Research shows that technology and economic changes are related to each other. However, it is not clear on their causes and effects. Nevertheless, the results of such changes are not predicted that easily. A variety of authors have come up with different views relative to the process of technological change and they seem to be in contrast with each other.
Due to these contrasts, the formations of economic theories do not have to be directly linked with technological issues and their “impact” was not such accredited (Bimber 1990). The Karl Marx theory’s mission was to promote change that would improve the society.
Marx talked in depth about the capitalist system, in a “dynamic” view. To come up with a conclusion he studied the development patterns in society through the “materialistic dialectic approach” (Blinder 2008). In the writer’s opinion he believes that capitalism is a stage in history that is full of different “contradictions” that tend to explain the phenomena.
However, in Solow’s view an economic system can be represented by a production function that has the same returns. Nevertheless, Solow cited production and labor as the two production factors and that technology can be seen as a factor that may change the look of the production process. In this paper I look into the views of the two writers to point out the differences between them in relations in the process of technological change.
Difference
Solow believed that capital and labor are not the only causes of economic change just like Marx stated. Solow demonstrated that the increase in the economy cannot only be accounted for by changes in capital and labor only and that technology is a driving force in these economic changes.
Marx analyses on the issue of technology relative to economic and social changes seem not to be clear. Marx believes that changes in technology affect the relationship between the “forces” of production that is capital and labor and finally affecting the social structure.
However, Solow accounted in his theory that there is a portion of the economic growth that is often not accounted for, and this can be attributed to the changes in technology. Marx’s theory divides the economy into two stages of the pre-capitalist economy that is not affected by technological changes because there is no capital and labor forces since the initial “appropriation” is not available and capital are free in the economy (Bimber 1990).
However, in the second phase technology causes the substitution between the capital and labor factors in the process of production and in the end affecting the economic and social factors. However, the changes in technology here are only functions of the economic and social systems.
Solow refutes the notion of the effect of capital and labor by technology changes suggesting that only technology can explain the economic changes but not capital and labor factors that affect economic growth.
Implications
Clearly, the two theories illustrate that to change the growth of output per head one has to change the rate of technological “progress” (Blinder 2008). This implies that factors that affect both economies and distribution are related and that the distribution of income and wealth will be unequal due to technological changes. Some people may have more wealth than others because they might be ahead in terms of technology.
My View
I believe that the growth of the economy determined by factors such as capital, labor and technological changes. Clearly, the rate of change of technology is an “exogenous” variable that can be explained by the gap in the economic growth.
References
Bimber, B. (1990). Karl Marx and the Three Faces of Technological Determinism. Social Studies of Science 20 (2), 333-351.
Blinder, A. (2008). Solow, Robert (born 1924): In the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Online Journal, 5 (8), 56-87.
Society exists with rules and regulations that support it. It is a mingling of different aspects that makes it whole. One important aspect of society that helps balance the needs and wants of the people is Economics, the social science that deals with goods and services.
Any business needs an amount of risk and determination to succeed. The capital is one important factor that determines the future of one industry that is why the amount invested in any given company or business must be carefully monitored if it is being used to the fullest and if it will augment all the needs needed to make it.
Early Roman and Greek civilization based their economic activities largely on the perspective of the Church and ideologies about the society presented by the scholars (Reismann, 1998). Most of the theories used in economics were those that were influenced by the early Greek and Roman empires. Influences that might be seen as little but did have a huge impact on the kind of society that we lived in today (Cunningham and Reich, 2006).
Though everyone will agree that the Greeks and Romans have significant contributions in the different theories on the economy, it was not until the 16th and 17th centuries when tangible writings were presented to the public. This was done by the mercantilists, a group of European scholars, who focuses on exports while minimizing imports in one country (Reismann, 1998). Some of the famous economists who have presented theories about this are James Steuart, Thomas Mun, and Edward Misselden.
As they say, the only constant thing would be to change or develop. During the 17th century, a new group of economists emerges. These are the Classical economists and after which the Austrians and the Germans school have been active in developing theories and beliefs in the field of economy.
Most classical economists share a common point of view on the process of making and distributing products, goods, and services. It was during these times that the term capitalism was first introduced in society as well as the process involved in it. Capitalism has been favored greatly over the idea of mercantilism. Capitalism is the system of producing goods and services as ordered by the employers, which in turn has started the importance of money in daily living and had limited the control of the government over the economic activities of one country (Reismann, 1998).
An economist who had embedded the principles governing economic life and desires of human beings to live and prosper can not help but see the importance of capitalism. Two famous and renowned economists who are also advocates of capitalism are Adam Smith and Karl Marx. No one will argue that these two people have contributed immense knowledge that is still of great importance to society. They are both advocates of capitalism but they also have contrasting viewpoints about capitalism that are worthy of discussion.
Adam Smith
Adam Smith is a native of Fife, Scotland born in 1723. At the early age of 15, he was already being educated by Francis Hutcheson in the University of Glasgow and afterward started his career in the same university as well as in Edinburgh. Some of the most important contributions of Smith that have been preserved are The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Essays on Philosophical Subjects (1795), Lectures on Jurisprudence (1796) and Lectures on Rhetoric and Belle Lettres. Among these, the one that played a significant role in the field of economics is the book “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” or “Wealth of Nations” as it is more commonly called. Because of this book, Smith was considered an icon in the field of the economy (Rae, 2005).
His works had opposed mercantilism and had promoted a “system of natural liberty”. These had contributed much to the succeeding ideas about the nature of the economy. Though he has not used the term capitalism in any of his works, Smith was still regarded to be the father of capitalism for most of his ideas had been used as the foundation for the theory on capitalism (Dobb, 1973).
Karl Marx
It was the year 1818 that another revolutionary economist was born in the Kingdom of Prussia’s Province of the Lower Rhine. Karl Heinrich Marx or better known as Karl Marx went to the University of Bonn in 1835 at the age of seventeen. His life was a story of struggle and survival. Some of Marx’s writings are Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, (1843), Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844), The Communist Manifesto (1848) Theories of Surplus Value – Volume 1,2 and 3 (written 1861) [Mehring 2003].
Among his works, the one that caught the attention of the mass is “The Communist Manifesto”. Marx is seen as a revolutionary rather than a scholar. It must have to do with the fact that he was raised in a very climatic situation and society in the Soviet Union State that made his views as it is. His ideals ate still held high by most countries practicing communism (Avineri, 1968).
Contrasting Views of Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system that deals with the relationship among people. Different economists have a different point of view on how capitalism should be viewed but everyone agrees that aside from the money invested by the employee, the effort was given by the workers also play a crucial role in determining the success of one business or company. Views on how one perceives work and how one determines the effort given by a worker are the major differences of Smith and Marx’s concept of capitalism.
The system of natural liberty as presented by Smith is based on the assumption that a worker will perform based on his own will and on what he perceives to be a right or wrong decision in that given situation. Smith believes in an “unseen hand” that governs an individual’s decision thus in turn affecting the outcome of economic activities undertaken. He believes that freedom in the economic world will in turn result in an orderly pattern with a logical determination that everyone would want to have. Freedom in the economic world, as Smith has seen it, is not something without rules and responsibilities. He still believes that rules and laws should still be taken into consideration when a businessman undertakes industrial competition. Monopolies and government take over are not part of his ideals. “Laissez-faire” was the term given to distinguished his ideals on giving the economy the freedom to set their supply and demand without too much dictation from the government or one specific governing body only. As he has foreseen, a free competition that resulted in an ordered society is caused by the interests of an individual to work, with enough freedom, for himself that benefits the company as well (Dobb, 1973). Smith promoted division of labor in an industry as one way of coming up with a more efficient and improved output. His labor theory of value states that the price given to a specific output depends on the amount of labor that was given to it.
