Category: Karl Marx

Introduction

Political philosophy is a branch of knowledge that has its root in ethics and especially trying to figure out the kind of life that is good for all the human being. People are as expected social beings.

Various philosophers therefore come up with philosophical discourses that revolve around politics in order to establish and broaden various ethical underpinnings in order to enable human beings to improve their lives. More often in the political realm, taking a utilitarian approach, people need to erect leaders as well as support institutions that would elevate happiness to majority of the people.

Various philosophers have come up with various schools of thoughts with an aim of changing many facets of life in order to make the world a better place. These ideologies have been changing the world in one way or another. One of the most influential political philosophers whose ideas had taken a center stage for many decades is Karl Marx.

The German philosopher lived between 1818 and 1883 (Tucker, 2001). He is an individual who has developed various principles that have influenced political and economic endeavors of any countries. This paper sets to identify and evaluate Karl Marx’s ideas that have continued to influence the world for many decades.

School of thoughts

In 1867, Karl Marx published one of his most powerful ideas concerning the development of the human societies. For instance, his ideas concerning hierarchical nature of the society have been central in the formation of various institutions.

Marx influence on education

Although Karl Marx never wrote straightforwardly concerning education, his ideas influenced many people including writers, intellectuals as well as educators. Mostly, the power of Marx’s ideas has continued to change the world especially in his analysis of the society. His ideas are significant in education in that Marx clearly confirmed that life should not be determined by consciousness, rather, consciousness should be resolute to life.

In the in the 19^th century and before that, human consciousness was centered on the human activities instead of anchoring human activities on the human thoughts. This means that the way people carried out their activities as well as organized their daily life reflected their thoughts and their ideas about their world.

People built institutions and adhered to the philosophies that were determined by the economic base. Political system, education system as well as the family were organized according to the nature of the class that people belong to which reflects the economic base of the people and it serves to produce it.

Marx felt that various institutions that include education usually reflect the world that is created by the human beings’ activities. He also felt that various ideas reflected the material states and situations in which they were generated (Tucker, 2001).

His ideas are very important in the world today. For sure, politicians who often make up rules usually determines the agenda, unfortunately, they reflects their desires and the focus seem to be a determination of a class rather than for the common good of everyone.

Considering the way education has been organized, there are so many schools that have been constructed which are expensive and can only be afforded by the rich. The idea of their construction is to fulfill the interest of the political class that want to maintain their interests as Marx had stressed.

Marxism, Revolution in countries and communist manifesto

This is one of the complex political doctrines that Marx came up with which has been central in many political arenas. Marxism embrace the idea that the society’s history can better be understood through the history of the struggle of that society.

In the 21^st century, there have been many revolutions in various nations. It is paramount to recognize that Marx Ideas have been very helpful in describing various political aspects. Through Marx Ideas of the bourgeoisie as the owners of means of production, we clearly understand find the establishment of the proletariat.

Marx saw situation whereby workers are exploited. He also pointed out that a civil war would arise once the working group realized they have been exploited. Considering that many nations are facing civil war especially based on the means of production, it is very common tin the 21^st century. People are becoming enlightened and the idea of class struggle is very dominant in the current world.

The history of class revolution has recently been evident in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia. For sure, Marxist humanism has been behind the revolution that are been seen currently. Marx’s idea about productive forces would create a national revolution that would ensure that the political institutions would be fair has been evident in the world today.

Britain has various socialists, USA has its socialists and from this situation, we can confidently predict that there will be dramatic events that will lead to overthrowing of the capitalists. In Tunisia, the elites have been joining hands and an uprising resulted in order to remove their president in power, Egypt followed and Libya has not be left behind, it planed an uprising that want to put Gaddafi out of power.

Tribalism and class struggle

Marx believed that all societies usually evolve due to pressures that result from economic forces. He postulated that he had encountered historical evolution since the societies were centered on primitive tribalism, all the way to feudalism as well as during an era of capitalism.

He contended that the next movement would be fair, since it would be based on socialism that would lead to an enlightened era called communism. In reality, capitalism has been encouraging tribalism up to now. This has led to a widened gap between the rich and the poor (Tucker, 2001).

Many people are struggling to fight capitalism and establish a government that would ensure equal distribution of resources which according to Marx, is the ideal institution by the communism. Capitalism is a form of political institutions that have been characterized by widespread tribalism since the basic idea of creation of these institutions is centered on the interest of a class; therefore, the focus is maintenance of the class’s interest.

Marx ideas about creation of an institution that would be centered on equality of economic resources has been experienced in the 21^st century and many people movements have been created to fight for vices such as tribalism, racism, and fight for the equality of the people.

Many leaders who came after Marx including Mahatma Gandhi have continued to fight for equality of the people as well as fighting idea of class. Political institutions even in developed countries have now been focused on democracy, for instance USA which has been a capitalist country.

Class struggle has been very evident in the current world. Many workers are nowadays forming unions to fight for their interest. In addition, Trade unions have been established to represent the working class in many parliaments in the contemporary world.

Conclusion

Karl Marx can be seen to be one of the most influential personalities throughout history. His ideas have been very powerful an influential in the politics all around the globe. Class struggle has been evident in the whole globe. Revolution has taken a center stage in many countries aimed which can be attributed to Marx’s ideas. The elites have been keen on making reforms.

Reference

Tucker R.C. (2001). Philosophy and myth in Karl Marx. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Life History

Karl Marx postulated many economic theories throughout his life culminating in the theory of value. Born to Jewish parents in 1818 in Prussia province, Rhineland, currently called Trier, Marx studied history and philosophy at the University of Bonn, obtained a law degree from Jena University, and later obtained a PhD from the prestigious University of Berlin, Germany, at the age of 23. He later turned to radical journalism becoming a newspaper editor after he failed to secure an academic career due to his radicalism (Cohen, 1978, p.27).

However, the Prussian authorities censored the newspaper that he was an editor, after his continued attacks on the Prussian leadership, forcing him to relocate to Paris in 1843. In Paris, he again established a radical journal, which was also suppressed by the authorities later on. In 1845, French authorities expelled Marx forcing him to move to Brussels, where together with his friend, Frederick Engels, founded the Communist League with a Communist Manifesto in 1848.

The founding of the Communist League by Karl Marx and Engels coincided with the1848 revolutionary upheavals across Europe. However, following the unsuccessful revolution in 1848, Marx was again routed from Germany and the extremist newspaper he edited in Cologne banned.

Subsequently, Marx moved to London in the same year where he eventually settled for the rest of his life (Cohen, 1978, p.41). In London, Marx lived in poverty with his family supported by the little proceeds from occasional journalism and financial assistance from his long time friend, Engels. It was during this time that Marx developed major works on capitalism culminating on a systematic theory on capitalism.

Throughout his life, Marx involved himself in social criticism of leadership particularly in Germany. His first involvement came in 1832 when he became a member of ‘young Hegelian’, strong critics of German idealist philosopher, Georg Hegel’s political philosophy. After Hegel’s death in 1832, this radical movement continued to flourish eventually leading to the 1848 revolution.

Hegel political philosophy revolved around his belief that every idea produced an opposed idea resulting in a conflict or struggle (Cohen, 1978, p.52). Marx, later, reposed on Hegel’s philosophy to explicate how the then class warfare would result in a harmonious society. Hegel’s philosophy was based on the belief that ideas influenced history. In contrast, Marx, being a materialist, believed that society was greatly influenced by economic dynamics.

Although both of Marx’s parents were Jewish by religion, Marx remained indifferent towards religion; actually, he coined the phrase, “religion is the opium of the poor people” (Cohen, 1978, p.49) in one of his philosophical essays. After he moved to Paris in 1843, Marx dived into radical economic thinking reaching a conclusion that the industrial revolution that characterized Europe in the 19^th Century only benefitted the capitalistic employers at the expense of poor laborers.

