Conflict in Hobbes’, Marx’s, Rousseau’s, Plato’s Works

Introduction

The Social Conflict Theory has been explained by various scholars and even though they had different interpretations, their aim was to offer an elaborated explanation about the events happening in the society (Dillon 11). Thomas Hobbes, Karl Marx, Emile Rousseau, and Plato have presented various discussions about the causes, effects, and solutions to conflicts in society. This essay describes the similarities and differences between their perspectives regarding the function of conflict in society.

Background

Sociologists define conflict as a state of misunderstanding in the society caused by the desire to control or have resources that are scarce yet valuable (Ritzier 12). Therefore, conflict can be defined in terms of the struggle to get wealth and power that are usually the main issues that propel people to fight. Sociologists present different views about how conflict occurs and how it is managed in society depending on their experiences and backgrounds.

Thomas Hobbes

He believed that social order was possible in all societies irrespective of whether they were developed or not. He claims that people give themselves first priorities in various issues and this means that they place their interests before those of society. In addition, he claims that people have rights but sometimes these privileges are given up to achieve a stable society; therefore, they must sacrifice some aspects in their lives to live in harmony with other members of society (Dillon 27). That is why a lot of human interests are regulated and governed by laws and not negotiations. His theory is based on the belief that families are not harmonious and that people must manage their differences to attain a stable society. Therefore, his main idea revolves around the need to solve conflicts that make or break societies. He believed that societies and families that were stable in case they had conflicts but knew how to manage them to ensure members cooperate in various issues. Therefore, the absence of wars does not mean that a social group does not experience conflicts.

Karl Marx

Most people regard him as the father of the Social Conflict Theory because of his contributions to discussions about the order in society. He argued that society consisted of different groups that competed for similar interests that were usually wealth and power (Ritzier 23). This theory differs from Hobbes’s in explaining how conflicts exist and are managed. He argues that people maintain social order through domination and not consensus. This means that those that have the greatest economic, political, and social resources control a huge part of the society and have power over their counterpart.

On the other hand, the poor are always struggling to break away from poverty to ensure they control a significant part of resources in society (Dillon 40). Therefore, the rich and poor unite with their members to form a strong opposition to safeguard their interests. He claims that inequality will exist in society because the rich will always struggle to protect their wealth and block attempts by the poor to ascend the ladder of success (Appelrouth 56). This explains why politics is controlled by a minority group of elites that usually take advantage of the poor. Therefore, the poor are usually forced to unite to defend their interests and that is why Marx emphasized the need to struggle to attain social justice and equality to ensure people enjoy their rights.

Plato

His arguments are controversial and that is why some people believe that he is the father of modern socialism. He believed that society was fragmented and every part played its role according to its abilities. Therefore, he claimed that there was no need of struggling to get out of caste because that was the way nature destined people to be (Ritzier 47). His argument was based on the belief that people could not be the same because of differences in their abilities. He proposes a three-tier system that ensures conflicts are reduced and the society functions well. His belief was based on the Athenian Democracy that allowed a handful of people to rule while the majority served them; therefore, creating inequality in the society.

He explains that individuals have different skills that enable them to perform various roles that place them in various positions in society. He believed that most people had limited skills and that is why their role was to serve others; therefore, they were classified under the workers’ category (Dillon 76). They include farmers, masons, and other individuals that struggle to get basic needs. His theory explains that the second category consists of warriors that protect the society and their abilities are vested in their physical prowess that shows their brevity and strength (Appelrouth 63). They include police officers and other security-related employees whose main agenda is to protect the elites. The last category consists of rulers and those that control various events in society. They include individuals that are intelligent and wise to ensure they make decisions for other members of society. This places them above other members because they are perceived to reason better than the rest. They are given leadership positions that make them powerful and able to control the activities of others.

Emile Rousseau

His argument is based on the belief that the physical traits of individuals determine their positions in society. He believed that people questioned the intelligence of those that had physical inability and believed they did not deserve to be treated as equals. The society believes that there are differences between people that have physical inability and those that do not have (Ritzier 79). Physical inequality is promoted by the assumption that disabled people are not supposed to be treated like normal people. This theory is based on the belief that conflicts in society arise from social inequalities created by disabilities. Other issues like gender and race are also considered to be physical inability and those with a less valued trait are treated like servants (Appelrouth 79). Those that possessed a lot of the desired qualities were perceived to be superior-top their counterparts.

