Marx Seminar: Second Exam

R. K. Hill
Elliott Cheifetz
Essay 1: An Alien in an Alienated Land
For what do! do not reco"nize as my own action. #hat desire to do is not what do! $%t what am
a&erse to is what do.'
(Romans ):1*
+ll relations which are not distorted! indeed ,erha,s what is reconciliatory in or"anic life itself! is a
"ift. -hose who $ecome inca,a$le of this thro%"h the lo"ic of strin"ency .Konsequenz: conse/%ence!
corollary0! ma1e themsel&es into thin"s and freeze.'
( +dorno. Minima Moralia. section 21
Marx3s conce,t of alienation' is im,ortant $eca%se it artic%lates a lin1 $etween his historical
dialectic and man3s inner(life!' s%$4ecti&ity' or e&en s,irit.' n He"el3s &iew all of history is the
history of S,irit which has $een alienated from itself and no lon"er reco"nizes itself. -hro%"ho%t
history S,irit has come to a "rad%ally "reater %nderstandin" of itself! resol&in" it3s &ario%s inner
contradictions and will e&ent%ally s%$late itself into a new %nity. f man loo1s at another man! or e&en
some as,ect of nat%re! and does not in it see a ,erfect extension of his own $ein" this is $eca%se he
remains alienated from the tr%e nat%re of all reality 5as one %nified s,irit.6 Similarly to He"el! Marx
$elie&es that this ,rocess of alienation is not an o$stacle! $%t rather a necessary 5if tra"ic6 sta"e in the
reconciliation of man1ind with itself and nat%re.
n the master(sla&e dialectic the sla&e3s s%$mission to the will of the master alienates the sla&e
from himself. nstead of ha&in" a s,ontaneo%s and 4oyf%l relationshi, to the nat%ral world the sla&e
ado,ts an instr%mental rationality o%t of the necessity of ser&in" his master. +ccordin" to $oth Marx
and He"el it is only thro%"h this relationshi, of ser&it%de! of sla&e to master! that h%man 1ind was a$le
to ,rod%ce s%ch accom,lishments as classical ci&ilization and the ind%strial re&ol%tion. Howe&er! it
seems that He"el insin%ates that this ,rocess directly im,ro&es the sla&e! disci,linin" him to the le&el
of ,erfect self(control. -he sla&e $ecomes an o$4ect to himself' and is th%s ,erfectly alienated 5from
himself6 as well as ,erfectly ,owerf%l. f the sla&e realizes his ,ower! $%t not the ori"in of it! he will
de,ose his master! $ecomin" a master himself! %ntil his own ,owers atro,hy from dis%se and a new
sla&e re$ellion occ%rs.
-his cyclical re&ol%tion $ecomes "rad%ally more self aware %ntil e&ent%ally all men $ecome
sla&es! not to other men! $%t to their own will! which is s%$ordinate to or an extension of S,irit. n this
way S,irit acts thro%"h men to $rin" harmony into the world. -herefore the self(act%alized essence of
man is his awareness of himself as a historical $ein" who can ,%t a sto, to the endlessly re&ol&in"
dialectic of master and sla&e. -his flow of the S,irit down into history is an idealistic &iew of history!
and Marx co%nters this with his materialist dialectic of history. Marx3s alternate &iew of history is
"ro%nded in his material definition of man3s nat%re.
+ll animals exert ener"y to s%r&i&e! $%t only man la$ors' to ,rod%ce o$4ects. Man can
o$4ectify his s%$4ecti&ity' $y fashionin" nat%re into o$4ects. n contrast to He"el3s notion! where man3s
own inner s%$4ecti&ity! his tho%"ht! is o$4ectified in a stoical fashion! the la$orin" animal 5man6 t%rns
the nat%ral world aro%nd him into a reflection of his inner(life. 7at%re! Marx says! is man3s inor"anic
$ody.' n this he means that! tho%"h it does not "row from him 5or"anically!6 man can ma1e nat%re into
an extension of himself. -his ca,acity! which animals do not ,ossess! to see himself as an extension of
nat%re and society 5and &ice &ersa6 can $e n%rt%red $y the a$%ndance "enerated $y a rational!
technolo"ical and ,rod%cti&e society.
8n the other hand! if he is de,ri&ed of the o,,ort%nity to wor1 and fashion o$4ects from nat%re!
man will fall ill as if some im,ortant or"an had $een remo&ed from him. 9nder ca,italism man is not
de,ri&ed of the o,,ort%nity to wor1 as s%ch! $%t his wor1 is directed $y an o%tside alien' a"ency. -h%s
his a"ency is o$4ectified! not $y himself 5as in He"el3s form%lation6 $%t $y another. -he wor1er
$ecomes "rad%ally more alienated from his own intelli"ence and creati&ity! since these ca,acities m%st
$e s%$ordinated to the ca,italist3s "oal of ,rofit see1in".
