There were several schools of thought regarding various sociological theories and explanations of social action and societal changes. The most prominent school of thought was the classical school that includes Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Marx Weber among others.
Karl Marx in 1969 argued that men make their history but they do not make it as they please i.e. they do not make history under circumstances determined by them but those encountered, given, and transmitted from the past. For instance, the religion one follows is as a result of the society they were born in and we follow it just the way we found it or even the monetary system we use to pay debts is independent to the user.
We, therefore, do not make decisions as we like or desire but under certain structural constraints. Many classical sociologists, believed that society is divided at the micro and the macro levels where the individual forms the micro and the structure forms the macro level. This implied that society is external to us and it usually dictates the decisions we make.
Hegel argued that the state is autonomous and sovereign against other countries control. He further insisted that the state is divine through history in that it has absolute power and control over its subjects. For instance, he argued that if the wants an individual life, then the only way out is for that individual to give in the life. He said that war is inevitable to the state because the state lacks mechanisms available to an individual to solve its conflicts. He argued that the main purpose of the state is to protect its independence and integrity to maintain the social organization and allow for the universal spirit to develop in peoples life.
Materialism theory views the major economic and social transformations in society as a consequence of material forces. As various classes of people which Karl Marx classifies as landlords, middle class and the tenants struggle to improve their standards various economic and social changes occur. These changes occur because of passion and interest in material things that many people believe as the best way of life in their conscious. These class struggles occur as various classes engage in conflicts to know the means of production which are the source of the major income. To Karl Marx, class struggles are the effective ways by which social order in society is achieved.
On the issue of political economy, Marx used the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus of value to show the effects of industrial capitalism. He argued that labor acts as a major source of value to the industries. Many owners of the means of production use labor to produce in surplus to obtain profits hence labor in itself is a source of value to itself and others. He added that industrial capitalism is concerned with increased productivity and cutting on operating costs where many industries pay very little wages to the workers and yet overwork them to increase their production or gain surplus-value of the labor. He added capitalist form of government will collapse and be replaced by a socialist which was considerate of the peoples welfare and progress.
Further, Karl Marx argued that capitalism is there to oppress and exploit the majority helps us to understand the various problems associated with different kinds or forms of government. He argued that modernity is dominated by economic elements. These elements are meant to exploit the workers by overworking them in major industries for the owners to make enough profits.
Karl Marx continued to argue that the workers live on low wages so they are poor with little time left for leisure and recreational activities. To him, capitalism utilized workers leisure time to survive, recover and reproduce itself this is mainly because capitalism insists on high productivity and the oppression of workers to make big profits. He argued that in the modern world man is alienated from work and leisure where people have little time left for recreational activities due to extended working hours.
In addition, Marx concluded that modernity was synonymous with the emergence of capitalist, therefore, criticized its deformities like alienation, domination, false class consciousness, pauperization, and exploitation. Therefore, there was a need to change this form of government to a more favorable system. This analysis assists sociologists to understand the problems associated with capitalism. In addition, he argued due to the problems associated with capitalism at one point there will be worldwide strikes that will replace capitalism with socialism, a more accommodative form of government, hence to Marx, the bourgeois Class will determine the management or how the society runs its affairs.
Because many sociologists based their theories on the society they were familiar with and at different times, many sociology theories seem to contradict major issues, and real-life happenings, hence they do not assist in our understanding of the social organization. For instance, the Marx arguments that capitalism due to its adverse effects it will be replaced by socialism has been proven wrong by time. This is because many socialist and communist economies have collapsed and been replaced by capitalism. However, this does not form the basis for ignoring the Marx theories because others have been proven empirically true and have assisted in our understanding of social organization only that the theories do not apply universally but are relevant in some societies.
References
Hughes, J, Sharrock, W and martin, P. Understanding classical sociology; 2nd edition, New York: SAGE publications, (2003).
Marxs thesis on the fetishism of commodities focuses on societys tendency to place value on commodities based on contributed labor, which inevitably causes domination of the products over people. Furthermore, the fetishism affects the social interactions between the customer and producer: the valued objects are independently exchanged for the respective purposes. Such exchanges of objects occur independently of human needs or decisions (Ritzer, 2011). In this case, it is essential to note that the term fetishism does not suggest any sexual connotations; it only explains peoples inclination to devote themselves to the mentioned principles.
In modern society, we have fetishized technological trends in the same way that Marxs thesis suggests. For example, Apple products are known to be highly appreciated for their high-quality and accessibility . The labor that goes into creating the products, despite sometimes being considered unethical, benefits the brands overall image. Since hours and hundreds of workers are dedicated to producing the items, their values increase independently of their quality. The products value is then highly dependent on the importance placed by the general public and marketing strategies rather than its original worth. Moreover, the workers that are required for the brands success also become commodities, as mentioned in the Manifesto of the Communist Party (Marx & Engels, 1818-1883). In this way, although existing independently of one another, all major parts of the modern socio-economic system become disconnected from their actual worth.
Marxs thesis fails to explore how a commodity gains its value purely from the amount of labor included in the process. This could be outlined as a critical disadvantage to the thesis, as it ignores a central perspective that aid in changing the materialistic values of society. Another detail that was not mentioned in Marxs work is related to the nature of commodities, why some are more valued than others. Still, the Manifesto of the Communist Party and Marxs thesis provide a solid foundation for analyzing modern socio-economic relations.
References
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1818-1883). The Communist Manifesto. London: Electric Book Co.
Ritzer, G. (2011). Classical Sociological Theory (6th Ed). Boston: McGraw Hill.
The question of societal stratification has dominated among great thinkers of present and past centuries. The concept of traditional social stratification has changed much due to increased technology, information exchange and the rise of socially differentiated status groups. This has changed the focus from conflict of classes to the rise of new perspectives.
The sociological theories of Karl Marx, Bourdieu, Weber and others continue to guide the discussion in sociology as points of departure and convergence. This work will analyze why the politics of class in advanced industrial states are not predominant. The paper will explain the sociological views of Marx, Weber and Bourdieu concerning views of societal stratification.
Bourdieu Social Space and symbolic Space Summary and Analysis
In his Logic of Practice, the method Bourdieu embraces and advocates for is that of transcending the borders between objectivism and subjectivism as well as structure and action. He argues that neither of the views is to be left to explain social sciences. However, a combination of the views would result to inseparable and solid knowledge.
