Category: Karl Marx

Introduction

Social change is societal change in the aspects of the social institutions, structures, associations, and behavioral models. When these aspects change to a large extent and the changes are kept, social change is said to have taken place especially changes in the behavioral aspect. (Aron, 1967) The change or default from the generationally inherited philosophies there is likelihood of a social system change that brings about changes in the social arrangement. (Bilton, 2002)

Body

Social change can take place in the economic, social or the political fields of the community and is displayed in social development, globalization, economic advancement and democracy within political systems. These changes may involve changes in ideology, revolutions and model change. (Hadden, 1997) The models of social change include the Daoist, Kuhnian, Heraclitan, and the Hegelian model. The means of putting social change into practice include community organization, protest and revolt, mass practice/ action, political involvement, and advocacy. (Miles, 2001)

Karl Marx argues that social change in production and economic structure is initiated by the struggle to fulfill needs from the situation of living on disaster encounter. In this stage there is only basic need provision but with time means of increasing production are devised, for example the grouping together of smaller groups to support an exploitative economy and further the development of machines. (Smith, 2001) In each stage there is perpetuated conflict of improving production for the leading group and improving welfare and life for the working group hence growing tension. The change results majorly from the willful strive of individuals due to the struggle of reducing costs of production and increasing the returns of labor/Market drive. The exploited get fed up with exploitation and dynamically attempt to overturn the system that results to social change. (Carver, 1982)

McDonaldization is the take-up of the characteristics of a fast-food place by the society through rationalization of traditional ideologies, modes of management and thinking. It emphasizes on the take up of efficiency where there is choice of the fastest and simplest mode of production to minimize time and resources used; the control of production to more machine driven modes of production and standardizing the laborers. (Larney, 2009) Calculative approach of producing a lot in a short time using the fastest method thus lowering the cost and increasing the returns and not the quality of produce. The predictability approach of making the processes are made routine, repetitive, uniform and the outcome predictable no matter the place of purchase or receiving the services. (Ritzer, 1993)

The ideas of McDonaldization are in support of Marxs model of social change as it emphasizes on increasing of production that is also the major aspect of Marxs model.

The exploitative aspect is further perpetuated as there is production of lower quality products so as to reduce the time and cost of production thus increasing the level of returns. The model focuses on grouping of production groups to unify the exploitative aspect and in McDonaldization ideas there is McDonaldization of the organizations so as to unify the low qualities of produce and services across the providers. (Ritzer, 1998)

Marxs model focuses on mechanization of production which is also a major component of McDoldanization. In Marxs model there is tension of the laborers with the owners of means of production that is also the case with McDonaldization as there is the attempt of reducing the costs of production thus wages and further with the receivers of the low quality produce and services. The resultant revolt to change the system of exploitation. In Marxs model and the question of the worth of the consumers money in contrast to the poor quality goods and services perpetuates tension that leads to social change. (Beetham, 1985)

Conclusion

It can be argued that McDonaldization is majorly in support of Marxs ideas of social change and further seeks to improve the situation Marxs model perpetuates to cause social change. It can generally be referred to as being a more rational model of Marxs ideas of Social change and the capitalist economy as it is driving at the same end result.

Reference

Aron, R, 1967. Main Currents in Sociological Thought Vol.2, Penguin.

Beetham, D, 1985. Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics, Polity.

Bilton, T et al, 2002. Introductory Sociology, 4th Ed., Palgrave.

Carver, T, 1982. Marxs Social Theory, Oxford University.Press.

Hadden, R, 1997. Sociological Theory: an introduction to the classical tradition, Broadview Press.

Larney T, 2009, The McDonaldization of information, Web.

Miles, S, 2001.Social Theory in the Real World, Sage, Ch.6.

Ritzer, G, 1993.The McDonaldization of Society, Pine Forge Press.

Ritzer, G, 1998. The McDonaldization Thesis, Sage.

Smith J, 2001. Karl Marx. Web. 

Introduction

A German philosopher who has been credited with the Communism introduction, Carl Marx developed a socio-political and economic theory whose impact is still felt to date.

He observed that the capitalist world will eventually explode due to industrialization that would leave the majority poor jobless and recession or economic meltdown. He, therefore, proposed a situation where the capitalists and the ruling class should invent ways of uplifting the living standards of the poor; a process that he intimated is not easy and may result in a long outstanding conflict between these two groups, hence a series of mass revolutions. The current economic meltdown could have been viewed by Marx as just the beginning of his predicted conflict and that successive revolution are just in the offing.

Main Body

Carl Marx, a German Philosopher who was credited with establishing the communism foundation, has a great influence on the political theory of the modern world. Marx argued that the establishment of capitalist society was in itself the foundation with which it will be defeated and the return of communism. This was captured in his work, The Communist Manifesto when he said The development of Modern Industry, therefore cuts under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appreciate products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable (Marx & Engels 1848, P. 49)

Before the advent of capitalism, there were existent markets in Europe where people bought and sold commodities, however, according to Marx, the development of labor as a commodity is what changed the whole system as labor was treated or counted labor (Sewell 1980, P. 145). The peasants were exposed because their land was taken away hence they were offered work as laborers in the market to get a living out of the sold labor, that the people were not selling the product of their labor but their capacity to work (Thomas 1986, p.34). But Marxs theory was categorical. That the fact that capitalists were fewer than proletarians, there would likely be a conflict between the two groups.

He argued that the difference between the production input and production output was the surplus and that this surplus was as a result of surplus labor- the difference between what it cost to keep workers alive and what they can produce. (Blackwell 1975 p. 63). He observed that new technology would ultimately cause conflict between the capitalists and the laborers. Since his theory was that the surplus value, P.292) was a result of labor, he concluded that the rate of profit margin would fall even as the economy grew (Lewis1999, p. 112). He predicted that the fall will lead to recession if it continues. People would see some sectors of the economic collapse to an unbearable level, consequently leading to a fall in labor price. Therefore the capitalists would develop new technological sectors to up their production capacity consequently leading to more joblessness and the widening gap between the poor majority and the rich minority.

He suggested that for the capitalists to help the situation, they would have to invest much in social aspects of development that would improve the overall living standards of the poor and invent a system of production that is less vulnerable to the periodic crisis (Baird & Walter 2008, p. 168). However, he observed that this process may be unpopular with the capitalist and therefore the likelihood of a series of revolutions and conflict of interest between the poor and the rich capitalists. In his work, Critique of the Gotha Program, he said transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (James 2007, p. 211).

