labour. After labour mans life-activity, that is, hisfree conscious, activity, or his very nature, is displaced. In a pre-labour condition manslife was the object of his condition; in a labour condition man exists to labour and hislife-activity is reduced to a means of his existence so he can labour. In effect labournecessitates itself in man by supplanting mans true nature with an artificial one thatre-prioritizes mans goals. Man's goal then is not to pursue his life but to labour. Hebecomes linked to his labour and is viewed in no other way. Man is reduced to chattel, acommodity, the private property of another individual.ConclusionFor Marx labour limits the freedom of man. Labour becomes the object of man's existenceand he therefore becomes enslaved by it. In considering the validity of Marx's argument Ifeel Marx is correct that man's freedom is limited by the fact that he is a labourer. But inopposition to Marx I believe that man's freedom is no more limited as a labourer than as afarmer. Agrarian worker or labourer man's freedom is limited. Whether he is identified bythe product he creates in a factory or in a wheat field in either case he is tied to his workand is not viewed beyond it. In either instance the product is objectified because in eitherinstance the worker works only to create more work. Just as the labourer must continueto work without end to subsist, so must the agrarian worker. The implication then is thatalienation is not the culprit that limits mans freedom, it is work itself. Do not mistake thisas an advocation for laziness. Instead consider the implications of not working. If one didnot work at all he or she would live a life of poverty and would be far less free than if hedid work. Working, either as a labourer or a farmer, offers greater financial means andwith greater financial means comes greater freedom. This point of the argument standsup of course only if you believe money can by freedom. I argue it can. ...
