at realizing philosophy through political economy, which is based upon a philosophic anthropology that is spelled out in the 1844 Mauscripts, and partly reiterated, and further developed in the Grundrisse. It is to be noted that the term "alienation* occurs and/or its meaning is
38
described several times in Capital. For example, Marx writes, "the character of independence and estrangement which the capitalist modes of production as a whole gives to the instruments of labour and to the product, as against the workman, is developed by means of machinery
39
into a thorough a n t a g o n i s m . M c L e l l a n adds that
... It is not only a question of terminology; the context, too, of Capital is a continuation of Marx’s early thoughts. The main theme of Volume 1 of Capital, surplus-value, rests on the equation of work and value that goes back to the conception of man as a being who created himself and the conditions of his life - a conception outlined in the Paris Manuscripts. It is man's nature, according to the Marx of
the Paris Manuscripts, to be constantly developing, in cooperation with other men, himself and the world about him. 40
When we come to Capital, McLellan asserts, we find that here Marx is describing
... How this fundamental role of man, to be the initiator and controller of the historical process, has been trans ferred, or alienated, and how it belongs to the inhuman power of Capital. Moreover the counterpart to alienated man, the unalienated or ’total’ man of the Manuscripts, also appear in Capital. In the chapter of Volume 1 on
’Machinery and Modern Industry’ Marx makes the same contrast between the effects of alienated and unalienated modes of production in the development of human potentiality. 41 Concluding his argument for continuity between the Marx of the 1844 Manuscripts and the Marx of Capital, McLellan rightly draws attention to the fact that "the section of Capital that most recalls the early writings, is a final section of Chapter I, entitled "Fetishism
A2
of commodities". ' In McLellan's estimation, "the whole section is reminiscent of the section on alienated labour in the Paris Manuscripts
and of the notes on James Mill which Marx composed in 1844. On the question of labour’s objectification of itself in its products, Marx writes:
A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of m a n ’s labour appears to them as objective character stamped upon that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour, is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. 44
We began by acknowledging that the apparent existence of an ’’early" and a "mature" Marx, presents a hermeneutical problem as regards the source of information related to Marx’s concept of man. It was argued that, whereas the early Marx was more the philosopher than the later Marx, who was ostensibly more the political economist (than the speculative philosopher), this did not detract from the essential unity that exists between the early and later Marx, This unity, it was noted, is centred around Hegel’s influence on Marx
which is most clearly seen in the early (and mature) Marx’s discussion of the themes of ’’alienation" and "objectification" . There is no doubt that Marx in his mature writings came to speak of ’alienation' in concrete terms such as the "fetishism of commodities". But his attempt at grounding "alienation" in the material base of the produc tive process is also to be found in his 1844 Manuscripts, albeit in a nascent s t a t e , ^
We therefore agree with those scholars who argue that there is a continuity within a discontinuity in Marx’s thought. The continuity is to be found in the persistence of Marx’s concern with alienation which is described in philosophic terms in his early writings, and in economic terms in his mature works. At the same time, we find that even in his early writings, Marx devotes some attention to the problem
of grounding philosophy in the material process of production. By the same token, we find that the philosophical anthropology of his
early writings continues to provide the basic framework within which he analyses bourgeois capitalism. In the movement from an explicit to an implicit philosophical anthropology, there is a break for a shift in emphasis occurs in his mature work, especially Capital, he is concerned with "alienation" in relation to the inherent "laws" of capitalism that would lead to its eventual demise and the end of all "alienation". There is therefore a continuity within a dis continuity in Marx’s thought,
Finally, our primary concern in the preceding analysis of the unity between the early and mature Marx, was to show that, viewed as a whole, Ma r x ’s writings has as its primary concern, man as the
I
creator of his own history. Despite the developmental changes that 46
take place in Marx's concept of man, nevertheless, the anthropology of the early Marx remains the presupposed functional anthropology of the mature Marx, Axelos expresses this case succinctly when he writes,
The building of Marxian doctrine is a methodical
development around the theme of man as endowed with a will capable of taking hold of the world by virtue of technique,,,, Marx believes he has brought about the permanent collapse of a heaven now empty, its gods gone; and he can hardly allow that heaven continue to overshadow earth, Marx is determined that his anthropology and philosophy of history, as well as his programme of salvation and his, shall we say, eschato- logical vision, be altogether real and deeply, radically immanent. 47
His anthropology and philosophy of history, so rooted in socio economic realities, attempts to ignore metaphysics. As we shall see below, this attempt was unsuccessful. In asserting that man creates himself (and history, for history is the account of m an’s creative
activity), through his interaction with nature, Marx boldly declares that salvation - the transcendence of alienation - will be ushered in by man. Thus, whatever may be said about Marx as philosopher, economist, sociologist, political scientist, etc., it is to be concluded, above all, that his philosophy of man (and concomitantly of history) was pivotal for his understanding of reality.
B.
AO Alienation in Popular Usage.
In the discussion on the unity in the early and mature Marx, it was argued that the inherent unity in Marx’s writings hinged upon Hegel’s influence upon him, especially in the former's use of the word "alienation". It was claimed that Marx’s anthropology was built around his concept of alienation and its historical transcendence. For Marx, man, whether worker (proletariat) or bourgeois capitalist
(owner of the means of production), was in a state of alienation. This alienation had reached its apogee under the m o d e m industrial capitalism of Marx's day. To define what man is, albeit without arguing for a fixed essence of man, inevitably involves the concept of alienation. The centrality of this concept in Marx's anthropology therefore leads us to an examination of the meaning(s) the term had for Marx,
But before we do so we must take note of the problem of definition that attends the concept "alienation". We are bombarded by a wide spread and variegated usage of the term, not only by contemporary writers, but also by writers, thinkers, artists, etc., throughout the centuries. In fact, it is argued by some, that the popularity of the
term today did not stem primarily from Marx’s usage. Rather, it came 49
down to us via another route. Be that as it may, no one could
seriously dispute the impact of the publication of the 1844 Manuscripts, in which the concept is very much central, upon the popularization of the term. Indeed, the availability of the 1844 Manuscripts in 1932 (in English in the 1950’s), coupled with a renewed interest in Hegel
50