Karl Marx’s objective was the same as other economists are, he also had the growth of the economic system in mind. His ideals differ from Smith in the sense that Marx’s believes in achieving this by giving less room for personal development and workers acting in a way as dictated by few. If Smith wanted the government to minimize control over the economy, Marx believes that success can be achieved if the government and only a few enterprises take hold of the business dealings and give the people only what they need, no more and no less. He had used the term “bourgeois society” to denote how he pictures capitalism in his era. This is a society wherein the power lies in the hand of the few; societies where everyone can be part of any production without taking into consideration other factors like sex, age, or ability. Marx’s ideal on the other hand was to have a classless and stateless society. Communism as they have termed it today is still being practice in some countries though its desired output is still overshadowed by what others see as suppression of freedom.
Smith and Marx’s ideas on capitalism have also affected the system of government that countries have nowadays. It can be assumed that Smith’s principles can be interpreted as democratic views on handling economic activities while Marx’s is an open advocate of communist principles. It would be incorrect to say that one is right and one is wrong in their ideals. One system would work in one product as well as the other. People give high importance to things that they know they would benefit highly from. In our present society, most people give higher importance to their freedom and liberty amongst others, and that Smith’s approach has more faith in the efficacy of the capitalist system rather than Marx’s. Smith’s ideas had shown more efficiency and fairness thus it has won the attention of many and adopted by most economists and businessmen as well.
In an era of globalization, Global trade is becoming the trend in business. In a global economy, the movement of goods and materials is very crucial for the success of a company. When one wants to be known globally, it will market its products around the world, thus the right timing of shipment is necessary for profit. For an individual to grow, he needs to make a sound decision about the changes that he is going to adapt to. The same thing goes for a business establishment or any country. Businesses and companies exist within society and society prescribe behavior norm.
Laws and rules make sure that the competition within a market stays just and fair. When a company operates internationally, there are competition laws that exist within and outside of the United States of America. The laws outside are also called the Antitrust laws, which were designed to make sure that no single company has a monopoly on providing a service or a product. Every company needs to comply with the competitive free market system as they compete in the marketplace. In a globalized economy, there are no borders anymore, no more restrictions; the only difference between states will be the time zones but all places are reachable. Each component contributes to the behavior of the system. No component has an independent effect on the system. The behavior of the system is changed if any component is removed or changed. The system has an outside – an environment – which provides inputs into the system and receives outputs from the system.
Culture sets the business behavior that surrounds a corporation’s code of conduct. These factors include how we perceive the environment, time, power, structures, and space; the emphasis we place on relationships or tasks, on individuals or the collective; how we think and communicate. Productivity within a team needs to be established for this is critical regarding the success of a company. Competition becomes beneficial for one company when because without it there will be no need for innovations and changes in the industry. Consumers have a choice thus companies are always evolving to make their products and company more appealing. Consumers would want something and would need something that they can use anytime and anywhere without so much conflict. A standard that is refined and implementable. Business is not only about numbers and figures but also what society is expecting which is also a company is overall perceived. There are three essential foundations of a successful business; financial, environmental, and social performance. It must be understood that everyone has a life outside of the business or company. Punishments and discipline should be effective. One way of making sure that this is effective is being fair in giving punishments to those who have faults, with no favoritism on the part of the supervisor. This would make them feel that they are working as a team and that they are responsible for their action and their teammates as well. It would help if employees could be felt that superiors are aware of it and that are more than willing to do something about creating a balance between work and private life. Better productivity within one’s work would be achieved if one make has less stress.
References
Avineri, Shlomo.(1968). The social and political thought of Karl Marx. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Comaroff , Jean. (2001). Millennial capitalism and the culture of neoliberalism. Unite States of America: Duke University Press.
Cunningham, Lawrence and John Reich. (2006). Culture and values: A survey of the humanities. California: Thomson Wadsworth.
Dobb, Maurice.(1973). Theories of value and distribution since Adam Smith: Ideology and economic . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Economics. (2007). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.Web.
Giddens, Anthony. (1971). Capitalism and modern social theory: An analysis of the writings of Marx. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Mehring, Franz. (2003). Karl Marx: The story of his life. London: Routledge
Mercantilism. (2007). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.Web.
Rae, John. (2005). Life of Adam Smith. London: Adamant Media Corporation.
Tool, Marc R. and Warren J. Samuels.(1989). The methodology of economic thought. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers
The Communist Manifesto, first published in February 1848, is probably the most read revolutionary tract in history. Despite this, in its early history its influence was quite modest and, indeed, for some decades in the latter half of the nineteenth century it appeared almost moribund. Nonetheless, it would become something of a bible or vade mecum for the socialist revolutionaries who eventually would have such a baleful influence on the great events of the early decades of the twentieth century.1
The tract was authored by the German revolutionary theorist Karl Marx (1818-1883) and his life-long colleague Friedrich Engels (1820-1895).2 Marx was the great prophet of modern socialism. In the Manifesto
He combined the ideas of many of his predecessors, both socialist and capitalist, with others of his own, to form an ambitious new system of thought. This system has become the basis of a powerful movement as the years have passed, despite the flaws in his thinking and the errors which history has demonstrated in his predictions. Marx was at once a philosopher, a historian, a sociologist, an economist, and an active controversialist in the struggles which characterized his life. He outlined a framework of the future course of events on which he based prescriptions for a strategy on the part of those who wished to change the nature of society. =
Background
The Communist Manifesto was written in the context of a revolutionary period in European history and long precedes Marx’ later ventures into economic theory.3 Published in early 1848 and translated into French shortly before the outbreak of the 1848 revolutions that convulsed Europe, Marx initially hoped that conditions were such that his revolutionary predictions might be on the verge of fruition. This was not to be. At the outset, the Manifesto was not conceived so much as an instrument of insurrection but rather as a scientific analysis of past events and a comparably scientific prediction of future conditions.
The revolutionary impact of science – in all of its manifestations–was an essentially new phenomenon,4 one related to the growth of cities and radical improvements in communications.5 For intellectuals in the mid-nineteenth century, science had an almost magical allure. Its certitude rested on the acceptance of universals. In the past universals were largely restricted to mathematics and philosophy.6 However, experiments in chemistry in the late eighteenth century, as well as developments in physics (notably electricity and physical chemistry) in the early nineteenth encouraged the belief that the sum of human existence could be explained incomparably precise terms.7
The Industrial Revolution was a radically and rapidly changing society. New technologies were coming out all the time, and many spoke of huge, sweeping changes to come. The idea of ‘social engineering’ became popular; people believed that armed with advancing technology and an enlightened world view, they would be able to tear down the rotten and dysfunctional society that thousands of years of human civilization had slowly constructed and replace it with a new, improved version. [Wong, 2001]
In historical terms, the thinking that underlies the Manifesto developed as Marx was engaged in debates with other socialists. (Despite his overt opposition to Proudhon, Marx was not above co-opting his ideas when the occasion presented itself.) Marx’ vehicle in the mid-1840s during these ideological conflicts was the Communist League, a minuscule portion of the German socialist movement. In intellectual terms, “the main theme in Marx’ life from 1845-48 was the struggle for power within the German socialist movement. [Rempel]” Perhaps, at least in some respects, the Manifesto was as much a weapon in the internal intellectual debates of socialist theoreticians as it was a call to arms.
The communist Manifesto
At its core, the Manifesto was a work of extreme optimism,8 one that foresaw the development of society that would be the culmination of history. It may be considered an adaptation of metaphysical certitude to what appears otherwise random behaviour.9
In brief form, the Manifesto presents nothing less than a unified theory of historical dynamics, with class struggle as the central motive and all manifestations of politics and culture, including art and literature, derived from the prevailing system of material production. This gives way to an almost exuberant characterization of capitalist productive achievement that still holds our attention as a completely recognizable portrait of the relentless drive of modern industry and trade. Set against capitalism’s wonders is the human cost of being subject to a system that drains personal incentive, wears out the body and mind, and results in profound alienation from the value of one’s productive activities [Brians, 1998].
