Let us begin the discussion by discussing the term capitalism and some of the concepts related to

capitalism:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments

that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are
determined mainly by competition in a free market

Source: www.merriam-webster.com

Laissez-faire, (French: allow to do), policy of minimum governmental interference in the economic affairs of individuals
and society.

We are in a capitalist society right now. The market is determined by the demand of people. If there is
something that people want or desire, that is reflective of the market. Since na uso ang milk tea, then you
can see a lot of milk tea businesses popping out everywhere. That kind of business would not arise if there
was no demand in the first place. It is not the government that creates the demand but the government
can only regulate businesses for compelling reasons. Because the government does not interfere what
influences the decision of the capitalists is competition.

"the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable
terms."

Source: www.merriam-webster.com

We how the competition is in business. Whenever there is a McDonalds, Jolibee will follow. When there was
Aldub then Pastillas Girl came about. So these are things that I think are obvious to us. The capitalist
system is quite ingrained in our life that we are familiar with these concepts. Related with the concept of
capitalism is the Industrial Revolution, which I think we touched upon during our trivia:

The Industrial Revolution, which took place from the 18th to 19th centuries, was a period during which predominantly
agrarian, rural societies in Europe and America became industrial and urban.

The way the Karl Marx talks about labor it is in the context of the Industrial Revolution. At the back of his
mind, when he talks about labor he is referring to working in factories and working in the production
industry. That is why in the article he always refers to man in relation to his product. There is always a
certain product when it comes to labor. Today, labor is not limited to production. Labor can be in the form
of service. But keep in mind that even though Marx is referring to labor in the production industry, we can
still consider the service we render as products. So the article alienated labor is the relationship between
man and his work or man and his product. For the preliminaries, we discussed man in relation to himself.
For midterms, we discussed man in relation to others. For finals, we will discuss man in relation to labor for
the first half and finally man in relation to his mortality or to his own death.
Karl Marx categories people into two: the capitalists and the proletariat. The capitalist are the one in
control of the companies and the businesses and they are the ones who benefit from the capitalist system.
The proletariat refers to the working class and they are the ones who suffer under the capitalist system.
Marx finds this situation unfair. That is why he is one of the proponents of communism. Under a communist
system:

A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to
the community as a whole or to the state.

A socialist state would have the workers own the means of production and all would share the profits
equally. The workers would be working for themselves, not for the benefit of the capitalists. All forms of
government would slowly disappear, as the workers understood the benefit of working for the good of each
other. Once this model state of affairs occurred, his ideal society that he called communism would exist.

THE WORKER AND HIS PRODUCT

We shall begin with a contemporary economic fact. The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the
more his production increases in power and volume. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more
commodities he creates. As the world of things increases in value, the human world becomes devalued.

For Karl Marx, we are in this situation that the efficiency in production is inversely proportional to the value
of human labor. Again the context you have to remember in reading this Article is The Industrial
Revolution. One of the basic characteristics of that machines replace the work that can be produced by
man. Ill just read to you now a portion of an Article I found online, entitled New Technology and the End of
Jobs by Jeremy Rifkin:

The mechanical, biological, and chemical revolutions in American agriculture over the past 100 years put millions of farm
labourers out of work, transforming the country from a largely agricultural society to an urban, industrial nation. In 1850, 60
percent of the working population was employed in agriculture. Today, less than 2.7 percent of the workforce is engaged
directly in farming. There are more than 9 million persons living under the poverty line in depressed rural areas across the
United States - all casualties of the great strides in farm technology that have made the United States the number-one food
producer in the world and made American agriculture the envy of every nation.

The more efficient production becomes the more useless people are, to put it bluntly. Meaning the more
ways people can find efficient production becomes the more useless the worker becomes. That is the idea
behind the opening statement of the article. In fact the person is treated as a commodity. In a capitalist
system you are only as good as you can produce. You are judged based on efficiency. If you are in a factory
and you can produce efficiently, the employer could care less about your personality. You could be the
worst person in the world but if you can do you job very well, your employer will keep you. Nganu man?
Again it is all about the money it is all about the competition.

The economy started with agriculture prior to becoming industrial. It started out in farming, so people
cultivate their own food or trade their produce for other goods. In this society, labor was still personal in
some sense. Why do we say personal? You have your own land on which you will plant your own crops
which will then be prepared to be your own food. So the product of your labor is by you and for you. Then
Industrial Revolution came along. At this point, nag simula labasan ang mga factories. Factories produce
one particular product. So if you are in the steel industry, you produce metal for boats, infrastructure,
machinery etc. If you are in the textile industry at that time you produce cloth for tents, dresses, sails for
boats, furniture, etc. If you are a worker in the factory, you do not produce for yourself or your family but
instead you produce for another person. That is why Karl Marx says:

The object produced by mans labor its product now confronts him in the shape of an alien thing, a power independent of
a producer. The product of labor given embodiment in a material form; this product is the objectification of labor.