Conclusion

These beliefs are based on the assumptions of the roles of individuals in society. They explain various issues that propel people to act differently and for groups to protect their interests. Thomas Hobbes and Karl Marx present persuasive arguments because their theories outline conflict in a simple and direct manner. Hobbes explains how personal interests motivate individuals to protect their identities and advance their needs. Marx presents society as an engine controlled by individuals that have social, political, and economic resources to dominate others. The arguments presented by these theorists are valid and realistic because that is how societies behave. Plato and Rousseau do not explain how different groups in society promote or solve conflicts.

Works Cited

Appelrouth, Scott. Sociological Theory in the Classical Era: Text and Readings. California: SAGE Publications, 2009. Print.

Dillon, Michele. Introduction to Sociological Theory: Theorists, Concepts, and their Applicability to the Twenty-First Century. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.

Ritzier, George. Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

“The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

The Communist Manifesto and the French Revolution: What was the importance of the French Revolution, according to Marx and Engels? Do you think the authors of the Declaration of the Rights of Man would agree with Marx and Engels?

One of the world’s most renowned and influential political manuscripts, The Communist Manifesto, appeared at the moment when revolutionary forces were ready to break out in a series of major rebellions that forever changed the European political image. One of the crucial background factors for the emergence of The Communist Manifesto was that, by that time, the revolution was an actual normal experience in contemporary Europe.

This irreversible transformation of the whole continent was triggered by the 1789 events of the French Revolution, which is seen by Marx and Engels not as a separate occurrence but as a key step in the overall revolutionary process. From the bourgeois revolution, they draw the fundamental lesson of the necessity for destroying the existing class system since the ruling class that gained power after the French Revolution eventually moved away from the impoverished masses.

The French Revolution had not destroyed the higher ruling class as such, simply creating a new one, the bourgeoisie that went on to oppress the lower class — and that was a major mistake: “The French Revolution […] abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property” (Marx, and Engels 20). As a result, the capitalistic exploitation continued and demanded immediate action, which Europe was to undertake half a century after the French overturn.

Since the political views of the leaders were shaped in a different social environment and by the time Marx and Engels were coining The Communist Manifesto, European economy and society had undergone considerable development, there exist more controversies than parallels between the communists’ text and that of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. On the one hand, the authors of the Declaration proclaimed equality and freedom among men, and the prevalence of the general good above individual interests, and idea that sounds consonant with the overall communistic creed.

On the other hand, the discrepancies between the two manuscripts start already with the notion of equality. Marx and Engels continuously emphasize class struggle as the essence of the ever-existing society, thus refuting any initial equality (Marx and Engels 5).

Moreover, the Declaration still allows for drawing social distinctions based on common utility — a statement that actually sanctions slavery and class oppression and runs counter to the communists’ idea of the necessity for the termination of classes as such. Another point of opposition lies in the attitude to women: while the authors of the Declaration do not even mention the fair sex in their text, Marx and Engels specifically focus on the importance of restoration of women’s rights since in bourgeois society, women are seen as “mere instruments of production” (Marx, and Engels 24).

The social context of the Communist Manifesto: According to your reading, what do you think motivated Marx and Engels to launch their critique of capitalism?

Nowadays, when the memories of the past century’s gory wars for political causes are still fresh in the readers’ minds, Marx and Engel’s insistence on violent class war may seem at least unattractive. However, their case for revolution roots deeply in the intellectual and socio-economic environment of the time. On the one hand, by the 1840s, revolution had become a widespread way of introducing change into the moldy crust of the conventional politics.

On the other hand, witnessing and analyzing the existing economic situation in Germany, France, and Great Britain — the countries Marx and Engels were best acquainted with, and the ones they reposed the biggest hopes in — the heralds of communism envisaged a whole range of social and economic inequities that were to be terminated.

Marx and Engels violently opposed capitalism because the contemporary society had matured to take the challenge of a revolution. In the formerly prosperous Germany, 1840s were the years of economic stagnation, and people were losing their Christian patience in face of the poverty and misery they had to put up with. As a result of increased use of machinery in production, the working masses were homogenized and deskilled, and the value of individual craftsmen came to naught (Marx, and Engels 12). Political institutions were solely in hands of the ruling class, and workers had no right to vote, and even labor unions were either strictly limited or totally illegal — however, those combinations (or “Trades Unions”) were the sign of the ever increasing collisions between the two classes (Marx, and Engels 14).