He thus emphasizes that sociology must explain social structure inside the actor. In regard to this view habitus becomes the concept of explaining what already is known by devising new methods, ways, plans or knowledge through the mind and body.
However, the caution that should be taken with regard to social structure is about misrecognitions, partial or distorted misunderstanding laid by emphasis on what is experienced through ideologies. Therefore, Bourdieu attacks ideology as flawed since it tends to present mastery from wrong basis.
The definition of class by Marx is given as a group that is mobilized to engage in common purposes that are against another class (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Ptaff & Virk, 2012b). In his analysis of social space and symbolic space, Bourdieu observes through Distinction that those at the top of the society tend to pursue ideas and things from their perspective of class and how best they understand them.
These properties are very different from those in the lowest part of the society. He argues that the two kinds of persons in the society have far wider reaching limitations, tastes and preferences; where for those at the top the properties and tastes are not means as is the case for those at the low end scale (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Ptaff & Virk, 2012b).
Bourdieu organizes the society into social space and symbolic space. The social space is a representation of the varying levels and is identified by differences behaviors and attitudes. The social space illustrates that the society is not homogenous as thought, but a constant representation of individual differences that mirror the social division of the society. In developed countries, this space changes in the fact that those at the top of the society can assume positions thought to be for the very lowest in the society.
Emanating from this view Bourdieu comments that classes only exist in the form virtuosity. The presentation of social space is a source sheds light the conflicts that exist as differences in the developed nations either individually or collectively. Thus, in this observation, social space constructs different kinds of capital that become sources of power to defend or change such power.
Marxs Classes Summary and Analysis
Max in Classes observes that the difference in property like land, capital and rent leads to the social classes. In his writing, it is clear that in a society the persons who held these prestigious materials, eventually ends as the owner of production. For those in the society who do not have the privileges of owning materials, they have to survive by means of providing labor to the landed class. Therefore, the laborer becomes the source of food to the society through work. Social action arises from the increased debts and inadequate or lack of property.
The idea of social action comes from Webers point of view about honor in the society. Weber wrote that, those forming the group that owns nothing except labor will a group of intermixed persons in various structures of the social world of the society. The mixing of these individuals will lobby for the prestigious attention accorded to the propertied class. In this respect, the need for fair-play in the market becomes the new weapon for this group. In essence, this is the search for honor.
However, the industrial focus on the property is quite advanced from Marxs explanation of democracy. Concretely, this should be seen as traditional democracy, which is in complete contrast with modern from legal order and politics. The rise of capitalism in search of individual liberalization in the market has changed the perceptions of class.
Today, developed counties are formed of competing individuals and groups, with each endowed with unique sets of strengths and weaknesses. The borders set strictly on ownership of property do not exist; rather, the presence of information and technology determines the success of an individual and a group at a glance.
This classification of the society has changed with the new dimensions of approach at social class. In recalling Bourdieus sociological theory, the politics of class are inexistent, and this only leaves the differences found on the diverse aspects of modern social world. Weber wrote that the aspects of search for status honor stratify the social world into social groups defined by unique attributes.
He states that social order may be used to gain economic power or even the opposite of that. As an example, the fact that people live on the same street or dress in similar fashions, is the basis for a class distinct from other groups basing on these factors.
Modernity in many developed countries from Maxs point of view may be explained as a resulted to the advancement of the industrial platform. Industrial progress and advancement in technology has led to prowess in informational technology. This has in effect changed the perception of business to global status thus getting the greater need to stay ahead of everybody, what Weber refers to maintaining the social circle negatively (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Ptaff & Virk, 2012a).
Webers Class, Status, Party Summary and Analysis
Webers theory observes that the old demarcations of social class have fizzled due to this notion. Modern and advanced industrial societies form the great countries of the earth. However, these nations states are homogenous if weighed by Marxs theory, but forge forward to support Weber and Bourdieu. From here, the examination of education, fashion, music, politics and development ideas will be examined in light of these three sociological theories.
The education quality of the industrially advanced countries is often regarded the best. As mentioned, the availability of vast resources has made this possible. Those, persons found to belong to the same academic status are expected to observe behaviors and attitudes characteristic of this group.
Therefore, it does not matter who has property or not. The point of unification derives from scores of scholarly materials analyzed or academic honors achieved as well critical analysis of major works. Further, these academics vary in terms of differences in disciplines where sociologist will be different Mathematicians who are different from linguist (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Ptaff & Virk, 2012a).
Another class will be based on fashion and music. This will be established in terms of communities that ascribe to a given fashion that exhibits a distinct taste. In light to music, the genre of music brings a social group together, excluding subscribers of other genres of music like reggae, rock or even pop music.
The subscription to different views of politics; for example, the left, right or center, determines the social stratification of a people. In less advanced states, such differences have led to fatal civil wars, bloodshed or loss of lives. In terms of development, the concerned states will be seen affiliated to other states that are developing especially in terms of exchange of information and technology (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Ptaff & Virk, 2012a).
Conclusion
From Weber and Marxs writing, an analysis advanced capitalism eliminates the notions of the propertied and the not propertied. In this essence, politics are shaped by the majority of the same view without the discussion of what is the social standing of the respective party holders or bearers.
Although this may raise issues in Bourdieus theory, modern democracy does not differentiate between the propertied or not propertied in terms of that sense. In Bourdieus view, they form the social space and the symbolic space of the society. These stratifications will be maintained by each member behaving as the tenets require of them based on the stable establishment of the group.
References
Calhoun, C., Gerteis, J., Moody, J., Ptaff, S., & Virk, I. (2012a). Classical Sociological Theory. Garsington road, Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
Calhoun, C., Gerteis, J., Moody, J., Ptaff, S., & Virk, I. (2012b). Contemporary Sociological Theory. Garsington road, Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
Marx has interesting views on nationalism and imperialism during the second half of the 19th century. Indeed, most of his sentiments on these highlighted issues have been widely discussed in the current society. Karl Marxs communist manifesto demonstrates a variety of critical issues that were eminent during the second of the nineteenth century. In these statements, it is evident that Karl Marx did not like the idea of nationalism and imperialism.