So given the capitalist system, we become producers of products which are alien to us; it does not have a
direct use for us. In that sense, I am alienated from my product or I am alienated from the object that my
labor produces. Based on what I understand, not only are we alienated from the products we make but we
grow to despise our work and we grow to despise the things we make. Do you think na kung naga.himu
kag milk tea for 5 years, pag.abot nimu sa balay mag.ana ka hala lamia mag milk tea oy. Dili siguro no?
Because the product you create is not for your personal immediate need. You create based on the demand
of many people. Kung naka.atubang ka sa isa ka tanke og milk tea for the whole day, I doubt you will crave
for milk tea. Anyway, that is just my interpretation but do keep in mind that Karl Marx says there is this
factor of alienation between the person and his labor.

NEXT MEETING:

As a Review
As a Review
Question One: The Article says that the more things the worker produces, the fewer can he possess and
the more he falls under the domination of the wealth he produces but cannot enjoy-capital. How come Karl
Marx says the more you work the less you will have?
Question Two: What then is the solution he proposes? Communism
Question Three: How is work likened to religion?
One of the famous quotes of Karl Marx diba is religion is the opium of the people. From what I recall, what
that means is ang religion that is a creation of the capitalist. Religion is created to appease the proletariat
so that they will not revolt. Kung ang worker nagkalisod he ill just think bahala na lisod akong kinabuhi
kay basta buotan ta muadto man tag langit or di bale nang pulubi tayo basta may takot sa dyos. Unsa
may epekto ana? The worker will just be satisfied with being a worker for the rest of his life. Instead og
addressing his situation, he covers it up with religion. Kung baga kung naa kay sakit, nag.take lang kay
anesthesia, nag take lang kag opium. That is why Karl Marx says religion is the opium of the people. It is
used to make the proletariat content with their difficult lives rather than fight against the capital.
Going back to the Article, how then is religion likened to work? The Article says
the poorer he becomes in his life, and the less belongs to him as his own. It is the same with
religion. The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself. The greater the worker's
activity, therefore, the more pointless his life becomes.
The more you pour into your work, the more you put yourself under. You are feeding the very systems that
oppresses you. With religion, the more you put yourself into religion, the more you remove responsibility
over your life. SIge ra kag ingun si Lord na bahala, si lord na bahala. For Karl Marx, no, you should find a
way to get out of your situation, do not be satisfied with opium but look for the medicine or the cure.
Question Four: As discussed last time, can you give one way how the worker is objectified?
In relation to his product? When more efficient methods arise, the less the value of the person becomes
In relation to his work itself? The person is only judged based on his performance, he is a commodity
Thus, whereas labor produces miracles for the rich, for the worker it produces destitution. Labor produces
palaces, but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty, but it cripples the worker.
Question Five: How come labor is alienated?
1. He does not own the product he produces
2. It is merely a means of his subsistence
Meaning, the person is sometimes forced to get a job that he does not want, bakit? Sa situation nagun, di
naman mutalab ng paarte arte ka. You really need money just to address your basic needs and sometimes
that would mean being in a job you hate. How did we come to this situation? Again, go back to the context
of industrialization, the more machines we develop, the more the human person becomes valueless for the
capitalists, so people will now fight over the fewer jobs that are present.
Question Six: In a capitalist society, is working a goal or is it a means to a goal?
Can you please read the paragraph that talks about the effect of capitalist society? As a result
Question Seven : For Karl Marx, working a goal or is it a means to a goal?
Just by Looking at the Subtitle you can know the answer : Productive Activity as Mans Essential Humanity.
Meaning you are supposed to work not just because you want to pay the bills or buy the latest cellphone,
but work in itself is an important aspect of being human.
Question Six: What makes us different from animals? In relation to labor? Bees also work, ants also work,
bees and ants are even harder working than people, so what makes our labor different from their labor?
Among animals there is no question of regarding one part of life as cut off from the rest; the animal is one with
its life-activity. Man, on the other hand, makes his life activity the object of his conscious will; and this is what
distinguishes him from animals. It is because of this free, conscious activity that he is a creature of his species.
Animals act on instinct. Meaning kanang trabaho ginahimu nila that is something directed to them not by
their free will but that is something implanted in their very DNA. Do animals have free will? Well that would
be a different philosophical discussion. Do animals have self-consciousness? Some siguro. Ang iro nako na
si Happy the first time he saw a mirror, pirte niyang wild. Meaning ambi niya laing iro to. So how I interpret
that he does not have a this degree of self consciousness. Some animals are self conscious some animals
are not. Anyway, lets just go to the generally accepted view that that animals work not because of their
free will but because of instinct.
That is not the same case with man, we have this inherent drive to be productive and this drive is directed
through free will. Meaning lahat tayo may gusto mangyari sa mundo, sa inorganic nature. We manipulate
nature based on our free will.
Question Seven: Please read:
In manipulating inorganic nature and creating an organic nature and creating an objective
world by his practical activity, man confirms himself as a conscious creature of his species,
that is, as a member of his whole species, a being who regards the whole of mankind as
involved in himself, and himself as part of mankind.
Meaning work is a form of self expression and it is a form of affirming our existence. Bees and ants they
collect food and thats that: they do not aspire something else. They do not have dreams for themselves,
they do not dream for the world. We human beigns are different because we do not stop working even if all
our basic needs are meet, we aspire greater things, we work to influence the world. We want to have a
legacy. Unsa manang legacy? We want to leave a lasting mark in the physical world. We work not just
because we want money but we want to look at the product of our work and say You know what, this is
my work and I am looking at it, I feel very satisfied, I feel fulfilled. You make what is going on your mind or
your free will happen in the physical world.
Thus it is precisely in shaping the objective world that man really proves himself as a creature of his species;
for in this handiwork resides his active species-life. By means of mans productivity, nature appears to him as
his work and his reality. The true object of mans labor therefore is the objectification of mans species life- his
profound essence; for in his labor man duplicates himself not merely intellectually, in consciousness, but also
actively, in reality;