Poverty was a standard among the working families, and food riots were not an infrequent occurrence either. Though those mutinies neither bore a mass character, nor aimed at major overturns, the general perception of crime at the time was inseparable from the idea of social and political movements. The anxiety of the ruling circles was not about what those movements actually were or what they really did, but what they might become and might do: the fear of mass violence started to spread.

For Marx and Engels the ideal time for a revolution had come since they saw that for one thing, the working class was exploited and oppressed more than ever; and for another thing, it became easier to organize the anticapitalist struggle because due to the requirements of the industrialization the workers, who formed the majority and performed a key role in the production process, were grouped into factories and thus in large cities.

Key Definitions: How did Marx and Engels define “bourgeoisie,” “proletariat,” and “capital”? Characterize each of them with their most important features

Emphasizing the historically dominant two-fold composition of society from the ruling class and the oppressed class, Marx and Engels envisage the contemporary society as that consisting of “two hostile camps […] — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (Marx, and Engels 5). By the bourgeoisie is understood a class of capitalists who are in full possession of means of social production and who employ the wage labor.

Its origin is seen by the fathers of communism already in the medieval times, when the first elements of bourgeoisie developed from burghers of the earliest times. Nurtured by the expansion of trade market and boosting navigation, commerce and industry, the bourgeoisie reached its prosperity when industrial production, equipped by recent developments, acquired an unprecedented scope and gave birth to industrial magnates.

Exclusively dominating the world market, the bourgeoisie also gained full power over the political aspects of life. Moreover, being a result of revolutions, the bourgeoisie itself revolutionized and practically annihilated the existing “feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations” (Marx, and Engels 7). If the feudal society used to disguise exploitation under various reasons of religious or political nature, the bourgeoisie refuted the old familial and religious principles and left exploitation itself to rule the world.

Every relation became now a money relation, and in the strive to constantly expand the markets the bourgeoisie has involved every nation in the production and consumption process, forcing civilization everywhere and making the country depend on the towns, poorer nations dependent on the more prosperous ones, etc. (Marx, and Engels 9). Resulting from this market expansion was agglomeration of population, concentration of the means of productions and property in few hands, and centralization of political powers within the bourgeoisie.

As opposed to the bourgeoisie, the proletariat represents a class of wage laborers who do not possess any own means of production and are therefore forced to sell their labor power in order to earn their living. Without work they cannot live, and work is granted to them as long as their labor helps to increase the capital (Marx, and Engels 12). Due to machinery being a part and parcel of contemporary production process, the proletariat performs work devoid of any attractive individuality and thus is viewed as “an appendage of the machine” (Marx, and Engels 12).

Enslaved by the machine, the factory onlookers, and the individual bourgeois manufacturers, they lose any sex or age, being simple instruments of labor. However, in this oppressed state the proletariat at different stages of its development leads struggle with the bourgeoisie: at first demolishing the instruments of production, the laborers later join together in larger groups (Trades Unions) and stand up for their rights to wages.

Though those efforts may bring certain immediate results, Marx and Engels claim that success is possible only in the long-term perspective of united mass struggle; they adhere to an opinion that proletariat is the best suitable class for revolution since it has nothing of the bourgeois prejudice: family, religion, nation, morality or law mean nothing to the indigent working class whose aim is to destroy any traces of individual property (Marx, and Engels 15, 17).

Created by the wage labor, and only by it, is the capital, such a kind of property that exploits wage labor and can only increase on condition of new wage labor for exploitation.. It is the basis of any relations in the bourgeois society and is characterized by independence. Capital cannot be individual; it is created by collective effort and therefore constitutes a social power. The relations with the capital are the key factor that determines the course of the revolution. (Marx, and Engels 21, 27)

The Communist Revolution and Its Society: According to Marx and Engels, how is Communism different from Socialism? How will society look like after the “Communist Revolution” has taken place?

Reviewing the socialistic ideas of the time, Marx and Engels group them into three categories based on the dominant approach and claim that each of those ideological groups lacks certain key points that are vital to communism. Thus, the reactionary socialism blindly rejects the inevitable rise of the bourgeoisie and its even more inevitable subsequent defeat by the proletariat, and to return to the past, outdated feudal relations (Marx, and Engels 31).

Similarly near-sighted appear the conservative socialists: the imminence of class struggle and the victory of the proletariat escape their attention, since they wish for a bourgeoisie-only society (Marx, and Engels 37). As for the critical-utopian socialists, they are too submerged into words and dreams to understand that revolution and action is the only way to social change (Marx, and Engels 40).

