In the "Comment on James Mill"Marx explained alienation thus: Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have, in two ways, affirmed himself, and the other person. Aside from the workers having no control over the design-and-production protocol, alienation Entfremdung broadly describes the conversion of labour work as an activitywhich is performed to generate a use value the productinto a commodity, which—like products—can be assigned an exchange value.
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of We have accepted its language and its laws. We presupposed private property, the separation of labor, capital and land, and of wages, profit of capital and rent of land — likewise division of labor, competition, the concept of exchange value, etc.
On the basis of political economy itself, in its own words, we have shown that the worker sinks to the level of a commodity and becomes indeed the most wretched of commodities; that the wretchedness of the worker is in inverse proportion to the power and magnitude of his production; that the necessary result of competition is the accumulation of capital in a few hands, and thus the restoration of monopoly in a more terrible form; and that finally the distinction between capitalist and land rentier, like that between the tiller of the soil and the factory worker, disappears and that the whole of society must fall apart into the two classes — property owners and propertyless workers.
Political economy starts with the fact of private property; it does not explain it to us. It expresses in general, abstract formulas the material process through which private property actually passes, and these formulas it then takes for laws.
It does not comprehend these laws — i. Political economy throws no light on the cause of the division between labor and capital, and between capital and land.
When, for example, it defines the relationship of wages to profit, it takes the interest of the capitalists to be the ultimate cause, i. Similarly, competition comes in everywhere. It is explained from external circumstances. As to how far these external and apparently accidental circumstances are but the expression of a necessary course of development, political economy teaches us nothing.
We have seen how exchange itself appears to it as an accidental fact. The only wheels which political economy sets in motion are greed, and the war amongst the greedy — competition.
Precisely because political economy does not grasp the way the movement is connected, it was possible to oppose, for instance, the doctrine of competition to the doctrine of monopoly, the doctrine of craft freedom to the doctrine of the guild, the doctrine of the division of landed property to the doctrine of the big estate — for competition, freedom of the crafts and the division of landed property were explained and comprehended only as accidental, premeditated and violent consequences of monopoly, of the guild system, and of feudal property, not as their necessary, inevitable and natural consequences.
Now, therefore, we have to grasp the intrinsic connection between private property, greed, the separation of labor, capital and landed property; the connection of exchange and competition, of value and the devaluation of man, of monopoly and competition, etc.
Do not let us go back to a fictitious primordial condition as the political economist does, when he tries to explain. Such a primordial condition explains nothing; it merely pushes the question away into a grey nebulous distance.
The economist assumes in the form of a fact, of an event, what he is supposed to deduce — namely, the necessary relationship between two things — between, for example, division of labor and exchange.
Thus the theologian explains the origin of evil by the fall of Man — that is, he assumes as a fact, in historical form, what has to be explained.
We proceed from an actual economic fact. The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and size.
The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. The devaluation of the world of men is in direct proportion to the increasing value of the world of things. Labor produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity — and this at the same rate at which it produces commodities in general.
The product of labor is labor which has been embodied in an object, which has become material: Under these economic conditions this realization of labor appears as loss of realization for the workers  ; objectification as loss of the object and bondage to it; appropriation as estrangement, as alienation.
So much does objectification appear as loss of the object that the worker is robbed of the objects most necessary not only for his life but for his work. Indeed, labor itself becomes an object which he can obtain only with the greatest effort and with the most irregular interruptions.
So much does the appropriation of the object appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker produces the less he can possess and the more he falls under the sway of his product, capital. All these consequences are implied in the statement that the worker is related to the product of labor as to an alien object.
For on this premise it is clear that the more the worker spends himself, the more powerful becomes the alien world of objects which he creates over and against himself, the poorer he himself — his inner world — becomes, the less belongs to him as his own.
It is the same in religion.
The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself.Karl Marx believed that there are four aspects of a man's alienation that occur in a capitalist society. The product of labor, the labor process, our fellow human beings, and human nature are the four specific aspects of alienation that occur in a capitalist society.
MARX ON ALIENATED LABOR NOTE FOR PHILOSOPHY SPRING, In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of Karl Marx describes an undesirable condition he calls "alienated [estranged] labor" and associates the elimination of this distinguished four aspects of alienated labor: alienation from the product of one's labor.
the alienation of labor 1 karl marx If the product of labor is alienation, then production itself must be active alienation, the alienation of activity, the activity of alienation.
In the estrangement of the objects of labor is summed up the estrangement, the alienation of the laboring activity itself. What Are Karl Marx Four Aspects Of Alienation Of Labor.
Max Rodrigues Response Paper on Karl Marx 10/23/10 According to Karl Marx, wages are a representation of one’s potential value of labor, however company owners necessarily get more money from one’s labor than an individual is paid in wages, for wages are based upon what is considered .
The four types of alienation were first introduced in by Karl Marx in his “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of ” In order words, a worker becomes alienated because he or she can only express labor.
Nonetheless, Marx identified four types of alienation, thus arguing further that an individual worker becomes alienated in four. Karl Marx’s Concept of Alienation Introduction Alienated labor is one of the central concepts in the young Marx’s philosophy, providing an analysis of what is perceived to be an essential feature of the capitalist way of production and how it relates to us as human beings.