In 1844, he wrote his first volume on capitalism where he criticized the capitalist system of injustice by exploiting the workers while enriching their capitalist employers. He then suggested that proletarians would subvert the capitalist system of individual ownership of property and substitute it with a communist economic system, which would allow them to share the wealth they created and own property jointly.

The Communist Manifesto

While in Brussels, Marx and his friend Engels formed a small group of radical workers, which they later named the Communist League in 1847, followed by the authorship of its Communist Manifesto in the same year. In the manifesto, Marx described the historical scientific and economic developments and explained how the future would unfold. He attempted to show that historically, the society is under constant class struggles and that one economic class always oppresses the other.

However, he noted that the suppressed class finally stands up, disputes the existing systems, and institutes a new system. At the time, Marx was referring to the rich industrial class that suppressed and victimized the majority workers. He called this class, the bourgeoisie; a wealthy class that used its wealth power to control and exploit workers.

From his economic perspective, the value of a product was determined by the amount of labor input during its manufacturing process. However, he pointed out that, under the capitalist system, the workers least benefitted from their labor while their employers became wealthier. In Marx’s perspective, the capitalists made profit, “surplus value”, on the products sold, thus, overworking the workers. As a result, the employers enslaved the workers.

Marx argued that the exploitation would lead to a new class struggle between the wealthy and the working class with the proletariat becoming unified to overthrow the current system and take control of leadership. The revolution, which Marx termed, the “socialist phase” would climax into a new government comprising of the oppressed class that would take control of all the industries, farms, factories, and businesses and use them for the benefit of all the workers.

After the working class has subverted the wealthy, Marx projected that class struggles would end. The main purpose of the class struggles would be to dispatch the private possession of property and means of production and in the process eliminate economic and social divisions. Furthermore, Marx believed that through a socialist system, the worker productivity would increase leading to greater economic development.

As the social and economic divisions disappear following the communistic revolution, Marx envisioned that, the need for capitalistic rule would also disappear. He expected this revolution would first occur in Germany and then spread to the rest of the world.

In concluding the Communist Manifesto, he warned the then ruling class to prepare for a communist revolution involving the proletarians, who had nothing to lose, against the wealthy ruling class. However, the capitalist governments destroyed the revolutionary Communist League, its members prosecuted, and others exiled to foreign nations.

After publishing the Communist Manifesto, followed by worker revolts in Germany and other European nations, Marx, together with his family, relocated to London, where he wrote many essays criticizing the existing system (Engels, 1969, p.71). In 1867, Marx promulgated the first volume of ‘the Capital’, which dealt with the economic aspects of capitalism. In the ‘Capital’, Marx drew the many contributions of capitalism towards economic and technological development.

However, he pointed out that capitalism was likely to fail. He explained that capitalism allowed monopolies to flourish and encouraged rivalry among them, which would eventually result to a decrease in workers’ wages (Engels, 1969, p.74).

This would lead to a class struggle involving the majority workers and the rich powerful capitalists and eventually result to communism replacing capitalism. Marx, in his last writing of 1882, targeted the upcoming industrialist state of Russia, where he noted the peasants were beginning to revolt against the capitalist rule.

The Foundations of Marx’s Monetary Theory

Marx disapproved the common notion that money arose as a convenient medium of exchange to commodity exchange or barter system of trade (Marx, 1970, p.51). He instead argued that, money is not the result of agreements between the buyer and the seller but arose as a medium of exchange spontaneously during trade (Marx, 1970, p.49). This was the focus of his labor theory of value, where he explained why, and how money evolved as a medium of exchange in capitalisms.

For several years, Marx’s theory of value was considered to deal with pricing of commodities. However, in one of his essays in 1868, Marx notes that, it is important that societies embrace a common mechanism that would measure the various types of productive activities of the economy (Marx, 1967, p.73). Marx felt that, if the economic welfare of the society is to be promoted, the present productive activities must be unified by a universal and durable system.

Of the most significance is Marx’s explanation of how money operates in a capitalistic society by coordinating and integrating production activities. He suggests that private exchange of products in capitalist societies links together independent producers (Marx, 1967, p.74). Thus, in his theory of value, Marx undertakes to understand what makes independent forms of qualitative human labor to be exchanged at a specified quantitative value through the exchange of commodities.

In responding to this problem, Marx through his theory of value describes how the production processes are linked in capitalistic societies. Additionally, the theory explains that money is essential as means of coordinating the labor processes. He further argues that the “definite quantitative proportions by which commodities are exchanged implies the existence of some qualitative aspects of commodities” (Marx, 1967, p.39).

In relation to the exchange rate amongst commodities, Marx poses the question, “what makes objects exchangeable against each other?” (1967, p.30). He then explains that the exchange is not determined by their degree of utility alone. “What is the identity of commodities that makes them exchangeable at particular proportions with each other?” (Marx, 1970, p.144), he further questions.

After explaining that the value of commodities cannot be based on the principle of utility, Marx reveals that “commodities have only one common property; that is, they are derived from human labor … commodities are all products of abstract human labor or Marx’s ‘values’” (Marx, 1967, p.38).

This answers Marx’s question as to what makes commodities exchangeable. He termed the equivalence relationships between different commodities as “value relation” (Marx, 1970, p.74). According to Marx, value indicates the mutuality between independent producers in goods producing economies.

In this regard, Marx explains that value expresses the relationship between independent producers in the society, a form of reciprocal relationship in the society. Marx further explains that the value of a commodity can be historical; that is, it develops with other historical forms in the society such as social labor (Marx, 1970, p.207).

More precisely, commodity value stands for the abstract social labor that is convertible directly or indirectly for other goods produced in the society. In this regard, the commodity exchange coordinates independent producers in a commodity producing society. This means that, in any society, the commodity value must have an independent form of expression as no commodity can set its own value.

Thus, the exchange-value of a commodity represents “a form of social expression of value derived from abstract labor and hence a necessary form of expressing value” (Marx, 1978, p.138). Indeed, it is necessity of developing an independent exchange-value or abstract labor that stimulates the development of money (Marx, 1970, p. 51).

In contrast with other theories, Marx’s theory of value attempts to explain how the circulation of commodities stimulates the evolution of money. In the third volume of the ‘Capital’, Marx explains the evolution of money. He explains that, in a society reliant on commodity production and exchange, the value of one commodity can be determined against equivalent commodities (Marx, 1967, p.70). In the event that no commodity forms an equivalent of another commodity, then the value of each commodity will be expressed differently.

Obviously, the exchange system for commodities will have no unity of value. In this kind of system, every commodity can be viewed as money from the producer’s perspective (Marx, 1969, p.145). Therefore, the generalized process of production and exchange requires that one commodity plays the exclusive role as a universal equivalent to the rest.

The commodity against which the “exchange value for the rest is determined represents an embodiment of abstract human labor value” (Marx, 1968, p.69). Thus, money represents an ecumenical social pattern of determining exchange-value or price of goods and subsequently convertible for all goods and abstract human labor.

In his theory of value, Marx attempts to explain how the evolution of money proceeds simultaneously with the development of commodity production and exchange. Eventually, money becomes the system that unifies and coordinates the diverse human labor and production in capitalist society (Marx, 1970, p.157).

The Social Nature of Money

In accordance with Marx’s theory of value, money mediates commodity production in the society. It allows producers to equate the value of their products based on the abstract labor input leading to price determination. Thus, money is a store of value, which allows individuals in capitalist economies to become wealthy. In addition, money, being a universal form of expression of value, “mediates economic cooperation between nations reflecting economic interrelationships between states” (Marx, 1967, p.145).

In capitalist economies, the accumulation of money into capital demonstrates the domination and control of human labor and production in these economies. In addition, the accumulation of money into capital is the basis of modern financial systems and institutions (Marx, 1967, p.72).