Such active revolutionary position of communists aims first and foremost at depriving the bourgeoisie of the basis for subsistence, of the capital and the instruments of production, and at making those state property. By doing so, together with abolishing any inheritance and confiscating private property, the communistic society will centralize the land, transportation, industries and agriculture, and allow all the aforementioned for the general use and benefit. Society will be characterized by equality in the right to education and work, and a more even distribution of people over country and town will be furthered. (Marx, and Engels 28–29)

Works Cited

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Teddington, Middlesex: The Echo Library, 2009. Print.

Karl Marx’s Response to John Mayer’s Anti-War Song

Dear Mr. Mayer,

I am Karl Heinrich Marx and I’m drawn by your song ‘Waiting on the world to change’.The time has come for you to abandon the back seat and embrace the pragmatic mode of life. You have all in means within you to change the world, let nobody tell you “otherwise”. Also, don’t think otherwise, a deed done is far much useful than a deed thought. The greatest means at your disposal is your simple act of defiance to the system, break away from the mundane lifestyle and chart a new path of equality, liberation, and empowerment. It may be a lonely path but it is certainly worth it for the betterment of humanity. Others will tell you that time is not right, but time is never right, that is why you have to make it right.

The upper class owns the television stations we are all glued to. They keep away from us the hard-hitting societal issues like poverty, social inequity, economic and political ideologies. Switch off the TV and start thinking. An informed society is one that thinks and discusses its issues rather than sitting and accepting issues. Time is also running out, the act of waiting without putting any actions is futile. The world has been waiting too long for a change in ideology.

Remember, in times of need, silence is betrayal. Inform your neighbors and let them inform other neighbors that it is their collective action that will stamp out the master-slave economic mentality and mode of life. Beware that the people who own the means to production will not like this, so tread with care.

Our society can only change if we make a transition from a class society to a classless society where every person is equal and the means of production are owned by the state. We are in a constant struggle between the bourgeoisie and the laborers. This tension is only quelled by the transient silence but one day it will rupture and you need to have a stand when that day comes.

Take charge, capitalism will not last long; the society is getting fed up with a system that benefits a few and is controlled by a few, though unfortunately, revolutions are inevitable. The modern working class is the most progressive force for revolution. Familiarize yourself with them and spread the word. If we stick only to our philosophical selves, we will have the same position, because ideas need to be implemented for being able to bring any good. We posses our actual and potential selves, don’t alienate the potential self.

I don’t doubt the human capacity to transform the world. I’m concerned with the willingness. Giving up on this course is tantamount to alienating yourself from nature. The group that owns the means to the production of commodities also owns the production of ideas. So don’t be surprised if your fellow musicians hold ideas that are contrary to their interests. We live in an unequal society and the balance needs to be titled in favor of the masses.

The accumulation of wealth reshapes the social system. You have opposing interests with the people who own the means of livelihood. They want to maximize wealth, and we want to maximize our ability to decide on our destiny. I know that you have a dream that one day there is a generation that can lead the population but the world is waiting for you to take the first step.

Karl Marx on Social Classes in a Letter to John Mayer

Dear John,

I am Karl Marx. I share your sentiments on alienation and pain in lower-class imprisonment by the ruling class who have the resources to manipulate and twist social, religious, development, and political aspects of the society as opined by Macionis and Gerber (2007). It is apparent that these classes, drawn from the bourgeoisies and the ruling elites, are not brighter than the rest. However, they thrive in discrimination and exploitation of labor supply to satisfy their selfishness.

Since they are the masters of labor production tools such as wages, this group, comprising of just a small percent of the society, comfortably sits on the apex of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs pyramid. In union with your sentiments, I concur that they influence democratic processes that are ‘only democratic’ when the same meet their opinionated threshold characterized by mere confirmation of their will; which may not necessarily be in line with the will of the majority.

I recall once in the textile industry, in the remote province in Germany, when I witnessed the oppression of laborers by an agent of this group. Funnily, nobody among the other workers and the union came out strongly to defend their members. They talked as though every word from their mouths were rehearsed and choreographed by the exploiters themselves.

Also, I am sorry to report to you that the group has formalized its definition partial policies in education, media, churches, economic sector, politics, and social interaction (Waiting on the World to Change, 2010). I am touched by your passionate appeal to the proletariats to rise above the normal way of life and start to question these biased policies and governance of labor which we provide to them for peanuts.