So what is essential for you, make it into reality. You are aware na yang trabaho mu, yang product mu, that
is a reflection of yourself. That is a way of affirming to yourself and to other people that you are a human
being. Tanawa oh : in his labor man duplicates himself not merely intellectually, in consciousness, but also
actively, in reality. I will do my job well because I know I can do this job well and I want people to see
what kind of person I am through my work.

Continuation
So sabi ni Karl Marx the capitalist society is has this effect of preventing a person from achieving this
purpose of labor which is to affirm your own humanity. He says:
When, therefore, alienated labor tears away from man the object of his production, it snatches from
him his species-life-the essence of his being- and transforms his advantage over animals into a
disadvantage, insofar as his inorganic body, nature, is withdrawn from him.
Hence, in degrading labor- which should be mans free, spontaneous activity- to a mere means of
physical subsistence, alienated labor degrades mans essential life to a mere means to an end. The
awareness which man should have his relationship to the rest of mankind is reduced to a state of
detachment in which he and his fellows become simply unfeeling objects.
What I think is not answered in the Article is if Karl Marx proposes a different kind of society, how exactly
does communism solve the problem. From what I understand din kasi isnt it that in a communist society
people have less freedom? That is already a different topic. How exactly will communism address the
problem of alienated labor? I dont know. Thats already in the realm of political philosophy or political
science. But what I want you to focus on this subsection of the article entitled Productive Activity as Mans
Essential Humanity is that labor is essential for your humanity.
Question One: The Egyptians built the pyramids for whom? Their Gods
Question Two: But according to Karl Marx, to whom does labor belong? To man
So regardless of the set up of your society, labor will always belong to man. It could be for yourself it is
often times for other people.
Question Three: Why cannot God be the lord of labor?
I think simply because the gods do not directly force you into labor it is people that forces you into labor
for a so called God. If you are a slave working for the Pharaoh in building the great pyramids, is it Ra the
Egyptian God of the Sun that directs you to work? It is not. It is the pharaoh that mandates, it is the
slavemaster that whips the slaves into working. Gina latigo. So it is never God or the gods who are the
lords of labor. Man is the lord of labor. Since we are lareayd talking about Egyptian gods, kasali yan sa
ating upcoming trivia ha, clue nalang yan. One category is Egyptian Mythology. Bata pa lang ko I really like
reading mythology, greek, Egyptian, norse etc.
Anyway, I want you to take note of this statement:
What a contradiction it would be if a man- as he more and more subjugated nature by his labor,
rendering divine miracles superfluous by the wonders of industry- if man were then to renounce his
pleasure in producing and his enjoyment of the product merely in order to continue serving the
gods.
Question Four: What do you understand of this sentence? I know its quite long , just try.
Ang point lang man ni Karl Marx dito na the more people is able to control nature the less they have
dependence in their gods. Sounds atheistic nu? The more and more na we are able to control nature, these
so called acts of gods are rendered superfluous. What does superfluous mean? Salin salin nalang ba, di na
kailangan. We have discussed this before in the beginning of the class I think. For example, in Ancient
Greecem whenever there will be thunder and lightning they will say Hala may issue na naman si Zeus. But
now that concept of a thunder god is so superfluous, we can already explain the phenomenon of electricity
through science. Not only can we provide an explanation, we can control electricity. This very Ipad I am
holding right now is running on electricity, dili si zeus ang magbuot para sa kuryente, kita ang mag buot.
So connect that withwhat Karl Marx is saying: I will read it again ha. Sabi nya contradictory masyado na