According to him, imperialism led to the development of a biased nationalism (Kinzer 11). Therefore, nationalism is born from the much destructive theme of imperialism. He elucidated the fact that the developing nations must stay away from the detrimental impacts and manipulations of imperialism. As he indicates, imperialism is the basic means through which the western nations propagate their capitalistic and materialistic ideologies.
The ideological influence from the developed nations compromised the effective advancement of the budding countries. In addition, Marx is of the opinion that imperialism contributes to the emergence of a false single identity (Kinzer 21). Consequently, this falsehood identity or tag destroyed the capacity of victim nations to develop self-realization. His basic perception is that the west have assumed greater advantages and reaped potential benefits from the less developed states.
He justifies the fact that the Chinese have been secluded from the western society due to intense imperialism from the western nations. The imperialists forced their pattern of life and societal norms on the emergent nations. Karl Marx categorically highlights the fundamental objectives of the imperialists in his philosophical arguments. He denotes that they have a potential aspiration to curtail and regulate the developing nations. However, they yearn to attain this under the pretext of westernization of civilization.
The process of civilization is nothing other than a typical and complete adoption or duplication of the injurious culture of the west. The developing nations are deprived of their vital natural and manmade resources. Karl Marx identifies all the negative implications associated with this practice. Brain drain and over-reliance on the western beliefs and way of life include some of the negative implications cited by Karl Marx.
Generally, the philosopher noted that imperialism and nationalism impeded individuality and self-reliance (Kinzer 26). These in turn derail the self-esteem of individuals. Therefore, such nations produce citizens with typical lifestyles. They fail to think at individual level. Moreover, they also lack creativity and innovation. There is less internal development but more dependence on the imperials due to their financial and knowledge power.
Analysis of Imperialism
The human nature requires a lot of freedom. This is eminent within all sectors of life. Business and resource exploitation include some of the potential areas that call for maximum human freedom.
Karl Marx observed the significance of this freedom. Particularly, Marx developed the laissez-faire philosophy to enhance this belief (Kinzer 31). Generally, there is a philosophical belief that the freedom enhances the capacity of mans engagement in business. However, there are further philosophical beliefs that denote significant critics on this perception.
For instance, the fact that human beings must be controlled or monitored led to the development of imperialism. Even Karl Marx recognizes the importance of regulation and control within any free market. This is applicable within all fields of human operation. Therefore, it is imperative to indicate that human beings only thrive well when curtailed. However, the regulations must not be punitive and demeaning to the persons involved.
Regulations must respect human dignity and reduce the instances of indoctrination and proscription. These views expressed by Karl Marx and other potential philosophers led to the emergence of imperialism. Principally, the need to gather and control key players and people within the society arose in most developing nations. Through colonialism, the imperialists introduced their themes of nationalism with an aim to assume total dominion over these subjects.
In the process of introducing nationalism, imperialism and other related practices emanated (Kinzer 39). Excessive capitalism and increased liberty catapulted the rate of imperialism. Due to massive accumulated wealth, the richer few started to ape the practices of the westernized world. This habit created a gradual process of initiation into the ideological principles of imperialism. The demonstrations and views of the classical liberal best potentiate and explain this gradual but indicative process.
Human beings like to curve their identities through the adoption and practice of unique cultures. This attribute played a crucial role in speeding up the process of civilization and imperialism. It is specified that those with higher ambitions to affiliate and associate with the western culture helped in spreading the concept of imperialism (Kinzer 45).
The western nations slowly took advantage of the readily charged group. The final impact has been the total adoption of imperialism, packed in form of civilization and nationalism. These critical elements have contributed to making imperialism an inevitable practice in the entire world. There is need for further examination and study of the human factors that have led to the development of imperialism.
Racism Evident in Western Imperialism
It is evident that ideological views based on classical liberal theories had vital influences in the development of imperialism. It is also noteworthy to analyze the impacts of these ideologies on the issue of racism during this period. While trying to ape civilization and the western culture, most Africans remained alienated.
It is observable that the more the developing nations aped this system of life, the more they remained alienated. The westerners cut out their niche as an elusive group with adorable culture and beliefs (Kinzer 50). The continuous intrusion of the western culture in the African communities led to the emergence of negligence and potential discrimination.
It is evident that this pattern was not only observed within the white and black communities. It is trend that cut across nearly all the racial classes. A systematic process of social stratification based on tribal and racial orientation developed. The pattern remains evident globally even within the present society. The classical liberals argued held antagonizing viewpoints regarding the origin of specific cultures (Kinzer 56).
These disparities were also eminent in the perceptions of how certain culture influenced and shaped the life of personalities. However, these opinions were placed on major cultures. Therefore, people from minority races and less recognized cultures suffered severe discrimination. Apart from this, they were also secluded from the mainstream. Instead, a stream of dominant and oppressive culture emerged and prevailed upon the global community.
Conclusively, the classical liberal thoughts had immense contributions in the development and emancipation of racism. This observation has been noted several times within the western imperialism. A critical investigation and study of the phenomenon reveals that the trend is still eminent and ongoing within most communities. Eradication of racism shall take a long time given its philosophical and social complexities.
Private property is a human concept that is interesting and raises several philosophical questions. Karl Marx presents important points at the way society and those with power view private property and the issues it leads to.
The ownership of any property is consicidered to be private. The society and the industry of a nation have placed a certain limit and frame on the way private property is viewed. It is very much connected to wealth and its accumulation. The surrounding environment and the economical industry have made a person somewhat of a property. The labor that an individual produces is a product of someones efforts and can be quantified by the industry.
All the objects or property that someone possesses exist outside of the body and personality and so, is without a doubt private property, if that person is the one who has contributed efforts in the acquisition of the products. Even though the politics and the economy think of a man as an entity in and of itself, in relation to property and ownership, the work and the effort that someone puts in towards the said economy has become its property.
It is possible to assume that this concept has some validity. The work that is required of someone would be non-existent if there was no reason or purpose for someone to work. The fact that an idea and opportunity is given to work, which is created by the state or some industry, can be seen as a property that is lended to a person. Even though it is immaterial, it is symbolic and thus, can be thought of as the sole creation of the industry.
As Karl Mark mentions, the earliest private property was land and other objects that someone had. Things were much simpler when the society was not as complex, as it is today. But the hardships of modern industry have distanced a person from the country because they are viewed as property themselves.