Basic components of the communist Manifesto
There are a number of elements in the Manifesto that together describe Marx’ prediction and prescription for proletarian revolution.
Class struggle: Marx saw human history in terms of ongoing antagonism between different social groups. (“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another… [Manifesto, part 1]”) Over the course of history, one group (e.g., a priest-public servant class in hydraulic civilizations) would come to dominate another (e.g., independent small farmers). This ongoing struggle was the Hegelian dialectic applied to history. The latest development of this process was the rise of the industrial bourgeoisie. (It should be understood that by bourgeoisie Marx was referring strictly to the great industrial producers of his time and not necessarily to the inhabitants of towns—which of course is what the word means. A small shop owner would have been considered petit-bourgeois, and little better off than the ‘wage slave’ in a large cotton mill.) The class struggle between the workers and the bourgeoisie would eventually result in a Hegelian synthesis that would be a benign social order, or so Marx believed.
The necessary function of the bourgeoisie: Marx was a Hegelian and, in his application of Hegelian thought to history, could not philosophically accept the possibility of proletarian revolutionary development outside the lines of his own thought.10 The Manifesto describes the flowering of the bourgeoisie as essential to a final class struggle.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: It has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other—bourgeoisie and the proletariat… Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages. We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange [Manifesto, Part 1].
For Marx, what distinguished the bourgeoisie from previous ruling classes was its straightforward character. It did not rely on a code of chivalry nor did it depend on shared religious beliefs. Rather, “it has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation [Manifesto, Part 1]”.
Property is the basis of oppression: Marx believed that the concept of property–not just private property–was at the core of human oppression. In the past, philosophers and theologians had taught that something became property by being indelibly marked with the personality of an owner (whatever form that owner took and, for that matter, whatever form the property took). “The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations… [Manifesto, Part 1]”11
The timeless character of communist truth: The overriding precepts of past societies (religious, ethical, juridical), according to Marx, essentially exist to sustain the prevailing order. “But communism abolishes ‘eternal’ truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis…” In effect, the achievement of ‘communist’ truth will be coterminous with the end of the historical dialectic.
Marx’ revolutionary expectations
Marx was remarkably straightforward in his views. Unlike Proudhon and the conspiratorial revolutionaries, he argued that communists “labour everywhere for the union of the democratic parties of all countries [and that they] disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. [Manifesto, Part 4]” Marx’s attachment to these precepts did not survive the 1848 revolutions.
The work, which places so much importance on the connection between ideas and artefacts and their historical moment, has its own history. In June 1848, less than six months after the Manifesto‘s first publication, Marx advocated shelving the document and disbanding the Communist League, which had requested in late 1847 that Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto. After the widespread and unsuccessful revolutionary activity across Europe earlier in the year, it was already clear to Marx that the immediacy of the program outlined in the Manifesto could not well serve the political and social conditions of the times. Over the next twenty years, the Manifesto was largely disregarded. In the 1870s, with Marx’s well-established prominence in the international socialist movement, the Manifesto came to be honoured more as a document of symbolic historic significance than as a viable plan of action. [Brians, 1998]
A final thought
It is perhaps ironic that the Manifesto should have been elevated to canonical status by Marxist revolutionaries. Even for its own time, its descriptions of industrial practice appear skewed, if not outright false. Perhaps the explanation lies in its fervent revolutionary language, its call to arms. Revolutionaries, more often than not, do not engage in their craft after extensive intellection. Rather, they more likely do so in the grip of emotion.
References
Appold, S. J., Reading Marx and Engels [lecture], National university of Singapore/Department of sociology, 2001
Brians, P., Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: the Communist Manifesto (1848), Readings about the world, Vol. 2, [University of Washington/Department of history], (New York: Harcourt Brace Custom Books, 1998)
Communist Manifesto [explanatory guide], Hartford Web Publishing, [no date]
Erikson, E., Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Department of history, 1954)
Rempel, G., Marx and history [lecture], Western New England College/Department of history, [no date]
The adventures of the communist manifesto, Center for socialist history, [no date]
The communist manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Selections for discussion, The great books foundation, 2003
Wong, M., Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto, 2001
Footnotes
“The Manifesto did not achieve canonical status as the essential informing document of the world Communist revolution until the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia and the rise of Lenin. For the next 75 years, it was read as having complete contemporary significance. Treated for decades as a piece of writing imbedded in an era long past, the Manifesto became regarded as a perennial outline of political direction. Like sacred scripture, a body of orthodox interpretation grew up around it, carefully constructed to fit the changing world scene what was considered its universal propositions. [Brians, 1998]”
Marx was essentially a journalist, although one with respectable intellectual credentials. He was born to a German-Jewish family that had converted to Christianity. After study at German universities (then heavily influenced by Friedrich Hegel) and obtaining a doctorate in philosophy, he turned to journalism. (His pronounced democratic views were anathema to the Prussian state and precluded his appointment to the professoriate.) Friedrich Engels–his lifelong friend and patron–was the son of a Manchester (England) mill owner. Unlike Marx (who, despite living in England for 34 years, remained comfortable only in German through his entire life), Engels was a polyglot. While Marx appeared perpetually gloomy, Engels usually maintained a sunny disposition. And while Marx, of necessity, lived a life of austerity, receiving sums of money from Engels on a regular basis and writing as a stringer for the New York Herald Tribune, Engels lived the double life of prosperous mill owner-operator and social revolutionary dilettante. Historians are generally agreed that Engels was a better writer than Marx, although the latter was a deeper thinker. (Engel’s authored and published The condition of the working class in England in 1844, an accurate–indeed, riveting–portrayal of social conditions that prevailed among the working poor of that country in the early years of the industrial revolution.)
Following the failures of the 1848 revolutions in continental Europe, Marx settled in London and spent the next fifteen years isolated from politics and studying in the British Museum, while, at the same time, preparing his monumental study, Das Kapital (Capital), first published in 1864. He rose to revolutionary prominence after the Paris Commune was crushed in 1871, declaring, “its martyrs are enshrined forever in the great heart of the working class [quoted in Brians, 1998].”
Of course, the developers of human knowledge extend back millennia. But their impact was always initially limited to a coterie of followers and the actual dissemination of knowledge was a haphazard venture. Much of this began to change in the middle years of the fifteenth century. Paper had become a fairly cheap commodity and the invention of moveable type (1453) revolutionized printing. Interestingly, other than the Bible, the most popular early books were short “how-to” items, mostly of pamphlet size, oriented toward the mercantile class (e.g., Luca Pocciolo text on accounting, published in 1494).
The first railroads appeared in 1829. Newspapers, often little more than broadsheet diatribes, were prevalent. As industry expanded the demand for up-to-date business and market conditions generated an increase in the number of daily or semi-weekly newspapers.
And, arguably, astronomy. However, for most of its history astronomy was the captive of astrology and did not begin to emerge from that intellectual embrace until the seventeenth century, under the guidance of Herschel and Newton.
“This idea of social evolution Marx believed ‘scientific,’ since it was arrived at by a process of observation and deduction just as Darwin had arrived at the idea of biological evolution. It caused the Marxist doctrine to be called scientific socialism as opposed to the schemes of the utopians, reformers, or advocates of changing everything overnight by conspiratorial violence. [Rempel]” Shortly before the outbreak of revolutionary violence in 1848, Marx had already expressed firm opposition to the activities Proudhon and those other French anarchists who wished to employ random violence against the state.
