Marx Rousseau Alienation Historically Speaking,

Marx Rousseau Alienation

Historically speaking, Marx and Rousseau both constitute figures in history who have developed philosophies and put into action programs and plans that demonstratively changed the face of history and politics. Each designed a set of principles which would guide their various locals to complete political reform, stepping away from traditional models of political control to knew models which they believed better represented man. Marx created a philosophy that competed not only with traditional Russian monarchical rule and social control of the masses but also rejected concepts of capitalism which he believed would equally or more directly affect the individual and therefore the whole of society. Rousseau on the other hand developed a system of political thought that challenged monarchical rule in France and replaced it with a self rule through social contract that in theory culminated into a non-representative or direct rule by the people. It would seem then that each political philosopher would have similar conceptions of what it means to be an individual, alone and collectively in the world, yet this is clearly not the case. Both Marx' and Rousseau's political works resulted in collective action and revolution, yet in conceptually different ways. This work will define each man's conception of alienation and as a point of analysis discuss the respective political projects of each through the eyes of each mans conception of alienation.

Both Rousseau and Marx developed theories of alienation that were compounded into political thought that shaped history. Each had a vision of the alienation of the individual by various means of either force (Marx) or choice (Rousseau) that demonstratively effected the manner in which political and social thought emerged in their various circles. Marx, at the heart of the socialist revolution became a leading figure in Russian Reform, while Rousseau's political ideologies helped grease the wheels of the French revolution, and later reform in Poland. In brief, Marx believed that the individual was alienated as product of being separated from the means of production, by the force of control of the owner. While Rousseau believed that alienation was a choice made by those who chose to live in and build a society based on his form of social contract theory. For Marx, alienation was an unnecessary product of the human condition in capitalism while for Rousseau alienation was an easily reckoned with side effect of collective development and thought. Marx believed that alienation was an unnatural and negative aspect of capitalism and worker exploitation (Oldenquist & Rosner, 1991, p. 5) and Rousseau felt that it was the positive product of social order, in a social order that was inclusive of collectivism or the good of the people. (O'Hagan, 1999, p. 113)

Marx on Alienation:

For Marx alienation exists in a social condition where the individual is a tool for the development of profit of another. The individual is removed from the means of production and forced into a social situation that requires a desire for the possession of objects and the objectification, even of his own labor. In Marx view alienation could occur knowingly or without thought, but as the individual seeks to obtain object rather than other more holistic goals the individual is equally alienated from his neighbor, his work and his government.

For Marx the social conditions under which alienation occurs are those in which labor is a commodity, the means of production are privately owned, and there is a division of labor. When these conditions obtain, workers are alienated whether or not they feel dissatisfied. However, the Marxist position does not ignore psychological states. Alienated workers may experience themselves as alien to their labor, to the products of their labor, to their fellow human beings, and even to themselves. But how they describe these experiences could reveal an ignorance of causes and a lack of class consciousness. Their work and its products could suffer from what some Marxists call "reification," that is, externalization as "objects" that have lost their proper relations to the self, and the workers may not be aware of this. (Oldenquist & Rosner, 1991, p. 5)

Marx theory is a direct product of the expression of capitalism. Capitalism removes from the people the desire for common good and replaces it with the desire for individual gain, secondary compensation in the form of money rather than collective compensation in the form of objects of need and prosperity, including at the very least a collective conscience of social need.

For 100 years -- in the first phase -- knowledge was applied to tools, processes, and products. This created the Industrial Revolution. But it also created what Marx called "alienation" and new classes and class war, and with them communism.

(Drucker, 1993, p. 52)

There is a clear sense that Marx believed and practiced the ideals of his ideas of alienation, and that even thought he worker might gain happiness and psychological security from possessions he was unwittingly or wittingly developing his own and societies unhappiness in doing so. When the drive to build one's own monetary and physical prosperity overrides the drive to make sure that the community is well provided for, and that there is a relatively equal distribution of goods the manner in which the world works is similar to the conception of mass self-interest. Self-interest at every level

According to Marx drives social destruction, rather than social development. Marx spoke of alienation as the product of capitalistic drive, the sole creator of class and class struggle, class being the distinctions between individuals that dominate and create disproportionate levels of possession and therefore value of the individual. Marx conceived that if this dispossession was alleviated that the social order would take on a new collective consciousness and that if all individuals had roughly the same possessions and their needs were met then class would disappear and with it alienation.

Rousseau on Alienation:

Rousseau, on the other hand conceived of alienation as a product of collective social contract, a product that ultimately negated itself by virtue of equality. The individual in seeking redress from the oppression of the current political order, (non-representative government) or the state of nature, an inherently anarchical situation where all act in self-interest to disastrous degrees, relinquished his right to be included, i.e. The opposite of alienated, in doing so equally each individual became equal and the collective could rule more representatively.

Rousseau declares that the principle of total alienation is the key to the [social] contract as a whole: 'These clauses, properly understood, may be reduced to one -- the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community' (SC I.6.360/138). He provides three arguments for this principle. The first argument proceeds from reciprocity, equality and self-interest: 'since each one gives his entire self, the condition is equal for everyone, and, since the condition is equal for everyone, no one has an interest in making it burdensome for the others.' (SC I.6.360-1/138). According to this argument, since all members will have alienated exactly the same to the community, namely all their natural liberty, it can be in the interest of member a to limit the (social) liberty of member B. only to the extent that a would be willing to have his or her own (social) liberty reciprocally limited by B. (O'Hagan, 1999, pp. 111-112)

Rousseau contends that this alienation is a conscious ideal for the collective as if it is created with the intention of offering a better world to live in and with equal intentions it will become the great egalitarian (with regard to men) creation of a social contract that reforms and guides its members to collective good and direct government, i.e. pure democracy.