Conclusion

Following his socio-political and economic theory, Marx would have viewed the current economic meltdown or recession as just the beginning of a series of revolutions that is likely to degenerate into a series of conflict and dictatorship by the capitalists, an opinion shared by Max Weber, a German sociologist, lawyer, and politician who said, that a political state is that entity which possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force (Warner 1991, p. 411)

Reference

Warner, D 1991, An Ethic of Responsibility in International Relations, Lynne Rienner Publishers, NJ

Best, S & Kellner, D 1997, From the Spectacle to Simulation, The Postmodern Turn, p.79

Lewis, B 1999, Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Pp.112.

Forrest E & Walter K 2008, From Plato to Derrida, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Sewell, W 1980, Work and Revolution in France- The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848 Cambridge Press, p. 145

James Ledbetter 2007(Ed), Selected Journalism of Karl Marx, Dispatches for the New York Tribune, Penguin Books.

David, Mc1973, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought, New York, Harper and Row.

Blackwell 1975.Marx Without Myth: A Chronological Study of his Life and Work.

Sekine T 1986, The Dialectic of Capital. A Study of the Inner Logic of Capitalism, Tokyo.

Avineri, S 1968, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, Cambridge University Press.

Daniel Little 1986, The Scientific Marx, University of Minnesota Press.

Marx, K & Engels, F1848, the Communist Manifesto.

Abstract

In this paper, the general description of Marxs sociology is given. A review of literature that focuses on different aspects of Marxs theory about society is provided. A comprehensive analysis of the literature sources is conducted, and the main purposes of these sources are identified. A general overview of Marxs sociology is provided in the second section of the paper. The main points of Marxs theory are identified, and their detailed description is provided. Marxs opinion concerning the division of the society into two social classes, namely, the bourgeois and the proletariat, where the former dominates the latter in the Capitalist society is analyzed. Also, his opinion regarding Capitalism, where he claims that the proletariat is exploited by the bourgeois, and the necessity to get rid of this form of society and create Communism, where everybody would give what they can and would take what they need.

Introduction

In this paper, Karl Marxs sociology will be analyzed. First, the review of literature will be provided where different scholarly sources will be used to describe different aspects and spheres of application of Marxs theory of society. Second, the main points of Marxs sociology will be analyzed in detail. In this section, Marxs opinion about society and capital in general and their various aspects, in particular, will be provided. Also, Marxs opinion regarding the future of capitalism is described.

Review of Literature

Source 1

In his article Karl Marxs Sociological Theory of Democracy: Civil Society and Political Rights (2011), William L. Niemi describes Karl Marxs attitude towards liberalism and democracy using analyzing his early works that were concentrated on the problems of understanding democracy as a type of society. The author claims that only through a comprehensive analysis of the principles of civil society, namely, a historical, sociological, economic, and political understanding, the real nature of citizenship can be revealed.

As distinct from liberal political theory, Marx claimed that the theory of politics would not be solid if it focused only on the state. Marx understood the conflict between the civil society and liberal state and called it sophistry, as it diminished the chance of the creation of the workers democratic agency. Moreover, he called it sophistry not because he was against democracy but because the progression of capitalism made the establishment of a democratic agency almost impossible. Citizenship would serve as a cloak of politics covering the real nature of civil society under it (Niemi 2011). Niemi states that this conflict made Marx move from the thoughts about liberalism to the ones about democratic socialism and improved his understanding of the principles of capitalism.

Additionally, the author identifies two closely connected statements concerning Marxs opinion as to democracy and liberalism. He discusses Marxs engagement in a democratic criticism of liberalism and, as a response to this criticism, Marx introduced an understanding of democracy from the sociological perspective (Niemi 2011). Hence, he thought that political democracy was an indispensable condition of liberty, despite being an insufficient one.

Thus, being quite a good theory of the democratic state, Marxs liberal political theory cannot provide the solution to sociological problems resulted from the theorys practices including domination and class inequality, economic exploitation, and human emancipation, thereby undermining the possibility of creating the society of equal citizens (Niemi 2011). The result of Marxs coming to this conclusion was his abandonment of liberal political theory purely because of democratic reasons and his democratic criticism of liberalism.

Source 2

In his article Outline of a Marxist Commodity Theory of the Public Sphere (2017), J. M. Roberts provides an overview of Marl Marxs commodity theory and its relevance today. He states that for the past several years, the public sphere has become one of the main areas of focus for researchers in social sciences and humanities. In general, he defines the public sphere as an area in civil society in which people can discuss various issues and debate about their resolution. The author theoretically applies Marxs social theory to a particular public sphere in the Capitalist society and describes the behavior of several commodity owners who desire to own more commodities (Roberts 2017). At the end of the article, the author explains how the social form in this public sphere changes using different elements of these commodity relations.

Roberts demonstrates that the public sphere being in capitalist social relations is characterized not by inclusion but by the necessary opposition between two kinds of personalities, namely, the speaker and the hearer. He introduces his terms (Roberts 2017). For example, the form of the public sphere in a society which produces commodity is a mediator between the two personalities; the content of the public sphere is a mediator between the ability of the speaker to percept what is right using monologic utterances and the ability of the hearer to do the same through heteroglossia utterances.

Additionally, Roberts emphasizes that in this society which produces a commodity, labor and the means of production are separated. According to Marx, the generalization of the exchange of commodities in the society as a whole implies that the laborer becomes simply a seller of commodities, namely a wage-laborer working for free, which transforms labor into wage-labor. However, this also requires that the production means the owner finds free workers on the market. Thus, free wage-labor is created using separation from the production means, which is the result of the production of generalized commodities (Roberts 2017). Therefore, certain owners of commodities who privately possess things that they use to exchange with others are the representation of the separation between means of production and labor.

Source 3

In her article The Concept of Equality and Well-being in Marx (2013), Potyara A. P. Pereira describes the conceptualization of Marx regarding substantive well-being and equality about freedom, labor, and human needs. She states that even though Marx did not specifically point out the problem of social protection, most of his works contained the type of sociology that focuses on well-being.

In general, the author attempts to identify in Marxs sociology concepts that focus on well-being, which allows accepting his works as a reference to the critical analysis of the Capitalist society (Pereira 2013). Thus, she addresses the Marxs implicit concept of well-being connected to his explicit political and theoretical interest in liberty and people being enslaved by capital, and his desire to find real equality in the society, which contradicts the nature of capitalism.

Marx did not believe in the transformative power of the legislation of factories, and he was certain that the proletariat should perceive this power simply as a component of the strategy of a much bigger struggle for well-being, which he connected with the human emancipation under the power of capital notwithstanding the profits prescribed by law (Pereira 2013). The reason for such an opinion is that, under capitalism, the principles of political coercion and economic competitive ability, which is based on such strategies as the reserve army of labor and its negative impact on salaries, resulted in growing destitution of the labor force notwithstanding the utopian liberal measures aimed at social protection.

