Continuing within Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, we might ask how Marx uses "appropriation" when writing "appropriation as estrangement, as alienation" among other references to the word. I must assume it was meant as "to take for one's own or exclusive use", and not "to take improperly, as without permission". Why do I assume this? I do in the sense that Marx meant the capitalistic system makes the decision and forces the worker to in essence take the product s/he produces as her/his own identity, without intentionality or with a viable alternative. This perception or perhaps reality is present-day as well as yesteryear. I don't care whether it is the mid-nineteenth century or early twenty-first century, it exists for many workers. One can understand the validity of Marx's viewpoint as he writes, "...the more objects the worker produces the fewer can he possess and the more he falls under the dominion of his product, capital." He correlates higher labour output with lower wages, and accordingly, lower material possession and greater dependence upon his product, capital.

Continuing, I interpret Marx's use of the word "spends" in "...the more the worker spends himself, the more powerful the alien objective world becomes which he creates over-against himself, the poorer he himself - his inner world - becomes, the less belongs to him as his own.", as not spending for material goods and services, but "spends" is meant as labour activity. The more time "spent" working to produce for others, in a high division of labor atmosphere, the less the worker is able to be "human". This condition speaks to estrangement and alienation from self. And whether we like it or not, Marx's reasoning that this condition or process is similar to what transpires when a human "gives" her/himself to a God, may have credibility and substance. The more given, the less kept for self, according to Marx.

At this point, questions come to mind. Do these jobs actually keep one occupied and "sane", so to speak, in troubled times? Do the "masses" have a greater sense and closer relationship with troubled times with less access and opportunity to community resources, goods, program awareness, and services? And, is it possible that greater specialization is positive since it may correlate with greater demand for an esoteric knowledge and skill base and higher wages? Can't we maintain accurately that greater specialization is part of the greater or expanding division of labor? So, does a greater division of labor create a necessarily deleterious condition?