of alienation from productive activity according to Marx is changing a worker’s
life into animalistic in its feel and look. When laborers and humans embrace animalistic
functions, it means that there is a variance between their species being from themselves (Ince,
2016). The difference between humans and other animals is their ability to think and also making
the individuals become conscious of situations and circumstances (Caldwell, 2017). However,
the capitalistic society that embraces alienation of an individual blurs the distinction between
animals and humans (Emmenegger, Marx & Schraff, 2015). The alienation is also tied to the
changing nature of the society in which the people are isolated and individual interests are
favored rather than community interests. Collective beings are important but capitalism
encourages people to enter into the competition. Furthermore, the laborers make other class to
benefit from their sweat, which also widens different classes. It indicates an alienation from
fellow humans because of social class stratification and ideologies.

2. The major argument Marx presents is that the workers produce belongs to the capitalists (Shantz,
Alfes & Truss, 2014). In the feudal times, a form of an arrangement exists in which individuals
produce what they wanted and supported each other but it cannot be a solution to the current
economic and social issues (Cohen, 2015). In the Manifesto, Marx proposes an interim phase in
which inheritance rights and private property rights are abolished and transferred to the state
ownership before full communism (Emmenegger, Marx & Schraff, 2015). The arguments hold to
some extent in case of ownership but when the populations become large, it requires some form
of exchange, which would define the dominant social relation (Nygren & Gidlund, 2015). The
exchange and related processes would translate in alienation from the product, which is similar
to what Marx aims to escape from. Therefore, his proposal to solve the alienation of labor is
futile.
The ownership issue according to Marx can be solved through ensuring the state has control over
resources and property (Frère, 2018). The argument is debatable depending on the conditions and
circumstances. The state might protect the resources and property according to the expectations
of the stakeholders but what about when the state becomes monopolistic economic giants or even
autocratic regimes (Caldwell, 2017). The consequences would be harming the interests of small-
scale entrepreneurs and private players. The arrangement would have its own implications and
issues (Ince, 2016). The model of organization and power at the time meant that a small sect
controlled and dictated the direction of the state, which means the upper class would have abused
and misused resources (Nygren & Gidlund, 2015). The general outcome would be the public
being seen as external to the happenings of the state because of small control of power.
Marx presents that when there is no other compulsion or physical force, laborers would shun
labor like the plaque. Numerous questions emerge from the agreement because not all people are
motivated because of financial return (Nygren & Gidlund, 2015). For example, doctors, editors,
artists, and teachers among other professionals working under private firms should not be
working if Marx’s argument is embraced (Emmenegger, Marx & Schraff, 2015). These
individuals make their choice and support the community and society without coercion. The
perspective is that these professionals would not work because of lack of incentives (Ince, 2016).
However, what about his proposed approach of the Communistic regime in which properties and
resources belong to the state? Communistic regimes have less incentive to work meaning that
people may not be productive to the society. The potential outcome would be decreasing overall
industrial development, incessant workers demands, and reduced industrial productivity (Shantz,
Alfes & Truss, 2014). These numerous variables mean that the Communistic regimes would not
benefit the society and community.
Overemphasis on labor is evident throughout and tends to neglect non-economic forces in the
society such as morality, politics, religion, and law (Nygren & Gidlund, 2015). Even though
Marx has written extensively on the issues, he attaches the issues to a superstructure kind of
stand and states that it is the economic activities foundation (Caldwell, 2017). Marx presents that
the superstructure is influenced by both economic activities and non-economic forces. However,
Marx is wrong when he emphasizes on one thing and neglects the other even though he had
initially pointed to the partnership of the variables.

3. Marx analyses the consequences of competition in separating the people rather than making them
collective beings (Shantz, Alfes & Truss, 2014). Marx presents that the competition encourages
private individual existence in capitalism but does not elucidate about collective beings
(Emmenegger, Marx & Schraff, 2015). It is imperative to note in the history of humanity, people
have competed for fortunes, properties, and kingdoms indicating the aspect of individualism.
Humans should be viewed as competitive beings and the competition guarantees the survival and
sustainability of the people (Nygren & Gidlund, 2015). In evolutionary science, competition is
integral to survival and Marx wants to dismiss such arguments. The competition has also brought
together the best qualities and fittest out of human beings including various fields such as arts,
invention, and war.
Marx was among the leading players in classic sociological theory including Emile Durkheim
and Max Weber. These authors continuously presented the issues of human existence and
development (Shantz, Alfes & Truss, 2014). Weber advised on the effectiveness of organization
through embracing bureaucratic organizations and bureaucratic ideals (Caldwell, 2017).
Durkheim perspective is that the society depends on the belief, values, and norms that dictated
the direction of the society. Industrialization and modernization were important components
during Weber and Durkheim period which tends to differ to Marx perspectives (Emmenegger,
Marx & Schraff, 2015). Weber and Durkheim understood the role of religion in anticipating and
understanding the behavior of the people. The general perspective was that modernization and
industrialization exist and the role of managers and specialization were important. Their
arguments furthered an aspect of capitalistic state based on their ideological framework of
thought.
In conclusion, some Marx’s arguments suffice depending on situations and circumstances. It is
true that capitalistic counties suffer from a lopsided distribution of resources and also rich-poor
divide. The laborers working conditions are indeed poor but there are some societies that have
health unions and regulations that protect the people. These advanced capitalistic states shunned
communism, which is also an indicative of globalization. Communist policies do not address
issues and problems of capitalism, which is indicative of a failure of communism. Even though
the expectation of communism is achieving peaceful communities without exploitation, the
sustainability and performances of different entities would be questionable. Marx’s arguments
had some human aspects but utilizing the models and proposals in the current society would
become a challenge. Competition due to capitalism encourages economic advancement and
variables of economic development such as quality of services and productivity.
References
Caldwell, P. C. (2017). The Life of the Dead: Karl Marx in Context. Journal of Interdisciplinary
History, 48(1), 61-69.
Cohen, N. (2015). Cultural work as a site of struggle: Freelancers and exploitation. Marx and the
Political Economy of the Media, 36-64.

4. Emmenegger, P., Marx, P., & Schraff, D. (2015). Labour market disadvantage, political
orientations and voting: how adverse labour market experiences translate into electoral
behaviour. Socio-Economic Review, 13(2), 189-213.
Frère, B. (2018). Back to Materialism. Reflections on Marx’s Conception of Labour, Praxis,
Cooperatives and Libertarian Socialism. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society,
31(1), 69-94.
Ince, O. U. (2016). Bringing the economy back in: Hannah Arendt, Karl Marx, and the politics of
capitalism. The Journal of Politics, 78(2), 411-426.
Nygren, K. G., & Gidlund, K. L. (2015). The Pastoral Power of Technology: Rethinking
alienation in digital culture. Marx in the Age of Digital Capitalism, 396-412.
Shantz, A., Alfes, K., & Truss, C. (2014). Alienation from work: Marxist ideologies and twenty-
first-century practice. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(18), 2529-
2550.