In conclusion, Pereira claims that according to Marx, complete well-being is a phenomenon that is founded on the principles of collaboration and solidarity, which places a great focus on human needs historically and morally based on the collectivized process of distribution and production of social products (Pereira 2013). The author also highlights that for Marx, well-being is not a phenomenon that is based on the principles of coercion and competition, which are associated with the process of increasing private profits that is the result of manipulation and exploitation of the labor force as a certain commodity, as it is implicitly identified in the bourgeois-liberal concept of the rights of citizens and that of the social protection provided by the capitalist government.

Source 4

In his book Karl Marx (2016), Karl Korsch describes all major works of Karl Marx in such spheres as sociology, politics, and economy. The first part of his book is devoted to Marxs sociology and called Society (Korsch 2016). In this part, he analyzes the basic principles of society and how it works, the principles of a historical specification, change, and criticism, a new type of generalization, and practical implications for the Marxs sociology theory.

In the chapter about sociology, Korsch described the development of Marxs thought concerning society and the conclusion that he came to. Thus, he states that Karl Marx treated bourgeois society from the first phase of its development and opposed it to the feudal society of the medieval period. He describes bourgeois society as a historical phenomenon and focused not only on its static laws. He analyzed the entire process of its development and its tendencies that will eventually lead to a revolution against it (Korsch 2016). Marx divides these tendencies into objective, namely, the economic foundation of bourgeois society, and subjective, namely, the division between social classes incurring from this economic foundation and not from the law, politics, ethics, and so on.

Thus, the civil society, which earlier had opposed only feudalism became the bourgeois society, which is characterized by the division between social classes, where the bourgeois class dominates all other classes in every sphere including political, economic, and cultural ones. Marx also recognized the war between the classes initiated by the exploited workers as a way to change the form of society (Korsch 2016). Additionally, Marxs social theory, regarded as a materialistic science focusing on the bourgeois society, serves as guidance for the working class in its fight against the bourgeois and its attempts to create the proletarian society.

Presentation of Theory

General Overview

Marxist sociology is a method of practicing sociology that provides analytic and methodological insights from the works of Karl Marx. Sociology describes the main problems that concerned Marx regarding the society, namely, the relationships between capital and labor, and those between economy, social life, and culture; politics and principles of economic class; human emancipation; inequality and exploitation; connections between power and wealth, and those between social changes and critical consciousness.

Marxs sociology focuses on class struggle. According to Marx, classes are particular groups of people that play a certain role in the relations of production. These relations of production are those between the capital and the labor that appear in the process of production. Capital is the profit derived from the investment into a particular instrument. Thus, laborers are the labor power owners, whereas those who own capital are capital owners. Labor receives wages, while capital receives profit. Hence, classes are groups of people who differ from each other purely because of their relationships to the economic means of production. These economic means of production represent the economic infrastructure where the minority is capitalists, and the majority are laborers.

The Main Points of Marxs Sociology

The basic point of Marxs sociology is that in the Capitalist society, there are two main social classes, namely, the proletariat and the bourgeois. The relation between these classes is purely exploitative, as the worker receives much less money from their employer than the total value of products or services that they produce (Menand 2016).Surplus value is how Marx named the difference between the two. In this respect, Marx claims that capitalists derive this surplus value from workers, and that profit is the money received from the exploitation of workers.

According to Marx, the control over the Economic Base is the control over the superstructure. Those who possess economic power can control every other sphere of society. Bourgeois uses their power of controlling all institutions to make proletariat ignorant and unaware of their exploitation. This strategy is known as ideological control. Marx claimed that this was accomplished using religion and mass media (Menand 2016). The result of the ideological control is the so-called false consciousness that makes the working class live in an illusion.

In Marxs opinion, Capitalism results in alienation, as workers in the Capitalist society are alienated from the production process, from the products or services they produce, and from the people they work with (Crossman 2017). The reason for this is that workers lose control over their work and become robots, and their work becomes alien to them.

Concerning Marxs opinion about social changes in capitalism, he claims that competition results in even more intense exploitation. He thought that capitalism would inevitably create such social conditions that would result in its destruction. He explained that to retain competitiveness, capitalists had to sell products at a lower price, which would lead to reduced profits. In its turn, this process would force capitalists to increase efficiency and reduce wages, thereby making even less favorable conditions for workers (Crossman 2017). Therefore, Marx had a theory that at some point, the number of exploited workers would be big enough to start a violent revolution where the proletariat would manage to overthrow the bourgeois.

Marx stated that after overthrowing the bourgeois, the proletariat would organize a Communist society where there is no private property, the means of production are owned collectively, and everyone is equally wealthy (Korsch 2016). Marx did not specify the details of this Communist society, but he stated that in it, everybody would give what they can and take what they need.

Thus, Marxs dialectal, materialist, economic, and political thought continues to develop various sociological research programs. Nowadays, the Capitalist society is thriving, and a source of social power in it is the control over productive resources that shapes work conditions, state policies, and mass media discourse all over the world. These relationships have undergone significant changes in growth, and now Capitalism dominates the world society (Niemi 2011). However, Marxs works remain a valuable source of information for the sociologists who are interested in the change, structure, and origins of the capitalist system.

Conclusion

In the paper, Marxs sociology was analyzed. Additional scholarly literature regarding the principles of Marxs theory of society was provided and described. A comprehensive analysis of the main points of Marxs division of society was conducted. Also, a description of Marxs opinion about the Capitalist society and his endeavor to provide arguments for people to change the Capitalist society they live in, where the proletariat is exploited by the bourgeois into the Communist society where everybody would be equal, free, and happy is provided. Thus, it can be stated that the analyzed literature comprehensively reflects the assumptions of Marxs theory and demonstrates the impact that it has on sociology and the development of human societies.

References

Crossman, Ashley. 2017. All about Marxist Sociology. Thoughtso, Web.

Korsch, Karl. 2016. Karl Marx. Boston, MA: Brill Academic Pub.

Menand, Louis. 2016. Karl Marx, Yesterday and Today. The New Yorker, Web.

Niemi, William L. 2011. Karl Marxs Sociological Theory of Democracy: Civil Society and Political Rights. The Social Science Journal 48(1):39-51.

Pereira, Potyara A. P. 2013. The Concept of Equality and Well-Being in Marx. Revista Katálysis 16(1):47-56.

Roberts, John Michael. 2017. Outline of a Marxist Commodity Theory of the Public Sphere. Historical Materialism 25(1):3-35.