“Marx and Engels ultimately [were] concerned with the advent of a world in which the conditions of life [would] be uniformly benign and in which human relations [would] be in some way improved. [Brians, 1998]”
This is a reflection of the Hegelian component in Marx’ thinking. Marx transferred Hegel’s ‘dialectic’ to the flow of history as an explanation of that development. History, for Marx, was thus not a series of random events but the stream of human experience reflecting conditions inherent in nature itself. [Rempel] (Accepting the legitimacy of Marxist thinking requires a certain leap of faith almost religious in nature. This may account for the almost religious devotion that Marxists so often bring to their political beliefs.)
This was certainly true at the time of his writing of the Manifesto. In later years, especially after the experience of the Paris Commune (1871), Marx showed signs of backing away from his erstwhile certitude.
Marx was at a disadvantage in this respect. When writing in 1847, he was dependent on the prevailing scholarship that accepted that property rights had been a major factor in all human societies since the dawn of human existence. In 1866 he amended this component of the Manifesto, to reflect newer scholarship pointing to the likely existence of primitive communist societies when men were organized in tribes, rather than more overtly political entities. He argued, however, that this did not undermine the essential truth of the Manifesto, if only because these primitive social organizations were obliterated through the process of dialectic.
Karl Marx has developed several approaches to explaining the relationships within a capitalist society. The theory of production relations refers to the relationship that exists between those who own the means of production, mainly capitalists or bourgeoisie, and those who do not, who are the workers or the proletariat (Cohen, 2020). The interaction between the method of production and the relations of production, according to Marx, is how history evolves. The method of production is continually evolving toward its maximal productive capability, but this evolution produces tensions amongst the parties involved.
The means of production theory relates to my life because, as a student, I do not own any production means. Hence, I am dependent on the people who own the means of production, for example, my future employer. The mode of production is always evolving toward its highest productive capability, but this evolution causes tensions between the classes of people defined by production relations—owners and employees. Capitalism is a method of production in which the means of production are owned by private individuals (Cohen, 2020). Currently, the US is a capitalist state, which means that the relationships between owners of production and employees are based on the theory that Marx voiced.
Capitalists manufacture commodities for the exchange market, and in order to remain competitive, they must extract as much labor as possible from employees at the lowest feasible cost. This means that the goal of capitalists is to exploit the workforce; however, in relation to my life, I think that there is a sufficient number of institutions, such as labor unions, which can protect me as an employee. The capitalist’s economic interest is to pay the worker the least amount of money feasible, just enough to keep him alive and productive. Workers, in turn, realize that preventing the capitalist from exploiting them in this way is in their best economic interests. However, in the context of my life, I understand that I will need to work for an organization, and I have the social and legal systems in place that will protect my rights. Therefore, I do not think that capitalist means of production will exploit me or my work.
Marx also developed the four stages of alienation theory, which consists of the following: “the product of labor, the process of labor, others, and self” (Cohen, 2020, p. 50). Considering my own life, I can relate to these stages, as typically, the product of work does not belong to the worker. For example, the jobs that I have had in the past were primarily part-time, and everything I produced was attributed to the company.
When I worked at a famous fast-food restaurant, I was alienated from the product of labor and process of labor. Mainly, I worked under a specified process where each step was designated, which alienated me from the process of labor, as I could not affect it in any way. The product of my labor was also alienated from me, as these dishes were mass-produced and identical to one another. However, I think that there are jobs where an employee can own his means of production and product of labor, although these are primarily creative professions. For example, a journalist or a designer can typically retain the creative rights for their work, depending on the contract they have. However, my experience supports the four stages of alienation that Marx described.
Reference
Cohen, G. A. (2020). Karl Marx’s theory of history: A defence. Princeton University Press.
The difference in how Marx and Weber interpreted history, corresponds to the genetic makeup of both philosophers more than to the fact that Max and Weber had simply viewed historical processes from different points of view, as it is often being suggested nowadays. Marx was born in the family of Jewish rabbis; therefore, his interpretation of history corresponds to the theological doctrine of Judaism, which is materialistic, in its essence. Max Weber, on the other hand, was born in a family of German traditionalists, which is why his view of history is marked with a high degree of existential idealism. In this paper, we will briefly outline the basic subtleties of Marx and Weber’s views on history as such that are diametrically opposite, and will also come up with our assessment of such views.
Karl Marx
According to Marx, the particularities of the historical process, within a society, are being defined exclusively by economic factors. In his book “Capital”, Marx spends a great deal of time, while trying to substantiate such a point of view. “Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of economic interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand” insists the bearded promoter of “workers’ cause”, while viewing every particular individual as nothing but the “tool of production”, whose existential necessities are limited to his need for food and water. Marx suggests that only a fraction of capitalists’ income is being spent on the expansion of production, with a bulk of capital being simply kept by them “under the pillow”. Therefore, he concludes that another form of social order needs to be established, which would economically benefit workers, by creating preconditions for the capital to be invested into the expansion and improvement of production facilities. In his utopian “classless” society, Marx reserves a special role for “communist intellectuals”, whose task would be to govern such society. If modern capitalist societies’ structure can be compared to the diamond, with rich and poor people on its extreme ends and with people representing a middle class in between, Marx’s communism corresponds to the form of the triangle, with the caste of communist functionaries at the top and countless slaves at the bottom, whose only task is to work for food. Just like Freud, Marx takes one of many individual traits (consumerism) and builds a universal theory around it, while denying other traits any significance whatsoever. Just as Freud, who idealized human sexuality, Marx idealized the economy and suggested that people’s actions are being always motivated by their class affiliation, even though that they often do not even realize this fact. The whole human history, according to Marx, is the history of antagonism between classes. The eventual outcome of this antagonism he sees is the physical elimination of representatives of the “oppressive” class. The social processes are defined by this struggle alone: “Thus capital presupposes wage-labor and wage-labor presupposes capital. They mutually condition one another; they mutually bring each other into existence and they also strive to dominate over each other… The increase of capital is, therefore, an increase of the proletariat, i.e. of the working class” (Marx, p. 567). Marx denies the existence of any other factors that might play role in shaping up social relations. People’s inequality is artificially created and maintained. The notions of common good, morality, and solidarity are nothing but chimeras. Marx’s sociology does not attach any significance to the role of the individual – it is only concerned with its social status. Marx promoted the idea of “dictatorship of the proletariat”, which was to ensure that other social classes would gradually cease to exist. As history shows, the practitioners of Marxism were often not patient enough to wait until it happens naturally (according to Marxist theory), so they would resort to the practice of mass executions to speed up the process. Marx anticipated a time when there would be no nation-states. His vision of the future resembles anarchist utopia, from a certain perspective. Yet, he also theorized that masses cannot effectively rule themselves, which is why he suggested that the ruling elite should be created out of hook-nosed “promoters of worker’s cause”, such as himself. The objective reality has long ago proven the sheer absurdity of Marx’s views on history, which is why it does not make a whole lot of sense that Marxism is still being regarded as a “humanist” philosophy in certain circles, even though it refers to people as merely working robots and despite Marxism’s close association with millions of people being murdered, simply because they happened to belong to the “wrong” social class.
Max Weber
As we have mentioned earlier, Max Weber’s mental affiliation with Western civilization was not merely formal, in its essence, as it was the case with Marx. Unlike Marx, who never held anything heavier than a pen in his hands, Weber liked participating in physical activities, which is why it would never occur to him that namely an indulgence in physical labor, which allowed apes to turn into homo sapiens, as it was being suggested by Karl Marx and by his boyfriend Friedrich Engel. Weber was perfectly aware that people’s social stratification could not possibly serve as the metaphysical foundation for history, as he was able to adopt a three-dimensional outlook on it, which in its turn, had prevented Weber from discussing people’s social inequality as a “thing in itself”. It is who people are, in the racial and cultural sense of this word, which defines their behavior more then anything else does. Weber’s most famous work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” contains factual evidence, which substantiates his vision of history as such that corresponds to the existential qualities of people, capable of pushing forward scientific and cultural progress: “A glance at the occupational statistics of any country of mixed religious composition brings to light with remarkable frequency a situation which has several times provoked discussion in the Catholic press and literature, and in Catholic congresses in Germany, namely, the fact that business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the higher grades of skilled labor, and even more the higher technically and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises, are overwhelmingly Protestant” (Weber, p. 2). Why it was namely Germans and Anglo-Saxons embraced Protestantism as their religion? It is because of their inborn sense of idealism, which in its turn, corresponds to the fact that these people were the least affected by racial mixing, as compared to French or Italians, for example.