Unlike other neoclassical monetary theories, Marx’s theory of value explains that, while money enhances social cooperation within the society, it can be the source of economic crises in capitalist states at the same time. He explains that the phenomenon of division of labor common in capitalist economies raises the possibility of disrupting production and commodity exchange.

More importantly, in capitalist states, individuals can cache money as a depot of value or capital and in the process affect the process of commodity production and human labor. Marx points out that the use of money, as a medium of coordinating production activities in capitalistic societies is likely to cause economic crises and political instability (Marx, 1967, p. 70). In this way, Marx points out as to the limitations of using money as a medium of exchange and in production in capitalist societies.

Reference List

Cohen, G. (1978). Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Engels, F. (1969).The Condition of the Working Class in England. London: Panther Books.

Marx, K. (967). Capital: 3 Volumes. New York: International Publishers.

Marx, K. (1968). Theories of Surplus Value: Part II. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Marx, K. (1970). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. New York: International Publishers.

The manifesto starts with words ” The history of all hitherto societies has been the history of class struggle,” class struggle is the most important force of history. When we get a complex pattern systems of vast social positions.Bourgeoisies have simple class opposition, they did manufacturing in inquires hence called industrial owners. This was their main source of power. It has formed world markets leading to a knowledge of America.

The market leads to business growth and efficient communication hence industrial growth, navigation, and commercial development. There was a rise in capital and a aeries of class changes. Bourgeois is considered to be revolution due to its modernity, Development, and a set of changes in exchange and production sectors. They are powerful, bring to an end the feudal system, and resulted in peaceful relations. Production has changed.Bourgeoises spread widely in the world to enlarge product market. Rural life behavior has been reduced to creation of large cities and urban centres.Production of bourgeois has improved compared to other classes before.

Marx focuses his view of history concentrating on the rise and fall of dominant bourgeoisie. History, Nature of Money, Political and Moral Implication of Karl Marx Manifesto. Money is something chosen for purpose of equity for other goods. “Original money form is a mistake of a matter. Marx argues that in modern society, forms of money is to be associated to valuable exchange object which is external, that is simple and naturally form of exchange value of products within, or utility products that form main form of present separated wealth. Capitalist used gold and silver metals to satisfy the needed use of important equivalent. Money good was to have proper quantities separation.

It was to have divisibility. It was also to have ability to be formed again to its constituent parts. Gold had these important characteristics.This took the role of money hence secluded from their original use, value and purpose almost limited as value exchange, change to proper value, and hence take the form of modern paper money. Money works same purpose on every good it is exchanged with. It is completely separated commodity, since all other commodities are changed shape, a good of their universal separation. Money is the form which products use value is differentiated into value exchange hence separating all goods from labor.

Proletariats were the lower working class among the capitalist who earned from their lab our force. They are separated from each other and from what they offer since they don’t have their labor products, production channels and modes of communication. Proletariats working class are known according to Karl Marx, the separation between labors is as important as that between middle and lower class status. Capitalism was social economic bodies that were private in terms of ownership of commodities and production of labor force.

The proletariat came as a result of bourgeois production modes. The industries grew in capital while the proletariat developed, making other classes of society unable to compete with bourgeois capitalists. The growth of bourgeois industries had a negative implication in states of proletariat which affected them slowly but had long-term effects leading to the formation of a change element by the proletariat to collapse the bourgeois oppressors. Proletariat does things to make the majority happy considering past groups/associations thought of the minorities. Their effort is an intensive national effort and Marx marks out that proletariat development through civil war attach, to real change and strict collapse of the bourgeoisie.

Object commodities satisfy human basic needs. They are requirements for capital goods, which is an example of economical units and arrangements founded on vast collection of such objects and gauging commodity value based on its importance, usage and the extent it plays to satisfy people’s needs. This satisfaction has its basis on its value and use, a feature found within that particular commodity. Value exchange is not determined by a commodity itself like value use perspective. It allows one to state the worth of a commodity compared to another. In any other market situation people measure all commodities by the same money unit. Market value describes value exchange as monetary value.

This summarizes Karl Marx labor value theory. It argues that goods posses social size since value exchange in them is not intrinsic but a function of a society’s whole division of labor and economic component separately, through which production of different goods in a homogenous market. Value exchange enables the running of this common market (size of congealed labor). In a given good the value measured in terms of money is strictly based on social economic gap.

Karl Marx explains the link between social gap and value of a commodity in a section (fetishism of commodities). A commodity is defined as a commodity if it has the ability of exchange with another by a given value of money or if it has social and labor components in it. The social feature is not visible since capitalist class of the commodity value comes strictly from its price but not what money represents (social labor). The decision by people to reduce the value of a good to money only compels Marx to state that modern capitalist groups hold money with unique importance. The bourgeois talks about economic structure, hence in production economic and exchange of goods to money deeds but fails to explain social representation of a commodity.

Karl Marx believed that rebellion was a revenge of the mistreatment people faced. He demonstrated their decision to overcome their current system and the reason of removing each good if it was to succeed.

A critical overview of Karl Marx’s ideas in The Manifesto of the Communist Party is a good chance to comprehend and learn better the conditions under which society had to live when the power of capitalism was evident. The Manifesto of the Communist Party is a powerful source of information about the most crucial force in history that is the attention to social and personal interests, the peculiarities of the bourgeoisie with its powers, the power of revolution and money, and the role of the proletariat, and the impact of the capitalism geographical expansion.

The historical background of this document highlights the concept of social classes comprising mainly of the oppressors and oppressed, and the consequential class struggles across hitherto societies. The oppressors possessed property and means of production, while the oppressed provided workforce labor. Class antagonisms prompted conflicts, and, as history evolved, the triumph of one class eliminated the rule of the other.

The victors would rule for an era only for another class to rise against them and promote the succession of revolutions. Marx writes that the process of overriding societal interests is considered to be the most significant force in history. If the society feels that no one is considering their interests, they will revolt to have their pleas heeded. The document concurs that revolution is a real and inevitable process, caused by class antagonism and helps restructure society. During these transformations, more accommodating political, economic, and social institutions come into play.

The bourgeoisie is introduced as the ruling, dominant class in the contemporary modern industry epoch. It consists of manufacturers and enterprise proprietors. They employ proletarians in their industries to work and make profits for them. The bourgeoisie is a result of the chain of revolutions that transpired over the past decades. The first bourgeoisie originated from the feudal lords of the Middle Ages. They became the most prestigious and dominant ruling class in society. The foundation of their power is on the full exploitation by means of exchange and production on a global level. The bourgeoisie draws mostly on the world market, commerce, communication, navigation, free trade, competition, and extended railways to increase its capital and conquer other classes.

According to Marx, the bourgeoisie is revolutionary as it keeps restructuring and dramatically altering the systems and modes of production. The bourgeoisie must unceasingly remold the socio-economic structures to remain self-sustainable. The ever-growing needs, supply, and demand associated with the continually expanding world market as a constant change. Retaining early techniques of production will also see to their displacement by the proletarians that had to accept capitalism.

Capitalism encompasses private enterprises and free market and permits free trade. The bourgeoisie has implemented a capitalist economy by privately owning and managing production means. In essence, this economy is a kind of a monetary economy, as money is the universally accepted medium of exchange and consists of both producers and consumers, who sustain themselves through money income. The consumers sell their labor to receive a monetary wage income. The manufacturers purchase and utilize the consumers’ services and work to make a profit. This is why the role of money is to generate incomes and profits for the members involved.

The value and worth of money are overwhelming. From a pure moral perspective, money precipitates unethical elements such as greed and power as the root of all evil that increases the desire of consumerism and profiteering benefits that increase the gap between the social classes. From a political perspective, money performs the role a social weapon that prohibits the transformation from a capital to the social community, as the notion of monetary exchange proves difficult to change. Implementation of a communist structure is necessary to cater for the oppressed, but this proves troublesome, as the overriding concept of money is still very rigid.