In a perfectly skewed labor market, wages are supposed to be determined by the cost of production and total output. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We are merely spectators of exploitation as though our hands and minds are imprisoned in the dungeon of social classes (Mayer, 2006). In my opinion, there is hope Mr. John. Everything is not lost, because we are the majority and providers of labor resources.

Noting that this bourgeoisie cannot operate and meet their selfish goals minus our labor, we can unite and move from mere spectators into agents of quantifiable and desirable change we long to witness and live in. By forming independent labor unions and actively participating in electoral processes, proletariats can rise to become a powerhouse and a boat that cannot be rocked by small tides of discrimination originating from premature economic waves.

Interestingly, the world has enough resources for everyone when selfishness is locked from imprisoning our minds. It is time for the proletariats to reject the theoretical education systems and embrace an inclusive syllabus. This is because the development and perception of an individual are greatly influenced by events in his or her external environment such as the type of education received, religious doctrines, and the social media of interaction (Macionis & Gerber, 2007). At present, these are skewed towards fulfilling the selfish ambitions of the minority who are the ruling class.

In conclusion, I would opine that we change our perception towards unfair class systems which are as imprisoning as the caste system in India. However, in our case, the classes are not permanent. Once the mind is liberated, the physical body will respond appropriately.

References

Macionis, J., & Gerber, L. (2007). Sociology, Sixth Canadian Edition with MySocLab Starter Kit. Pearson Ottawa: Education Canada.

Mayer, J. (2006). . Web.

. (2010). Web.

Karl Marx Ideologies on Major Issues

There were several schools of thought regarding various sociological theories and explanations of social action and societal changes. The most prominent school of thought was the classical school that includes Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Marx Weber among others.

Karl Marx in 1969 argued that men make their history but they do not make it as they please i.e. they do not make history under circumstances determined by them but those encountered, given, and transmitted from the past. For instance, the religion one follows is as a result of the society they were born in and we follow it just the way we found it or even the monetary system we use to pay debts is independent to the user.

We, therefore, do not make decisions as we like or desire but under certain structural constraints. Many classical sociologists, believed that society is divided at the micro and the macro levels where the individual forms the micro and the structure forms the macro level. This implied that society is external to us and it usually dictates the decisions we make.

Hegel argued that the state is autonomous and sovereign against other countries’ control. He further insisted that the state is divine through history in that it has absolute power and control over its subjects. For instance, he argued that if the wants an individual life, then the only way out is for that individual to give in the life. He said that war is inevitable to the state because the state lacks mechanisms available to an individual to solve its conflicts. He argued that the main purpose of the state is to protect its independence and integrity to maintain the social organization and allow for the “universal spirit” to develop in people’s life.

Materialism theory views the major economic and social transformations in society as a consequence of material forces. As various classes of people which Karl Marx classifies as landlords, middle class and the tenants struggle to improve their standards various economic and social changes occur. These changes occur because of passion and interest in material things that many people believe as the best way of life in their conscious. These class struggles occur as various classes engage in conflicts to know the means of production which are the source of the major income. To Karl Marx, class struggles are the effective ways by which social order in society is achieved.

On the issue of political economy, Marx used the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus of value to show the effects of industrial capitalism. He argued that labor acts as a major source of value to the industries. Many owners of the means of production use labor to produce in surplus to obtain profits hence labor in itself is a source of value to itself and others. He added that industrial capitalism is concerned with increased productivity and cutting on operating costs where many industries pay very little wages to the workers and yet overwork them to increase their production or gain surplus-value of the labor. He added capitalist form of government will collapse and be replaced by a socialist which was considerate of the peoples’ welfare and progress.

Further, Karl Marx argued that capitalism is there to oppress and exploit the majority helps us to understand the various problems associated with different kinds or forms of government. He argued that modernity is dominated by economic elements. These elements are meant to exploit the workers by overworking them in major industries for the owners to make enough profits.

Karl Marx continued to argue that the workers live on low wages so they are poor with little time left for leisure and recreational activities. To him, capitalism utilized workers’ leisure time to survive, recover and reproduce itself this is mainly because capitalism insists on high productivity and the oppression of workers to make big profits. He argued that in the modern world man is alienated from work and leisure where people have little time left for recreational activities due to extended working hours.

In addition, Marx concluded that modernity was synonymous with the emergence of capitalist, therefore, criticized its deformities like alienation, domination, false class consciousness, pauperization, and exploitation. Therefore, there was a need to change this form of government to a more favorable system. This analysis assists sociologists to understand the problems associated with capitalism. In addition, he argued due to the problems associated with capitalism at one point there will be worldwide strikes that will replace capitalism with socialism, a more accommodative form of government, hence to Marx, the bourgeois Class will determine the management or how the society runs its affairs.