The emergence of Protestantism in Europe corresponded to the fact that, from the 16th century onwards, many Europeans were realizing themselves as being fully capable of utilizing their sense of rationale, as the tool of gaining social prominence, rather than relying on “God’s graces”, as Catholics do. Weber suggests that Protestants do not need God as their ultimate benefactor, but rather as some distant authority that does not intervene in their lives actively. This is the reason why Protestants believe that it is when they are being fully self-reliant that makes God loves them. Weber implies that only biologically adequate people were capable of realizing this simple fact. Thus, it is rather Protestants’ inborn sense of idealism, and not simply the economic realities of the 19th century (as suggested by Marx), which triggered the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the first place. In other words, it is people’s ideas that determine their history and not the other way around: “The people filled with the spirit of capitalism today tend to be indifferent, if not hostile, to the Church. The thought of the pious boredom of paradise has little attraction for their active natures; religion appears to them as a means of drawing people away from labor in this world” (Weber, p. 120). Why the members of many indigenous tribes in Africa, Australia, Asia, and South America were not able to evolve beyond the Stone Age, during millennia, as opposed to Europeans, who became an undisputed masters of the world by the end of the 19th century? It is because subconsciously, White people know that they can never reach a state when they would become fully satisfied, economically or culturally, as such complete satisfaction (Communism), is nothing but a euphemism for death. After all, it implies the absence of flow of energy, in the social context of this word. Weber defines the spirit of capitalism as the universe’s tool for combating entropy and we can only agree with such a point of view. Capitalist worldview creates preconditions for people’s existential inequality to be even more clearly defined, which in its turn, corresponds to the process of people undergoing a biological transition from apes, through homo sapiens, into super-men. Unlike Marx, Weber was capable of understanding that White individual is not simply someone who is being preoccupied with how to fill their stomach with food permanently (as it is the case with representatives of “specialized” races, which can only advance through establishing close contacts with representatives of revolutionizing race), but a semi-God, who utilizes its ability to operate with highly abstract notions, to affect the objective reality, in accordance to its wishes. The recent groundbreaking discoveries in the field of genetics prove the validity of Weber’s outlook on history, which is why we choose to subscribe to his point of view, as opposed to the one of Marx.
Bibliography
Marx, Karl “Capital. A Critique of Political Economy” trans. by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling. New York: Random House.1995.
Weber, Max “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”. London: Roxbury Publishing Company, 2001.
Rhetoric and philosophy are fields of study that have a disputed history that dates back thousands of years. Despite this, many of the topics they are engaged in are either complimentary or the same. Thus, Marx’s book demonstrated that researchers in rhetoric and philosophy are involved in a more comprehensive examination of human knowledge, value, and action than researchers in the fields of rhetoric or philosophy itself. Methods, academic sources, and topics often reflect the hybrid and synthetic character of people who engage at the confluence of philosophy and rhetoric, as do the questions they raise (Marx). The relationship between rhetoric and philosophy has long been defined by concerns and occasionally disputes regarding the two disciplines’ extent, status, and interdependence.
The second way the book advanced my theoretical knowledge is the fact that both fields of study deal with speech, yet their goals vary. That is why in philosophy, discourse serves primarily as a vehicle for expressing and testing ideas (Marx). In contrast, in rhetoric, speech serves primarily as a vehicle for the effect of views on the minds of people and groups. Finally, the book showed that philosophy could be used as an instrument of change. For example, his explanation of a commodity’s value may serve as a rhetorical appeal to people to value their labor (Marx 138). Rhetoric and philosophy have interacted in various ways throughout history, depending on the intellectual and cultural contexts of the time.
Metaphors and Argument
The main questions of Marx’s scholarly inquiry are the birth of capitalism and its importance, the relationship between capital and labor, and the role of money. To answer these questions, the philosopher utilizes several metaphors and metaphor patterns. For example, the first metaphor is an exchange value, and he uses it by comparing testimonies to commodities to portray them as money stores. Their worth may be determined by assessing how much they will be used. The other metaphor is the word “intercourse” to mean exchange (Marx 167). There must be money for a transaction to occur, which is what metaphorical intercourse is all about. In intercourse, price serves as a mediator “of the process of circulation of commodities” (Marx 37). As a result of this intercourse, money transforms itself into capital.
The other metaphor employed in the text is a metamorphosis of a commodity. Money is the metamorphosized form of all the other items, the outcome of their universal alienation. For this reason, it is alienable itself without limitation or condition. When money is transformed into a commodity, it is known as a metamorphosis. The philosopher was right when he compared a relation between people and things when he defined the exchange-value. As long as society can use a person, this person will be valued. I think that the metamorphosis of a commodity demonstrates that money is only a means to own a thing, and it is the main way to measure one’s labor.
Relevance
No other literary masterpiece has arguably discussed capitalism fully. Marx’s work crosses borders and subjects, from economics to history, and is a classic. All the concepts covered in this work revolve around capitalism and its social role, an ideological treatise that examines capitalism’s follies from a single perspective. Marx tries to highlight the capitalist system’s exploitation of the working class and to denounce the profit motive via his literature. Working-class people are constantly exploited when a concept like this is put into practice in society. It equips the market with good ideologies and a wide range of ideas to help them in the work market.
As a student, after reading the text, one will understand how the market works. They will also benefit from ideas about the market, thus helping them become viable investors and entrepreneurs. Marx’s theories of capitalism help better comprehend modern market relations since the bourgeoisie class still exists today, and some companies utilize the same principles in their practice. Finally, the book teaches to value one’s labor not by its quantity but by effort a person exerts to produce a commodity. The book is relevant to the communication classroom and the marketplace since it reveals the main principles of interaction and communication between different classes.
Work Cited
Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1. Penguin Classics, 1992
Karl Marx was one of the famous political economists in the early nineteenth century. On the other hand, he remains to be one of the most controversial scholars in the Western world’s history. It was because he continuously criticized capitalism by suggesting that socialism is an inevitable and harmonious economic and political trend for the future. Marxism deeply penetrated Eastern Europe and parts of Asia in the early twentieth century through the spread of communism. However, the idea of having socialism as the main political and economic policy in those regions failed before the century ended. The powerful revolutionary force that came with the Marxism and its eventual collapse is based on characteristics of the ideology.
One of the main aspects of Marxism can be viewed in terms of the labor theory of value. For instance, if a commodity A takes twice as long to produce as a commodity B, then commodity A is twice as valuable as commodity B. The competitive price of the commodity-A, in the end, will be twice the price of the commodity-B irrespective of the physical input values. Even though the labor theory of value seems impractical, it was dominant among the early economists up to the mid-nineteenth century.
For example, Adam Smith applied the theory in his argument for capitalism. Besides, Ricardo systematically developed the concept in the early nineteenth century. Marx would the earlier ideas to develop a model aimed at changing the economic views and trends in Europe and the rest of the Western world.
Marx also used the earlier principles and concepts to explain his idea of labor power. He argues that the labor power is determined by the average hours a worker requires to develop the essential capacity that meets the specific standards. According to this new idea of the labor standard, a person has the labor capacity if the number of hours spent working is enough to pay for food, clothes, and accommodation.