In addition, Marx describes the proletariat as laborers with certain duties. Their role is to provide hard work and efforts for the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie employs the proletarians to work for them, and compensate them for monetary wages and salaries. Their relationship to money is by selling these factors of production to earn income. However, this compensation is minimal, as the proletarians are overworked yet paid meager salaries. This exploitation leads to the second role of the proletariats, which is to serve as a revolutionary class and overthrow the bourgeoisie. They are already fighting against this disgruntlement from their oppressors, and when they reach climax, they will topple their reign.

Marx also explains that the geographical expansion of capitalism is global. The bourgeoisie has developed their manufacturing industries to extend past national and regional localities, to eliminate state seclusion and self-sufficiency, and capture huge market consumption of its products. They have penetrated the global market and attained states’ interdependence by free market of state-of-art machineries, electric telegraphs, railways, cultivation, and navigation. The heartthrob of the capitalist economy is focused on towns and cities to increase urbanization.

In general, the assessment of Marx’s document reveals the historical instances of class struggles, revolutions, and capitalism. Capitalism is indeed defined as an exploitative and suppressive concept that increases the gap between social classes and belittling human value, proves the role of the bourgeoisie in a society, and underlines that money can solve a number of questions.

How Do Marx and Engels Tell You Something About Downton Abbey?

The writings by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels are not simply manifested in the servant actors at Downton Abbey. Apart from the initiation of new developments from time to time, Downton Abbey’s servants are mainly sheltered on parkland in the countryside, separate from the daily impacts of the industrial practices on town life, such as increased factory operations. In Downton Abbey, the desire of the youthful characters to depart from service underscores the fact that they do not find their work valuable (Marx & Engels, 2012). Ethel, Thomas, and Gwen do not hold as much respect for their job as Mr. Carson and Mrs. Hughes who started working earlier at a time that service jobs in the estates were deemed among the most prestigious positions, which were also very competitive.

The youthful servants’ attitudes disclose a major shift occurring in the service sector. Conflicts arising amid different servants show a picture of how the economy, as well as the status of becoming a servant in an upper-class home, had faded over time. Attributable to many servants being entangled in an old-fashioned mentality, their views appear to oppose the necessity of the reforms that Engels and Marx advocate (Marx & Engels, 2012). At Downton Abbey, there are numerous powerful but intricate connections between people both in and across social categories.

What Does Thinking About The Simpsons Through the Lens of “the Popular” Tell You About the Series and Its History?

Through the lens of popular culture, the notion of upholding The Simpsons as a segment of the civilization that lingers in people’s minds all through a nuclear apocalypse appears strange and ironic. This is what transpires in The Simpsons when the electric network in Mr. Burns’ play gets damaged, and people are compelled to live in a world that has no phones, radiators, TV, or electric cookers. People resort to traditional practices of engagement, such as storytelling, although rather than higher writings, they ponder concerning practices of popular culture that each person recalls (Hall, 1981). During its first episodes in 1990, the major objective of The Simpsons was perhaps to polarize the audience.

The maker of the show could have desired to create a cartoon that addresses what he referred to as superior concerns, such as love, sex, or bereavement, which set the series apart from other animation episodes that only tackle light matters. Through the application of satire as a way of storytelling, this cartoon series does not just evoke positive sentiments that draw extreme censure in social media platforms, but also elicit exceedingly high resonance when judged against other TV programs (Hall, 1981). As evident in The Simpsons, resonance helps in differentiating a long-lasting popular culture from temporary trends.

What Struck You About the Lecture, Reading, Media for These Weeks?

What particularly struck me is the realization that The Simpsons is a real popular culture representation. Being a major animated series, The Simpsons has received numerous awards over and above earning its affiliates billions of US dollars. Apart from the monetary gains, it is striking how the cartoon series managed to infiltrate all possible segments of popular culture (Hall, 1981). In addition, apart from its material gains, The Simpsons has risen to a significant status of the US (and international) culture. The catchwords employed by Simpsons characters have been forming a segment of the English vocabularies, and the series has transformed the way people appreciate satire and comedy.

What Concepts Were Useful to You?

The concepts that were useful to me encompass the popular culture and Marx’s theory of alienation. The idea that popular culture reaches out to a broad audience enables it to reflect societal occurrences. In the present times, popular culture has gone through numerous changes attributable to improved technology. Marx’s theory of alienation portrays the social isolation of individuals from facets of their human qualities by means of residing in a community of stratified social groups.

How Can You Explain Them to Others?

Popular culture may be explained as a fundamental component of each person’s daily life, whether directly or indirectly. It might be underscored in numerous approaches since it is a wide subject in which most themes of society and lifestyle thrive; for instance, films, music, and toys, and this makes it influence nearly all segments of civilization. Throughout the years, popular culture has become a vital segment of interconnectedness across the globe in modern times (Hall, 1981). In the explanation, it would be beneficial to state that popular culture reveals variations in morality, principles, and sentiments over time.

The world is in a period typified by diverse, addictive, awesome, and incessant entertainment in the realm of popular culture. This has made popular culture represent a blend of attitudes, thoughts, images, and standpoints that epitomize people’s civilization and are followed by the mainstream population. Some major classes of popular culture encompass entertainment (for example, music, movies, TV shows, and games), politics, news, sports, and fashion. Most of the notions regarding popular culture are propagated through different channels, such as smartphones (Hall, 1981). It is indisputable that popular culture is progressively advancing beyond television series and including the generation of personal relationships among peer groups while making them interrelate with one another.

Alienation from self is an influence of being a member of a social group, a situation that estranges an individual from their civilization. The theoretical foundation of alienation in the capitalist situation is that an employee invariably lacks the capacity to control their destiny and aspects of life (Marx & Engels, 2012). This occurs when they are divested of the right to consider themselves as having the ability to decide their actions, establish possible effects, define their connections with others, possess valuable items, or produce beneficial labor. Despite being independent, workers are diverted to activities and objectives set by the bourgeoisie, the owner of the channel of production, and the utmost value is obtained from them.

What Does Looking at Theory Encourage Us to See in Media and Communication?

Looking at the theory of alienation encourages one to establish that the present stance between employees and owners of the means of production is guaranteed. Similarly, the proletariat’s failure and the accomplishment of the bourgeoisie is evident in media and communication as portrayed in the theory of alienation (Gramsci, 2006). So far, history, media, and communication are yet to underscore the victory of the proletariat despite the existence of hope. This hope convinces the proletariat that existing anticipations will materialize. It also stirs them to remain united and liberate one another from ties of wage-oppression. The realization of a well-thought-out judgment on alienation issues necessitates intricate factual evaluation of the alignment and operations of human nature besides the overriding social classes.

References

Gramsci, A. (2006). History of the subaltern classes; (ii) The concept of “ideology”; (iii) Cultural themes: Ideological material. In M. G. Durham, & D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and cultural studies: Keyworks (2^nd ed., pp. 34-37). John Wiley & Sons.

Hall, S. (1981). Notes on deconstructing “the popular”. In S. Duncombe (Ed.), Cultural resistance reader (pp. 185-192). Verso Books.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2012). 1 The ruling class and the ruling ideas. In M. G. Durham, & D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and cultural studies: Keyworks (2^nd ed., pp. 31-33). John Wiley & Sons.

Introduction

The Marxist representation of civilization is observed in the lead of disparities flanked by classes and spawned by financial objects. This essay scrutinizes the role played by the theory of Karl Marx of social stratification and its representation in ratifying social alteration in the course of group struggles.

Particularly, it examines Marx’s model of consumerist society and reviews what notion continues to be pertinent in the twenty-first century. The contemporary progress cannot deny any of the indispensable thoughts enclosed inside his proposal. Marx predicted the persistent demo of commoditization and additional escalating growth of the capitalist bazaar as one day pursuing the bourgeoisie above the facade of the world.

Marx was pragmatic in his reasoning because he postulated that the populace would be intelligent to put up a superior collective system that would credibly call for supplementary complex resources for preservation. He says that “…. the means of communication adapted themselves to the mode of production of large –scale industries.