our dependence in God will increase the more we are able to depend on ourselves. Dili lang ni sa kurynte
ha, there are so many aspects in our lives that we used to depend on the concept of God on but now we
can explain and control. We subjugate nature, meaning we make naure bend to our will. SO Karl Marx
really emphasizes there that labor belongs to man and man alone, not to God and not to nature.
Question Five: The Title of the Subsection is : Mans alienation from Man
I think we touched on this previously na: Anung kasunod ng alienated labor? It is a relationship between
my fellow man which is also distant and which is also alienated. The capitalist will not understand the
plight of the proletariat and in the same way you cannot force workers to understand the interest of their
bosses. In fact the whole conflict between the employer and the employee has its own branch in law: Last
year in lawschool we had a Labor Standards subject Last Sem I had a Labor Relations subject. So many
laws that attempt to balance the interest of the employer and the interest of the employee. Kay kugn wala
na? Wala jud mag papildi ana either side. In the capitalist society the interest of the employees really are
different from the interest of the employers. SO there is mans alienation from man.
Just as he turns his own production into a real loss, a punishment, and his own product into
something not belonging to him; so he brings about the domination of the non-producer over
production and its product. In becoming alienated from his own activity, he surrenders power over
that activity to a stranger.
So we are done with Karl Marx, let us now go to Dr. Manuel Dy: Philosophical Implications of Human Labor. I
chose to discuss the Karl Marx Article first because I think this next Article is based from that previous
article, so connected sila:
Question Six: As a review, anu nga yung historical contex tni Karl Marx? Industrial revolution
Question Seven: So if that is the context of Karl Marx, what is the context behind this Article?
So you can see the context immediately beginning the Article:
The topic of this paper is propelled by the many social issues plaguing the country today: the
numerous strikes of workers, teachers included, against management; the increasing rate of
unemployment with the accompanying growing demand for higher wages;
Ang word na ginamit nya is today ha. DIli industrial revolution that happened around the early 1900s
something but rather today. I think ang goal naman ng writer hear is apply what he knows about the
philosophy of labor and try to make it more accessible to us a reader in 2016. The philosophy of Karl Marx
is really good; he will not be discussed if his philosophy is not timeless. But I think what the writer is doing
here is he is trying to make an update kumbaga. Kung sa laptop pa or computer pa, you operating system
is good but there will be constant updates to make it more user friendly. SO ito naman I think si Dr Manuel
Dy is trying to do the same; make the discussion more relatable.
Manuel B. Dy, Jr., Ph.D. Dr. Manuel B. Dy, Jr. finished his AB Philosophy and MA Philosophy at the
Ateneo de Manila University, his PhD Philosophy at the University of Sto. Tomas, and attended post
doctoral studies at the Catholic University of America. He served for several yeas as Board Adviser
for Asia of the Council for Research on Values and Philosophy, Washington D.C. He teaches Business
Ethics at the Graduate School of Business.
He says:
I think this is one way of finding the philosophical basis of the dignity of labor, and the first step in
clarifying the social issues related to work.

The presupposition of this paper is thus in line with what John Paul II said in his encyclical Laborem
Exercens: "The sources of the dignity of work are to be sought primarily in the subjective
dimension, not in the objective one."
Question Eight: Sabi ni Dr. Manuel Dy, man evolved from working for his own primitive needs to working
for God. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
It is a good thing. It is the first step of the evolution of work. Kasi this is a time work has taken a concept
that is different from animals. From working for his own needs, man had this notion that work is not limited
for his own, but it can be dedicated to something grater than himself, namely God.