In other words, the wages given to the workers are determined by the time in hours spent during the production of a given commodity. For instance, six hours of working might be for the worker to sustain the basic need and have the ability to work the next day. The idea was developed to have ideal working hours, which are not to be surpassed. The intention was to criticize the bourgeois and their idea of extending the working hours.
Marx deemed it impractical for the capitalists to justify their comfort life while they were not engaged in working directly. In this context, Marx observed that a capitalistic economy sells all its goods and services at prices and wages, which reflect their actual value and labor. In this regard, he poses a challenge by asking why the capitalists enjoy profits under such circumstances. He could not understand how the capitalists receive profits after deducting the total costs from the total revenue. The two challenging scenarios formed the foundation of Marxism and objection to capitalism. Because capitalists own the production means and products, Marx argues that they use ruthless means to enjoy profits.
Marx agrees with the idea that capitalists are paying workers the right wages. Nevertheless, this is not the case because capitalists extend working time with more hours than required to create their labor power. For instance, if workers were needed to work for six hours a day; capitalists would extend it by about 4 hours. Capitalists only pay the standard eight hours but take the wages of the extra hours. What happens is that capitalists take the surplus labor value from the workers. Besides, they enjoy the profits accrued from the total revenues mainly because they control all factors of production including human resources.
Marx made an effort to use the theory of value as a critical tool against capitalism. The claim developed by Marx that economists who came before him failed to explain the way capitalists benefited was right. However, he could not defend his claims as well because economics scholars would later reject the labor theory of value. Economists asserted that capitalists do not have to exploit the working class to earn profits and enjoy economic gains. Instead, they suggested that capitalists sacrifice the present gains, put their resources in risky ventures, and shape production processes to influence profits.
By using the idea of alienation, Marx created an impressive idea of historical and social variations in the world. He uses the theory to develop a strong criticism of capitalism. Marx identified humans as creatures who need the freedom to think in a creative way. The two aspects give them the potential to change the world. However, he witnessed that contemporary knowledge and technology give humans the limited ability to control. Marx criticized the free market because it is not governed but instead promotes anarchy.
Marx criticized capitalism because he viewed it as an alien aimed at oppressing the masses. He puts several reasoning to portray capitalism as a bad political and economic ideology. Workers produce products and services supplied to the market. However, the market forces control the prices of the products and not workers. Capitalists must have labor resources if they must continue to have control over economic resources. Consequently, he argues that work becomes a degrading and monotonous aspect of the economy.
Capitalists give little concern to workers based on their human worth and fundamental needs. They control the activities of the workers as if they are nonhuman resources. Employees predetermine workers’ activities without consulting them. Theirs is to work without questions and wait for their wages. Therefore, Marx concludes that capitalism inhibits the capacity to realize its human ability.
The earlier socialists had a dream of an ideal society in the future without understanding the way the society works. Scientific socialism combines his economics and philosophical ideas as well as the theory of value and alienation. Throughout human history, a struggle has occurred between those who have and those who do not have. Marx argues that capitalism has a world of created a war between the bourgeois and the proletariat. While the bourgeois owns the production means, the proletariat survives at the mercy of the bourgeois.
On the other hand, the competition among the capitalists would increase fiercely. The situation would make many capitalists bankrupt. Consequently, there will only be a few monopolists controlling the entire means of production. According to Marx, a scenario such as that contradicts the primary ideals of capitalism, which promotes competition. Instead, it facilitates the creation of better products at lower prices, which results in a monopoly in the end. The former capitalists would become the proletariat and increase the labor supply. Accordingly, the wages would decrease and create a scenario that Marx refers to as the increase in the reserve of the unemployed in the economy.
In conclusion, Marx was a renowned political economist who had supporters across the world. He claimed that capitalism is irrational, in other words, contradictory. One might highlight the following key points of his theory: first, capitalism is intrinsically unstable and prone to economic crises; second, the profits of capitalist enterprises are the result of the exploitation of the workers, who receive a wage less than they produce; third, with the development of the capitalism, the workers are more and more aware of their situation and become more and more determined to overthrow capitalism by force; and, finally, fourthly, a society that will replace capitalism is the socialist and democratic in its economic and political organization. Therefore, the paramount of capitalism was to preserve the system that serves the interests of the minority at the expense of the lives of most.
Nevertheless, his arguments would later be reversed by new ideas. The actual wages have been rising and the profits have never been declined. The government does not necessarily cause a scenario of depression or recession in an economy. Marx suggested that socialism would occur as a revolutionary approach to destroying even the highly advanced capitalism. Although socialist revolutions occurred in many countries across the world, it did not reach Marx’s predicted proportion.
Bibliography
Anievas, Alexander. Marxism and World Politics: Contesting Global Capitalism. London: Routledge, 2010.
Ledwith, Margaret. “Critical Education against Global Capitalism: Karl Marx and Revolutionary Critical Education.” Community Development Journal 37, no. 4 (2002): 375-377.
Morris, Rosalind. “Dialect and Dialectic in “The Working Day” of Marx’s Capital.” Boundary 2 43, no. 1 (2016): 219-248.
Skousen, Mark. The Big Three in Economics: Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2007.
Streeck, Wolfgang, Craig Calhoun, Polly Toynbee, and Amitai Etzioni. “Does Capitalism Have a Future?” Choice Reviews Online 51, no. 11 (2014): 163-183.
According to the theory of Karl Marx, alienation is aloss of the sense of existence in the process of working during the epoch of capitalism. The problem of alienation is based on the theoretical interest to one of the most essential topics of philosophical sociological thought (Ollman 131).
Nowadays, the problem of alienation is blended in the context of topical issues. Alienation goes as a separate theory existing on its own. We can observe the examples of this theory in the changing of the society and the transformation of life from the post communistic point of view. Alienation is the perception of reality in accordance with environmental factors.
Years back, the alienation of a man was understood as the prohibition of freedom, the absence of democracy and the low level of life. People were measured by strict rules and norms that’s why the right description of the society of those times was an absolute alienation but from the point of view of human’s rights.
John J. Macionis writes that in our modern society, the alienation can be observed in different forms of sociological problems and conflicts, various humanitarian disasters, interpersonal misunderstanding, terrorism, people’s apathy, criminal, problems of mentality and other form of the society’s destruction (Macionis 8).
Unfortunately, that is what people do not notice as we are used to it. Every day we are chanced to see more cases of domination of rich people over the poor ones, men over women, etc. It can all be taking into account when talking about the basis of alienation’s appearance and present existence.
The problem of the society’s development and the development of a person in particular is one of the actual issues to discuss at present times. It goes without saying that the general state of a man depends on one’s view of the world according to the determined norms of society and interpersonal relations with the world.
“Some modern theories of alienation appeared in European thought many centuries ago” (Mészáros 2). There are different forms of alienation according to the Karl Marx’s views: alienation of a man from a man, from the nature, from one’s entitles and from the society.
The society constantly changes and every day people have different priorities such as money, honor is changes for dishonor, truth for lies, etc. Pity to say, but people became the main way to achieve political and economic well-being. Nevertheless, there are more homeless people with each passing day. The amount of those who became poor having the most awful conditions in the living places hoping for the slightest lower of prices has greatly increased.
I think, the condition of alienation still exists in the contemporary world and there are a lot of examples for this. The alienation of a man from the society results in the individualism and selfishness (Ollman 132). The alienation of a man from a man is characterized by the crisis of interpersonal relationships and loneliness that becomes so common in the modern capitalistic world.
There is also the alienation of a man from the politics that causes indifference, political conformism or unthought compromise that makes a big step back in the development of humanity. I am used to notice examples of the alienation of a man from himself that leads from a human’s “I” and depersonalization of an individual. I think it is the most widespread type of alienation nowadays.