In addition, it is a newly created connection with the world market” (Marx 1990 506).The dynamic ideas contained within the communist manifesto have had a lasting impact on the very foundations of modern society. Workers should determine their own destiny by collectivization of interests. Through this, they will realize collective bargaining in the world market. Their social welfare will get better and mistreatment will be no more.

Capitalistic Development

Marx insisted on the divergence viewpoint structures that affirm all factions in a culture battle against one another for communal capital. This generates variation involving the factions making the society a ground for clash. The difference is considered to be initiated by profitable capital with groups declining into distinctive classes. The supremacy associations are based on the possession of assets. Consequently, private enterprise is not anything new than the lawful features of control of one class over the other.

The fortunate class exercises their monetary and opinionated influence over the workers by obtaining their labor on the liberated bazaar. According to Marx, a class is explained on the foundation of control over superfluous worth in manufacturing.

The owners of the means of production are referred to as Bourgeoisie, who has power over the allocation of extra worth. The owners of the means of production are in straight inconsistency with the industrial unit personnel who do not have any articulate control in the allotment of additional value yet they are the main manufacturers (Brumfiel 79).

Marx claimed that unrest of the subordinate class demands formation of a mutual awareness about their subjugation. Regrettably, the poorer class no longer subsists as he observed since the precedent class struggles have ended every moment with radical conversion of society as a whole, which can be attained now by the waged people captivating over accessible condition.

The growth of present core executive and fair occupation has broken the subordinate group and augmented the quantity of natives in the center class, which survive in the gap formed between the two classes that Marx had initially projected. The center classes are distinguished from others on the basis of ability hence they are improbable to apprehend their universal struggle and any optimism for unified working class accomplishment is unproductive (Barbera 129).

It is factual that to a convinced degree, classes still verifies voting structures but not to the level, that Marx thought of. Marx postulated that the waged people would develop from being a grouping of persons with universal welfare to an amalgamated set with general ambitions (Marx 26).

The workforce would draw closer to discover their familiar effort and employ the estrangement they experience in the industrious progression to confront the Bourgeoisie. Schism connecting the two classes would enlarge until finally the entire makeup of the public floor into the void. This would facilitate an egalitarian society, which apparently would then espouse collectivism/communism.

The philosophy of Marx does not pertain to the present epoch, as Marx’s explanation of class is not stylish sufficiently for the up to date society. Heilbroner discharge the likelihood of a free society absolutely though his analysis is tautological.

In the near future, there will be persistence of citizens in the central, who do not suit into either the authoritarian sort Marx anticipated as they are beyond the associations of fabrication but do not exert the control of superior class.

Interestingly, affairs do not subsist if there is no manufacturing going on and at the same time, manufacturing cannot survive lacking the resources of production, which remains under the control of Bourgeoisie (Heilbroner 56).

Conclusion

Introducing the employees in undeviating rivalry for the inadequate plunder they could receive ensure that the proletariat would be not gang up collectively and widen class perception in so doing maintain Capitalism.

Capitalism will subsist as long as the low class continue being ignorant of their mistreatment. Cynicism is rising amongst the populace and possibly a form of divergence is rising. The facet of Marx premise that stands pertinent will persist to do so as long as the corporations that abuse manual labor repress the working class.

Works Cited

Barbera, Jeans. (2009). The Cost of Capitalism: Understanding Market Mayhem and Stabilizing Our Economic Future, New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.

Brumfiel, Fox (2003) Factional competition and political development in the New World, London: Cambridge University Press.

Heilbroner, Rick. (1999). The Worldly Philosophers 7 Ed. New York, NY: Touchstone Books.

Marx, Karl. (1998). The Communist Manifesto: New Interpretations. M. Cowling, (Ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

To understand the full meaning of the given passage, one must comprehend the historical and intellectual context in which it appears.

Basically, Marx’s and Engels’s Communist Manifesto has depicted human history as a continuous manifestation of class struggles between an oppressor minority and the oppressed majority.

Before the advent of the industrial age, all oppressive power was vested in the hands of a feudal class – the aristocracy. The chain of events starting with the overthrow of the monarchy in the French revolution eroded the traditional power base of Europe, leading to the rise of a new class of oppressors among the serfs – the bourgeoisie.

This class of men only spoke the language of money and had little use for traditional values such as workmanship, chivalry, religion, family relationships and other forms of sentimentality. The proletariat – the labor class, then crowded to fill the ranks of the new oppressed majority, allowing their hard work to be exploited by the bourgeois capitalists for a bare minimum existence.

Marx and Engels believed that through this exploitative association with the proletariat, the bourgeoisie was able to rise to the top of the social class pyramid, fostering the development of present day property relations which sit at the heart of a wealth-driven society. According to this theory, the onset of the 19^th century saw the dawn of a new civilization in which all productive forces of society were being systematically channelized to secure the existence of bourgeois property.

Consequently, the proletarians had little choice but to understand their place in the new hierarchy which thrived on their usefulness as workmen, but cared little for their welfare as human beings. Marx and Engels argued that such an exploitative arrangement could not last forever and in due course, discontent would rise to the surface, which would ultimately, force the labor class to rise in armed rebellion against an uncaring, bourgeois ruling class.

The study passage serves to illustrate such an outcome.

The first section states that:

The productive forces of society no longer tend to further the development of bourgeois civilization and the condition of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. (Marxists Internet Archive, 2011).

Since, discontent was growing heavily, Marx and Engles have tried to predict it would be only a matter of time before the bourgeoisie realized that their financial stranglehold on the proletariat was not strong enough to permanently secure their wealth due to the uneven nature of exploitation. Sooner or later, the ambitions of the proletariat would break the glass ceiling that until now, kept them down.

To further assess the proletariat’s vulnerabilities, the passage looks into how the bourgeoisie desires to tackle this problem:

And how does the bourgeoisie get over this crises? On the one hand, by the enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other hand, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. (Marxists Internet Archive, 2011).

In association with other sections of the passage, we may gather that the authors, here, are referring to immoral tactics that have been employed by capitalists to demoralize the labor class; these include keeping the wages low i.e. enforcing destruction of a means to production, and looking for ingenious ways to exploit old markets while discovering new ones. Marx and Engles theorize that Capitalism thrives on the back of labor exploitation, which will set the events that would eventually lead to the downfall of such a system.

The last section of the passage suggests that Capitalism’s seeds of destruction lie in its own methods of oppression:

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons – the modern workers – the proletarians. (Marxists Internet Archive, 2011).

Marx and Engels are here trying to imply that not unlike Frankenstein, the bourgeoisie has created a monster among the proletariats, who would one day untie the restraints that are keeping them tethered in submission. When such a thing happens in future, it would undermine the very foundations of the bourgeois power structure.

The significance of the passage, can be seen in the context of the overall Communist Manifesto theory.

The underlying theme of Communism tries to project the proletariat as the owner of all means of production in a distant, utopian future – a future where men are stripped of their right to exploit the labor of other men for their individual, selfish benefits. From the point of view of early 19^th century history, this was a radical statement to make. To be first among his peers, Marx came with a theory where it was possible for the oppressed majority people to wrest the reins of power from an oppressive minority.

The passage, here, serves as a clarion call to the proletariat to fight against the fetters of injustice, in order to rise against a global, tyrannical system that has been exploiting it for its own good. If one reads between the lines, the passage serves to incite readers of that period to raise their voice against the injustices of the prevailing system

It is significant to note that within years and decades of the publishing of Communist Manifesto, the world saw major Communist rebellions in South America. The impact of this passage is indeed profound, considering its indirect role in shaping human history.

Reference

Marxists Internet Archive. (2011). Manifesto of the Communist Party. Web.

