>>2927886Yes; Marx discusses this in his early Manuscripts (1844):
<This class has always to sacrifice a part of itself in order not to be wholly destroyed […] in a declining state of society — increasing misery of the worker; in an advancing state — misery with complications; and in a fully developed state of society — static misery […] misery results, therefore, from the essence of present-day labor itself.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/wages.htmThis is drawing from Adam Smith's perspective that even in an ideal state of affairs for wage workers, there cannot be real advancement, since it requires a proportional alienation. Marx further bemoans the colonial consciousness of workers in later letters, seeming to pose this as a 'primary contradiction' in Maoist terms. We may read (1869):
<The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland. The lever must be applied in Ireland. That is why the Irish question is so important for the social movement in general.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_12_10-abs.htmFurthermore, Marx sees national liberation as the solution (1870):
<Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class […] The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland […] This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this […] It makes any honest and serious co-operation between the working classes of the two countries impossible […] It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htmThe proletariat is confined in its closed consciousness, while the bourgeoisie is international, inhabiting a consciousness of capital. As Marx sees it, the universal abstraction of labour proceeds its division into smaller parts, unified in exchange by value-formation, crystalised in money. It is prerequisite of man's dehumanisation for him to be realised in reverse. Indeed, it is bourgeois political economy which promotes the idea of the LTV, the same as the socialist foundation:
<Insofar as modern socialism, no matter of what tendency, starts out from bourgeois political economy, it almost without exception takes up the Ricardian theory of value.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/pre-1885.htm