Justice is a complex term, especially when it comes to the application of the real attributes of justice in the society. The central issue when it comes to the real meaning and application of justice is whether justice can really be attained, considering the fact that interests of different parties play a critical role in determining the course of justice. The organization of the society in terms of needs and interests is something that comes up when trying to understand justice. This paper explores the views of Karl Marx and John Rawls on the concept of distributive justice. The paper argues that the difficulty in attaining justice in the society comes from the strife because of resources.
To begin with, it is quite important to understand distributive justice to gain insights into the views that are presented by Karl Marx and John Rawls about distributive justice. It is worth to assert that &the subject of distributive justice touches on many areas, from jobs to income, from taxes to medical services (Velasquez 558).
When examined from the outset, distributive justice comes from the structure and orientation of the society. The society is highly structured around the economic forces such that the economic forces are largely responsible for the course of social justice that is seen in the society. In other words, justice is largely a social issue because it is largely determined by the abilities and the needs of people in the society. Again, it is worth observing that these needs and abilities often revolve around the pattern of production in the society (Velasquez 567).
According to Velasquez (567), the society is social in nature and the wealth that is created in the society is supposed to be shared among all the members of the society. However, the real issue here is whether the resources that are produced in the society can be shared equally among the members of the society because of the nature and orientation of people in the society and the rules of ownership of resources. Based on the socialist view, the government is the key controller of the production systems in the society and all the resources that are produced are supposed to be shared equally by the government among all the members of the society (Velasquez 567).
However, this is rarely the case, especially when the society is looked at from the capitalistic view as opined by Karl Marx. Therefore, the concept of distributive justice is deeply entrenched in the works of Marx on the concept of order in the society. Based on the socialist view of distributive justice, Marx explained that, In a just society, work burdens should be distributed according to peoples abilities and benefits should be distributed according to peoples needs (Velasquez 567). This means that justice is something that comes out of shared interests of the members of the society.
Marx saw the society from a capitalistic view in which social order was breached such the order in which resources were supposed to be attained and distributed was altered because of the capitalistic order in which the rules that regard the sharing of resources were largely altered. Instances of inequality in the society come from the fact that the system of production and distribution of resources is shifted from capitalistic to a socialist one where the individuals in the society are denied the rights to own the means and the rights of controlling the means of production and resources (Velasquez 615).
According to Velasquez (615-616), justice can only be attained in the society when political equality and freedom are put into practice. This is evident in the assertion by Rawls that, & justice requires freedom and merely political equality (Velasquez 615). This is the view that is shared by Rawls with respect to the principle of free market operation within the political realms. The most critical thing that is evident here is how justice is lost when the society embraces capitalism, as opposed to the support for socialism. Rawls opined that, & inequalities should be allowed only if the plight of the disadvantaged is relieved (Velasquez 571). Here, Rawls supports the enforcement of social welfare programs to cater for the needs of the economically disadvantaged members of the society. To Rawls, economic inequalities are inherent in the society that embraces free markets as the means of production and distribution of resources.
Revisiting the concept of distributive justice, it is important to observe that the society is faced by the problem of a limit in the amount of resources available. Therefore, the struggle for resources is something that is unstoppable, given the fact that a vast number of people in the society cannot get access to resources that are necessary for sustaining their livelihoods, like food (Velasquez 558). Marx noted that capitalism as a social system in the society promotes the growth of the forces of domination in the society, the domination that cuts across all the realms of the society. Capitalism promotes private ownership of the society, a development that has resulted in the growth of a highly unjust system in the society because of the seeming domination of the society by the people who control resources through a capitalistic system of property ownership and distribution.
The other thing that points to the difficulty in attaining justice as opined by Marx is that capitalism promotes a certain form of antagonism between people who dominate the systems of production and people who are subjects of the few people who control production in the society. According to Velasquez (608), Marx was very categorical on the issue of domination in the society and the fact that the society has paved way for a system where the resources are concentrated in the hands of a very few people, who take advantage of the vast control of wealth to infringe on the rights of the wide population in the society.
From the liberal perspective, Rawls came up with two critical principles that define a just society. The first principle is that each person is at liberty to pursue a certain course. The second one is that even within the realms of economic inequality, equal opportunities are still presented to individuals and the disadvantaged people can still gain from the economic system (Velasquez 570-573). While Rawls seems to depict optimism about the attainment of justice, Marx seems pessimistic about the possibility of attaining justice in a society where domination is quite visible.