Generally, sociology is a very interesting topic to talk about. It is quite fascinating and educative to watch people’s behavior and to observe the constant changes in the attitude to the surrounding world. John J. Macionis, a college student, became fond of sociology after taking the corresponding course to study (9). Studying sociology makes one understand the world more clearly.
He created a book that shows students the brief description of people and life correlating with the sociology in particular. The book also serves as a guide to understand life situations and people’s behavior from the sociological point of view towards the society in the whole. It happens, when one is fond of some particular issue, he/she always correlates it to everyday life and the book by John J. Macionis teaches people how to do it and the ways of noticing the things that it has been impossible to notice before.
The concept of alienation is closely connected with word conditions, technology and excessive consumption pattern in our modern capitalistic society. Mészáros says there is also a possibility to observe it in the situations of the alienation of a man from the culture reflecting in the lack of spirituality and in the replacement of cultural for universal cultural and countercultural values (3).
Science converses from tool to target and works against itself that means the alienation of science from techniques. Environmental pollution may also be taken as an example of the alienation of a man from ecology being one of the most actual and crucial problems nowadays. I think the most crucial aspects of a man’s alienation is from moral and ideological points of view. High moral and true human values such as love, friendship and solidarity are subjected to evil, violence, selfishness and ruthlessness.
All types of alienation are displayed in the Karl Marx’s work of the theory of alienation as “the devastating effect of capitalist production on human beings, on the physical and mental states and on the social processes of which they are a part” Ollman 131). Ollman describes the ways of Marx’s seeing an individual’s acting, the contemporaries and conditions (131).
Generally speaking, the society’s state is in its active development. A person changes according to the conditions of the surrounding world and it may be observed in the relation of an individual with “activity and products, fellows, inanimate nature and the species” (Ollman 131).
The problem of a man is central in the outlook of Marx. The whole teaching is formed around a man as the main concept. According to Marx, a man is not just a part of the nature but the highest product of its development, the natural being of some kind. A man is a universal force of the nature and this opportunity lies in the physiological constitution of a man as an organism having such advantages as hands, brain, language, legs, etc.
“The concept of alienation belongs to a vast and complex problematic, with a long history of its own” (Mészáros 1). “Objective tends” of the development of the whole Europe and the transformation of the society from capitalistic to socialistic are described in different books starting “from the Bible to literary works“(Mészáros 1).
In order to understand a position of a man in the capitalistic society, the “constituent elements” should be definitely taking into account “(Ollman 131). John J. Macionis got deep into the issue of alienation and created graphs and tables, data and relevant Census, video clips and many other materials to portray the society of the past with the present and the future one.
The Marx’s theory of alienation may not be vividly discussed any longer at present times but its manifestation can be observed in every day life in different spheres and various situations. People are affected by the surrounding. The result of a man’s activities and attitude to the word, of general points of view and behavior in the aspect of interpersonal relationships totally depends on the sociological and philosophical development of the world in particular.
Works Cited
Macionis, John. Sociology, Census Update. Harlow: Pearson Education, Limited, 2011.
Mészáros, István. Marx’s Theory of Alienation. New York: Merlin Pr., 1986.
Ollman, Bertell. Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in Capitalist Society. Cambridge University Press. England: Cambridge, 1971.
Capitalism is just one stage in the natural evolution of economic systems. Marx asserts that every society is divided into social classes, with members of one having more in common with members of the other. The value of commodities is determined by economic laws, as shown by the social link between wages and prices. Profits lost as a result of wage increases cannot be recovered only by increasing prices. As a consequence, profit is defined as the surplus value generated by labor above and beyond the amount needed for reproduction, as represented by wages and their buying power, such as the price of commodities, which is at the heart of this argument, particularly necessities (Lebowitz, 2016). This paper will show how Marx argues on Value, Price, and Profit under capitalism perspectives. Therefore, this paper depicts that Marx argues that the maximum profit is limited because of the actual remuneration that workers get and a workday physical maximum.
The Relationship between Wages and Labor Power
Labour power is a one-of-a-kind commodity since it is a characteristic of a living person. They would be slaves in this state, since slaves do not own themself. According to Lebowitz (2016), labour-power is the sum of a person’s mental and physical skills, which he employs anytime he creates anything of worth. Sweezy (2017) continues to argue that it is only through work does labour-power becomes a reality; only through effort does labour-power become a reality. Consequently, muscle, nerve, and brain are all gone and must be restored through an act of payment known as wage. Labour power may only be sold for a limited period by legally recognized individuals who can freely sell it and participate in labor contracts. The sale of labour-power is banned if the proprietors are not legally recognized as legal entities (Lebowitz, 2016). Once it has been actualized and wasted via work, it must be replenished and restored.
Marx’s Theory of How Profit, or Surplus-Value, is Generated
Marxian economics spells that the surplus value is calculated by subtracting materials, equipment, and labour costs from sales proceeds. According to Sweezy (2017), surplus value is the value produced by workers over and above their labour costs, from which the capitalist benefits when goods are sold. When economic surpluses are transformed and represented in money, wealth growth becomes possible on a more significant and larger scale (Lebowitz, 2016). Throughout that period, he or she does actual work, producing goods and services. Capitalists may sell these goods and services and profit from the gap between their wages and their value. Therefore, profits and surplus value are generated by creating value to solve a specific economic market gap.
How the Length of the Working Day Determines the Amount of Profit Generated
The length of a working day is the primary determinant of profits to be generated. As a consequence, Marx had to assume that all enterprises exploit surplus value equally. This implies that work hours must be consistent regardless of where this rate of exploitation occurs. It is self-evident that the absolute surplus-value cannot grow forever. All employees have a finite capacity for labour (Sweezy, 2017). However, destroying labour-power via excessive labour is incompatible with the maximization of exploitation. According to Lebowitz (2016), nearly all adult male workers favoured creating a legal limit on working hours, as had previously been done for women and children. The ambitions ran against employers’ attempts to maximize hours worked and, therefore, excess value. Reduced exploitation should be in the workers’ best interests.
Conclusion
Capitalism has transformed labour into a marketable commodity. Workers attempt to sell their labour to employers in exchange for a wage or payment. Success in this trade – the only alternative being unemployed – requires a period of submission to the capitalist’s control. In the nineteenth century, the enormous growth in wealth and population due to workers’ competitive attempts to maximize their surplus value resulted in an equal increase in productivity and capital resources. Additionally, “profit” is the amount remaining after paying the worker for his or her job and subtracting a certain percentage from the total amount. The more people sell their labour, the more value is generated, so as the profits. Therefore, the maximum profit is limited because of the physical minimum of wages and the physical maximum of the working day.
References
Lebowitz, M. A. (2016). Marx’s conceptualization of value in capital. Beyond Capital: Marx’s political economy of the working class. Oxford Publishers.
Sweezy, P. M. (2017). Value, price, and profit. Theory of capitalist development: Principles of Marxian political economy. Amazon publishing services.
Commodification is used to denote the process of transforming goods and services into commodities. Here, commodity is construed not in the ordinary business sense but as something that can be sold and bought and not to be given as a donation. Well according to Marx, commodification occurs in such a situation where some form of economic worth is attached on any material that had no value initially. This, he contends, could mean an opinion that is later transformed into something the can be sold and bought, and which is subject to prevailing market forces.
Commodification essentially means the process through which initially non-tradable goods and services are transformed into sellable and buyable commodities. Marx contends that commodification is a characteristic of capitalist systems. That the system of capitalism is progressively undergoing transformations as to embrace globalization is a true reflection that the system is running out of control of the states.