They are almost forced to put in the time and effort, in order for the industry to use someone for personal goals or wealth. This has a straight connection to greed where a person is being used through violation of moral codes and all conduct with a particular interest in the end result. When someone is in possession of land and they work on it, grow crops and take care of animals that make products, which can be used or sold, the person is working for themselves.
Their labor and its results are the private property of a person and this is considered to be the most clear cut definition of private property. It is a true form of ownership where an individual is the only owner of all the entities that they themselves produce. The natural order of things requires a person to be self efficient, which in turn leads to them being productive for their own purposes.
The industrialization has changed the perspective and definition where a person has become a part of the economy and is used only as means to reaching wealth for someone else. It can be aligned with feudalism and the person becomes de-personalized, a part of a bigger system where they are just a minor piece, in contrast to the structure of industry. Overall, a person can become private only in the comfort of their own property and not the society.
The following essay examines the Socialism and Communism after Marx. Socialism and Communism are two main approaches of the political theory. Karl Marx is among the modern political thinkers whose concepts have continued to have a special meaning as far as political theory is concerned. It is important to first consider the life and works of Marx before examining the socialism and communism after him.
Karl Max was one of the most renown scholar and theorist who lived between 1818 and 1883.The work of Karl Marx played an important role of changing the manner in which individuals operates. Marx theoretical works was based on social sciences, history, economics and philosophy. For a couple of years, the political and economic theories by Karl Marx were linked with several key political movements around the world.
For instance, the theory of Marxism was the official theory that guided Germany before the First World War.Also; Marxim theory was the official theory that guided Soviet Union and other nations in Eastern Europe for 72 years. Karl Marx in his theory enabled the majority poor people to triumph over the upper class.However; Karl Marx failed in his Marxism theory as a result of the establishment of the middle class.
Even though he failed, Karl Marx was a respected philosopher as he was the man behind communism in many countries of the world such as Russia. His life and works played an important role of changing the way individuals reason in the modern world. As a result of his works, people became approachable and also quick-thinkers as far as creating thoughts on politics are concerned.
Karl Marx spent a large proportion of his life criticizing capitalism system. He participated in radical activities and wrote trenchant critiques that showed capitalism as a means of exploiting human beings. He therefore emphasized on socialism and communism. Karl Marx worked hand in hand with Friedrich Engels and the two men maintained a long lasting collaboration until the time when Marx died in 1844 (Rockmore 55).
Socialism and Communism after Marx
Following Karl Marxs demise in 1844, Friedrich Engels who was became the narrator of the Marxism theory that was developed by Karl Marx.
Engels approached an easy literary style and also had a tendency of offering simple answers with regards to complex philosophical issues. For instance,Engels answered the philosophical question of the relationship between thought and being in a very simple way which has been discussed for many years.
Engels played an important role of setting the tone for the future political Marxists i.e. he enabled the future Marxists to decide philosophical questions in an easy manner.
Engels also reinterpreted the Marxism theory by simplifying it in that where Karl Marx had given emphasis on preference and alternatives,Engels emphasized on needs and requirements. Where Karl Marx had emphasized on the importance of studying social process regarding extraction and production, Engels on the other hand emphasized on materialism as the guiding principle (Carver 37).
Friedrich Engels died on 1895 and a different analysis of the Marxian theory took shape. The interpretation of the Marxism theory after Engels was later done by Eduard Bernstein in Germany who held the view that the theory required to be modified as it was old fashioned. Bernstein argued that nonviolent political as well as economic development of capitalism system to socialism system was the most ideal way of dealing with unnecessary revolutionary struggles.
As Bernstein interpretation of Marxism theory among Germans socialists, another diverse variant was taking shape in Russia. During this period, Russia was a medium sized economy and the Marxism theory was not much popular. Agriculture was the main economic activity and the farmers were mainly small-scale farmers.
Karl Marx had commented about the condition of rural life in his theory whereby he held the view that the communities who practice agriculture have much lower prospects for progressing as compared to the urban communities.However, some Russians criticized these remarks and in turn believed that Russia was capable of changing. Among the Russian revolutionalists who believed in change was George Plekhanov who in turn influenced an adolescent male by the name Lenin (Ball and Farr 57).
Lenin on his part agreed that Russia was not yet ready for the revolutions due to various reasons such as the fact that Russian workforce was largely composed of agricultural laborers instead of industrial laborers. Lenin thus held the view that there was need to educate the laborers so that they can fit into their respective class. Lenin during his life emphasized on communism and he criticized imperialism for he believed that it was the main reason behind the outbreak of the First World War.
Lenin howenr died inn 1924 and afterwards another revolutionalists by the name Joseph Stalin emerged .Joseph Stalin emphasized on the law of the dialect i.e. the revolution from old into new society. Stalin also went further to argue that this law was ideal in case of a society that is divided into several hostile classes. Stalin also held the view that socialism requires to be practiced in Soviet Union prior to being practiced in any nation around the world.
Stalin passed away in 1953 and fifty years from then, Soviet Union does not exist.However, some countries including Russia still exercises his views. On the other hand, communism is still being practiced in China.
The main theorist behind communism in China was Mao Zedong. Mao just like his predecessor i.e. Engels, Lenin, Beinstein and Stalin made various amendments with regards to the Marxian theory. Mao brought about several ideologies among them proposing that the city will guide the village. He also warned that city life is dangerous since it could hinder the revolutionary efforts by the communist and also cause ideological decay amongst the party carders.
There were scholars who criticized socialism and communism by Karl Marx.The critics held the view that the government should not exist and that it should be brought to an end as it is a means of oppressing the citizens. These critics argued that vesting power in only a few communists is a means of promoting corruption. Among the scholars whom criticized socialism and communism by Karl Marx were Kropotkin and Bakunin (Rejai 78).
Conclusion
Following the death of Karl Marx, there have been many socialists and communists who have altered the original Marxism theory. Among the socialists and communists after Karl Marx includes Engels, Lenin, Bernstein, Stalin and Mao Zedong .There has also been scholars who have criticized the philosophical work of Karl Marx among them Kropotkin and Bakunin. Karl Marxs theoretical work has been changed and misinterpreted since his death by his predecessors.
Works Cited
Ball,Terence and Farr, James. After Marx. California: CUP Archive, 1984.