A as the alienation is made without reservation, the union is as perfect as it can be, and no associate has anything further to claim. For if some rights were left to private individuals [particuliers], there would be no common superior to judge between them and the public. Each man being his own judge on some point would soon claim to be so on all; the state of nature would subsist and the association would necessarily become tyrannical or ineffectual. (SC I.6.361/138-9)"...Rousseau claims that anything short of total alienation must lead us back to the state of nature, to either despotism or anarchy. (O'Hagan, 1999, p. 112)

Rousseau further identifies the great leveling characteristic of self-possessed and voluntary alienation. Alienation to all is the determining factor of the negation of alienation.

Finally, as each gives himself to all, he gives himself to no one; and since there is no associate over whom one does not acquire the same right one grants him over oneself, one gains the equivalent of everything one loses, and more force to preserve everything one has. (SC I.6.361/139)"...Rousseau now maintains that if the individual's alienation is to everyone, then it is to no one. He anticipates the result of the balance sheet (SC I.8), in holding that individuals are better protected by the power of the sovereign than they ever were by their own efforts in the state of nature. (O'Hagan, 1999, p. 113)

Marx' Alienation Applied to Project:

Marx conceived of and in many ways developed a blueprint for collectivism. The individual would transcend alienation in an environment where he did not have to possess goods, as everything he needed was provided for him and his work was a demonstrative example of making sure this was so. Marx project therefore became the development of communism, and later the transitional socialism, that was conceived to create in individuals the desire to work for a collective, rather than for cash or possessions. Self-interest was to be left aside, and be replaced by collective interest and social and political health. To build such a place revolution was necessary, and would to Marx become the leveling of the people. The ruling class and the ownership class would step away from or be forced from their pulpits and the people would develop state owned collectives where needs were met for the good of the whole rather than the profit of the dominant class.

In Marx's day,... appropriation is supposed to have lost its creative character. Instead of leading to the enrichment of man's powers, capitalist appropriation has become, in Marx's words, 'direct, one-sided gratification -- merely in the sense of possessing, of having'. 11 the human condition reflected in such appropriation is given in Marx's claims that 'man has no human needs' and that money is the only 'true need' produced in capitalism. 12 (Ollman, 1971, p. 94)

According to Marx the current state of affairs was demonstratively destructive to human character as possession was the driving force behind human existence and if one has more than they need then they are denying need of the other. Additionally, Marx believed that collectivism would rekindle the innate desire of humanity to experience life, rather than simply trodding through it to get to work.

People no longer feel drives to see, hear, love and think, but only to have, to own what is seen, heard, loved and thought about. Ownership, with all it entails in the way of greed, status, rights to use and abuse, has become the only adequate expression of man's powers at this stage in their development. For Marx, the desire to own is not a characteristic of human nature but of historically conditioned human nature, and the desire to own everything with which one comes into contact is the peculiar product of capitalism. (Ollman, 1971, p. 94)

Marx ideals led to direct revolution and demanded that the nation redistribute wealth and power through the collective social order. According to Marx those who would benefit most from this collective redistribution would be the masses, the workers. Though conceptually it sounds nice, the reality was that state ownership of the means of production centralized power into one rather than many (privately owned) power structures, opening the door for totalitarianism. Sadly, it seems that collectivity in theory is fundamental, as Marx thought to human social development but it is also an avenue for those who have chosen not to relinquish their desire for power or possession to even more closely control the very elements Marx wished to return to the people.

Marx's description of man's powers in terms of their lowest common denominator, the power of 'having', applies more or less -- with the necessary reservations made for differences of class -- to all the people of the capitalist era. 13 Just as capitalism is the 'low point' of appropriation by man's powers, communism is its 'high point'. Comparing the role that money plays in capitalist society with a situation where money does not exist, Marx states:

Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust, etc. If you want to enjoy art, you must be an artistically cultivated person; if you want to exercise influence over people you must be a person with a stimulating and encouraging effect on other people. Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. 14 (Ollman, 1971, p. 94)

Marx, was not a simple man nor did he have simple thoughts, but the expression of his philosophy of collectivism only worked on a local level. The idea that leveling would erase the human desire for power and possession was disproved in many ways and the collective did not entirely regain its exercise over the finer things in life.

One of Marx's aims in the labor theory of value was to get us to see the capitalist as a useless and indeed harmful excrescence upon society, to whom offering compromises made no sense, and in this he succeeded admirably. (Ollman, 1971, p. 247)

Though on the point of alienation, it would seem that alienation was conceptually altered, in Marx projects, as many people (though clearly not the ruling structure) developed a clear sense of their place in the community, at least on a local level and worked demonstratively hard to maintain an idea of community and culture, still present in many today.

Rousseau's Alienation Applied to Project

To some degree it can be said that Rousseau, even though he was not a direct presence in government was successful in the long run, with his ideals of alienation in projects. His ideas of social contract influenced the development of constitutional rule and direct representation, though at the price of representation in most cases.

Rousseau's argument in the Social Contract turned the tables on kings and aristocrats...Instead of defending democracy, he made it seem as if rulers must answer why they should be allowed to rule after having broken the social contract, and in this way performed the same service for liberalism that Marx did later for socialism. (Ollman, 1971, p. 247)