Marx ne&er stated that sla&ery! indent%red ser&it%de! nor ,roletarianization was act%ally "ood
for the indi&id%al la$orers! $%t only that $y wor1in" they "rad%ally increased h%man1ind3s a$ility to
mani,%late its en&ironment. -his ,rocess Marx refers to as the humanization of nat%re!5:;<6 wherein
the nat%ral and social en&ironment are modified so that they can e&ent%ally n%rt%re man3s $est
ca,acities. Howe&er! in the ,rocess of h%manizin" nat%re' the wor1er3s sit%ation $ecomes
,ro"ressi&ely worse since %nder ca,italism all the ,hysical and s,irit%al senses ha&e $een re,laced $y
the sim,le alienation of them all! the sense of having.'5:;=6 -his mi"ht also $e stated as the fact that
the care(laden needy man has no mind for the most $ea%tif%l ,lay.'5:1;6 Here Marx ,ortrays the
ex,loited conscio%sness of o,,ressed man as alienated from its own ca,acity to feel and see $ea%ty.
+s landed ,easants are t%rned into landless ,roletarians they are forced to direct all their
ener"ies towards the "oals of the owners! transformin" not 4%st their $odies $%t also their minds into the
instr%ment of an alien force. -he s%$mission of man3s &ital or"anic senses to instr%mental rationality is
necessary to s%stain ca,italism! $%t it is also necessary to lay the "ro%ndwor1 for a comm%nist
re&ol%tion. Comm%nism will re/%ire technolo"ically ad&anced modes of ,rod%ction that do not yet
exist. Howe&er! this instr%mental rationality will &ery nearly red%ce all h%man1ind to the le&el of
animal life> li$eration is snatched from the 4aws of %ni&ersal ex,loitation when the wor1ers seize the
5ri,ined6 means of ,rod%ction! th%s ta1in" char"e of their fate. +ccordin" to Marx it wo%ld $e na?&e!
idealist and anti(Materialist to wish for h%man1ind3s ,owers of ima"ination 5located in the
s%,erstr%ct%re6 to "row o%t of ,ro,ortion to the a material conditions of his life and allow him to fo%nd
a lastin" %to,ia in the ,resent. Howe&er! to ex,lain how this wor1s we m%st del&e dee,er into his
notion of historical materialism.
Marx Seminar: Second Exam
R. K. Hill
Elliott Cheifetz
Essay 2: The Slave and the Sache
@o% are to treat the resident alien the same way yo% treat the nati&e $orn amon" yo%Alo&e him li1e
yo%rself! since yo% were forei"ners in the land of E"y,t.'
(Be&itic%s 1<::C
Dart 1: You Say You Want A Revolution...
Marx does not $elie&e that history is determined $y ,olitics or ideas! which $elon" to the
s%,erstr%ct%re.' History is instead dri&en $y the the ,rod%cti&e forces! which $elon" to the $ase.' n
Marx3s scheme the s%,erstr%ct%re!' which contains ,olitics! ,hiloso,hy! c%lt%re! art etc. tends to $e a
mere reflection or effect of the $ase.' n Ca,italism the $ase consists lar"ely of ex(,easants who ha&e
$ecome the ,roletariat as well as the ind%strial technolo"ies that they ma1e ,ossi$le. n other words
wo%ld ,osit that the ,rod%cti&e force' consist of the social relation $etween la$orer and master as
mediated $y existin" technolo"y.
n fe%dalism the ,easant wor1ed the land and was therefore less alienated from nat%re. n
addition he was less alienated from his family and fellows since he didn3t ha&e to comm%te to a factory
or wor1,lace in order to la$or. n a sense the la$orerE,easant himself was a ,ossession of the 1in" alon"
with the land itself! tho%"h at the same time he co%ld not $e remo&ed from his land and sold li1e a
sla&e. f he was l%c1y he co%ld a,,rentice with a crafts,erson and learn a trade. -ho%"h what the
,easant ,rod%ced was "enerally sold to others 5was alienated from him!6 he was effecti&ely his own
$oss 5at least after a,,renticeshi, ended.6 How did the forces of ,rod%ction' chan"e in order to $rin"
a$o%t Ca,italismF
+ro%nd 1)G; the ind%strial re&ol%tion officially $e"an in Hritain! which was $y then the
dominant na&al ,ower and therefore also the dominant ,layer in the +tlantic Sla&e trade. Hritain3s sla&e
colonies not only ,ro&ided raw materials to Hritish factories $%t were also the $%yers of Hritish
man%fact%red "oodsI -herefore modern sla&e colonies were amon" the first cons%mer societies in the
sense that they constit%ted some of the first mar1ets for ind%strially man%fact%red commodities. #as
the rise of the ind%strial re&ol%tion! as well as the earlier de&elo,ments of ca,italism less the res%lt of
la$or acti&ity within E%ro,e $%t rather an effect of the $r%tal and %nremitant ex,loitation of +frican
sla&esF -he ,eriod of the +tlantic Sla&e trade corres,onds /%ite nicely to the rise of ca,italism.