Distributive justice is something that comes out in the paper because it often revolves around the distribution of resources in the society. Rawls argues that justice can be attained even when the society is marked by attributes of inequality in terms of the control of production. On the other hand, Marx argues that justice cannot be attained when capitalism continues to take root in the society because it inhibits equality and the course of justice in the society.
Work Cited
Velasquez, Manuel G. Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.
Religion has been viewed as concerning the supernatural world with its entities and its relationship with the natural world. On the other hand, science has based its explanations on the natural world without appealing to supernatural entities and non-natural forces. The distinction between religion and science is based on naturalists principles, namely methodological naturalism, where limited scientific inquiry to natural entities and laws is commonly preferred, and philosophical naturalism, involving the principle that rejects the supernatural. However, there have been studies on relationships between science and different religions trying to merge them. Two philosophers and their theories about science and religion are discussed to display the differences. Science advocates for equality and religion, championing knowledge and morality.
Karl Marx, a German philosopher, is credited for the Marxism theory. Marxism philosophy was a scientific socialism since it offered an economic interpretation of history using the scientific methodology of dialectical materialism. Marxism explained the true causes of exploitation and further offered the scientific remedy of revolution and proletariat to cure the social ills of exploitation (Knafo & Teschke, 2020). This encompassed the struggle in society and the reasons behind class division. Socialism has been divided into evolutionary socialism, which wants to attain socialism through peaceful means, and revolutionary socialism, which is based upon violence and authoritarianism of the waged people.
The basic principles of Marxism are historical materialism, the theory of surplus value, revolution, class struggle, communism, dialectical materialism, and the dictatorship of the waged people. Dialectical materialism is a scientific methodology for understanding and interpreting history. In this, progress is described to occur through contradictions which further induce changes in progress and eventual development. Marx based the forces of production and relations of production as the main components of production. Therefore, changes in the mode of production results in a change in the superstructure, that is morals, religion, society, and values.
Historical materialism involves the economic interpretation of world history defined by four stages. Primitive communism is the earliest part where the community owned the means of production limited to self-consumption with no classes, properties, or states (Choat, 2018). Secondly, surplus production resulted in the emergence of private property and private ownership. Subsequently property-owning class exploits the propertyless class resulting in a slavery system. The third stage is feudalism (Astarita, 2018), whereby technological development targeting means of production further corresponds to changes in relations of production and the superstructure, with the feudal lords thriving on peasants labor getting a considerable share of the produce.
Capitalism is the fourth stage and is characterized by technological development accompanied by the mismatch between forces of production and relations of production. This is accompanied by the desire to maximize profits resulting in to increase in working hours and a reduction in wages. The theory of surplus value describes the manipulation in the capitalist society. Whereas the products value is determined by the amount of labor consumed in production, the wage in capitalism does not reciprocate. Class struggle has been described to exist in society, with all historical ages experiencing dislike between dominant and dependent classes due to the exploitation of the well-off. The property-owning class enjoys the product, while the exploited class, mainly the wage group, is just given enough for survival.
Revolution is another principle and has been described as a result of the class struggle. It is a short and swift affair that occurs due to the incompatibility between forces of production and the relations of production. Revolution thereby capitalizes on the mismatch where forces of production have matured and are not replicated in relation to production. The dictatorship of the waged people follows with the attempt to restore a classless society. State apparatus created to oppress the waged people will be directed to the oppressors (Boer, 2019). Communism finally emerges as a result of a rational social system that is free from contradictions and antagonisms. The resulting society is converted into the working class with no private property ownership and peaceful coexistence.
Spinoza, a Dutch philosopher, is credited with the theory of knowledge and moral philosophy. Spinoza described true knowledge as a source of liberation from the limits and imperfections of human existence (Renz & Hutchins, 2021). As a reward for the improved rational ability to check and control emotions and urges and a direct experience of the core of all reality. Spinozas ethic is based on five parts: God or nature, which he states to define reality. Second, the human mind is how it amends to the limited and unlimited essence and the existence of God.
Consequently, human minds are strengthened and thus know what they are and how they exist as thinking beings. In return, they deal with the effects thirdly and fourthly their strengths. The final part is to deal with the accompanying freedom.