Thesis Statement

Many scholarly observations have been made by various scholars regarding macroeconomic exploitation and capitalism with regards to labor. Among such scholars is Karl Marx who, in spite of many criticisms, has been able to have an enormous impact on the world of economic with his theoretical assertions on various issues. However, in this paper, major concentration is going be to on Marx’s theory on exploitation in regards to labor and its impact on economy, capitalism and labor.

Sub-Thesis

In essence, doing a critical analysis on Marx’s theory on exploitation is not only important in giving us in-depth information into Marx’s ideologies but it is also vital in helping us reduce the devastating effects of market exploitation.

According to Marx exploitation theory, the diversifications and intricacies of the need to amass economic power has led to a situation whereby some individuals or personalities take advantage of the labor/effort of other people and benefit from it thus continually gaining more economic power while the exploited individuals continue to languish in abject powerlessness and poverty (Marx 70-74).

Critical Evaluation of Marx’s theory on exploitation

Karl Marx’s theory acknowledges the fundamental role played by the labor—especially by the technicians and the supervisors, as well as that of ordinary workers (Best). Marx points out that emphasis should be made on the different superiority of individuals in terms of their physical and mental capabilities when it comes to labor issues. Moreover, he says that the rights of the workers, in regards to labor, tend to be unequal especially in communist societies. Therefore, such discriminations in labor should be duly considered.

Marx, being a renowned economic analyst, extensively argues against economic injustice. He campaigns for an atmosphere that promotes an equal amount of labor for whatever product given. Unlike many socialists who do believe exploitation occurs in economic environments, Marx’s subjective value theory implies that “a transaction will only occur when both parties prefer the benefits of the exchange over the costs” (Best).

A capitalist exploiting his/her power is normally reflected directly by the misfortune of the workers. To Marx, in any civilized society, there should be a variety of options to deal with any nature of problem unlike socialists who feels one is entirely at the mercy of the power of the state (Marx 75-77). To support this, Marx states most studies indicate that a free economy offers freedom for creativity and innovation thus creating better chances for economic progress and productivity when compared to centralized economies.

Psychologically, it has also been proven that exploitation has emotional effects on individuals. The so-called boss takes the overall charge and gives orders which eventually favor him/her to great deal. On the other hand, workers tend to be neglected with very little attention being paid to their needs.

This is more-or-less similar to the vocalizations of Adam Smith’s argument that, in rigid centralized societies; citizens are exploited severally when foreigners extract and export natural resources at the expense of local labor just because they have more capital. Effectually, the locals become demoralized and thus making the country lag behind in terms of economic prosperity.

According to Marx, exploitation is also based on the ownership of private property. Any investment made on a private property simply means responsibility by the investors. The owner knows the risk of investments and will try possible ways to protect these investments while trying to maximize the business outputs. However, Marx notes that private ownership of property in communal arenas tends to be wasteful and exploitative since several people with various ideologies want to capitalize on the same business venture (Conway).

Critical analysis also indicates that exploitation is evident amongst gender—with most women being exploited by the men folk. Physically, men are believed to be stronger than women. Consequently division of labor is mostly done such that women engage in relatively light chores (which mostly do not pay much) while men engage in tough jobs (which mostly pay more); something which some scholars view as discrimination. Nonetheless, modernization and technology have, to great extent, helped in reducing this nature of labor discrimination.

Speculations from various quarters are that women are the mostly exploited sexually as the community regards them as sexual beings. Most women are held home by their husbands who fear their wives may be exposed to sexual violation by their male counter parts at work place.

Employers are to a larger extent blamed on various occasions for exploiting their female employees in the form of pornography, strip dancing and prostitution with threats of being sacked if they do not do so. Such issues are among the key reasons why both Marx and Smith opposed work discrimination.

Generally it is considered in the views of the majority that the higher the liberty of a market, the more chances it as in exploiting people while amassing great strength in terms of capitals. The most outstanding factor here is that, in as much as workers may genuinely increase their efforts towards economic prosperity of any field of production; their interests, needs and expectations should be greatly be considered and looked upon as an incentive of motivating them to enjoy their duties and responsibilities.

Another aspect observed and further criticized is the issue of workers being overworked for longer hours as stipulated in work codes yet the extended hours are poorly or not remunerated at all. This, he says, is a crime against humanity not far from slavery. As a recommendation, he opines clear guidelines rules and regulations should not only be put in place but also strictly observed to ensure that safety of each individual employee is safeguarded.

A strong indication of unfairness in the distribution of income resources was strongly opposed by Marx who pin-pointed this economic areas as being vastly exploitative. Notably, prior to Marx assertions, most economists rarely paid attention to such injustices and disputed them as baseless with no specific impact to the economy. However, great concern has, since then, been witnessed on such issues.

Another strong ideology on exploitation and economy, by Marx, explains that any ideal economy can actually produce excess goods and services compared to what is needed to for real social cost of production. According to Marx, real costs should include both labor and capital costs hence the question arises as per which appropriate way is to be adopted in to socially distribute the produced surplus amongst the relevant individuals in the society.

Proper rules and regulation should be clearly stipulated in order to safeguard the rights of every individual worker in regards to equal wage for the labor, good working conditions and over exploitation by their employers. Moreover, these labor laws should be put in black and white and fully implemented by the government to ensure maximum protection of its citizens against any form of discrimination (Conway).

Another elemental ideology in Marx’s theory of exploitation was that a good economy of any capacity can provide enough goods and services that may directly or indirectly be required to run the whole actual social cost of production.

An important suggestion made by Marx was in regard to the equitable or rather considerate way in which these resourceful outcomes of the produce can benefit the genuine and real stakeholders who positively endure the participation towards the achievement of set expectations and goals. However, some political and economic analysts also raise major protests in this argument saying that it is evaluated as the root cause of disintegration, political anxieties and civil wars.

To a larger extent, this has brought adverse consequences to the civil societies as a result of many individuals being displaced, total destruction to properties human, livestock, disrupted labor patterns and flow, among many others . Resultantly, the economy will be duly affected and may take a while to resuscitate and grow again eventually.

Direct relationship between the worker and production brings a major concern in the discussion. Here, it is said that labor produces wonderful things but, to workers, it can only be enjoyable if their efforts are equally rewarded for the labor input. The worker is to enjoy the work and not becoming a physical subject that he/she is just a worker and nothing more.

Moreover, man is separately considered as an actual living species therefore a free being man regards one another in terms of the nature of work or activity one does in the current society making work an essential part of human being that must be fully exploited (Marx 78-80).

Alternatively, work is believed to be the source of livelihood that any responsible citizen must pursue formally or informally to make a positive contribution to his/her country’s economy. In this essence, any serious nation should at least try as much as possible to create adequate provisions to its citizens to secure a chance in either private or public sectors.

Finally, it would be important to note that, in as much as an individual may be hired for his labor, considerations should be put in place to equivalently determine the amount of work in relation to the wages to be paid. Justice of this nature to workers surprisingly increases their performance and as an incentive it boosts the levels of productions and morale of the entire workforce. Gender discrimination especially to the womenfolk should be discouraged if special and amazing talents are to be natured across all the gender.

Conclusion

From the discussions above, it is evident that proper establishment s of labor laws should be put in place to extensively cater for any form of injustice or exploitation to workers and that an equal payment should equivalently be rewarded to an equal amount of labor. Condemnation is strongly made against the overall personal relationship between the capitalists and those of their workers.

Finally, gender is generally viewed in the sense that it should not be used as strength by the male to exploit their female counterparts as each individual has basic rights as stipulated in the labor by laws. Instead, the differences in physical or mental capabilities of people based on gender should be channeled in a way that all genders work together towards the ultimate goal of ensuring progress.

Works Cited

Best, Ben. Thoughts on Exploitation Theory. 2010. Web. <http://www.benbest.com/polecon/exploit.html>.

Conway, David. A Farewell to Marx: An Outline and Appraisal of His Theories. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1987.98-124. Print.

Marx, Karl. Capital: An Abridged Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.

