Dear all,
Here are some questions and comments on the extracts from Karl Marx’
‘Ökonomisch-Philosophische Manuskripte aus dem Jahre 1844’. As you can see, they
are rather extensive – I thought it might make sense to add some explanations here
and there.
As I said before, do not be alarmed if you feel you do not always fully understand
what Marx is saying – this is in part due to the nature of the text as a form of
‘Selbstverständigung’ not for publication, in part to the fact that we are just looking
at extracts, and in part to the fact that this is a rather complex argument in a
probably unfamiliar tradition, so it takes a while to get attuned to this way of
thinking – the more you read, the clearer it becomes. Also, Marx is giving us some
general ideas here, but does not always explain them in detail – we’ll fill in at least
some of the gaps in week 3, and if we don’t finish this Monday, we can discuss the
remainder of the text in week 3 as well. Even if you just take away one or two new
ideas or perspectives, I think it’s worth the challenge.
I would ask you all to read all the extracts I sent round (there are still hard copies
outside my office, H2.19); I hope these questions will be helpful. For the seminar
discussion, though, I did allocate specific sections to specific groups, so that we have
somebody to start the discussion off with your reading of the text, or simply with
your questions. Due to the difficulty of the text, I decided not to ask you to do that
in very small groups, but think that for this week, we should have three larger
groups (two small groups at a time), as you can see from the question sheet. You can
still do your preparation in the small groups, which might be easier. Each of the
three larger groups will be asked to lead the discussion on one part of each of the
two sections of the text, ‘Die entfremdete Arbeit’ and ‘Privateigentum und
Kommunismus’, so you should all prepare two sections – it should all become clear if
you look at the questions.
Here is the small group allocation we discussed on Monday – I changed the group
numbers, but not the
Group 1
Group 2
composition.
Hannah Solle
Ciera Connelly-Warne
Best wishes, Christine
Rachael Davies
Helen McLaughlin
Sophia Farrell-Reed
Group 3
Danielle Baker
Sarah Baldwin
Bill Fawcett
Group 5
Ellie Drave
Jamie Wates
Group 4
Gina Cooney
Natalie Dederichs
Group 6
Nadia Bazargan
Ryan Harris
Questions on Karl Marx, ‘Ökonomisch-Philosophische Manuskripte aus dem Jahre
1844’ (Marx Engels Werke Bd. 40).
Die entfremdete Arbeit (pp. 510-517, 519-521)
These pages give us a pretty good overview over one of the central concepts of
Marx’s theory, namely that of Entfremdung (translated variously as ‘alienation’ or
‘estrangement’) and its various forms.
GROUPS 1 & 2 (Hannah, Rachael, Ciera, Helen, Sophia), pp. 510-513:
On the first pages (pp. 510-middle of 511), he summarises his prior discussion of the
theoretical fundaments of ‚Nationalökonomie’, i.e. ‚classical’ political economy (the
theory of production and trade and their interrelation with the political/national
community in terms of general welfare, distribution of wealth, laws, government
etc.). In fact he refers mostly to Adam Smith here. We can skim most of this – some
of the central points of criticism here are that Nationalökonomie simply assumes as
given the realities of capitalist society that it ought to explain, and that it does not
understand the inner connections between aspects of the economy that, on the
surface level, seem to be oppositions. Marx claims that these apparent oppositions
are in fact connected, part of the same process. One passage we should look at a
little more closely is the first paragraph when he says:
“wir [haben] gezeigt, daß der Arbeiter zur Ware und zur elendesten Ware herabsinkt,
daß das Elend des Arbeiters im umgekehrten Verhältnis zur Macht und zur Größe
seiner Produktion steht, daß das notwendige Resultat der Konkurrenz die
Akkumulation des Kapitals in wenigen Händen, also die fürchterlichere
Wiederherstellung des Monopols ist, daß endlich der Unterschied von Kapitalist und
Grundrentner wie von Ackerbauer und Manufakturarbeiter verschwindet und die
ganze Gesellschaft in die beiden Klassen der Eigentümer und eigentumslosen
Arbeiter zerfallen muß.”