Spinoza describes two ways of obtaining knowledge. Firstly, the geometric method, where the ultimate conclusion is used to build new knowledge from the already existing. This is evident in how he starts with God, the one substance that is everything. Secondly, perspectivism allows knowing how knowledge functions which also points to God, just like every other way of knowing. Three kinds of knowledge have been described, the first being on humans perspective on reality which is imagination, prejudice, superstition, miracles, prophesy, and revelation (Renz & Hutchins, 2021). All these are the primary source of rational enslavement and falsity. The second kind of knowledge focuses on overcoming falsity. This occurs by forming of notions that express the properties of all things and include intellection, common notions, and reason. The third kind of knowledge is intuition, love, and blessedness, which knows the core of each and everything in a way God causes himself to exist. It also endows us with a perceived finite form for all eternity.
Four principles encompass moral philosophy; substance monism, where Spinoza argues that there can only be one substance, God, and everything else is a mode of God, absolute and perfect. Necessitarianism argues that God could not produce things in another way than they have been produced. Conatus doctrine principle describes the nature of man of following things that promote his existence. The fourth principle is activity and passivity, which are treated as matters of degree, with God being active to the highest degree and humans partly active and passive.
Metaphysical reviews are based on ethics, a monistic substance describing all reality as one substance. Spinoza also identifies God with nature and defines the system of modes. First, the infinite and external modes follow from the divine nature of one or another of Gods attributes. The second involves the temporal and finite modes which inhabit the universe. In all, Gods existence is crucial to the existence of nature.
Based on Marxism philosophy and Spinozas philosophies, a preference for religion over science is inevitable. Marxisms view of society was structured into two classes, one being exploitative over the majority working group. Consequently, they are left believing that it would result in a revolution. He champions human freedom through the satisfaction of human needs, securing possession, and removal of alienation. His definition of the class structure today is more complex as the elites are critical of the capitalist system. Marxism, however, can be used to interpret and change the world. Spinozas moral philosophy defines the essence of man to persevere in his existence, basically through the history of their relations. In context, joy and satisfaction are pursued over things likely to result in sadness. In addition, one ought to pick the battles wisely, explicating the virtue of avoiding danger and overcoming it.
In conclusion, Marxism constitutes the foundation of scientific and revolutionary socialism. More to class struggle, conflict, and the violent revolution, it also advocates for freedom and humanism. Spinoza, on the other hand, describes moral judgment grounded in desires or beliefs and advocates for obedience to the law even when considered irrational and a hindrance to personal good, for the alternative would be far worse.
Knafo, Samuel, and Benno Teschke. Political Marxism and the Rules of Reproduction of Capitalism: A Historicist Critique. Historical Materialism 29.3 (2020): 54-83.
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte was written by Karl Marx. This book is a logical continuation of his previous works that examined the history of the 1848 Revolution in France. The chronotope of the writing reveals the periodization of the history of this event, and the author considers the political occurrences that led to the takeover (Sperber 101). Notably, the issues raised in this reading are of an existential nature. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the main idea of the book by Karl Marx as well as the argumentation provided by the writer in proving his claims.
Main Argument
In general, the book is devoted to explaining the origin of the state turnover in France as well as its causes. However, the main idea of the work could be concluded to an understanding that the historical person standing at the center of this event was not distinguished by any outstanding opportunities and did not possess such influence to provoke the unfolding of events of such a historical scale (Broers 71). In particular, the author of the book emphasized that the capabilities of Bonaparte did not coincide with the actions that he had been able to perform in 1851. In this discrepancy, there were certain historical contradictions, which Marx tried to explicate.
Claims
Marx justified his position regarding the contradictory nature of Bonapartes role in initiating the revolution by considering the main aspects of this event. He argued that the revolution was the result of an aggravation of class antagonisms (Marx 63). Also, the intensification of the counter-revolutionary nature of the bourgeoisie was of great importance in the emergence of this process. The class renounced the form of their domination because of the fear they had in relation to the proletariat. In order to preserve their exploitative capabilities, the bourgeoisie was ready to give up their power to Bonaparte.