Marx examines the peculiar economic properties of market products in capitalist societies using the concept of the fetishism of commodities. Marx describes how products acquire value that is seen as inherent to them after workers labor modify the product (Marx & Engels, 1848). The adjustments that the proletariat makes to the raw material is what makes the commodity have value. However, this crucial link between the product and the laborer is cut off when items enter a capitalist milieu and are exchanged for money (Ritzer, 2011). Thus, the fetishism of commodities places unearned value on an entity that ignores the social relations that were involved in its production.

The modern consumer economy can be analyzed through the lens of the fetishism of commodities. Potential customers of products are by marketing strategies which highlight their prestigious qualities (Ritzer, 2011). The world of fashion offers an insightful example of this phenomenon. Clothes from specific companies are advertised as high-end and derive their high prices from being attached to the inanimate brand name. Consequently, buyers spend their money on the high social status associated with the product, rather than the human labor expended in making the product.

Additionally, the smartphone industry can also be dissected using this concept. The prices of two phones with similar qualities can differ depending on the technology companys market reputation. Consumers choose particular gadgets due to the companys image and not other important factors, such as how ethically the parts are sourced. Moreover, buyers ignore recent revelations about most workers terrible working conditions in the phone manufacturing industry. In short, customers exchange their money for the perceived value of the product, thereby completely sidestepping the workers efforts.

To conclude, Marxs idea of the fetishism of commodities provides an adequate explanation of how products are valued in capitalist societies. Market products are priced according to qualities added to them by modification through human labor. However, the workers contribution to the final product is hidden. In the modern world, the luxury fashion industry and the high-end smartphone industry provide examples of how the social value associated with the products is exchanged for money.

References

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848). The communist manifesto. Electric Book Co.

Ritzer, G. (2011). Classical sociological theory. (6^th Ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Many sociologists, including Karl Max and Marx Weber, have tried to explain different contemporary issues in our society. In this paper, I will discuss how Karl Max and Marx Weber have explained the nature and cause of suffering in society. In addition to this, I will discuss Marx Weber regarding the connection between religion and capitalism.

Discuss two theorists, how they theorize pain and suffering, and the solutions that they offer to relief suffering

Suffering is a state of physical, emotional, and psychological pain (Shapard 3). Society has many inequalities that cause pain and suffering. Karl Max and Max Weber have tried to explain pain and suffering in society. They have also recommended ways of overcoming pain and suffering. Karl Max used capitalism and religion to explain suffering in society, while Marx Weber used religion to explain suffering.

Karl Max argues that the struggle between the rich and the poor has created disparities causing suffering (Shapard 23). In a capitalist society, owners of means of production exploit their workforce. He observes that the capitalists continue accumulating wealth while the poor laborers continue becoming poor (Shapard 21). The gap between the rich and the poor in society has widened, leading to extreme poverty. Because of the poor lack of economic power and basic needs, they are forced to work for long hours with low pay (Shapard 19).

Karl Max connects poverty to the spirit of capitalism that oppresses the masses to accumulate wealth. He also observes how religion is used to maintain the oppressive capitalist system in society (Shapard 21). Because of alienation and social-economical problems, man has turned to religion in an effort to get solace for his suffering (Shapard 7). Religion has been used to justify suffering and pain in society.

Christianity teaches people that those who do not have material possession are rich in spirit and will be rewarded in heaven ((Shapard 56). Because of the idea of reward in heaven, the poor have found comfort and given up efforts to break from the bondage of oppression (Shapard 66).

Karl Max argues that society needs to create an equilibrium to eliminate suffering and pain in society. However, society cannot reach this level without a social revolution, and therefore, workers who are oppressed must turn against the capitalist system (Shapard 121). Trade unions and workers unions should advocate for social change. He observes that communism is the only way to eliminate pain and suffering caused by a lack of economic power (Shapard 101). Karl Max does not see religion as a solution to human suffering but means used by the capitalists to maintain their position in society.

On the other hand, Max Weber argues that man created religion for himself. Religion points out that those people who go through pain and suffering have misfortune. The misfortune can be because of bad deeds that an individual committed against the gods. Because of pain and suffering experienced in society, people decided to look for answers. Religion looks at suffering as a way of getting close to God to bring fortune. People are encouraged to deprive themselves of earthly pleasure because if they engage in the earthly pleasure, they will not be rewarded in heaven. Activities such as fasting are meant to bring people close to God, which will be rewarded with fortune.

Max Weber adds that religion has been used by the affluent in society to maintain social status. Society has used religion to explain why there is death, mourning, sickness, and other misfortunes. Religion was developed to help provide answers to human pain and suffering (Shapard 43). People have believed in divine powers to reconcile the imperfect society that we live in. People need to understand that God created the earth, and he can provide answers to injustice, pain, and inequality on earth (Shapard 45).

Weber says that people have always wanted to know why some people are successful than others (Weber, 13). There are people who have undeserved favor, while others suffer. Religion is able to change our perspective of the world to help people to cope with suffering. Religion relieves individuals from suffering by offering solace (Shapard, 54). In addition, religion motivates people to work hard to attain salvation from pain and suffering. It teaches that people who obey the will of God will obtain direct favor from God.

Max Weber continues to say that as people get committed to religion, they learn how to endure pain to gain eternal salvation. Max Weber says that suffering and pain cannot be eliminated because it helps to maintain social status (Weber, 23). Karl Max is positive that suffering and pain can be eliminated in society. He points out that social revolution through workers union can change the inequalities experienced in society. Karl Max believes that inequalities in society are the root causes of human suffering.

Karl Max adds that society has to adapt communism, which advocates for equal distribution of resources (Shapard 47). He believes that a society can find a solution to relieve pain and suffering by stopping the spirit of individualism. On the other hand, Max Weber is not positive about the elimination of suffering. He argues that as long as people believe in the predestined election by God, pain and suffering will not end (Weber 111).

Society will continue to face competition and inequalities (Weber 112). Weber looks at religion as a system in the society that relieves suffering by giving people hope and motivating them to work hard to gain material possession (Shapard 126).

What is the relationship between religion (particularly Calvinism) and Capitalism? How does his work on religion and Capitalism demonstrate the larger process of rationalization?

Calvinism is a reformed faith and a religion that began in the16th century led by Calvin (Kuyper 5). Today, this reformed tradition has more than 75 million members across the world (Kuyper 8). In his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber notes that there is a connection between Calvinist believes and the modern capitalism (Kuyper 15). Notably, Weber observes that the teachings and believes of Protestantism religion have a connection with worldly success.

Calvinism religion was based on predetermination and its doctrines taught on unconditional election (Weber, 23). The principle of unconditional election says that, God has already selected his people. It further argues that, Gods people are not chosen based on believes and faith but rather they are chosen based on limited atonement (Weber, 13). This means that, God has already picked who will be rewarded in heaven and who will not. Because of this, the society tried to find ways of discovering who among them had been chosen to go to heaven (Weber, 29).