Karl Marx made several contributions in the field of economics making him become one of the renowned economists. Among the many contributions he made, Marx developed the theory of surplus-value. He noted that this was the greatest contribution he had made in economic analysis.

This theory gave Marx the ability to introduce the capitalist’s mode of production and find the relationship between production and laws of motion. According to the theory of surplus-value, it was established that there were different classes in the society and the ruling class produced a social surplus product.

The surplus product however takes three different forms which include unpaid surplus labor, feudalism, and the form of goods reserved for the ruling class. In other instances, the three forms could be combined to form one group. When the surplus product in the different social classes is converted to money form, it becomes surplus-value. Hence, it amounts to the surplus labor in money terms which could still be referred to as unpaid labor.

Capitalism on the other hand is an economic system in which the resources of a nation are geared towards wealth creation of individuals instead of the society like in socialism. As such, Marx noted that capitalism was a contributing factor to the problem of surplus labor. Given the fact that capitalists are self-centered and neglect the poor, it leads to the problem of unemployment hence surplus labor. Even after the developing his theory, Marx had the problem of reconciling the surplus labor derived from capitalism with law of value.

In a bid to solve the reconciliation problem, Marx indicates that each of the individual commodities is to be considered as the mean sample of the class it belongs to. This means that commodities that have been produced using the same quantity of labor within the same duration will have the same value.

Thus, according to Marx, the labor used in the production of each product could be quantified. Nevertheless, this is not ideal in a normal economy because it is difficult to treat labor independently given the prevailing economic and social conditions. The dynamism experienced in the economy leading to changing labor expenditures does not give room for the reconciliation of surplus labor with the law of value.

In addition to this, Marx explains that profits derived from production face enormous competition thus being constrained by the law of value. He further notes that competition is a problem brought about by capitalism. “In this, Marx concludes that production under capitalism cannot be directly regulated by the law of value” (Rooney par. 3).

Instead, the law of value had some influence on the prices of production especially the cost of labor time. Marx answer to the problem of surplus labor and the law of value was not sufficient since he failed to answer several issues and assumptions that arose. For instance, “Marx did not indicate how production capital would be raised, how factories would be built and how the projects would be coordinated by the management without leading to surplus value” (Rooney par. 3).

The aforementioned items have to be created to enable the worker do his job without interruption. Part of the profits of the firm must be used in management, research, and distribution in order to facilitate continuous production. However, according to Marx this was like ‘stealing’ the firm’s money since all profit was targeted to belong to the firm owners only.

Works Cited

Rooney, Sean. Marxism, Surplus Labor, and Surplus Value. 2008. Web.

Introduction

In the world’s history of economic theories, both Karl Marx and Adam Smith emerge as the most influential contributors, particularly given their contributions towards their respective theories of economic value. Both of them are highly original thinkers, with their economic theories having a direct impact on the world’s economies for numerous generations now ever since they were practically integrated into economic studies and management (Kurz, 2010). On the other hand, these two economists differ in other aspects, especially regarding their respective investigation of the capitalist economy. This happens because of the result of significant differences drawn from their individual historical contexts, as well as their unique personal backgrounds (Zelby, 1992). The divergence in the way capitalism has been analyzed by both theorists resulted in different conclusions concerning the concept. As a result, there exists theoretical, as well as academic value about their theories and ideas. This essay begins by discussing the key doctrines that constitute the mindset of each of these economic thinkers, placing more emphasis on the labor theory of value. The essay will cover the main similarities and differences of the two views, including highlighting the inherent implications and consequences. Finally, the essay will mention about the applicability of these two economic theories with respect to the present-day economic system.

The Main Tenets of the Two Theories

“The Invisible Hand vs. Labor Theory of Value”

The idea of the “invisible hand” forms the backbone of the economic theory that was promoted by Smith. Smith argues that the wealth of the nations is founded on the economic theory. In his argument, Smith holds that free markets comprise of the invisible hand that guides individuals in making their own decisions (Gregg, 2010). It implies that there is an “invisible hand” that guides people in making decisions that are profitable to them, as well as the entire economy. It is a process that happens without the realization of the individual. In so doing, each person labors to deliver or achieve a greater share of the society’s collective annual revenue. Unfortunately, the individual seeks his own, but not the interest of the society. In fact, the individual has very minimal interest, if any, in knowing about his contribution to the welfare of the society. Rather, his intentions focus on the particular gain that he will make personally. The invisible hand leads him to achieve the result that was initially not part of his intention (Gregg, 2010). Surprisingly, the interests of the public are enhanced more when the individual follows his own desires and ends up benefitting the society unknowingly, than when he purposes to promote the welfare of the society.

From the arguments and descriptions about the invisible hand, Smith explains the fact that the economy is interconnected (Gregg, 2010). If the economy is comprised of industries, then it ends up employing laborers who work in the industries, with the main purpose of targeting to achieve their personal interests. However, as they work towards their individual ambitions, the society also benefits from the economic contributions of the industries at large. The idea of a free economy was anchored on the labor and workers’ productivity as the key tenets. Smith elaborated the idea of the exchange value of labor, as well as the use value of labor in coming up with the theory. Here, Smith proposed that a given number of hours dedicated as labor input results in value that is equivalent to the number of hours invested.

The “law of value” was a contrary argument that was forwarded by Karl Marx to counter the “invisible hand” concept. In particular, Marx described value as nothing more other than the fragment of the entire labor potential that exists in a given society over a definite period, such as a month or a year (Gregg, 2010). The labor results in the output of a particular commodity under the prevailing average social labor productivity, divided by the overall number of the commodities produced. Labor input is, therefore, in terms of hours, which can be further described in terms of days and so on. Marx argued that value is said to be social because value is determined by the results that are seen after a producer invests their effort into doing something productive. In terms of objective, value is provided immediately after the production of a particular commodity, thus it remains independent from the personal valuations made by customers in the market. Finally, in terms of historic relativity, value transforms over time with each important change that is experienced, whether progressive or regressive. This mainly relates to the average labor in branches of output, such as transportation and agriculture (Gregg, 2010).

From the assumptions and arguments fronted by Marx, it is critical to point out the fact that feedback given by consumers about their behavior and wishes concerning value is constantly reconciled by the changes witnessed in allocating labor input in the production process. Marx looks at labor in the sense of being categorized into two groups of living and dead or dated labor. The producing units are influenced by the signals sent in the market, as explained in the labor theory. The reactions cause the change in value to be seen. Although changes such as fluctuations of market prices may occur in reality, even before changes in value are noted, Marx holds that values only determine prices within the medium-term sense. Price changes in the short terms are only expressed as axes. It is important to note that Marx was not opposed to the market dynamics of demand and supply (Whitaker, 1904).

Division of Labor

Smith further elaborated on the annual labor concept of his theory. He defined it as being made up of several important constructs, including skill, dexterity, as well as judgment of laborers and the ratio of laborers providing what is considered as useful and less-useful labor (Skousen, 2007). The notion of labor, as introduced by Smith categorizes, workers who are engaged in agriculture and manufacturing sectors as useful laborers, while those operating within the service sector of the economy as non-useful laborers. This underscores the importance that Smith envisioned the growing manufacturing industry at the time, with respect to the Industrial Revolution when workers were employed in factories, unlike during the preceding agrarian economy. In essence, Smith postulated that it was possible to attain a multiplication of the annual labor results or performance by dividing the labor.