Marx also described the course of Bonapartes political action in order to explain that he supported the counterrevolutionary elements solely. For instance, the writer argued that the populist alliance encouraged by Bonaparte was distinguished by such traits as maneuvering between the classes and demagoguery. In addition, Marx characterized his activities as corrupted and noted that the leader used the tools of the criminal world (for example, blackmail, bribery, and so on) (Marx 45). Moreover, Bonapartism lobbied the interests of the bourgeoisie and resorted to terror. In particular, having analyzed the first months of this regime, the author had already noted these characteristics and contradictions in the Bonapartes course of action.
In addition, Marx reviewed the situation of the peasantry during this period. The group encompassed numerous amounts of people, which suggested great political opportunities for Bonaparte if he enlisted the support of this population group (Marx 6). Despite the fact that the peasants supported a conservative position, they also experienced revolutionary moods. People wanted to move from the conditions in which they were living and thought that they could solve their problems by giving their votes to Bonaparte. The peasantry believed that Bonaparte could achieve the overthrow of the bourgeois order.
Bonapartes Identity
A significant part of the book was also devoted to the analysis of the personality of Bonaparte from the point of view of philosophy (Ryan 101). Marx believed that this individual was a usurper in full measure. According to the author, Bonaparte could not be perceived as a decent person from the position of a philosophical understanding of this notion. Bonaparte did not possess the most important traits of character that could make up a skillful leader capable of initiating a revolution (Hazareesingh 121). In particular, Marx asserted that this man had no self-consciousness, responsibility for his convictions or conscience. Therefore, Bonaparte should not be regarded as an individual whose capabilities could provoke the unfolding of the events of such a large historical scale.
Other Points
In his book, Marx performed as a critic arguing against the perception of Bonaparte as of a historical figure who contributed to the emergence of the 1848 Revolution in France. The author suggested that Bonaparte should be regarded as a small-scale swindler who managed to get to the top of the state power. However, apart from these arguments, the writer emphasized the influence of the proletarian revolution on the bourgeois regime (Bideleux 211). He put forward a proposition that the proletariat did not break the existing military-bureaucratic machine but perfected it. Consequently, the role of Bonapartes personality in the history of France was strongly overestimated.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that the book The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte belongs to the scientific communism. The author analyzed the historical events and made crucial generalizations in order to explain the causes of the events of 1848 and 1851. This book is a remarkable example of revolutionary journalism. Due to the use of dialectics, the author was able to analyze the class struggle characteristic of this period, explain the causes of the revolution, and outline the true role of Bonaparte in the emergence of the counter-revolutionary event.
Works Cited
Bideleux, Robert. Communism and Development. Routledge, 2014.
Broers, Michael. Napoleon: Soldier of Destiny. Pegasus Books LLC, 2015.
Hazareesingh, Sudhir. The Legend of Napoleon. Granta Books, 2014.
Marx, Karl. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Cosimo, 2008.
Ryan, Alan. On Marx: Revolutionary and Utopian. W. W. Norton & Company, 2014.
Sperber, Jonathan. Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life. W. W. Norton & Company, 2013.
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 Marxs 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 Marxs 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 19th 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 societys history can better be understood through the history of the struggle of that society.
In the 21st 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 21st 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. Marxs 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 classs interest.
Marx ideas about creation of an institution that would be centered on equality of economic resources has been experienced in the 21st 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 Marxs 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.
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 Abbeys 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 peoples 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 Marxs 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. Marxs 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 persons 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 peoples 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 proletariats 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 (2nd 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 (2nd ed., pp. 31-33). John Wiley & Sons.
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 theorys 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 writers opinion he believes that capitalism is a stage in history that is full of different contradictions that tend to explain the phenomena.
However, in Solows 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. Marxs 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.
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 capitalists 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 firms 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.
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 worlds 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 Marxs 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 Marxs 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.
The Views of Ricardo, Mill, Marx, and Keynes on the Long-run Dynamics of the Capitalist System
David Ricardo
Ricardo considered an economy that consisted of workers, landowners, and capitalists. The workers earned wages in exchange for their labor, whereas the landowners leased their land to farmers. The capitalist s invested their capital, paid workers, and earned profits. Ricardos analysis of the dynamics of capitalism indicates that real wages can fluctuate in the short-run (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 96). However, in the long-run Malthusian law prevents wages from rising above the subsistence level. Thus, the production of agricultural output such as corn will have to be increased in order to develop industry and to reduce unemployment. In a closed economy, the farmers will have to cultivate the land of low quality in order to increase employment. However, the price of the output must increase so that the cultivation of the low-quality land can be profitable. Similarly, owners of the fertile land will charge high rent for their land.