People used different criteria to determine who had been selected. They argued that God favored those who had been successful and he had selected them to go to heaven. People believed that if you were successful in the society, then God had selected you to be rewarded in heaven (Weber, 34). Based on this principle, people began working hard to accumulate wealth as a way of indicating that they had been selected to go to heaven (Kuyper 8).

Weber argues that capitalism was motivated by Calvinist doctrines. The Calvinist doctrines emphasize that, the elect will go to heaven but the unsuccessful are destined to hell. Calvinism proclaims that God chooses his people from time of birth (Kuyper 8). However, Weber argues that this belief only reflects loneliness and helplessness by the Calvinist religion (Weber 66). Weber concludes that, these principles only emphasize on issues of worldly success.

According to Weber, the combination of worldly success and the teaching of Calvinist religion contributed to development of the modern capitalism in the society. This is because the Calvinist teachings encouraged increased accumulation (saving) and less consumption of materials (Weber 88). Since people reduced spending and increased saving, economic growth and industrialization emerged (Weber 164). This is the modern capitalism.

The explanation is that, the world only exists to serve the glorification of God and therefore the elected are only fulfilling the will of God (Kuyper 68). He points out that, wasting time is perceived as the biggest sin (Weber 112). Because of this, Calvinist cannot waste time by idling or doing things that have no value (Kuyper 45). To the Calvinists, time is precious and individuals must utilize every available time to provide labor as this is Gods will. His arguments point out that, by continuously working hard, an individual is not only portraying genuine faith but also one is fulfilling the will of God (Weber 143). This is what Weber refers as the spiritual capitalism.

Generally, the connection between religion (Calvinism) and capitalism is clear. According to Max Weber, the doctrines of the Calvinist religion have contributed to emergence and growth of capitalism. The Calvinist doctrines and teachings emphasize on material possess, accumulation and saving. This is has led to emergence of capitalist society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the society has inequalities that bring pain and suffering. Karl Max argues that the struggle between the rich and the poor has created disparities causing suffering. Weber said that, because of problems experienced in the society, humans created religion to look for answers about pain and suffering. On the other hand, Weber argues that there is a connection between religion and emergence of capitalism. According to Weber, the teachings of Calvinist religion have a connection with worldly success.

Works Cited

Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. New York: Cosimo, Inc, 2009. Print.

Shapard, Jon. Sociology. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Weber, Max.The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: The Citadel Press, 2003. Print.

Introduction

The world knows many sociologists who have made significant contributions to the study of society and its interactions. However, as in any area of knowledge, in sociology, one can single out the founding fathers who created and substantiated science foundations. These founders are considered to be Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim since their theories paved the way for the further development of sociology as a science.

All three sociologists have some common ideas and significant differences that complement knowledge about the structure and functioning of society, as well as the place of the individual in it. This article will compare and contrast sociological perspectives, methods, and theoretical contributions by Max Weber and Karl Marx to demonstrate the fundamental foundations of sociology based on the ideas of these sociologists.

Comparison of Marxs and Webers Ideas

The ideas of Karl Marx and Max Weber have many similarities since both sociologists devote considerable time to the study of bureaucracy and capitalism that affect the structure and functions of society. Marx and Weber acknowledge that the development of capitalism brought shifts in the social structure as the growth of production changed the quality of human interaction. On this basis, Marx and Weber distinguish classes into which the community is divided; however, their classification is different. Although Marx originally speaks of three classes, such as wage laborers, capitalists, and landowners, more often, his writings refer to two key classes the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (Appelrouth & Edles, 2021).

At the same time, although Weber also divides societies into classes regarding their economic capabilities, he also includes the middle class along with the lower and upper classes. Such a slight difference is of great importance for the ideas of the two theoreticians since according to Marx, the proletariat oppressed by the bourgeoisie must win the class revolution. Thus, the presence of a middle class in Weber destroys Marxs idea, since its representatives are not oppressed and do not oppress.

Another difference between the two sociologists is the perception of capitalism and state institutions. Marxs ideas are based on the theory of class conflict, in which capitalism is a means of oppressing the proletariat by the bourgeoisie (Appelrouth & Edles, 2021). In general, Marx believes that class conflict has been the foundation of society throughout history, since there has always been a class that had power and money in its hands, such as the slave owners, and used the subordinate class to accumulate wealth.

However, capitalism is the highest form of exploitation, according to Marx. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, he says, Not only are they the slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself (Marx and Engels, 1848/2010, p. 18). This vision also allows Marx to formulate another theory that encompasses the social interaction of people and their intrinsic motives for action.

The theory of alienation, which Marx formulates, is based on the exploitation of the labor of the proletariat. According to this theory, workers forced to perform routine and hard work experience isolation from society and work (Bratton & Denham, 2019). Alienation from the product arises because an employee does only part of the work and often does not even see the final product. The alienation from the labor process is based on the fact that the employee is obliged to fulfill the requirements imposed by the employer but cannot be creative (Bratton & Denham, 2019).

This isolation makes people disillusioned with life. At the same time, isolation from others leads to the fact that the employee is only interested in receiving payment, but not in cooperation and communication with other people (Bratton & Denham, 2019). As a result, all these processes lead to isolation from oneself and a lack of a sense of belonging to the profession, which reduces a persons self-esteem and self-worth. Thus, this theory explains the ideas of increasing individualism as a consequence of alienation and the cause of the capitalistic processes that destroy society, which should ultimately lead to the proletariats revolution.

Another theory that follows the processes of oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie is the concept of false consciousness. According to this concept, people perceive individualistic values that are beneficial to the bourgeoisie as fundamental even if they do not correspond to their interests (Appelrouth & Edles, 2021). An emphasis on competition rather than cooperation is beneficial for production owners as it motivates progress. Consequently, owners benefit from imposing these values on workers because they have less doubt about their place and purpose in life. This theory explains the motives of human behavior and position in society imposed by external social influence.

At the same time, Weber also perceives capitalism as harmful to society but analyzes it through rationalization theories. According to Weber, capitalism is completely rational, and although these features make it economically efficient, they lead to negative social change (Appelrouth & Edles, 2021).

Weber identifies four types of social actions, such as instrumental-rational, value-rational, traditional and effective. Instrumental-rational and value-rational actions are aimed at achieving a goal based on effective tools and calculations or values, respectively (Appelrouth & Edles, 2021). Traditional actions are based on an established routine that most often has no effective purpose, and affective actions are triggered by emotional impulses (Appelrouth & Edles, 2021).