Carver, Terrell. Engels after Marx. Manchester: Manchester University Press ND, 1999.
Rejai, Mostafa. Political ideologies: a comparative approach. London: M.E. Sharpe, 1995.
Rockmore, Tom. Marx after Marxism: the philosophy of Karl Marx. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2002.
It is imperative to note that ideas suggested by Karl Marx are truly fascinating, and they frequently lead to numerous discussions and disagreements. One of the most important aspects that should not be disregarded is that many scholars believe that some of the theories that were suggested by the philosopher are reasonable and can be applied to modern society.
The article is focused on the current situation in the world, and the author suggests that Marx has recognized that capitalism has several weaknesses that may be incredibly problematic. He was able to predict that masses would be impoverished if necessary measures are not taken. The fact that he has considered the possibility of economic crises also should not be overlooked, and it indicates that the philosopher had an enormous understanding of possible consequences of such approaches. Also, the author provides pieces of evidence to justify his perspective. Numbers signify that there is tremendous dissimilarity between earnings of rich and poor people is enormous (Schuman par. 3).
Moreover, it has been recognized as a significant problem that should be resolved. Another aspect that is worth noting is that factory workers have become much more educated, and the introduction of new technologies was also vital. For instance, individuals may openly voice their opinions with a use of such tools as the Internet. It is evident that people are not satisfied with the current situation and think that it needs to be addressed.
The stance of the government on such issues is also quite interesting. A range of policies that would be beneficial for workers have been introduced, but the problem is that they are not allowed to participate in meetings most of the time, and one could feel helpless under such circumstances. On the other hand, the influence of employees has been increasing, and companies are willing to provide them with a broad range of benefits.
However, the situation is much more complicated in countries that are less developed because many individuals lack education and are not provided with necessary information. It is true that enormous numbers of people are not satisfied, but the system has been established over many years, and the situation is not going to change anytime soon. Furthermore, Marxs perspective on the flaws of capitalism is justified, and it can be seen that the level of tension between the classes has been increasing over the years. However, it is necessary to mention that the philosopher has overlooked the fact that such issues as unemployment would be so significant. Moreover, many employees have to deal with unfair treatment and must accept the situation. Moreover, it is not possible that they will be capable of overthrowing the current capitalist system.
In conclusion, it is evident that some of the ideas suggested by Marx were reasonable, and his works should be studied because he was able to predict some of the processes and issues that may occur. It can be seen that capitalism has several flaws, and it has led to the introduction of numerous complications. On the other hand, communism also should not be viewed as the most efficient approach. Overall, the governments should focus on the development of policies that would help to address some of the most significant issues because the level of tension between classes is unacceptable.
Works Cited
Schuman, Michael. Marxs Revenge: How Class Struggle Is Shaping the World. Time. 2013. Web.
The notion of power can be looked at as a definite degree control of the individuals and others showing itself through different ways. Whether those individual notice it or not, the majority of them are subject to a variety of power types on a daily basis and are likely to recognize it as a normal occurrence.
Throughout the history, the concept of power arose in many different approaches from many ideologies. However, the modern understanding of power has been influenced with the works of Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Michael Foucault who attempted to introduce various perceptions of what power is and how it is formed and the way it works.
Karl Marx provides dominance to the macro sphere, dealing with the major socio class that own mode of production. Weber concepts of power base in bureaucracy that empower individual, whereas, Michel Foucault highlights the need for micro theory dealing with discourse and power and knowledge (Goodwin & Scimecca 2005, p. 184).
Concepts of power and domination according to Karl Marx
Karl Marx concept of power and domination is founded on his proposition that defines distinctions of class possessions. The state is capable of deriving power when it can guarantee provisions to address the diverse needs of the populace. According to this concept social classes exist because of possessions that eventually define and establish domination.
Social classes have characteristic political power. This defines the strength possessed by these classes. These groups will use such strength to take control of their interests. This defines a facet of domination derived from possessing material things.
However, the process of domination also relates to influence in an ideological sense. Generally Marx postulated that material possessions are pertinent determinants that shape and provide identity to a particular social class. This also determines the groups culture and behavior.
It is pertinent to note at this point that existing variations in possessions in terms of material determines the levels of domination although this will vary for different social groupings or classes. These variations are a typical feature within the Marxian theory that indicates that class struggles define the power and domination within this theory (Collins 1974).
Another aspect to understand in the concept of domination and power according to Karl Marx is related to labor power. Characteristically Karl Marx defines domination in which the bourgeois exploit the proletariat. In this light the most fundamental struggle against domination would involve freeing the society from exploitation by one class.
This in a way explains the communist concept, where according to Marx power is transferred to the proletariat. In this view Marx formulated various stages to the so-called liberation of the proletariat. According to Karl Marx the initial step of revolution involves the proletariat gaining power.
However, the struggle is not over until the proletariat in power has established his class as the ruling class thereby extorting the capital from the bourgeois. Karl Marxs view on power and domination involved the struggle between social classes (Seidman 2008, p. 83). The ruling class would dominate the subordinate class that was typically relegated to the production sector.
In this view Marx postulated that the end of such domination was the objective of the communist struggle. Marx has indicated clearly the duality to power and domination by, including materialism and intellectualism as a means of dominance (Marx, Engels & McLellan 1998, p. 207; Marx 1999, p. 66). As such philosophers can dominate and control the affairs of the time.
Generally Karl Marx has based his conception of power and domination on a perpetual struggle between social classes fighting for the control of ideologies and material. The primary objective of this struggle according to this conception is to promote the subordinate class to rulership.
Concepts of power and domination according to Michel Foucault
Foucaults understanding of power is viewed from two points of view. One understanding denotes power as the constriction and restrain imposed by state machinery over a people. In this understanding the power holders in the state are considered the noble or elite.
Alternative consideration by Foucault perceives power as a creation intended to set free people from the burdens and bondages of the society. Foucault in his second view explains that power rests on the belief on influence of human souls over the body.
Based on this understanding the human soul ensures that an individual builds successful relationships with others regardless of all other factors (Foucault 1975, p. 122). Additionally Foucault disputes the common perception that people have dominance inclinations over others further disputing the inequity prevalent in relationships.
Based on this understanding Foucault suggests that power is practiced rather than owned. A distinction that can be drawn from Foucault and Marx conceptions relates to the perception of power itself. According to Foucault power is viewed as an unclear concept (Gutting 1994, p. 78).