-he role of the sla&e trade in modern history seems lar"ely %nremar1ed %,on $y Marx. f sla&es
and sla&ery were ,art of the de&elo,ment of ca,italist modes of ,rod%ction! and sla&ery can only exist
thro%"h militaristic coercion! does that mean that the soldier is a ,roletarian who ,rod%ces his own
%ni/%e ,rod%ct: coercionF +fter the French re&ol%tion the French army! ,re&io%sly <;J no$ility! was
,easantified' so that it afterward it was only :J no$ility. -his ,easant army wo%ld s%$se/%ently $e
sent to the French colony of Haiti to attem,t 5and fail6 to ,%t down the sla&e re&olt there. 5t sho%ld $e
noted that ind%strialization ,roceeded at a slower ,ace in France than in Hritain! ,erha,s $eca%se of
their diminished sla&e holdin".6 Can the $attle $etween the ,easant army of France with the re$ellin"
sla&es $e seen thro%"h the lense of class conflictF f so! co%ld this mean that what Marx identified as
the class conflict' $etween the $o%r"eoisie and the "entry was! li1e the wars $etween En"land and
France! a mere sh%fflin" of E%ro,ean leadershi, 5mere s%,erstr%ct%ral ,olitics6 that concealed the
dee,er %nderlyin" conflict $etween the colonial ,owers and their sla&esF f so! has this conflict
$etween a colonial caste and a sla&e caste $een resol&ed $y o%r contem,orary late ca,italist systemF
Dart 2: A Slave to Yourself
Hoth Marx and He"el $elie&e that a state of %ni&ersal s%$4%"ation m%st ,recede h%man1ind3s
tr%e freedom. Man1ind3s s%$4%"ation %nder the increasin"ly ,owerf%l and imminently $ehead(a$le'
monarchs of E%ro,e constit%ted man3s %ni&ersal s%$4ectification for He"el. He $elie&ed that the modern
nation(state! with its ri"ht and res,onsi$ilities of citizenshi,! is the realization of man3s hi"hest
freedom. -his freedom is "ranted to each citizen $y the enli"htened r%ler of the nation(state. n the
form of rational decrees the S,irit flows down from the r%ler thro%"h the a,,arati of the state into the
&ario%s ,olities and their constit%ent citizens! and $ac1 %, from the citizens to the r%ler $y their "i&in"
of tri$%te to the state and! when needed! ci&il diso$edience a"ainst the state3s occasional in4%stices or
inefficiencies.
Marx on the other hand $elie&es that ca,italism is "oin" to erode any o$stacle! incl%din" the
,ower of the nation(state! in the ,%rs%it of ca,ital acc%m%lation. +s ca,italism extends its reach across
the "lo$e the ,ro,ortion of ca,italists to la$orers will shrin1! concentratin" ca,ital in fewer and fewer
hands. Ba$orers will re$el a"ainst this arran"ement! as trans,arently %n4%st as it is! $%t at first they will
instit%te only a cr%de comm%nism'5:;26 which redistri$%tes the s,oils of the ca,italist system as
e&enly as ,ossi$le. -his will create the comm%nity as %ni&ersal ca,italist!'5:;26 where e&eryone
la$ors and e&eryone recei&es an e/%al wa"e.
