This leads to alienation from the work process; this is intimately connected to alienation from the product but rather focuses on how the process is inherently alienating in itself (Marx, 1844). Consequently the focus is not on the disconnect to the final product (Pappenheim, 1959). This is perhaps the most straightforward way in which our species being is being violated. As has been outlined, capitalism creates specialisation, the mechanisation of the human. What defines prosperity under Marxism is the opposite. Free creativity and control of production is what we need for fulfilment (Marx, 1844). This is not possible when one’s job is entirely specific and requires no decision making by the person (Hegel, 1820). The process of making a table
…show more content…
However many of his arguments do not stand up to critique. I believe there are some ways to better argue for mark’s conclusions, although I will not be addressing them. The first major flaw is perhaps the most fundamental to Marx’s alienation critique. Marx does not adequately account for why he believes our species being is what it is (Kymlicka, 2002: 193). The argument he employs is the taxonomical differentia argument (Kymlicka, 2002: 193). This argument fails because both its conclusion does not follow from its premises and that it is simply a non sequitur (Kymlicka, 2002: 193). The differentia argument is that which makes an organism unique, the feature it does not share with other organisms, is the feature that is necessary for that animal to flourish (Kymlicka, 2002: 193). From this principle Marx believes that it is creative cooperative production that is unique to people and is thus the thing we need to flourish. However, complex mathematics is also unique to people and yet Marx does not claim that is our species being. Moreover, simply because a feature of an organism is unique does not make that the most important thing to that animal’s flourishing. This is neatly proven by the fact that if aliens came to earth with the same species being as humans, that would not somehow nullify our species being. Far more work is required in proving that our species being is in fact …show more content…
Firstly, there really do seem like there are legitimate cases where one would choose alienating labour for other ends (Kymlicka, 2002: 192). The home cook who wants to cook gourmet food yet cannot be employed commercially can surely find contentment with an alienating career that allows her to do this. Thus, hobbies may require alienating labour. Additionally there is a strong feminist critique. Womxn have been oppressed precisely because their labour has not conformed to Marx’s ideas. Womxn raising children and maintaining a household have surely chosen a legitimate path that Marxism would undermine as mere animal flourishings. This is wrong. Simply put there are legitimate alternate preferences, which depending on the person will be more fulfilling than Marxian production. I think this has become starkly obvious in modern capitalism where home life has become significantly better. Marx’s response would likely be that under Marxism abundance would allow for all of this as well as fulfilling production. I will not elaborate on this but the assumption of abundance under Marxism is a very
However many of his arguments do not stand up to critique. I believe there are some ways to better argue for mark’s conclusions, although I will not be addressing them. The first major flaw is perhaps the most fundamental to Marx’s alienation critique. Marx does not adequately account for why he believes our species being is what it is (Kymlicka, 2002: 193). The argument he employs is the taxonomical differentia argument (Kymlicka, 2002: 193). This argument fails because both its conclusion does not follow from its premises and that it is simply a non sequitur (Kymlicka, 2002: 193). The differentia argument is that which makes an organism unique, the feature it does not share with other organisms, is the feature that is necessary for that animal to flourish (Kymlicka, 2002: 193). From this principle Marx believes that it is creative cooperative production that is unique to people and is thus the thing we need to flourish. However, complex mathematics is also unique to people and yet Marx does not claim that is our species being. Moreover, simply because a feature of an organism is unique does not make that the most important thing to that animal’s flourishing. This is neatly proven by the fact that if aliens came to earth with the same species being as humans, that would not somehow nullify our species being. Far more work is required in proving that our species being is in fact …show more content…
Firstly, there really do seem like there are legitimate cases where one would choose alienating labour for other ends (Kymlicka, 2002: 192). The home cook who wants to cook gourmet food yet cannot be employed commercially can surely find contentment with an alienating career that allows her to do this. Thus, hobbies may require alienating labour. Additionally there is a strong feminist critique. Womxn have been oppressed precisely because their labour has not conformed to Marx’s ideas. Womxn raising children and maintaining a household have surely chosen a legitimate path that Marxism would undermine as mere animal flourishings. This is wrong. Simply put there are legitimate alternate preferences, which depending on the person will be more fulfilling than Marxian production. I think this has become starkly obvious in modern capitalism where home life has become significantly better. Marx’s response would likely be that under Marxism abundance would allow for all of this as well as fulfilling production. I will not elaborate on this but the assumption of abundance under Marxism is a very