3 ms·

This is going to sound ironic, but it's not: another philosopher who found purpose in work was Marx. To Marx, work was central to self-expression and human thri

This is going to sound ironic, but it's not: another philosopher who found purpose in work was Marx. To Marx, work was central to self-expression and human thriving, and part of capitalism's failure was a de-coupling of the results of a worker's toil from the worker, leading to estrangement and alienation. There's a reason why every other people's republic, for better or for worse, valorized the coal-miner and the farmer.

jfengel 4y ago
The "valorization" was for the worse, and that's Marx's point. If the workers actually received contentment from their labor, they wouldn't need any external validation. They'd just do it. When Marx spoke about alienation, he was talking about industrial manufacturing, not producing commodities. Capitalism benefits from production lines, where you're working on a small piece of a product and don't feel ownership of the process. And you don't get financial benefit because any profits go to the people who own production lines. Early 20th century communist revolutions happened in less industrial countries, on the idea that farmers and miners who owned the farms and mines themselves would get a larger share of the profits. But it never worked out that way, for a ton of reasons -- mismanagement being key, but really the fact that commodities don't produce the kinds of profits that drove Marx's theory. Marx's ideas of alienation were driven by highly profitable industrial manufacturing. The world today is insanely more profitable than Marx ever dreamed, and that presents a lot more opportunities for workers to feel ownership. We have the luxury of supporting artisans -- including farmers who grow less food for more effort but offer other benefits, even if purely intangible ones. I don't think there's ever going to be "artisan mining", and I don't think miners were ever going to be well accommodated in a Marxist society. The best you could hope for is turning the mines over to the workers and letting them profit.

jfengel 4y ago

The "valorization" was for the worse, and that's Marx's point. If the workers actually received contentment from their labor, they wouldn't need any external validation. They'd just do it. When Marx spoke about alienation, he was talking about industrial manufacturing, not producing commodities. Capitalism benefits from production lines, where you're working on a small piece of a product and don't feel ownership of the process. And you don't get financial benefit because any profits go to the people who own production lines. Early 20th century communist revolutions happened in less industrial countries, on the idea that farmers and miners who owned the farms and mines themselves would get a larger share of the profits. But it never worked out that way, for a ton of reasons -- mismanagement being key, but really the fact that commodities don't produce the kinds of profits that drove Marx's theory. Marx's ideas of alienation were driven by highly profitable industrial manufacturing. The world today is insanely more profitable than Marx ever dreamed, and that presents a lot more opportunities for workers to feel ownership. We have the luxury of supporting artisans -- including farmers who grow less food for more effort but offer other benefits, even if purely intangible ones. I don't think there's ever going to be "artisan mining", and I don't think miners were ever going to be well accommodated in a Marxist society. The best you could hope for is turning the mines over to the workers and letting them profit.