As the rent continues to rise and wages remain constant, capitalists profits will begin to fall. Consequently, the capitalists will not have any incentive to increase their investments. At this stage, the economy will be at a steady-state (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 102). The new land will be required to sustain production and economic growth. Alternative, highly productive farming methods can be employed on the best lands to improve efficiency and productivity.
John Stuart Mill
According to Mill, the accumulation of wealth is not boundless. Mill argues that achieving a stationary state is the ultimate goal of the process of wealth accumulation. The stationary state is characterized by freedom from the imperatives of economic necessity and the freedom to develop as a human being (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 115). In this regard, having limits in economic production is crucial to the achievement of human ends. According to Mill, the expansion of economic production is a relevant objective in underdeveloped rather than developed countries. The main economic problem in developed countries is distribution.
Mill believed that uncontrolled production in the capitalist system merely leads to increased accumulation of wealth, rather than improving the standards of living. For instance, he states that increased use of machinery in production would ultimately abridge labor, thereby increasing unemployment (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 117). Similarly, Mill argued that increased use of machinery in the capitalist system had enabled most manufacturers to increase their earnings. By contrast, most workers continue to live the same life of drudgery and imprisonment despite the use of machinery in the capitalist system (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 118).
In sum, Mill argues that extreme capitalism that is characterized by endless accumulation is unsustainable because the world has limited resources. Thus, production in the capitalist system should be regulated to prevent its destructive effects and to enhance the achievement of human ends in the long-run.
Karl Marx
Marx had a pessimistic view of the capitalist system, which he expected to collapse in the long-run. Marx perceived capitalism as a system characterized by a reserve army of the unemployed, falling rate of profit, business crises, increasing concentration of industry into fewer firms, and increasing misery within the proletariat (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 121). According to Marx, the supply of labor often exceeded its demand, thereby reducing wages and maintaining positive surplus value and profits. The supply of labor exceeds demand because of the increased use of machines in production.
Although Marx acknowledged the potential of capitalism to increase material wealth, he believed that the system had inherent contradictions that would eventually lead to its collapse. In particular, the capitalist system is characterized by the intense competition that forces capitalists to improve their efficiency. This involves increasing investments in machinery and reducing expenditure on labor. Thus, workers earnings and purchasing power will reduce, thereby reducing demand for the capitalists products. In this regard, the reduction in demand will reduce the profits earned by the capitalists (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 124). Moreover, the increase in the misery of the workers will eventually lead to a revolution against the capitalists. Marx believed that capitalists focused on profit maximization rather than satisfying needs. They produce the goods and services that the rich can afford rather than the goods needed by the poor. These contradictions ultimately lead to the collapse of the capitalist system, and the society will embrace socialism.
John Keynes
Liberal economists believed that government intervention was not necessary to move the business cycle from depression to recovery in a capitalist system. They believed that the capitalist system would recover from the recession on its own since recovery often followed the recession. However, the experience of the great depression in the 1930s disapproved the notion that the capitalist system was capable of recovering from depression on its own.
Keynes argued that capitalism could be saved through government intervention. In this regard, the government is expected to run a budget deficit to compensate for the reduction in expenditure in the private sector. As a result, unemployment will be replaced by full employment. Keynes believed that recession could be prevented through increased deficit spending by the government-backed up by interest rate cuts by the central bank (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 245). If inflation increased, the government could respond by balancing its budget or reducing its deficits.
According to Keynes, the lack of demand during depression can be permanent, thereby causing stagflation. He argued that the rate of profit would tend to reduce as the worlds capital stock increased. Consequently, investments and consumption would decrease. In this regard, the collapse of capitalism can be prevented if the government increases its spending to stimulate private investments, as well as implementing fiscal policies that encourage consumption (Keynes).
The Responses of Keynes, Kalecki, and Friedman to the Problem of Full Employment
Keynes
According to Keynes, full employment can be achieved through feasible government policies. Keynes noted that it is impossible to determine the full employment level of output that must be produced in order to employ the unemployed. Consequently, the focus of fiscal policy should shift from stimulating growth to direct provision of wages through public works programs (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 315).