Smith acknowledges the division of labor concept as the force perpetuating, as well as supplementing the productive capacity of labor. He argues that dividing workers and allowing them to specialize in specific tasks or roles results in improved skill, dexterity, in addition to their individual judgment. The production level measured on a daily basis is likely to increase exponentially in instances where specialized workers are involved, as opposed to a situation where artisans are involved in the production (Otteson, 2013). From this analysis, Smith concluded that the division of labor concept results in increased productivity, owing to the time that is saved by the workers as they move from a single task to the other. Moreover, the division of labor results in an innovative way of labor saving technology that minimizes factory costs in the end. However, Smith also stated an important constraint that separated the productivity increase idea from the division of labor concept. He noted that it is generally within the manufacturing sector where productivity is often multiplied, even with the inputs being held constant upon labor specialization. However, within the agriculture sector, he notes that the scope for growth is less because of the comparatively lesser scale for organizing the division of labor (Zelby, 1992). In essence, Smith gave a general argument with effect to the prices of corn remaining the same in all nations, notwithstanding their comparative industrial progress because their agricultural productivity is equivalent.

Marx’s analysis regarding the division of labor holds that the willingness to own private property amongst individuals resulted in the division of labor, which in turn gave rise to the separate social classes (Muller, 1995). The importance of economic classes was emphasized by Marx by explaining that it is only through classes that states are founded. In essence, those in higher economic classes in the society use their positions to control and rule those in lower socioeconomic classes in the society. Marx further believed that with the coming of the Proletarian Revo­lution, the state would be used conveniently by the proletarian class to eliminate the remnants of the expanding capitalism, together with its inherent ideology. Therefore, Marx was of the opinion that the place of the state could be wiped out by removing the opposition and leaving the proletariat class only.

In comparing Smith’s notion of the division of labor to Marx’s, it is actually notable that the latter believed in the communist culture living beyond the Revolution, where the division of labor would be destroyed completely. Marx strongly held the notion that all specialization would eventually disappear after the world undergoes revolution. Marx assumed that all human beings are equal since the creation, regardless of their geographical location, to support his arguments and the dying of the division of labor viewpoint. Marx did not see the importance of division of labor as a concept because he argued that within the communist society, no individual enjoys an exclusive sphere of activity (Otteson, 2013). Instead, he held that individuals could be accom­plished in several areas they wish to because of the general regulation of production in society. Accordingly, it is possible for any individual to do several things throughout, without necessarily confining themselves to the specialized roles advocated for in the division of labor concept (Muller, 1995).

Free Trade

Adam Smith championed the existence of free trade when he wrote “The Wealth of Nations”. In particular, Smith realized the importance of having a more efficient economy, as he argued that it would benefit every citizen, as well as the entire nation as a whole (Skousen, 2007). He suggested a free trade system as the ideal option, noting that it would give a chance to every individual in the society to own personal property and sustain a perfectly fitting lifestyle. In the event that an individual became dissatisfied with the particular choice that he made, Smith argued that a free trade system would allow the individual freedom, as well as the ability to shift unrestrained to another occupation.

In contrast, Marx differed with the free trade notion, pointing out that it would create a capitalist society that would turn out to be the source of major ills. Marx’s position against a free trade system of society was informed by his strong belief of the fact that a person will remain in the same class that he was initially born to. He further argued that capitalism is dangerous to the world because individuals cannot own property or initiate businesses and live their lives as they desire without harming, at least, someone. Secondly, Marx’s view of capitalism as evil was informed by the endless terrible working conditions that most workers endured during the time. However, the changes in time and acquisition of modern technology have since transformed the working conditions in most factories. Most workers today can easily drive to work, even if they reside far away from the location of the factory where they work. Moreover, workers unions are now a common characteristic of the contemporary work environment. Workers are also legally safeguarded from employer exploitation, as well as harsh working conditions.

Similarities

Both Smith and Marx agree on their respective economic theories that the labor hours involved in production result in the actual value, as well as the worth of the produced object. A critical evaluation of the theory of value points to the notion that products can only possess value if valuation is conducted to approve the same. Both Marx and Smith insist on the need for the object being useful in multiple ways to the consumer, for it to be considered as valuable indeed. Most importantly, the consumer’s feelings and subjective analysis will play a prime role in determining whether the object is of value to the consumer. Based on the market law of supply and demand, both Smith and Marx agree that the role or the subjective analysis gives the object its value (Gregg, 2010). The market supply and demand laws ensure that if an object is considered to warrant a higher value, then it will be proportional to an equally higher exchange value. This forms the best explanation of the theory in explaining price and value.

Applicability of these two economists’ theories of value to the contemporary economic system

Modern economics can be considered as either positive or normative. The positive economics offer a descriptive analysis about the operations of the economy, while normative economics focus more on performance evaluation. Consequently, Smith’s theory of the invisible hand falls under normative economics (Solomon, 2010). Through this theory, Smith asserted that market mechanisms have a tendency to promote the interests of the public, a notion that has since guided many economists after Smith to explore further on the concepts of competitive markets, as well as public interest measures to ascertain Smith’s claims. More importantly, Smith’s invisible hand theory has resulted in a new concept of welfare economics, which seeks to establish equality between competitive equilibrium, on the one hand, and the Pareto optimum, on the other hand (Gregg, 2010). A competitive equilibrium refers to a scenario where the interaction of the profit-maximizing producers and the utility-maximizing consumers operating within a competitive market constituting freely determined prices will result in an equilibrium price. The equilibrium price reflects an equivalent quantity supplied and quantity demanded. The Pareto optimum, on the other hand, refers to a situation where the economy does not experience any waste. The outcome for a given individual can hardly be improved without somebody else suffering worse repercussions. In essence, the market economy operating in ideal conditions produces a situation where there is no wastage, which points at an efficient way through which the resources of the society are used.

Taking Marx’s law of value into consideration, it is notable that every production system requires a regulatory framework to determine how much is spent in terms of people’s labor to produce one thing against another, which is important because it offers guidance to the society, not to use its labor on useless activities. In the modern day economy, where nations are competing against each other in terms of their respective production, Marx’s theory is critical in helping nations to plan and optimize their labor effectively. Additionally, the modern day capitalism system has seen nearly all the products resulting from human labor being produced purposely for sale (Solomon, 2010). Marx viewed this trend as a commodity production system, where the market provides everything individuals require in meeting their needs. In essence, people produce only what others need or require and proceed to sell their products in the market. Basing these kinds of arrangements to Marx’s theory, it underscores the fact that allocation of labor needs to be regulated by the law of value (Solomon, 2010).

Conclusion

The contemporary economic concept that is applied throughout the world borrows heavily from the theoretical assumptions that were postulated by Karl Marx and Adam Smith. These early scholars of the economics subject provided their respective concepts on the aspect of economic value, which diverged, as well as converged at various points. Concerning the labor theory of value, Smith holds that the free market notion comprises of an invisible hand that guide individuals in making their own decisions. Resultantly, people make decisions that affect them, as well as the society at large unconsciously. Marx’s counterargument to the invisible hand concept is the value concept, which he equates to the fragment of the entire labor potential that exists in a given society over a definite period, such as a month or a year. Furthermore, Smith also differed with Marx about division of labor, with the latter acknowledging it as the force perpetuating, as well as supplementing the productive capacity of labor. However, Marx insisted that division of labor would be destroyed completely following a revolution that would abolish the existence of the states. Despite the various divergences in views, both Smith and Marx had similarities in their findings, especially in terms of the labor hours involved in production, resulting in the actual value, as well as the worth of the produced object. They believed that products could only possess value if the valuation was conducted to approve the same.

References

Gregg, S. (2010). Smith versus Keynes: Economics and political economy in the post-crisis era. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 33(2), 22-44.

Kurz, H. D. (2010). Technical progress, capital accumulation and income distribution in Classical economics: Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 17(5), 1183-1222.

Muller, J. Z. (1995). Adam Smith in his time and ours: designing the decent society. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Otteson, J. R. (2013). Adam Smith. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.

Solomon, M. S. (2010). Critical ideas in times of crisis: Reconsidering Smith, Marx, Keynes, and Hayek. Globalizations, 7(1), 127-135.

Whitaker, A.C. (1904). History and criticism of the labor theory of value in English political economy. Web.

Zelby, L.W. (1992). Economics and growth. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 11(4), 2-4.