I will pay for the following essay Alienated Labor and The Operation of Capital: Is That All. The essay is to be 5 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.Downloa

I will pay for the following essay Alienated Labor and The Operation of Capital: Is That All. The essay is to be 5 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.

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”. But since Marx, left movements have become more complex and embraced a more multi-modal operation of oppression (MacKinnon,1982). Michael Albert, for example, advances a “four forces” theory where four spheres of society (gender and kinship, race and culture, economy and polity) interact in what a Marxist would term a dialectical fashion to reproduce different oppressions, with the consequence that oppressions can be caused by one to all four of the spheres and the consequence that a gain in one sphere can be offset by increased problems in another (Albert and Hahnel, 1981, 18-38). Applying the four forces model, we see that, in fact, there are more sources for alienation than just the operation of capital. The traditional Marxist idea of alienated or “estranged” labor is simple enough. The fruits of one's labor goes to the capitalist, the circumstances under which the labor is controlled and done are mandated by the capitalist. The only thing the worker keeps is his pay. The problem is that this means that most people spend eight hours a day, far more when Marx was writing, in totalitarian environments (Albert and Hahnel, 1981). Further, it means that that most important part of their life, almost a third to a half of it, is not “theirs” but is done to service others. This alienates the worker from their own labor process. When they go to work, they are not their own man, their work is not their own, and the fruits of their work are not theirs. Note that, in any service industry, even a self-employed person (for whom the alienation model does not strictly apply) offers a product to someone else who then owns it. But that person at least owns their own tools, owns their own time, determines how to spend their time, etc. The process of alienation leads workers to become estranged from much of their own life, almost on auto-pilot. Immediate objections crop up. Let us imagine a future society that is not capitalist in any way: It has no markets, no private ownership of the means of production, no class relations to speak of. There is a landscaping worker's council. They collectively own their tools, make decisions for their workplace (how the break room functions), etc. A customer calls them and asks them to plant roses. The landscapers recommend violets, given the soil, climate and the colors of the area, but the customer insists on roses. The landscapers need to discharge that requirement, because the service provided by a landscaper is to make a customers' lawn more beautiful for them. Even a just society will have orders, and people producing labor not entirely under their control. Even within the worker's council, no worker will ever win every vote regarding their labor.