-h%s there will no lon"er $e ca,italists ,ro,er! $%t only state(ca,italist $%rea%crats: Derha,s
they will $e re,laced $y com,%ters which o,timally mana"e the economy to increase ,rod%cti&ity and
minimize ris1. Howe&er! e&en in these circ%mstances man still remains alienated: His la$or is alienated
from him $eca%se it is dictated $y the demands of a 5now6 cy$ernetic mar1et economy. Bi1ewise! he is
alienated from his friends and family $y his need to "o to a 4o$ to la$or. Finally! he is alienated from
himself $eca%se he can only satisfy his needs and desires $y ,%rchasin" the alienated la$or of others!
rather than la$orin" on his own ,ro4ects. Herein lies an as,ect of the c%rrent criti/%e of cons%mer
c%lt%re: Man can only ex,ress or realize 5or o$4ectify6 himself thro%"h ,%rchasin" ,rod%cts and
ser&ices! rather than thro%"h his own creati&e acti&ity.
n cr%de(comm%nism h%man1ind as a whole has transcended scarcity 5thro%"h technolo"ical
inno&ation6 and warfare 5thro%"h the dissol%tion of classes and the nation state6 and is therefore no
lon"er the care(laden needy man!' yet he still remains alienatedI -he last remainin" &esti"e of the old
ca,italist order is the instit%tion of ,ri&ate ,ro,erty. Howe&er! one cannot sim,ly a$olish ,ri&ate
,ro,erty for it is the necessary conse/%ence of externalized la$or!'52<=6 and externalized la$or ma1es
%, the &ery life$lood of the cr%de' comm%nist economy. Marx3s last ste,! from state(ca,italismEcr%de(
comm%nism to %to,ia is not a sim,le ideolo"ical realization where the 5now tr%ly6 %ni&ersal wor1ers
loo1 at one another and realize the irrationality of wor1in" for ro$otic ca,italist $osses! ho"tie the
sec%rity "%ards who stand watch o&er the ca,italist com,%ter mainframe and literally smash the
ownershi, society into a $illion! tiny! silicon shards.
Dart :: The One Science
How is Marx attem,tin" to inter&ene in historyF Ko his writin"s themsel&es constit%te this
inter&entionF f ideolo"y! and indeed all c%lt%re! is merely a ,art of the s%,erficial s%,erstr%ct%re'
what wo%ld $e the ,%r,ose of tryin" to con&ince ,eo,le thro%"h writin" of ca,italism3s immanent
demiseF Bi1ewise! if Marx is descri$in" massi&e material forces that dri&e the co%rse of history why
wo%ld these forces re/%ire an ad&ocateF
Each of these /%estions can $e answered! in one way or another! $y ex,lainin" the role that
scientific acti&ity ,lays in Marx3s scheme of world history. Scientific inno&ation! that is! any inno&ation
in techni/%e 5in technolo"y6! is a cr%cial as,ect of the de&elo,ment of the ,rod%cti&e forces. +
mista1en ,ict%re of science wo%ld $e somethin" li1e this: an ima"e of a factory that ,rod%ces
increasin"ly intricate models of the nat%ral world. -his essentially an ima"e of science as a com,any
that ,rod%ces science text $oo1s. -his is an incom,lete ,ict%re and yo% wo%ld $e ri"ht to dismiss this
ima"e of science as a mere c%lt%ral acti&ity.
Science is one of the ,rod%cti&e forces! and the ,rimary ,rod%ct of its acti&ity is the scientist
herselfI S,ecifically! the scientist m%st learn to sense as a scientist does. Science is therefore the
,ro"ressi&e ,erfection of man3s own senses 5incl%din" $y their extension thro%"h technolo"y.6 n
science the senses ha&e therefore $ecome theoreticians immediately in their ,raxis.'5:;=6 Most
acco%nts of science descri$e science as a theoretical acti&ity. -ho%"h Marx wo%ld hardly deny that
theory formation and thinking were ,art of science! his em,hasis on the %ni/%e sensory acti&ities of the
scientist shifts o%r %nderstandin" in an im,ortant way. -hin1in"! li1e seein"! can $e conce,t%alized as
one of the senses. f we close o%r eyes the &isi$le s,ectr%m still exists! 4%st as when we i"nore o%r
tho%"hts o%r mind is still there! h%mmin" in the $ac1"ro%nd.
-his is the t%rnin" of man3s instr%mental conscio%sness $ac1 %,on himself! the whole of
history is a ,re,aration for 3man3 to $ecome the o$4ect of sensuous awareness.'5:126 -he nat%ral
science comm%nity! actin" within the framewor1 of historical materialism! will endea&or to %nderstand
all of the nat%ral ,ro,erties of h%man $ein"s! th%s o$4ectifyin" h%manity. 5-his is in star1 contrast to
the stoic who o$4ectifies and disci,lines his inner(life in solit%de! only comin" to 1now his own
tho%"hts! if anythin".6 -h%s! not only does man alienate his la$or from himself! he alienates his &ery
$odily or"ans! co"nition and emotions from himself $y! as far as he is a$le! deri&in" nat%ralistic laws to
ex,lain their acti&ity. Here Marx foreshadows the disco&ery of the %nconscio%s and ne%roscience as
5,erha,s6 the %ltimate alienation> the alien of man from his own mind.