However, from Marxs view power is defined and wielded by a social class. In addition Foucault suggests that power is dependent on relationships indicating that everyone at some time is empowered. However, the traditional view differs from this concept by Foucault instead proposing that power is held by a dominant social class.
Further distinction is drawn from Foucaults understanding of domination that according to him is the result of a particular act rather than a defined role by an authority. Basing on such understanding empowerment ideologies like feminism has gained currently from this postulation.
However, the feminist movement may not be a universally accepted phenomenon because of the diversity in the women class from different countries. As such what empowerment in the west is may not be exactly as what is in China or India. Accordingly Foucault does not propose a clear definition of power as indicated by other theorists like Karl Marx.
Foucault indeed proposes that power can be employed by different people during different times and dependent on particular situation (Foucault 1988, p. 34).
Therefore, the distinction drawn from Foucaults understanding of power with other theorists relates to this explanation that power holders within a society are not specific, but the process is circumstantial. This view is radically contradictory to those views that currently define societal power, including the Marxism theory.
The divergent from other theories is further amplified by the notion that power is not constrained and does not restrict, and that the aspect of domination is not identifiable within this conception by Foucault on power and domination (Thorpe n.d).
Concepts of power and domination according to Max Weber
Max Webers concept of power proposes it as something vague that cannot be easily categorized. Accordingly power from Webers point of view involves mans realization of his own will in the society albeit meeting resistance from that particular society. Weber suggests that power can be typically identified and is sourced from different sources and value for its own sake.
Generally Weber indicates that power is determined by social honor that comes with prestige. Additionally power drawn from a legal order is feasible under this conception although the legal order is not considered the primary source. Max Weber considered money power as unethical and unjustifiable.
On the issue of domination Weber underscores that this is an indication of some degree of voluntary submission by the subject of power based on some genuinely vested interests (Bodley 2002, p. 67).
However, exceptions would be with modern world cases like the Hitler domination that was generally intended to propagate Germany domination of the world. Thus domination and obedience can only be viewed dependently for the former to be considered legitimate.
This is based on the understanding that obedience shows acceptance to the content of a command. Weber further postulated that authority can be categorized into three areas (Rhienstein 1954; Weber 1978; Weber 1958; Weber 2001, p. 117). Legally owned authority relates to power with the officialdom of the day.
The orders or commands propagated here are obeyed by virtue of one being the office bearer. Such is the power held by different governmental systems of the day whether presidential or parliamentary. The other category of authority defined by Weber is the legitimate authority (Gerth & Mills 1946, p. 217).
This is founded on conventionally accepted structures that propagate a belief of the legitimacy of a system and those within the system. Such is the case with monarchies and thus Queen Elizabeth II has authority defined by traditions that have remained for a long time and are held in loyalty by her.
Power can also come from compelling authority where such person exercise dominance based on his or her exceptional qualities. From Webers point of view domination is thus maintained through perpetual governance that promotes obedience to the power holders by the public or society.
A typical resultant feature of such an arrangement is bureaucracy that continually propagates domination (Goodsell 1994, p.190). Thus Weber postulates that governments uphold control through bureaucracy prevalent in subsidiary instruments of governance like the army and police force used to enforce state order (Hummel 1998, p. 307; Merton 1952; Wilson 1989, p. 77).
Comparing the power and domination theories
When looking at Karl Marx, Michel Foucault, and Max Weber theories on power and domination, it is visibly true that these theories show variations in their ideology, understanding, and practicability. The theories by these three are considered as the most influential politically in modern time.
However, they also continue to draws much debate. Max Weber and Karl Marx postulations have gained increased acceptance in comparison to Foucaults theories. Perhaps an area currently benefiting from Foucaults theories that are inclined toward societal and moral wellbeing are activist groups that continue to agitate for individual rights. Such include the gender and gay activist groups.
Therefore, it can be inferred that Foucault theories have gained wider acceptance in the western world where levels of activisms are on the rise. According to Karl Marx power and domination are founded on the economic arrangements of the day.
Predominantly the industrial and agricultural arrangement gives forth two distinct social classes the bourgeois and the proletariat. Domination can be explained from a social class perspective. From this theory the origins of power are clearly linked to its creation through labor as a cost of production giving forth the relationship between work and power.
Karl Marxs views propelled the Soviet Union to world superpower base on the enthronement of the proletariat class. However, the demise of the union in the 1990s was because of the failure by the Marxists to uphold his beliefs that maintained that means of production must be hurriedly enhanced.
Whereas Foucault and Marx share conception on the view of power as held and exercised by the elite class in the society the distinction arises from the empowerment and disempowerment source where Marx relates it to economic differentiation whereas Foucault bases it on political and state arrangements.
Therefore, Foucault assumes that everyone has power relative to the role they are playing within society. Therefore, there are no universal rights that are class specific as postulated by Marx rather domination is circumstantial and not absolute.
Webers understanding of power and domination significantly diverges from that of Foucault and Marx. In his theory Weber indicates that power is a political happening that results from social honor and prestige and not economic strength as proposed by Marx. With instruments of authority in place domination is attained through command and obedience typical of the bureaucratic arrangements in many governments today.
Conclusion
The former Soviet Union is a classical model of how the three theories of power and domination apply. The union was a product of Marxist revolution with Russian proletariats wresting power from the Czarist bourgeois of that time.
In the 1990s Foucaults postulations on individualism account for the eventual disintegration of the union into independent states (Foucault 1994, p. 136). Finally each of these states is established on Max Webers propositions that indicate bureaucratic state machinery that governs each of the states.
Reference List
Bodley, JH 2002, The power of scale: A global history approach, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk.
Collins, R 1974, Conflict sociology, Academic Press, New York.
Foucault, M 1975, Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison, Random House, New York.
Foucault, M 1988, Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason, Vintage, London.
Foucault, M 1994, The order of things: archaeology of human sciences, Vintage. London.
Gerth, H & Mills, G 1946, From Max Weber: Essays in sociology, Oxford University Press, New York.
Goodsell, C 1994, The Case for bureaucracy, Chatham House Publishers Inc., New Jersey.
Goodwin, G & Scimecca, J 2005, Classical sociological theory: Rediscovering the promise of sociology, Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont.