What might he mean with these descriptions, and in particular, what exactly
does he mean when he says that workers turn into commodities?
1) Entfremdung vom Produkt der Arbeit (pp. 511-513)
In the last two paragraphs of p. 511, Marx starts talking more specifically about
Entfremdung as a consequence of the fact that ‘Die Arbeit produziert nicht nur
Waren; sie produziert sich selbst und den Arbeiter als eine Ware’. Have a look at the
last two paragraphs on p. 511and the following three paragraphs until near the end
of p. 512:

What is Marx describing here? What is specific about the relationship of the
worker to his/her product in the ‘nationalökonomischen Zustand’, i.e. in

capitalism (which might not be the case in other forms of society)?
How is this relationship to the tings produced different from, say, that of a
craftsman? Or how is it different from the state of things that Schiller
imagines in ancient Greece where, he says, people produce predominantly
for their own consumption?

In section XXIII (bottom of p. 512), Marx then goes on to talk in some more detail
about the relationship of the worker to his/her object of labour. A particularly
important – though rather condensed – paragraph is the second para on p. 513,
from ‘Nach dieser doppeten Seite hin’ to ‘nur mehr als physisches Subjekt Arbeiter
ist’.

Why does Marx distinguish here between the material world as “Gegenstand
der Arbeit” on the one hand, and as “Subsistenzmittel“ (means of subsistence,
i.e. food, clothing etc.) on the other? Are these the same objects, or does the
worker objectify his/her labour in different objects than those s/he
consumes to keep him-/herself alive?
 How would this relationship between “Gegenstand der Arbeit” and
“Subsistenzmittel“ look like in Schiller’s imaginary Greece, a world of
subsistence economy?
 What, finally, does Marx mean with the sentence “Die Spitze dieser
Knechtschaft ist, daß er nur mehr als Arbeiter sich als physisches Subjekt
erhalten [kann] und nur mehr als physisches Subjekt Arbeiter ist.”
The second part of this sentence becomes perhaps a little clearer if you look at the
next paragraph on p. 513:

Why would Marx say, seemingly paradoxically, “daß, je zivilisierter sein
Gegenstand, um so barbarischer der Arbeiter, […] daß, je geistreicher die
Arbeit, um so mehr geistloser und Naturknecht der Arbeiter wird”?
It might be useful to think of the big factories of the 19th century that Marx has in
mind here – how could labour as a whole be ‘geistreich’ (intelligent) here while the
worker as an individual becomes more and more ‘geistlos’? See also the next
paragraph, to “produziert Blödsinn, Kretinismus für den Arbeiter”, on this question.
GROUPS 3 & 4 (Danielle, Sarah, Bill, Gina, Natalie), p. 514- middle of p.515:
2) Entfremdung von seiner eigenen Tätigkeit
 Why would Marx say that
“Der Arbeiter fühlt sich daher erst außer der Arbeit bei sich und in der Arbeit
außer sich. […] Seine Arbeit ist daher nicht freiwillig, sondern gezwungen,
Zwangsarbeit. Sie ist daher nicht die Befriedigung eines Bedürfnisses, sondern
sie ist nur ein Mittel, um Bedürfnisse außer ihr zu befriedigen.” (514)?

What consequences do the conditions under which the worker produces
have on the ways in which he reproduces himself (bottom p. 514 to top p.
515)?
GROUPS 5 & 6 (Ellie, Jamie, Nadia, Ryan), middle of p.515 - 521:
3) Entfremdung vom Gattungswesen (515-517)



