1. Previously in the manuscript.... using premises of political economy (PE), that is, the economic and political theories of the day, we showed:
  2. Problem with PE is that it does not question its assumptions.  It shows how private property is processed by the system but it takes these things as natural laws (in the sense that this is the only way it could be).  PE looks at the system from the perspective of the owners of capital without even realizing that perspective matters.  The downsides of capitalism are treated as incidental rather than being analyzed as necessary results of the system.
  3. PE doesn't see connections and so is comfortable with false oppositions (competition - monopoly, craft-liberty vs. corporation (read "factory"?), division of land vs. landed estate (read "lots of small landowners vs. large assembled parcels"?)).  PE comfortably sets these apart as "old ways vs. new ways" without seeing their historical connections.
  4. We need to see connections betwen private property and avarice, etc.  Among the things we'll see relationships:
  5. Ulimately its about connections between estrangement and money system!
  6. PE assumes as fact what it is supposed to explain, that is, the connections between things like division of labour and exchange.
  7. We are positivists.  We start from a fact.
  8. "The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range" (71.7).  Labour produces commodities, itself as a commodity, and the worker as a commodity.
  9. Labour is human creativity.  When labour produces an object it is externalized.  What is in our hearts/heads becomes an object out there in the world ("congealed in an object").  It becomes separated from us.  Alien.  The product of my subjectivity becomes an object.
  10. Verbal pyrotechnics.  Point is that this estrangement amounts to an appropriation from (i.e., a ripping off) of the worker.  Ultimately, s/he produces capital but is under its power rather than being in charge of it.
  11. Worker's product is not "his" but an alien object.  The more s/he puts him/herself into the object, the more s/he is robbed of self.  "The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object" (72.45).  You externalize your creative force and it turns into an object which stares back at you.
  12. Let's examine relationship between "objectification" and "estrangement"
  13. Labour works in/on nature as the "outside world" -- raw material and milieu
  14. Nature provides objects and raw materials AND subsistence for the worker.
  15. worker uses external world  deprives self of means of life.  How so? Two ways:
  16. Labour turns into WORK and a MEANS of substistence.  Worker is slave to the objectified version of what he is.
  17. PE says the more worker produces the less (%) of it he has to consume.  Marx then says you can read it this way:
  18. Do I get this?  Not yet...
  19. PE hides the estrangement inherent in labour by not looking at connection between worker and production.
  20. Labour -- relationship -- its produce <<>> worker -- relationship -- objects of his production.  By contrast, man-of-means -- relationship -- production/objects of production is only a consequence of the former

  21. Hmmm.
  22. Essential relationship of labour is relationship of worker to production.
  23. Alienation is not just in relationship to product but also in the process of production itself, in the activity.
  24. What is alienation of labour?
  25. Labour (here he must mean not essential labour but labour under capitalism) is external.  Engaging in it does not affirm but denies self.  "the worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself." (74.2)  Labour is forced and coerced and is merely a means.  It is not voluntary.  In this connection, consider the life of a student who is working mainly for a grade.  Here is the list of implications Marx identifies:
  26. As result we only feel "human" when we engage in our animal functions (eating, etc.) and we feel only animal like when we are engaged in our most human endeavor (i.e., work).
  27. Clarify that eating IS human but it is not part of human essence.
  28. Review.  Two points so far:
  29. Thus, there is a strong self-estrangement here, not just estrangement of a thing.
  30. There is a third point to make
  31. The essence of being human is related to the fact that we are self conscious about being free, individual beings.  [DJR: not sure I follow the stuff about universality and inorganic body and so on.  He ends with "man is a part of nature" -- OK, so....]
  32. Alienation from both nature and self estranges humans from their essential essence, from what makes them human in the first place.  I relate this also to the fact that it gives rise to an individualism that is antithetical to our species-being but I'm not sure about this.
  33. What happens is the activity of life ends up seeming to be just a means of survival.  Compare the old "live to work vs. work tolive."  Ironically, given who mouths this maxim, Marx would prefer that we live to work in the sense that it would be a source of meaning and self expression.
  34. Animals are what they do.  Humans have consciousness which can be self reflective.  We can have our life as a project.  EL turns this power into a mere means for survival.  "What do you want to be when you grow up?" really just means "how do you want to earn a living?"
  35. Animals produce but humans can produce even when they don't need.  In fact, it's only truly human when we so produce. We can produce according to "laws of beauty."  Another way to see this is to note that humans can produce as an expression of consciousness.
  36. Humans create their world.  We manipulate nature.  Nature appears as "our reality."  We surround ourselves by what we create. This is how the world comes to be an expression of our human nature.  [NOTE: all of this refers to the unalienated version.]  EL tears us away from the world thus conceptualized.  What was an advantage over animals becomes a disadvantage.
  37. AL turns species-life into a mere means.
  38. Ditto
  39. EL turns species being into alien being, a mere means to individual existence.  [DJR: compare, in this regard, prostitution]
  40. EL also estranges "man from man" -- the "other" is alien and separate from us [DJR: again, individualism as ideology -- you are working on your survival and I am working on my survival]
  41. Man from man just as man from his essential nature.
  42. In fact, social relations is where this first shows up at all.
  43. We see others from our perspective as a worker (rather than as a "fellow human being")
  44. This all derives analytically from PE
  45. Onward to real life ("let's get empirical"?  or just practical?)
  46. To whom does the alien object I produce belong?
  47. To whom does my alien activity belong?
  48. To another being.
  49. Who?
  50. The gods?  No.  Nature? No. 
  51. The other must be another person.
  52. Someone other than the worker.  That's why the product seems alien.  It belongs to someone else.  It is my torment, but his joy.  [DJR cf. the consultant and her work]
  53. The alienation lies in the fact that the product of my labor becomes "real" or "objective" for me through relation to other person.  It becomes alien because other person is master of the object.