According to Webers theory of symbolic internationalism, capitalist society increasingly resorts to instrumental-rational actions or bureaucratic institutionalism. This process will eventually lead individuals into the trap of a bureaucracy that will deprive them of expression variability and lead to  disenchantment of the world (Appelrouth & Edles, 2021, p.319). Weber wrote in his The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,  But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage.  (1930/2005, p. 123). This expression compares machine technology, which was supposed to be a benefit to society but became a heavy burden, according to Weber. Thus, n these processes and consequences, Weber sees the greatest problem of capitalism.

Consequently, another difference between the ideas of Weber and Marx is the vision of the future of capitalism and society. According to Max, the oppression of the proletariat will eventually lead to revolution, and the workers who are in the majority will triumph. Thus, an individualistic capitalist society will be replaced by a society of cooperation, equality, and prosperity. However, Weber did not see a solution to the problem of bureaucratization and rationalization and predicted that capitalism would lead society into a standardized world based on rational generalizing principles.

Comparison of Methodology and Approaches

It is also worth noting significant differences in their approaches to the formation and substantiation of ideas considering Marx and Webers theories. Marx, in his works, concentrates on the analysis of the features of capitalism to explain how they destroy society and what will ultimately lead to the collapse of such a socio-economic structure. For example, criticizing the form of the division of labor and production, Marx emphasizes their shortcomings and formulates economic laws but does not speak about their origin. At the same time, Weber focuses on the study of the causes and forces that led to the formation of this type of organization in society and why it appeared in Western civilization. This approach also allows Weber to predict the development of capitalism and form a theory of rationalization.

Moreover, sociologists in their research use various methods of analysis and theory formation. Marx relies on historical materialism and traces the development of the productive forces, or labor, which was used to create material goods throughout history (Appelrouth & Edles, 2021). In other words. Marx studied the relationship and struggle between the classes of owners and workers, which manifested themselves in various forms in different historical eras, such as slavery and feudalism.

At the same time, Weber uses a scientific approach but formulates it differently from the options used in the exact sciences. Rather than developing precise generalized arguments that cannot be applied to the study of society, Weber offers a set of facts, that when taken together, have an elective affinity with a particular outcome (Appelrouth & Edles, 2021, p. 318). This approach allows general arguments to be developed based on a combination of causes related to a specific effect (Appelrouth & Edles, 2021). Thus, these features demonstrate how the difference in the approach of the two sociologists leads them to different conclusions in the study of the same topic.

Contribution of Marx and Weber

The contribution of Marx and Weber to the development of sociology is equally significant since they laid the foundations in the science of the study of society. Marx proposed such concepts as alienation, false consciousness, and class consciousness, which explain the external influence of society on the individual. At the same time, the theory of social conflicts substantiates the theoretical foundations of society. In addition, it is also important to note that Marxs work also influenced political science and economics and became the basis for the formation of political regimes in some countries of the world, albeit in a distorted version.

Weber contributed both to the explanation of the processes of interaction between society and the individual and the methods of studying sociology. The concept of the stratification of society presented the theoretical structure of human interaction, while the theories of rationalization and bureaucratization explained the ongoing processes and social changes. At the same time, the scientific method of studying sociology, which is based on the development of common arguments based on a combination of reasons, allowed sociologists to combine mathematical accuracy and humanitarian diversity of variables influencing the results. Consequently, both theorists made significant contributions to the development of sociology and influenced the work of their followers.

Conclusion

Thus, the analysis of the main theories of Marx and Weber demonstrates that although sociologists have many similar ideas, different approaches and methods to the study of society have led them to different conclusions. While Weber focused on the reasons for the development of capitalism and the social changes that it entails, Marx identified the main characteristics and disadvantages of capitalist society. These approaches have allowed sociologists to formulate theories and concepts that explain social interaction from different perspectives. Thus, Marx and Weber made significant contributions to the study of sociology, laying the foundations for the development of this science.

References

Bratton, J., & Denham, D. (2019). Capitalism and classical sociological theory. University of Toronto Press.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2010). Manifesto of the Communist party. ( S. Moore & F. Engels, Trans.). Marxists Internet Archive. Web.

Appelrouth, S., & Edles, L. D. (2021). Classical and contemporary sociological theory: Text and readings (4th ed.). Sage.

Weber, Max. (2005). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (T. Parsons, Trans.). Routledge. Web.

Of the different philosophers that have influenced world political thought, John Stuart Mills contribution in the field was very significant and his political ideas have been frequently referred to regarding debates on equality and freedom. His most important work On Liberty is widely recognized as a remarkable and classic contribution to political thought which stressed the single truth of the Harm Principle which implied that the most justified reason for the intervention of the state is to check the deeds of adult people of healthy minds in preventing harm to others. He strongly believed that paternalistic intercessions cannot be justified for the sake of adult people themselves. Mills philosophy held that the entire knowledge of humans including logic and math were derived from generalizations emanating from sensory experience. Mill defended his liberalism by advocating freedom of speech as also freedom of individual experiments of living. His utilitarian theory became the basis of his moral philosophy. He had developed a theory that propagated that the right actions of people are those that bring about maximum happiness for the largest number of people. In advocating this theory, Mill had stressed the role of the principle of utility in enforcing the principle of justice.

His work titled The Subjection of Women is a stirring attack on those who believed in discriminating against women and denying them equal rights with men. Most of the controversial practices and laws that were opposed by Mill have been modified and reformed in most capitalistic countries and his brilliant arguments directed against the malpractices in society are still debated in several forums. His greatest contribution is considered to be his political theory which propagates the widest possible freedom of expression and thought is given to individuals. He was of the firm belief that the state can successfully interfere in bringing relief to a set of individuals only if such actions do not harm the interest of others. Mills also spoke at length regarding social issues in his books and was an eloquent supporter of womens rights. His philosophy influenced the modern world to a very great extent and most of the present principles of democratic and social structures of society are based on his ideologies.

The philosophy of Karl Marx is entirely different as compared to that of John Stuart Mill. The key ideas of Marxism which are to this day very significant in some economic and political systems of the world relate to being alienated from a hostile capitalistic world, more specifically from a world that believes in a private property. Marx wanted the falsehood of capitalism to be removed given the motive of profit that was considered of prime importance in such systems. Marx believed that capitalist society must be replaced with a political system by way of social and economic reforms since it smells of intense feudalism in encouraging inequality amongst the masses. Marx believed that the capitalist system will be replaced by communism which is a better system that enables equality in society and guarantees that the wealth of the nation is shared equally for the welfare of all citizens instead of the same being concentrated in just a few hands. This way each individual gets as much as he needs for his normal living requirements. Hence it can be seen that the philosophy of Karl Marx is entirely different as compared to Mill, but communism had come to become highly popular in countries such as the erstwhile USSR and is still very strong in China and other Western European countries. But the concept of communism does not seem to be further catching on and more and more communist countries are shifting the political systems as the public opinion shifts towards reaping individual rewards based on capabilities and entrepreneurship. The erstwhile USSR had disintegrated primarily for this reason and China to is on the fast track in gaining world supremacy only after having considerably diluted its communist principles to bring about a liberalized business environment.