Keynes believed that the private sector was not capable of creating full employment since it is the main cause of unemployment. In the capitalist system, full employment cannot be achieved since employers can pay wages that are too low to reduce unemployment (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 316). Similarly, employers will not have an incentive to hire more workers if they expect low profits. According to Keynes, achieving full employment through the private sector has two problems.
First, there is a disconnect between stimulating aggregate demand and increasing employment. Keynes asserts that the rate of employment and aggregate demand is not effectively connected despite the relationship that exists between them. In particular, aggregate demand is a determinant of employment. However, the private factors that influence aggregate demand are characterized by high uncertainty (Hunt and Lautzenheiser, 317). Thus, it is not possible to guarantee a sufficient increase in aggregate demand in order to achieve full employment.
Second, creating jobs through fiscal stimulus programs is not effective due to its inequitable distributional effects. Keynes argued that the size of fiscal stimulus is irrelevant to eliminating unemployment (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 319). Specifically, policies such as reduction of taxes and interest rates have no influence on the uncertainties that prevent job creation in the private sector. According to Keynes, the policies that are often implemented to increase aggregate income do not address the problem of distributing stimuli in the economy since unemployment varies across the country. For instance, the stimuli attributed to fiscal and monetary policies often benefit consumers of durable goods rather than the unemployed. In this regard, Keynes argues that full employment can only be achieved if the government creates jobs through public works projects.
Kalecki
According to Kalecki, full employment can be achieved in the capitalist system through government spending. If the government undertakes public investment or subsidizes mass consumption, and if this expenditure is financed by borrowing and not taxation, effective demand may be increased up to a point where full employment is achieved (Kalecki 1-9). In order to finance the expenditure, the government pays its suppliers in government securities (Kalecki 1-9). The government securities in circulation at any given time will be equivalent to the goods and services purchased by the government. According to Kalecki, the central bank is often capable of maintaining a specific level of interest rate irrespective of the level of government borrowing.
Kalecki was aware of the fact that increased government spending was likely to increase inflation. Thus, he argued that the increase in demand as a result of government expenditure should be considered as a normal increase in demand. If there is adequate stock of factors of production, an increase in demand should be addressed through an increase in production (Kalecki 1-9). However, the prices are likely to rise in order to ration the limited supply if demand continues to rise after the full employment of available resources.
Kalecki argued that the government is not capable of maintaining full employment due to the resistance of the captains of the industry. The captains will oppose the government if the public expenditure does not favor their interest (Kalecki 1-9). An overlap between public expenditure and private expenditure will also cause opposition to the government. In this case, the government will be opposed because the overlap in spending will impair profitability in the private sector, which in turn offsets the positive effects of public spending on employment. Kalecki also argued that business leaders would oppose full employment because sacking employees will no longer be an effective disciplinary action. Workers will not be concerned about being sacked if they are able to find jobs easily.
Friedman
Keynesians believed that full employment could be achieved through an increase in the money supply. However, the expansion of the money supply was expected to cause inflation after full employment was reached. Thus, the main concern of monetary policy authorities was to determine the optimal level of money supply expansion (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 342). In response to this concern, William Phillips developed the Phillips Curve analysis to help economists to make a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. According to Phillips, unemployment had a negative relationship with inflation. However, Friedman argued that monetary policy loses its effectiveness as businessmen refine their prediction of the expected level of monetary expansion. In this regard, both unemployment and inflation would rise, thereby causing stagflation.
According to Friedman, full employment cannot be reached through monetary policy. Specifically, monetary policy is ineffective because it results in a significant increase in inflation before full employment is achieved. Thus, Friedman believed that targeting the lowest rate of unemployment was more practical than struggling to achieve full employment using a monetary policy (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 346). Friedman referred to the lowest rate of unemployment as the natural rate. The natural rate of unemployment is desirable because it can be achieved without a significant increase in inflation. However, determining the natural rate of unemployment that should be targeted is often difficult.
Says Law
Says law states that the production of goods creates its own demand (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 387). The gist of this premise is that businessmen are always interested in selling all the goods that they produce. The production process generates income for the workers (salaries) and profits for the owners of capital. In this regard, the production of goods creates wealth for both workers and businessmen. Consequently, effective demand for the produced goods will always exist. According to Say, hoarding money is irrational since inflation can reduce its value.