Gutting, G (ed.) 1994, The Cambridge companion to Foucault, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hummel, R 1998, Bureaucracy, The International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration, p. 307.
Marx, K 1999, Das capital, Gateway, New York.
Marx, K, Engels, F & McLellan, D 1998, The communist manifesto, Oxford University Press, New York.
Merton, R 1952, Bureaucratic Structure and Personality in Reader in Bureaucracy, Free Press, New York.
Rhienstein, M 1954, Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society, Simon and Shuster, New York.
Seidman, S 2008, Contested knowledge: Social theory today, Wiley, New York.
Thorpe J n.d., An analysis and comparison of Michel Foucaults and Marxs theory of power relations. Web.
Weber, M 1958, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford University Press, New York.
Weber, M 1978, The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, University of California Press, California
Weber, M 2001, Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology, 2nd edn, Routledge, New York.
Wilson, JQ 1989, Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it, Basic Books Boulder.
The notion that man makes religion and that religion does not make man has formed the foundation of irreligious criticism. A widely held concept is that religion is for persons that have not discovered themselves or have lost themselves for a second or subsequent time. Religion originates from state and society and can be said to correspond to an inverted cognizance of humanity due to the fact that state and society are similarly inverted. Religion is the universal known and held theory of all humanity in all aspects. The fight against religion is, therefore seen as a fight against the whole of humanity.
Religious suffering or oppression is the expression of real pain and is also viewed as a protest against real pain. It is the opium of the people. Putting an end to religion can result in real happiness to civilization. However, denunciation of religion leads to man losing his path and therefore beginning to reason, act, and shape his reality in a manner similar to one who has thrown away his illusions and recovered his sanity or intellect.
Philosophy uncovers self-disillusionment in its profane form when the religious side of man has been uncovered. Hence, attacks against the earth, religion, legislation and intellect amount to criticism of haven. Germany stands to redeem herself from the middle ages only if she emancipates herself from the partial victories over the middle ages. The emancipation of Germans is the emancipation of man. Philosophy can be the only head of this emancipation while the proletariat forms the heart. Philosophy cannot in itself realize itself without transcendence of the proletariat. Proletariat gets to transcend himself by the realization of philosophy.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) is a revolutionary communist who helped to motivate the establishment of several communist regimes in 20th century. Initially, he was studying to become a philosopher although he later shifted his interest to economics as well as politics although his social and moral work has philosophical aspects.
Marx is an obvious anti-capitalist critique as manifested in his work (Marx Capital 2007). In earlier historical periods, the society was sectioned it a number of orders which comprised social ranks. The capitalist system is one such societal arrangement in which the bourgeoisie comprised the higher rank and drafted oppressive orders. Thus, the society was segregated into conflicting and opposing camps, the proletarians & the Bourgeoisie.
Bourgeoisie and proletarians
Under their leadership, the Bourgeoisie had been able to establish massive productive means as compared to the previous generations. They subjugated the natural forces through technological advancements in pursuit of amassing profits.
However, these were the very weapons that would ultimately destroy them, since they enabled the recognition of the proletarians, who comprised the working class. Proletarians only survival was dependent on the labor market to maximize capital. They instead earned peanuts and were taken as objects of commerce, faced with dynamic market changes (Marx & Engels 1848).
As a result, widespread machinery utilization as well as division of labor affected the proletarians where they were converted to machine like creature through monotony, yet low wages. They were enslaved by the bourgeoisie and machinery hence, they became a majority and were empowered in the light of the competitive bourgeoisie class, which created commercial conflicts and fluctuated the earning of the working class. (Marx Capital 2007).
Therefore, the oppressive ruling of the bourgeoisie was questioned since it exploited the working class. There was a need to make proletarians a class to lead the society through overthrowing the authority of the bourgeoisie by political empowerment. This would restore moral sanity and democracy by suppressing the capitalist system and encourage socialism.
Therefore, class distinctions would be no more, a condition beneficial for the whole population as Marx assets in the communist manifesto that Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win (Marx & Engels 1848 Ch. 4).
Marxs Moral Values
Marx questions on such values as: First, universal moral values such as freedom, parity, fairness, independence and self achievement are important for everyone. Instrumentation of various values comprises a logical totality, able to articulate revolutionary humanism, which comprises a crucial aspect to morally disregard capitalism. The moral disrespect against capitalism infamies is an obvious and important perspective which makes the work of Marx impressive.
Secondly, Marx points out that those proletariats were victimized in capitalism by potentially subjugating them. This perspective of class system is able to motivate his anti-capitalist views as he criticizes the political economy of the bourgeois. Therefore, this perspective highlights on the value of justice which is viewed differently by each classs welfare and circumstances (Lowly 2002). Third, Marx sees a promising liberated prospect of a post-capitalist system, being a communist world.
This way, the negative extensive aspects of a capitalist system are exposed. Forth, capitalist growth destroyed the survival of extra human social formations which were there initially established. This was primitive communism where man lived communally with neither personal property nor patriarchal domination of females. The said values importance clearly portrays the immanent views in such a way it refers to actual social force against capitalism (Lowly 2002).
Marx emphasize that capitalism is characterized by inequality as well as class unrests. He points out that the dominant class also known as the bourgeoisie has power over power capital, possessions and production means, thereby affecting the workers as a source of labor, and who exceeds the bourgeoisie.
According to Marx, the inequality in capital production means as well as private property ownership was intense in the bourgeoisie. This empowered the bourgeoisie since it aligned with important social organization aspects as well as subjugation.
This made up the classes of oppressor and the oppressed such that the society was unable to thrive being ruled by the bourgeoisie since there is no compatibility (Marx Capital 2007). Class power is compared with political authority and economic power above the working class. This is so since the bourgeoisie were able to rule over the economy as well as the industries, which reflect oppression to the societal majority being the working class.
This is because capitalism always quested to exploit them and attain maximum benefits. Therefore, revolution and work dictatorship for the proletariat or laboring class was to be empowered to lead the society justly. Here Marx assumes that the outcome would be positive since there would be justice, restored by the leadership of the proletariat (Lowly 2002).
