May Day Post

On Workers’ Day Sean O’Shea reflects on the understanding of work offered by Karl Marx (1818–1883). He describes Marx’s vision of practical humanism, and demonstrates how his views have a continuing relevance for us today.

Marx famously denied that he was ever a Marxist. He did however describe himself as a practical humanist. He acknowledged the power unleashed by capitalism in developing the forces of production. He was also concerned at the devastation it caused to the newly created working classes who had to sell their labour in competition with each other in order to live.

He critically analysed capitalist society and the ways in which the legitimate demand for full social and economic emancipation, rather than just formal “political rights”, was denied to the majority of the population.

History, conceived as the collective work of humanity co-operating in the production of the means of existence, and in their full social and cultural development, had for Marx hardly begun. It couldn’t, in his view, commence while the many were compelled to sell their labour in the market place, on whose backs the few had the leisure to devote themselves to a life of culture, aestheticism or hedonistic self-indulgence.

He believed in a number of key propositions which many contemporary commentators would regard as heretical, illusory, and contrary to human nature or the alleged “survival of the fittest.”

These included the following:

• History affords an opportunity for the realisation of human emancipation, not just the emancipation of some privileged elite or caste, but the whole of humanity.
• This is not a project that needs to be deferred to some future time when you might eventually get around to “being yourself”, or to a time after death when all wrongs might be righted and the meek might inherit the earth. It is a project that could be collectively worked towards here and now.
• A precondition for the realisation of such a project is that the basic necessities of life be met in the least time-consuming way possible, by the most efficient means possible, to free people to get on with their cultural, artistic, and educational development, in free association with others.
• A corollary is that the means of existence, such as access to housing, health facilities, education, transport, and other necessary utilities, would be made freely available to all.
• This would be met through working people having control over the means and relations of production, and the use of what is produced for the maintenance and development of the productive forces, and the meeting of universal health, social and cultural needs.

He distinguished between three kinds of work: necessary work, alienated work and creative work.

Necessary work was associated with the production of the means of subsistence. Nowadays we would include in this category the work of social care and related tasks often performed by women on an unpaid basis.

Alienated work had a number of aspects. It was an intrinsic part of a person’s status as a worker compelled to sell his labour on the market. It was characterised by a lack of control over both the process and the product of production. As they don’t own the means of production, they don’t have significant control over how they relate to each other in the productive process.

Working at the behest of another for purposes external to himself, the worker forfeits his role as controller and initiator of his own activities. His work is not a means for developing his own full human potential, but a means of satisfying other needs, such as feeding himself and his family, keeping a roof over his head and so on, and, most importantly, making a profit for his employer. Hence he tends to feel fully himself only outside of work. Furthermore, he is alienated from other workers with whom he may experience some shared solidarity, but with whom he is also in competition for scarce jobs.

Thirdly, there was creative work – work that was self-chosen or self-directed, and which was an embodiment or expression of one’s human potential, abilities, talents and aspirations. Marx often cites the composing of music or scientific work as examples of creative work: it is serious, it requires time and effort but it constitutes an expression of our inherent abilities and talents.

The term “self-actualisation” as used by the psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) might also cover what was implied in this concept of creative work.

Marx favoured the abolition of alienated work, the minimisation of necessary work aided by technological development and, we would nowadays add, a communal or co-operative approach to addressing social and welfare needs. Thirdly, he envisaged the extension of opportunities for all to participate in creative work.

Back to the present

In present times, with the decline of religious and moral interpretations of the world, the instrumental interests of performance (efficiency), profit and power have become dominant.

This has led to what the sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) described as “the disenchantment of the world.”

A sense of resignation prevails about the prospects for social transformation, and a scaling-down of expectations is illustrated in the continuing demand expressed by workers and their representatives to have their labour exploited, rather than demanding an end to the exploitation of labour.

Some argue that living standards and working conditions have for many people vastly improved since the time Marx was writing. They cite the EU Social Charter and working time regulations, increased affluence, purchasing power and ever-increasing availability of consumer goods as examples of the many improvements.

However, this account has to be evaluated in the light of a contrasting picture which is one of increasing inequality, and the fact that many workers, in both the private and public sector, commonly still work not a 35-hour week, but a 60 to 70-hour week, and near half of this is in effect “unpaid work.” They do this to hold on to their jobs, to pay their mortgages (if they are lucky enough to be able to afford one) and to meet the increasingly high expectations, targets and demands being placed upon them within the contemporary culture of “performance management.”

It also has to be evaluated in the light of the following accounts, which are taken from the Oxfam Briefing Paper Turning The Tide (2009).

“I worked cutting leeks for 70 hours, and was paid just £20 for a week’s work. The wage slip recorded just 14 hours. There was also a charge of £10.52 per week for transport to the field.” Farm worker, Lincolnshire

“I work for an agency – but I’m ‘self-employed’. They pay me £2.29 per room. I can’t clean enough rooms to make the minimum wage. There is no sick pay or holiday pay. And I have to pay for my own cleaning materials and uniform out of my wages.”  Cleaner, hotel, London

With the parliamentary system having become such a weak vehicle for social change, new citizen movements of resistance have evolved, against the grain of contemporary pessimism, through which the quest for social and economic emancipation is being re-kindled. These movements may yet develop into a coherent force, and contribute towards a much-needed social and political renewal.

May 2012

Also in: SOS

« SOS blog 5
short history of work »