The Concept of Labor: Marx and his Critics (original) (raw)
Related papers
These four alienations present the pervading notion of labor as oppressive and degrading and the ideal notion of Labor as a way of self-realization and fulfillment. Thus, the notion of labor as a human process deals with his distinction from animals (an affirmation of the consciousness) and his sociability (a demonstration of his species-life). According to Marx, this ideal labor is only fulfilled at the communistic revolution.
I n this essay I present two intimately connected readings of the concept of living labor as it appears in Marx's Grundrisse: by Enrique Dussel in his 1980s works on Marx's economic writings, and by Hardt and Negri in their 2004 collaboration, Multitude. In the process, I present my own reading in which I try to show how the concept of living labor that Marx developed is informed by an internal critique of Kantian ethics, subsuming its spirit within a materialist critique of Kantian formalism. This simultaneous cancellation of formalism and preservation of formal elements within a materialist critique becomes the fulcrum by which to judge the loss of the ethical dimension in what for Marx is the fundamental relation of classical political economy: the relation between capital and labor-not only in terms of the material negation of the workers' lives, but also in terms of the internal shortcomings of capitalism regarding the formal freedom of the worker.
Productive and unproductive labor: Marx’s positions on personal services
In Marx’s texts we can recognize three positions on the concept of productive labor, arising from his critique of Smith. These positions are incompatible with each other when considering the labor that provides personal services, of growing importance in contemporary capitalism. A return to the foundations of Marx’s theory of value is necessary to understand the concept of productive labor and to decipher one of the main determinants of value transfers between sectors and regions and of the ever-increasing inequality.
The aporia of Marx's concept of labour: a chronological analysis
Unpublished paper, 2019
Labour probably represents the most contradictory of all Marxian concepts. In his earlier works, Marx defines labour negatively; as an inevitably alienated form of activity, which is peculiar to capitalist modernity. This stance then begins to change in the Grundrisse in which labour is understood ambiguously, sometimes as a capitalist category and sometimes as a transhistorical category. Finally, from A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy onwards, Marx adopts a twofold concept of labour: concrete labour and abstract labour; in this context, only the time-bound character of abstract labour is acknowledged, whereas concrete labour is equated with the material form of (re)production of all human societies. In this article, the evolution of the Marxian notion of labour undergoes chronological analysis with the ultimate goal of transcending the aporias embedded in Marx’s work and proposing a coherent understanding of labour as a historically specific form of activity.
Work: Past, Present, Future – Some Specters of Marx
Sofia Philosophical Review, 2023
According to three influential French theorists, the ‘‘greatness’’ of Marx (Deleuze) consists in his status as an ‘‘initiator of discursive practices’’ (Foucault) and in his spectral living-on (Derrida). As respectively Foucault and Derrida argue, the discursive effect of Marx’s theorizing gives reason to characterize Marx as a ‘‘transdiscursive’’ author who remains relevant, influential, and determinate for our contemporary discourse. In this paper, I put this hypothesis to the test by turning to some of Marx’s ideas on labour, alienation, and emancipation as they appear in the work of Hannah Arendt and the contemporary political theorist Isabell Lorey. In doing so, this paper addresses the question: is Marx indeed still relevant for our contemporary economic and political discourse?
Marx's Non-Speciesist Concept of Labour
Capital & Class, 2023
Human–animal scholars have repeatedly accused Marx of standing in the tradition of a Cartesian human–animal dualism. One central piece of evidence brought forward to substantiate the attack is Marx’s concept of labour. The present article, however, argues that Marx’s conceptualisation of labour is actually non-speciesist and recognises non-waged and other than human forms of labour as well without renouncing qualitative distinctions between them. For Marx, both useful labour and the historically specific capitalist form of social labour cannot be reduced to something peculiar to man. Useful labour encompasses a wide range of ways to transform nature. Due to the bourgeois social relations, capitalist social labour is instead limited to human productive wage labour, excluding numerous types of human labour as well as animal labour. Thus, his concept of labour proves that Marx is not just another ‘speciesist’ scholar in the long Western tradition of philosophy.
“The Shortening of the Working Day” in Marx’s Capital and Labor as Human Essence
2017
“The Shortening of the Working Day” in Marx’s Capital and Labor as Human Essence Satoshi Matsui (Senshu University) My study examines the positioning of the concept of labor in Marxism. Section 1 is an introduction. Marx appealed for the “liberation of labor” because labor is the essence of human beings. However, he advocated “liberation from labor” through “the shortening of working day” in Capital. This aporia seen in Marx’s labor concept remains unresolved. Therefore, I have attempted to solve it. In Section 2, I classified the concepts of labor and free time in Marxist social development theory as follows. L1: wage labor in capitalism, L2: labor in market economy, L3: labor in self-sufficient economy under private property system, L4: labor in the principle of contribution of socialist society, L5: labor as an advanced activity in communist society, F1: advanced activity in free time, and F2: leisure in free time. In Section 3, based on the arrangement in the previous section, I explored which type of labor is judged to be alienated. From the definition of alienation, L1 to L4 are included in alienated labor. In Section 4, I examined L5, F1, and F2. L5 is the labor freed from alienation. Therefore, from the standpoint of alienation, L5 should not be discarded. However, if the productive forces develop sufficiently, it is expected that L5 is converted into F1 or F2. Why is F1 or F2 more desirable than L5? When comparing both, the latter is freer, its burden on human beings as internal nature and the environment as external nature is lesser, and the coexistence between nature and human beings is easier in F1 or F2. This is why L5 should be replaced by F1 or F2. In Section 5, I discussed the relationship between the argument in the previous section and the Marxist beliefs that labor is the human essence. L5 is the labor that has become “life’s prime want.” However, the theory of labor essence cannot be deduced from the universality of the metabolism between nature and human beings. Purposiveness is indeed the essence of labor, but it is not the essence of human beings. Although social cooperation and self-realization can certainly be called the human essence, they are not limited to labor, but rather in free activities without labor. These enjoyments become possible in free time. Therefore, Marxism advocates the shortening and eventual disposal of labor. Section 6 concludes with my suggestion on the positioning of labor concepts in Marxism. The Marxist stance on labor varies according to the stages of development of the social system. In a capitalist society, labor is in an alienated form, and in the early stages of communist society, it gains a human form. However, as a communist society develops, the proportion of labor will decline, and lose its position as the ideal. The “liberation of labor” is a priority for us living in a capitalist society, and therefore, labor without alienation is presented as the goal. This is due to the adoption of the immanent critique based on historical materialism. In communist society, “liberation from labor” is the subject, and labor is not the human essence in this sense.
Automation and Labor: Is Marx Equal to Adam Smith?
The qualifications for employment within the modern microelectronic-based, automated systems can be understood as a negation of the Marxist claim that work would come to demand less skill as technology developed. This paper attempts to criticize this interpretation by seeking the work-deskilling concept in the writings of Marx himself. The result is the proposition that that which is observed in the modern factory*/ that is, the radical dispensability of living work*/ really mirrors work deskilling according to Marx. The more usual idea of work deskilling, attributed erroneously to Marx, is in reality Smithian in nature. Based on this analysis, a critical analysis is made of Labor and Monopoly Capital by Braverman, which has become accepted as the definitive interpretation of the ideas of Marx on the subject. The sole cause for confusion arising from equating the Marxist and Smithian analyses concerning technology and work should be attributed to an incorrect understanding of Taylorism and Fordism. Here we propose that recent technological developments in reality signify an end to the mistake of equating Marx with Smith, and also indicate the great relevance of Marx today.