Howe&er! this %ltimate alienation does not tra, man inside some deterministic %ni&erse. -his is
$eca%se in addition to the nat%ral sciences we ha&e the science of man' 5the h%manities! social
sciences etc.6 which we can %se to examine the acti&ity of nat%ral scientists. 8ne re&elation of this
examination is that e&en if the idea that we li&e in a com,letely cloc1wor1' or deterministic %ni&erse
is an ideolo"ical res%lt of certain scientific disco&eries! we don3t act%ally ha&e to $elie&e this idea
a$sol%tely to contin%e to do science (and in fact it may "et in the way.6 For instance! $efore the theory
of ma"netic fields' was acce,ted the conce,t of a material o$4ect infl%encin" another o$4ect from a
distance' was dismissed as s%,erstition.' Ma"netic attraction was initially ex,lained $y the existence
of microsco,ically small ma"netron ,articles' eminatin" from ma"nets.
-oday we ha&e ,sycholo"y! sociolo"y! anthro,olo"y! and all the other disci,lines which attem,t
to %nderstand the indi&id%al and collecti&e nat%re of man. -hese disci,lines are increasin"ly %sed to
examine the comm%nal and h%man acti&ity of scientific research. 7at%ral science will in time incl%de
the science of man as the science of man will incl%de nat%ral science> there will $e one science.'5:126
+s the scientist f%rther ,erfects her senses! as they $ecome theoreticians immediately in their ,raxis!'
the senses ac/%ire a 1ind of a%tonomy in that .t0hey try to relate themsel&es to their subject matter
.Sache0 for its own sa1e! $%t the s%$4ect matter itself is an o$4ecti&e h%man relation to itself and to
man!L and &ice &ersa.'5:;=6
#e can infer that to relate to the sache 5also: thing) for the it3s own sa1e is the o,,osite of
relatin" to it for some ,redetermined ,%r,ose! that is to relate to it for some instr%mental ,%r,ose.
Marx3s footnote is es,ecially ex,lanatory! L can ,ractically relate myself to the .thing0 in a h%man
way only if it is itself h%manly related to man.'5:;=6 -hat is! if can relate to a thing in a h%man way!
as if it were an extension of or relation to another h%man! that means the thin" m%st $e h%manly'
related to that other h%man. 8n the other hand! if ac/%are a thin" and ,ercei&e in it traces of an
inh%man relationshi, .M+KE 7 CH7+0 then cannot relate to the thin" in a h%man way since it has
$een alienated from the h%man who ,rod%ced it and therefore this thin" is not ,art of an o$4ecti&e
h%man relation' $%t instead is a relation mediated $y ca,ital.
f man3s la$or is alienated! and not an extension of himself! then he cannot ,ro,erly "i&e the
"ift of himself! cannot in any meanin"f%l way show %, in the life of another. f he cannot show %,'
then he cannot hel, the other relate to himself. +lienation from others is sim%ltaneo%s with and
identical to alienation from oneself! since others are re/%ired to ex,erience the self. n this way the end
of alienation also entails the loss of e"o! since each man realizes he is nothin" $%t an animal witho%t
other men.
-hro%"h the one science' man will $e a$le to sense the alien o$4ect5s6 in himself and the self
in external alien o$4ect5s.6 -his will allow man to finally sense! not merely theorize a$o%t! how the
dead la$or that constit%tes the economy is the extension of h%man acti&ity and how his ,resent acti&ity
feeds into the f%t%re mo&ements of the economy. -his new science and new sense will also allow him
to see his own self $oth thro%"h a microsco,ic and from "reat distance! in order that he mi"ht $etter
%nderstand the forces that act %,on him.
Mar1et acti&ity will $e as close to him as his own heart$eat! and he will $e a$le to %nco&er his
own dee,est $eliefs as if he were "ently %nearthin" the $ones of o%r distant ancestors. He will 1now
himself as a stran"er to himself! and he will 1now all stran"ers as stran"ers to themsel&es! $%t also as
fellow tra&elers in this stran"e land. -his is the ,ath towards s,ecies conscio%sness.' -he "reater a
man3s s,ecies conscio%sness "rows the more im,ossi$le it will $e for him to i"nore anyone on earth
still lan"%ishin" in $onda"e.
-he tr%th is no one of %s can $e free %ntil e&ery$ody is free.M
( Maya +n"elo%