Thematic Concerns of Marx Anti-capitalist Critique
Marx anti-capitalist critique envelops several themes which includes the following. First, exploitation injustice, which indicates that capitalism, is solely based on a political economy. The majority, low waged oppressed laboring class produced profits. Injustice was manifested through child labor, low wages, overworking time and most importantly, the squalid working environments the laboring class were exposed to (Giddens 2002).
These conditions added up to particular historical event since the system was inherently unjust as it was based on exploitation and dependency on working class who facilitated direct production. The theme is crucial since it formed the basis for the Marxist laborers movement (Lowly 2002).
Second, freedom failure due to reification, alienation and product fetishism characterized production mode in the capitalist system. The workers were controlled by what they produced and this resulted to independent fetishes beyond their power. Alienation according to Marx arose when the laborer were excluded and became externalized.
The laborer created own world by being personally overwhelmed by poverty, this world was stricken by poverty such that the laborer was unable to have a private property (Lowly 2002). This is compared to religion where the more an individual serves God, the more he is unable to acquire self sustenance.
Third, venal social requirement means that capitalism was controlled by trade value, profit flow and capital amassing, which disregarded qualitative, utility, moral values and human associations and feelings. Marx argues that capitalism initiated a diverse deprivation of social interactions and moral deterioration to pre-capitalist social associations due to economic value that was overemphasized.
Monetary power in capitalism was manifested as production mode degraded the moral values and as money accumulated and was appreciated as personal property (Lowly 2002). Forth, irrationality was characterized by overproduction in capitalism, which portrayed absurdity in that there was extensive subsistence means with the majority having inadequate subsistence means.
Finally, modern barbarism in the capitalist system was manifested through exponential productive forces growth where there was initiation of materialism. In the emerging society, there was solidarity and freedom since capitalism was a forerunner of historical advancement.
However capitalist system was a cause of social erosion since it achieved a public disaster from every economic advancement. This was accomplished through impoverishment laws as Marx points out that barbarism reappears, but this time it is engendered in the very core of civilization and becomes an integral part of it. It is the leprous barbarism, barbarism which is the leper of civilization (Lowly 2002). These thematic concerns attribute Marx as a communist and are well structured as anti-capitalist visualizations.
Marx also handles imperialism brought about by capitalism where there is supremacy over the colonized individuals. They have to submit to the imperatives who amass capital by maximizing production. These poor nations are subjugated by the leading class or western civilization.
In the capitalist system, capital amassing is a radical critique of terror of colonial extension through enslavement or extinction of native inhabitants, congests struggles and blacks being sold as slaves. These are regarded by Marx as extreme cruelty and infamy which should not exist in the society, all in the name of making profits and curbing historical advancement (Lowly 2002).
Analysis of Marxs Anti-capitalist Thought
The Communist Manifesto, Marx exults in authority over nature facilitated by thriving of the capitalist system. The bourgeois hostility in only portrayed in the capitalist system as having to exploit production mode in opposition to the natural surroundings (Marx & Engels 1848).
This is through labor exhaustion as Lowly asserts that Each progression of capitalist agriculture is a progression not only of the art of exploiting the laborer, but also the art of depleting the earths soil; each progression in the art of augmenting its fertility for a time is also a progression in the ruination of its durable sources of fertility.
Capitalist production therefore develops the technique and the combination of the process of social production that exhausts at the same time the two sources from which are obtained all wealth: the earth and the laborer (Lowly 2002).
Marxs concern is on personal relations with respect to the significant resource of the source of labor. He emphasize that capitalism intercede social interactions in production for the laborers while the capitalists concern is on products traded in the market. This economic relation was vital for dictating the historical progress of the society (Giddens 2002).
Marx states that amassing capital, structures the social system and to achieve social change, there had to be unrest for contrasting economic interests. A society is structured by production means. His anti-capitalist thoughts in favor of communist society, which would replace feudalism and slavery is obvious. As Marx views it, capitalism was dehumanizing arising from alienation and exploitation of laborers and resulted to poor wages and unemployment (Giddens 2002).
However, Marx asserted that capital class was the finest revolutionary historically, since it developed production means than any class and it destroyed feudalism to a new age of capitalism. As a result capitalism triggered significant development since the capitalist was able to devote profits in emerging technology as well as capital machinery. Marx points out that capitalist exploited the disparity, which existed in labor and commodity market.
He argues that in most advanced industries, input expenses are less than out put expenses to give a surplus value which emanate from surplus labor. He regards capitalists as vampires who exploited the weak for their own good. This was not on maximizing profits, but on the capital as not being equipment but as being interactions among laborers and those who own them i.e. the economic system (Marx Capital 2007).
Marx predicts the instability of capitalism since it was constantly faced by crisis where he sees its future as having technological investment rather than on workers, thus profits would decline irrespective of economic development (Marx Capital 2007). Consequently the capitalist would amass wealth and power while the proletariat would become impoverished. The structural crisis would pave way for a post-capitalist society, socialism or communalism, which would be facilitated by the proletariat.
They would conger production mode and advance social relations by abolishing the bourgeois to a system that has fewer conflicts (Marx & Engels 1848). The emergent society would disregard self-alienation and would be liberated from labor market to pave way for a democratic society for the benefit of all people. This is a utopian world where states would be unnecessary since they are meant to enhance alienation.
In the communist age, the proletariat would be empowered politically and rule to socialize production means. The transition from capitalism to socialism would be characterized by revolutionary changes and political transition era of the proletariat leadership, who would nullify the state. This would be peaceful in some nations, which possess strong democratic formations but in others, which are based on centralized state values would be marked by violence (Price 1986).
Conclusion
It is clear that the notion of historical progress, characterized Marx anti-capitalist thoughts. The existence of capitalism is by no means to be justified since it was marked by limitations such as oppression, being against nature and having a single motive of maximizing capital. Marx exposes these limitations in as critical manner and proposes a revolutionary change into a communist society.
However, his thought and prediction was not attained since the society today is characterized by economic instability and most importantly, the ruling class who amass riches and power of a given society. Irrespective of that, this problem is not being resolved properly in any society, thanks to Marx who critiqued the system and tried to offer solution for the same.
List of References
Giddens, A. 2002. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, K. Capital: 2007. A Critique of Political Economy Vol. I-Part I: The Process of Capitalist Production. Edited by Friedrich Engels. New York: Cosimo, Inc.
Price, R. 1986. Marx and education in late capitalism. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Littlefield.