In the capitalist system, Says law is characterized by six propositions. First, the total factor payments received for producing a given volume of output are necessarily sufficient to purchase that volume of output (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 391). Specifically, production creates the means to purchase the produced goods. Second, there are no Keynesian leakages because individuals save money that is only enough to meet their investments and transaction needs in the present period. In this regard, purchasing power will not reduce in any sector of the economy.
Third, investment is considered as an internal transfer rather than a reduction of aggregate demand (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 396). Fourth, demand and supply will always be equal in real terms. This equilibrium holds because individuals produce only the amount of goods that enable them to access other goods. Fifth, the level of aggregate output increases with the rise in savings. Finally, disequilibrium can only exist if the produced goods fail to match consumers preferences. Thus, disequilibrium in the economy is not an indication of excess output. Says the law has often been criticized based on the extent to which these propositions are valid.
Critique of Says Law by Keynes and Malthus
Keynes
According to Keynes, Says law implied that the economy must always achieve full employment. Although Says law indicates that there are no obstacles to achieving full employment, practical experience showed that full employment is not always achieved. Thus, Keynes concluded that the law advanced by Say does not hold because of the insufficiency of aggregate demand. The lack of aggregate demand was attributed to the disequilibrium between savings and investments (Keynes 209-223).
Keynes believed that resources are not always fully employed in the economy. He considered full employment as a random occurrence. Thus, full employment can only be achieved if by accident or design, current investments provide an amount of demand just equal to the excess of the aggregate supply price of the output resulting from full employment (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 214). Unlike Say, Keynes considered savings and investments as different and unequal activities.
Keynes also disagreed with Says perspective that hoarding money was irrational. According to Keynes, both consumers and investors are likely to hoard large sums of money if they are worried about future changes in the economy. In this context, the consumers would have a high liquidity preference, whereas investors would reduce their investments (Keynes 209-223). Thus, savings and investments will not be equal, thereby causing the economic decline. In this context, Says law does not hold since the economy is facing the paradox of thrift. In particular, supply will exceed demand if consumers and investors focus on saving rather than spending.
Keynes also criticized Says perception of equilibrium. He asserted that equilibrium is a state in which aggregate supply and demand are equal. Thus, equilibrium does not entail a balance between the goods produced and consumed, as Say argued. Say presented the equilibrium as an identity, whereas Keynes considered it a random occurrence. Say believed that an exogenous shock would cause disequilibrium in the economy. By contrast, Keynes argued that an exogenous shock would be required to restore equilibrium rather than to create an imbalance.
Malthus
In the theory of the general glut, Malthus criticized Says claim that supply will always equal demand. Says an analysis of the production system was based on the assumption that all profits were invested, whereas all wages were consumed (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 218). The rent received by landowners could be consumed or saved. Thus, Malthus argued that if landowners income is not fully consumed (part of it is saved), the demand for consumer goods will be less than their supply (there will be a general glut).
Malthus was aware of the fact that investments led to the expansion of output capacity, thereby increasing the supply of goods. In this context, the supply of goods in the current period will exceed the demand for consumption, which is determined by the income earned in the previous period. The glut will persist if consumption in the next period does not increase exogenously or the prices of goods fail to reduce (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 219). As a result, the capitalists will reduce their investments, which in turn reduces rent and labor incomes. This will further reduce consumption and the general glut in the subsequent production periods.
In order to prevent the glut, Malthus argues that the proportion of landowners income that is consumed should be increased in response to the expansion of the output capacity. The increase in landowners consumption will slow down the expansion of the output capacity by reducing savings (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 221). In addition, it will compensate for the expected reduction of workers consumption of capital goods. Thus, supply will equal demand. Generally, Malthus argument for the existence of a general glut is likely to hold only in the short-run. In the long-run, excess production will result in a reduction of entrepreneurs profits. Consequently, savings and investment will decline, thereby reducing output capacity.
Works Cited
Hunt, Eric and Mark Lautzenheiser. History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective. New York: M.E Sharpe, 2011. Print.
Kalecki, Michael. Political Aspects of Full Employment. Political Quarterly 1.1(1943): 1-9. Print.
Keynes, John. The End of Laissez-faire. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 31 Sept. 1926. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.
Keynes, John. The General Theory of Employment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 51.2 (1937): 209-223. Print.
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 persons 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.
Marxs 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 capitalists 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). Marxs conceptualization of value in capital. Beyond Capital: Marxs 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.