Why commodification is an outcome of capitalism and why this is inevitable
Capitalism is a market economy. Capitalism upholds a system of economic determinism where those who own the means of production almost control the situations of the property-less wage earners. Capitalism operates on the principle of profit maximization. In this system, Marx posit, it is not only goods and services that are dealt in but even labor power is involved. Commodification in this system generates from the fact that there are expanding property (goods and services) relations to the extent that the production for exchange purposes outdoes production for subsistence purposes. It also generates from the inclusion expanding capacities for the generation of such commodities.
Given the fact that capitalism embraces free market protocol, commodity and production relations have been transformed to include labor power. Globalization is a result of the outward looking policies of the capitalism system. It is this globalization that has transformed the traditional commodities such as to now include unconventional commodities such as sex tourism as a service.
Since capitalism employs a structure that pits the owners of means of production and the proletariat, even in the context of profit maximization, the owners of productive forces continue to enjoy surplus value by expropriating and alienating the workers. This results in perpetual dependence on working for the profit earners in order to sustain their selves, thus they are always coerced indirectly to sell their body capacities for labor in order to earn money in form of wages. Even more are forced to join work and therefore surrender to being commodified. It should also be noted that with the increasing alienation, increase in the variety of goods being introduced to the market is expected. In that scenario, therefore, the number of those recruiting themselves for wages in order to meet their subsistence needs expectedly increase. This reveals how the process of commodification is inherent in the capitalist system.
How capitalism commodifies people within the process
Capitalism as a market economy is very instrumental in commodifying people. It is to be found, as Marx report, that commodification can be in the form of forced labor, prostitution, ‘veiled’ slavery, wage labor, medical transplants, among others.
To begin with, the alienating, expropriating and dehumanizing relations characteristic of capitalistic systems, usually push the underprivileged proletariat to continue selling the capacities for labor in exchange of meager wages that will only help keep them going. Their labor power is measured in monetary terms and is in fact bought as any other commodity in the market. Through such other exclusionary measures put in place by the owners of productive forces, like the enforcement of private property rights denied the poor, property-less the chance to fend for their own as they earlier did. It is said that this is veiled form of slavery in which people consent to a contract of work in which they’ll be appropriated and exploited just because they do not have any other means to sustain themselves.
Globalization has come with other global forces which redefined the socio-economic and political setting. International tourism has particularly influenced the consumption of sex services. The more privileged people of the west often visit the relatively poor African continent to have fun and because of their financial might in the context of poor people trying hard to eke a living, prostitution is promoted. In sex trade, people sell their personalities in much the same way as any other commodity is sold and bought in the market.
In the field of medicine, those investors keen on maximizing on profits deal in cosmetics targeting women. Women are seen as to have value in procreation and are marketed as such. Medical engineering also commoditize humans as it seeks to introduce new products in the market. Since everything is produced for market exchange, even blood donated to the hospital is later sold and human body parts are trafficked.
In the place of work, humans are commodified in the sense that they have even been referred as “hands”. This implies a situation in which they are recruited not as human beings but as tools of trade bought to help make the projected profit. This is done in total disregard of the fact that humans produce best when they are humanly and not when forced by physical needs to offer themselves as commodities.
How Capitalism can explain the commodification of women in terms of the human trafficking marketplace – why are women more vulnerable?
Human trafficking is function of economic empowerment and social status. Women are particularly vulnerable to being traded due to their economic disempowerment compared to the male folk. In Africa where this inhumane act is common, property relations does not favor women.
In fact, in most African cultures, women did not hold any property rights meaning they always depended on their males for upkeep. Women are usually disfavored in the labor sector and most of them partake in domestic chores and child labor which increases their chances of being trafficked as they are essentially dehumanized. Here, their sense of having some worth, socially, rests upon the economic usefulness they possess. This explains why women remain vulnerable to being traded on just like commodities.
Arising from the misery that women face with their children, particularly during times of civil strives in Africa; commodification of the female folk has always featured. Media in particular has succeeded in making women the objects of pity and sympathy while gaining from the support they receive from their fan base and from the international community. In fact many journalists have been rewarded for reporting/airing such stories.
The vulnerability of women as sex objects can be seen through the sexual wartime slavery endured by Korean women. With the issue of “comfort women” in the service of Imperial Japanese Army during the World War II can be seen from a perspective a little bit different than the commodification process. After all, slavery during wartime is an aspect that might be viewed in a perspective different than sex tourism. Wartime forces dictate different rules.
Nevertheless, it can be assumed that substituting military power with property rights and a privilege, it can be stated that with Korean women being recruited against their own will, with the participation of Japanese administrative/military personnel is a matter of commodification, regardless of the way it was perceived, i.e. brothels to raise the morale of Japanese soldiers, or sexual abuse of military power.
It should not be assumed that the matter of commodifying women is related to any exceptional conditions related to wartime. It is a practice non-officially institutionalized in the peace time in the society as well. The fact that commodification is concerned with women, more than men, can be explained through social norms and privileges as well. The lower social rank of women is the cause and the consequence of men attitude toward them, as the analysis of gender inequalities in Japan has shown. Such lower rank contributes to making women more vulnerable in general, and in sex trafficking industry in particular. If paralleling such gender inequality to the theory of the commodification process, the perception of women as having less worth initially is the main factor for artificially attaching such worth through commodifying them. Although sex trafficking is an extreme form of such commodification, it can take less severe forms, which nevertheless, present the same principle.
With globalized capitalism being the order of the day, women have been commodified and have become part of the commodity exchange market. This is because globalization has transformed originally production-oriented capitalism to consumption-oriented market system. As such even human desires, represented by male desires, have been commodified. Given this, males have become the targets for other producers of another realm of products and services. Women have particularly been commodified as a result of the need to meet the desires of the males, who have a larger disposable income.
Women also are seen to have some value in the form of procreative usefulness attributable to physique, and are therefore treated as such. The West, in particular, where these slaves are destined has put regulations on who can get employment. However, the job openings in those countries appear to be those in favor of women as opposed to men. Such positions are often found in the entertainment and hospitality industries.
It should be noted, however, that property, as the main foundation of inequality, is one of the main factors in commodification. In that regard, property can be used to explain the reason women East Asia, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, Russia, South America, and Latin America are forced to work. Adding to the lower status of women, the women from countries with less income, specifically coming from employment, are tricked into being stripped from any value, through “debt bondage, threats of violence, and other coercive psychological methods to control victims.” Thus, the value added is the sexual services, and it can be assumed that the vulnerability of women is driven by demand.
Conclusion
Though capitalism is projected as to be responsible for biggest share of social and economic misfortunes of this world, capitalism is in fact the most viable and reliable political structure can only stand the test of time.
Works Cited
Chitty, Andrew. “The Direction of Contemporary Capitalism and the Practical Relevance of Theory.” Review of International Political Economy 4.3 (1997): 435-47 Print.
Iida, Keisuke. “Human Rights and Sexual Abuse: The Impact of International Human Rights Law on Japan.” Human Rights Quarterly.26 (2004): 428–53. Print.
Johnson, Walter. “The Pedestal and the Veil: Rethinking the Capitalism/Slavery Question.” Journal of the Early Republic 24.2 (2004): 299-308. Print.
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. “Country Narratives: Countries G through M”. 2011. Trafficking in Persons Report 2010. The U.S. State Department. 2011.
Photis, Lysandrou. “Globalization as Commodification.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 29 (2005): 769-97 Print.
Sharp, Lesley A. “The Commodification of the Body and Its Parts.” Annual Review of Anthropology 29 (2000): 287-328 Print.
Smith, Robert J. “Gender Inequality in Contemporary Japan.” Journal of Japanese Studies 13.1 (1987): 1-25. Print.
Wonders, Nancy A., and Raymond Michalowski. “Bodies, Borders and Sex Tourism in Globalized World: A Tale of Two Cities – Amsterdam and Havana.” Social Problems 48.4 (2001): 545-72 Print.