What does Marx mean with the concept of ‘Gattungswesen’ or
‘Gattungsleben’ (515-516)? This sounds like a biological term – is it?
How is human “Lebenstätigkeit” different from that of animals (see in
particular second half of p. 516, from “Das Tier ist unmittelbar eins …”, to
middle of p. 517)?
Why are humans alienated from their Gattungswesen?
Arbeiter und Kapitalist (519-521)
P. 519-top of p. 520 (“zu der Natur und zu sich selbst”):
 What relationship between worker and capitalist does Marx suggest here? Is
this surprising?
Bottom of p. 520 to 521:
Following from what he just said, Marx engages in a critique of the 19th century
anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon here, who was in favour of collective ownership of
land and means of production, and of ‘just wages’ for all.
 What is Marx’s critique of Proudhon?
Privateigentum und Kommunismus (pp. 533-542, extracts)
In this whole section of the Manuskripte, Marx first criticizes what calls ‘raw’
communism – theories of some early socialists and anarchists that he sees as
misguided – and then develops some thoughts about how humans’ relationships to
society and to the material world might change once alienation is truly overcome.
In the first paragraph, Marx suggests that the opposition of labour and capital is
specific for capitalism. It is not the same as the opposition of propertylessness and
property, which can be found in many other societies as well. More specifically, it is
a contradiction between two dimensions of social life that seem opposed, but are
closely connected and condition each other (we’ll talk about this). From here, he
moves on to a critique of, again, Proudhon, and of Charles Fourier and Henri de
Saint-Simon, two early socialists, on pp. 534ff. He criticizes what he describes as
their aim of a simple universalization of wage labour and ownership of the means of
production, rather than an abolition of that relationship altogether.
GROUPS 1 & 2 (Hannah, Rachael, Ciera, Helen, Sophia), pp. 533-535:
He illustrates this point by comparing the demand for universal equal wages and
shared ownership of the means of production with the demand, raised by some
early socialists, for overcoming the restricting institution of marriage by introducing
the ‘community of women’, i.e. giving all men sexual access to all women. He
criticizes both these demands as equally misguided.
 Why, what do they have in common?
 Where does he see the problems with this form of communism, on p.534,
last 8 lines, to p. 535?
GROUPS 3 & 4 (Danielle, Sarah, Bill, Gina, Natalie), 538 to middle of p.539:
Marx then moves on, on the next three pages (535-538, not in your extracts), to say
a little more about conditions for a ‘true’ communism that would be different from
the ‘raw’ communism he just described. This communism would entail the ‘positive
Aufhebung des Privateigentums als menschlicher Selbstentfremdung’, rather than
just its universalization. In this context, he talks about ‘Tätigkeit’ and ‘Genuß’ as
always already ‘gesellschaftlich’, which does not necessarily mean communal or
done in the presence of others. I think his musings about the social nature of
individual activity on pp. 538-539 are very interesting:
Individuum and society (pp.538 to middle of p.539)

What does he mean when he says, at the beginning of the extract:
“Die gesellschaftliche Tätigkeit und der gesellschaftliche Genuß existieren
keineswegs allein in der Form einer unmittelbar gemeinschaftlichen Tätigkeit und
unmittelbar gemeinschaftlichen Genusses”,
i.e. my activity and my enjoyment and consumption can be social even if I am on my
own.
The example of scientific/scholarly work and of language in the next paragraph
might be useful to think about this.

What follows from this about the relationship of individual and society? Do
we have to suppress our individuality in the interest of society? Is there a
contradiction between society and individual freedom?
GROUPS 5 & 6 (Ellie, Jamie, Nadia, Ryan), middle of p.515 - 521:
Engaging with the world (middle of p. 539 to 542)
Middle of p. 539 to 540:
In this short passage, Marx opposes the relationship to the material world that is
induced by capitalist society to a relationship to the world as it might be fostered by
a postcapitalist society.
 How do the two differ?
Pp. 541-542
Here, Marx develops further what he said above about the true ‘Aneignung der
menschlichen Wirklichkeit’ (pp. 539f.), and talks about the interrelation between an
outside world that increasingly becomes the materialization of human faculties, and
the development of the individual and his/her senses in engaging with that world.
 One of the key sentences in this passage is: “Die Bildung der 5 Sinne ist eine
Arbeit der ganzen bisherigen Weltgeschichte.” What does he mean?
 What can we infer from this for Marx’s idea of communism? Is his
communism a society that abhors opera, fine dining and fashion as
‘decadence’ and despises ‘bourgeois’ culture?