Conly, Craig. "Alienation, Sociality, and the Division of Labor: Contradictions in Marx's Ideal of "Social Man". Ethics, Vol.89, No.1 (1978): 82-94.

Conly, Craig. "Alienation, Sociality, and the Division of Labor: Contradictions in Marx's Ideal of "Social Man". Ethics, Vol.89, No.1 (1978): 82-94.

• Marx argues that alienation of man from his fellow man is the final and devastating consequence of the capitalist system, which cannot exist on its own but is a result of the alienation of man from his products and his activities. Therefore, since the goal of communism is to end alienation, solving the alienation between men is the most crucial element (82).
• Dr. Conly objects to Marx's solution to human alienation, claiming that the division of labour -- which Marx identifies as the source of alienation -- is also necessary to human sociability. When the division of labour has been eliminated under communism, the author claims that Marx fails to provide another source of sociability (82).
• All forms of alienation in Marxism are the result of the forces of coercion and separation. Tension exists within capitalism because we are required to be in relations of power over or underneath other people, creating situations of coercion. However, the trait of capitalism which causes full alienation is that we become separated from things that should be part of our subjective experiences, like the products of our labour or our fellow man (83).
• Man becomes alienated from humanity in the same way as other properties. This occurs because for Marx, like other attributes, men are social being by nature and therefore society is something men should be naturally part of. By removing man from society and atomizing the individual, capitalism alienates men from each other (83).
• Capitalism alienates man from his fellow man as individuals, because it forces all relations to take on a contractual form, but at the same time forces men in involuntary association with each other on the basis of class. This means that capitalism increases the overall social organization of mankind, while simultaneous destroying individual relationships (83).
• Coercion, one of the preconditions for alienation, stems from an opposition of interests between men. While it requires and is reinforced by egoism, the root cause is that men have opposing interests and resort to force to solve the dispute. Marx believes that widespread opposing interests, however, only developed with capitalism and the division of labour. The division of labour created classes with distinct and conflicting interests, making coercion a mass feature of society rather than of individual relations (84).
• Coercion can exist in many different forms. Physical coercion is obvious and common, but very limited in scope, leading Marx to conclude that coercion within the capitalist system is based on private property and the ability to deny access to basic goods for those who do not follow the coercive system (85).
• Since private property and the division of labour are intrinsically linked concepts, to destroy coercion within society it is necessary to abolish both. Marx and Engels propose exactly this, arguing that destroying both of these systems is necessary and a requirement for de-alienating man from his fellow man (85).
• Engels later revised this opinion, citing his belief that some division of labour would be necessary to ensure maximal production values in an industrialized economy. Presumably, then private property would still be abolished, but the author argues that this could only be an incomplete transition because even without capitalism the division of labour would be partially alienating and result in opposing interests within society (86).
• The long-term goal of communism must still remain the abolition of the division of labour as well as the abolition of private property. This does not necessarily preclude the possibility of specialized labour, only that it must take place within an entirely social and voluntary framework in which the individual can decide all of the conditions of his labour . Furthermore, labour can be motivated by the needs of others, but only within a non-coercive framework (86).
• Marx believed that three historical processes within capitalism would eventually led to its downfall and an end to alienation and the systems which reinforced it: firstly, the concentration of capital would create a proletariat class which would realize the issues of capitalism and seeks the abolition of private property; secondly, the credit systems on which capitalism depends are in contradiction with the egoism capitalism encourages, leading to credit crises in which the proletariat could see power; thirdly, the increased surplus created by capitalism will destroy the most extreme forms of poverty, meaning economic coercion will become a less powerful force the more capitalism advances (87).
• Marx does not provide an answer about what will unify people into a society under communism. He makes it abundantly clear that people form communities out of a necessity to cooperate in order to maintain the species, not out of culture, religion, or any other sociological factor (87).
• Even the most basic of human institutions, the family, is developed out of necessity of survival. To reproduce as a species, mankind requires some form of community for economic activity and sexual reproduction. Similarly, all other forms of human interaction are driven by economic rationale and material needs (88).
• This means that the abolition of the division of labour under communism would not allow man to become de-alienated and fully socialized as Marx predicts, but would destroy the ties which bind men together into any sort of community. Since society only exists because of the economic necessity of cooperation, we can only assume that society would be non-existent in a communist world (88).
• While the necessity of unity and production during the period of class warfare would continue to bind society together through the needs of the proletariate, after communism had been realized, these needs would dissipate and society would cease to exist with the possible exception of sexual relations as a means of reproduction (89).
• A critique could be made of the author's argument that Dr. Conly is viewing the concept of the 'social man' in Marx's work too literally, and not recognizing the attributes which Marx has assigned to him. The description given for this 'social man' put him closer to self-sufficiency and autarky than anything else, leaving him without the need for association with his fellow man, only interaction with the produce of past technological accomplishments (90).
• There are two main issues with this interpretation: the first is that even if materially self-sufficient, humans do need society to fully develop their mental faculties and become 'fully human'. Secondly, such a system would eliminate the alienation of coercion, but the lack of social bonds would create another deeper form of alienation caused by extreme narcissism (90).
• Marx provides three potential solutions for this dilemma: the first that meeting sexual needs would require society even in communism; the second that humans are social for reasons beyond economic necessity and would therefore gather during communism; the third that humans are social needs as well as material needs, which can only be fulfilled in group settings (91).
• These solutions are not mutually exclusive, and Marx likely implied that all of them would play a part in binding society together during communism. Marx asserts that some combination of need for developing human faculties, social culture intrinsic to man, and genuine joy from companionship as its own goal all play into the impetus for creating society after communism (91).
• These assertions are in contradiction with the strict materialism expressed in Marx's later works and thus conflict with other elements of his theory. The author suggests that Marx actually refuted these ideas in later works, rejected them as idealist elements unfit for true Marxist theory (92).
• Dr. Conly contests that, even if the earlier idealist principles in Marx's work are accepted as explanatory for the continuation of societal relations after the advent of communism, the content of relationships would be utterly different and much narrower and shallower. Whereas relationships in all previous epochs have been driven by necessity and social constructions, the relationships in communism would only be based in individual need and thus be subject to abandonment when they no longer fulfilled their sole responsibility of personal satisfaction (93).
• Marx's own materialist interpretation of the causes of society implicitly posits that both human sociability and humanity's alienation spring from the division of labour, meaning that communism cannot be attain as destroying the impediment of the division of labour would also destroy the sociability necessary for the full development of 'social man' in communism (93).