Both Marx and Utopian Socialists talked about the perfect world, a kind of paradise where all the people would be equal. Their ideas were quite similar because they all were up for peace and equally. However, what they differed in were the means of building this perfect world or, to be more exact, getting there. What Karl Marx offered was more of a science for he gave exact directions of how paradise could be achieved and what exactly it could be characterized by: no government, no religion, and no private ownership. The ideas of the Utopian socialists, in contrast, were not supported by anything concrete. They simply wanted the world changed (Heilbroner 115); they drew a picture of this perfect world where everybody adhered to the socialist ethic and where no one was exploited and excluded. However, these were only ideas that were not supported by a detailed plan of how to create such a world. At this, they saw no difficulties in creating this world, while Marx has accounted for many of such difficulties and offered ways to cope with them. Thus, Marx taught not only that a happy ending was good, but gave guidelines on the kind of work that had to be done to achieve it, while Utopian Socialists only informed people about the possibility of a happy ending.

The chapter on Marx totally supported what I have learned about this person before. However, this little traveling in his life helped me to learn some new things. These things hardly have anything to deal with the ideas that Marx advanced  he never concealed those. Instead, the chapter fortified my belief that genius people come from poor families and their success (though often not intravital) has a direct relation to intolerable conditions in which they had to live, as well as psychological drama they experienced. Marx was extremely devoted to his family, but the absence of sufficient stable income did not allow him to support it financially: &he pawned what was left to his name, all the family silver and valuables having been sold long ago (Heilbroner 150). This explains why Marx had ideas close to the Utopian ones, the ideas according to which there would be no poverty which he and his family had to live in. This chapter helped me to discover a new Marx, a Marx that was a rioter faithful to his ideas (he contradicted the will of his father and chose philosophy instead of law), a holder of radical views, and a genius who lacked funds for implementing his ideas into life.

Veblens ideas were different from those that the majority of the established economists advanced. Unlike Smith who stated that wealth was the main motivation for the human activity, Ricardo with his optimistic ideas about the economic plight of the workers and unpromising future for capitalism, Malthus with his predictions regarding the economic depressions, and Marx with his ideas about the free market and perfect competition in the capitalistic world, Veblen explored the nature of economics deeper. All these economists saw people as driven by competition and self-interest, while Veblen chose to explore the roots of leisure and its influence on the production of wealth. His ability to prove that it was not desire for leisure that was characteristic for humans, but their pride in work resulted in new economic reasoning after Marx.

Main Argument

The main argument put forward by Marx is that primitive accumulation of capital has come to play a relatively the same role in political economy as the story of original sin plays in theology. When it comes to the history of capital accumulation from its primitive form, any revolution has played an epoch-making role and represented the guiding principle for the existence of the capitalist class throughout the times of its development. This is true in regards to all moments when people tear themselves from their sources of subsidence and enter the labor market as unprotected and right-less proletarians, albeit free. The exploitation of the agricultural producer, or peasant, in the formation of the capital is the basis of the entire process. The history of such a process assumes different components in different regions and shifts from one phase to another in different succession orders and at different periods in history.

Support of the Argument

Marx explores the primitive accumulation of capital (original or previous accumulation) from the standpoint that the origin of wealth and the distinction between possessors and non-possessors are interconnected. In themselves, commodities and money are represented no more than are the methods of production and subsistence, and they want to transform into capital. The formation of the capitalist society when it comes to its economic structure has transformed out of the financial structure of the feudal society.

The examples that Marx gives to support the argument are linked to the feudal society that initiated capitalist exploitation. The capitalist beginnings date back to the Mediterranean in the 15th century and became more prominent in the 16th century. The advances in society were associated with the changing forms of servitude, and the feudalist exploitation transformed into capitalist exploitation.

Evidence

In order to explore the way in which the accumulation of capital began, Marx makes connections to the subject of original sin in theology. As Adam bit the forbidden apple, sin fell upon the human race. The reference to theology is understandable to a broad audience because of its universal application. As some time passed, emerged two kinds of people: the diligent and the frugal, who adhere to the original sin theory, and the lazy and riotous who will disregard original sin. The importance of this example is that it explains how people came to be condemned to eat their bread in the sweat of their brow (Marx 1887, 275). However, the example also tells the audience that there are also people to whom it may have no relevance. Indeed, the problem is still relevant beyond Marxs narrative as there are people who will earn capital diligently while others would use deceit to expand their economic influence.

Critique

The importance of Marxs exploration of primitive capital accumulation refers to its overall reflection of society and its evolvement over time. Also, the idea that the capitalist system presupposes the separation of laborers from the property is greatly relevant for the understanding of society. As capitalist giants get more prominent at the expense of laborers, the separation becomes more prominent and more persistent, reproducing itself on a continually expanding scale. The process of primitive capital accumulation, therefore, should be considered as a historical transformation of society that separates the means of production from the producer. Today, the contribution of the laborer is rarely considered because of the emphasis on the power of capitalistic giants, even though laborers have been instrumental in expanding the wealth and the influence of the former.

Bibliography

Marx, Karl. 1887. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Volume I. Hamburg: Verlag von Otto Meisner.

Karl Marx is a famous philosopher known for a variety of economic works discussed and applied today. The most outstanding work is devoted to discussing capitalism and its components. Cooperating with Friedrich Engels, Marx created a small political group which is known as the Communist Correspondence Committee (Lebowitz 2020). Among their activities, the well-known Communist Manifesto was created, which consists of a preamble and four sections appealing to the communists to publicize their views and goals openly. Karl Marx foresaw that capitalism would conquer society and explored its basis. Considering the current economic situation, Marxs works are essential to be studied and carefully analyzed. Special attention should be put on exploring the Capital and The Communist Manifesto, which are extremely important in understanding the market relationships of modern society.

Capitalism has significantly influenced the whole societys structural view of labor. The term capitalism was first mentioned at the end of the 19th century in France (BBC Masters of Money Karl Marx 2016). Originally it had a negative correlation with the speculators and profit-oriented society. Nowadays, many believe that capitalism is the most prevalent economic system for humanity. The rapid development of capitalism was noted after the industrial revolution when technologies became the main principle of production. The capital itself is a process of increasing the costs using labor. Capitalism is the system that puts production over the exchange (Marx and Engels 1848a). The main aim of production in capitalism is to gain maximum monetary benefits. Marx believes that Capital includes commodities, goods, and even intellectual resources, which can be beneficial for the entrepreneur (Economic Update 2019). Generally, capitalism consists of the relations of production striving for economic benefits (Marx and Engels 1848a). Marx highlights three essential concepts of capital: classes, commodities, and the general formula of Capital (Marx and Engels 1848b, 65). The classes of the capitalist society are divided into categories which include the exploiters and exploited.

From Marxs perspective, commodities are considered to have a value that is estimated in labor measurements. Emphasizing this detail, Marx reveals the exploitation that lay in capitalisms root structure (Marx and Engels 1848b, 66). The essential principle of the Capital in Marxs theory is the General Formula for Capital which is represented by the combination of letters: M (Money)  C (Commodities)  M (Money) (Marx and Engels 1848b, 68). In other words, the entrepreneur strives to gain money by covering the initial expenditures through labor and machinery usage. The first M is the amount of money the product owner spends on possessing Capital, including materials, machinery, and labor (Marx and Engels 1848b, 68). The central C addresses the commodity which is created through money spendings. The last M is the amount of money that the entrepreneur gains from selling the commodities.

Marx considers the class distribution as the result of the capitalistic economy. One of the main principles in understanding Marxs critique of capitalism is the parable of the Shmoo, which reflects the idea that exploitation is a necessary condition for profits in a capitalist economy (Marx and Engels 1848b, 67). As far as capitalists strive to get the maximum profits conditioned by the competition, the exploitation will rise: the wage will be reduced, while the working hours and machinery usage will increase. As a result, a ruling class will be formed, which holds the principal amount of the capital, while most people will be poor. Criticizing capitalism, Marx implements the term alienation, which causes the dissatisfaction with work caused by the fact that the entrepreneur owns the final products (Marx 1868). Smith consideres the division of labor the progressive tool of the productive development of society (Lebowitz 2020). Marx, on the contrary, believes that it is the main obstacle in the way of equal humanity. Therefore, Marx divides the capitalist society into two classes exploiting and working classes (Wright 2000). The first one operates the recourses and aligns the means of production. As far the commercial profits are mostly gained through exploitation, it is beneficial for the entrepreneurs to gain maximum material advantage using the labor. Thus, the owners of the means of production facilitate the exploitation of labor.

Another essential term for Marxs capital theory is the surplus value. Various economists and philosophers like Smith and Ricardo also developed such a theory, but Marxs one is the most detailed and rational (BBC Masters of Money Karl Marx 2016). Surplus value is the extra amount of money that the owner gains through the lowered real wages. Capital (C) includes the money spent on production (c) and labor (v) (Marx 1868, 320). After the end of production, the final product is sold for the price, which is higher than expenditures (c + v). Here the surplus value (s) appears, and the final formula of Capital represents the sum of three components: c, v, s (Marx 1868, 320). For example, the workers have fixed payment for an hour. They produce two goods per hour, having eight hours of labor daily. Entrepreneurs pay workers only a tiny part of the net value while assigning all other incomes to themselves (Lebowitz, 2000). This process illustrates how the owning production measures by the upper class encourages the exploitation of labor. This concept correlates with the General Formula of Capital, which shows that the owners are enriched after selling the commodities. The formula even has a similar structure to the Capitals one. Analyzing these two concepts, it is essential to mention that the capital is mostly oriented on money rather than the production itself.

Another excellent example of the surplus value is the famous company devoted to the production of smartphones. According to the practical research, the exploitation rate within the iPhone production is 25 times higher than the maximum, which Marx anticipated (Tricontinental 2019, 35). This example shows that the wage system is mostly capitalist-oriented. Nowadays society has come to the state which Marx was afraid of. To be precise, the most volume of capital is centralized in the entrepreneurs hands. At the same time, most of the population has lower than average incomes. Market relationships require the preservation of the wage system and capitalist relationships. Significant changes in the whole worlds economic system are needed to abolish the well-established capitalist economy structure.

The capitalist economy pattern and labor exploration are well-established in modern society. Today there is no dangerous crisis that can cause the whole system destruction because more significant problems are to be solved. However, there is an opinion that the current COVID-19 situation has significantly affected societys structure and can lead to abolishing capitalism. Due to the more individualized approach to personal labor caused by the isolation period, many people value their work more than before the virus. Therefore, this can probably result in the reconsideration of the production values.

The non-capitalist types of economic relationships are hard to imagine. However, capitalism encourages exploitation and promotes inequality within the whole community. Considering the upcoming tendencies for equality, the capitalist economy may also change someday. Wright criticizing capitalism offers the theoretical approach empowering the abolishing of the classes and surplus value called an unconditional basic income (Wright 2006, 6). The main advantage of this approach is that all the people are in identical conditions and gain governmental support. As a result of the wealthier society, unjust economic relationships will be exterminated. Another positive aspect of unconditional basic income is that it can control the upcoming high unemployment rate caused by technological development. Therefore, this concept is relevant for modern society but pretty challenging to apply.

Karl Marx devoted his life to exploring capitalism, limiting the freedom of the people. The outstanding philosopher predicted the rapid conquering of the worlds economy and tried to urge people to eliminate capitalism through understanding its root causes and principles. Even though society is still based on capitalistic relationships, someday, the situation will change due to the development of emerging technologies. The more the production is computerized, the less value can be found in such a fabrication. Thus, the more technologically advanced economy becomes, the fewer benefits capitalist can gain. It is caused due to fully automated production where the concept of value disappears. The exploitation of the machine is impossible because it does not allow to emerge the idea of surplus value. Considering the fact that human activities always strive for the economy, machines someday will replace human labor. This will declare the end of the capitalistic economic structure.

References

Democracy at Work. 2019. Economic Update: Rise and Fall of the USSR. YouTube video.

Lebowitz, Michael. 2000. The Contradictions of Real Socialism. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Marston, Darth. 2016. BBC Masters of Money Karl Marx HD. YouTube video.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich, Engels. 1848a. Introduction to Capital. In Sociological Theory in The Classical Era, edited by Laura, Edles, and Scott, Appelrouth, 51-65. London: SagePublications.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich, Engels. 1848b. From The Communist Manifesto. In Sociological Theory in The Classical Era, edited by Laura, Edles, and Scott, Appelrouth, 65-80. London: SagePublications.

Marx, Karl. 1868. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Translated by Ben Fowkes. Washington: Penguin Books.

Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. 2019. A Marxist Analysis of the iPhone.

Wright, Erik. 2000. Class Counts. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

Wright, Erik. 2006. Two Redistributive Proposals: Universal Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants. Focus 24 (2): 5-7.