Because many sociologists based their theories on the society they were familiar with and at different times, many sociology theories seem to contradict major issues, and real-life happenings, hence they do not assist in our understanding of the social organization. For instance, the Marx arguments that capitalism due to its adverse effects it will be replaced by socialism has been proven wrong by time. This is because many socialist and communist economies have collapsed and been replaced by capitalism. However, this does not form the basis for ignoring the Marx theories because others have been proven empirically true and have assisted in our understanding of social organization only that the theories do not apply universally but are relevant in some societies.

References

Hughes, J, Sharrock, W and martin, P. Understanding classical sociology; 2nd edition, New York: SAGE publications, (2003).

Marx and Factory Occupations in Argentina

Introduction

Argentina entered a new period of development and economic growth which had a great impact on its labor relations and the factory system. Industrial entrepreneurs struggled to achieve a measure of labor discipline that would allow them to accomplish the intensification of production for which the early factories had been established. Traditional work patterns such as those of agricultural workers or cottage weavers vacillated between periods of intense effort and leisure. Achieving sustained work activity meant battling the industrial laborer’s prevailing subsistence mentality. In an effort to protect themselves from the harsh demands that early industrial labor imposed on their bodies, workers alternated between intense spurts of activity and rebellion against confinement and discipline1. A combination of elaborate fines, threats, and punishments was utilized to overcome the ambivalence of the workers and the multitude of ways they used to limit output and exhaustion. Numerous historical accounts present a vivid picture of the difficulties faced by the industrial entrepreneurs and their managers in instilling work habits that would allow them to utilize more efficiently the capital invested in new machinery.

Production system in Argentina

Argentinean industrialists faced an even greater problem than their European counterparts. The early Argentinean working class was formed just prior to and after the Argentinean Revolution. Central to the cultural beliefs and values of Revolutionary Argentina was a view of human nature as inherently self-interested and seeking to acquire power over other people2. Controlling skilled workers presented a different problem for entrepreneurs. The knowledge embodied in the activities of the craftsmen distinguished their work from that of the laborers. Thus, while they looked down on the frolicking, drinking, and escapism common to many of the laborers, craft workers used their “functional autonomy” and management’s dependence on their know-how to limit or withhold compliance with prescribed standards of output and discipline3.

Forms of working organizations

Understanding the development of predominant forms of work organization requires a brief history of the emergence of the modern business enterprise. As the traditional family and financier-controlled enterprises typical of the last century grew in size and diversity, ownership and management of firms became increasingly divorced. The growing dominance of career managers who came to determine the structures and policies of the modern firm shifted the emphasis from maximizing current profits to long-term stability and growth. The continued existence of the enterprise became essential for the lifetime careers of professional managers. Thus, while mass distribution in Argentina was largely based on organizational innovation and improvements, breakthroughs in mass production relied on the development and utilization of more efficient machinery and higher quality raw materials along with the intensified application of energy4. “The adoption of continuous process machines that produced products automatically greatly increased output per worker considerably5. In the early 1990s, these new processes became widespread in the tobacco and the refining and distilling industries. The metalworking industries faced a bigger challenge. They relied on a greater variety of raw materials and needed to coordinate multiple subunits for the production of castings and moldings and the assembly of complex products such as stoves, firearms, sewing machines, and typewriters. As a result, interest shifted to organizational innovation to improve efficiency and productivity6. “While rather complex systems of internal cost accounting and controls were proposed and implemented in many production organizations, the basic weakness in these recordkeeping systems — the foremen’s or workers’ lack of interest in filling out the requested forms — was quickly recognized”7. In response, a number of metalworking firms developed what they termed gain-sharing plans, which offered workers and their foremen higher pay for increased output8.

Workers and new labor relations

Takeovers by workers led to a new production system and labor relations. Researchers described a scheme in which any reduction in unit costs achieved through improved equipment and plant design, more effective scheduling, and fuller use of the machines and materials would be shared equally between the company and the workers. Critics pointed out that the costs and the resulting savings should not, as was generally done, be based on past experience; rather, standard time and output should be determined “scientifically” through detailed job analyses and time and motion studies of the tasks involved. Applying the carrot as well as the stick, he argued for a differential piece rate; workers who did not meet the standard set would receive lower pay, while those who exceeded the rate would receive higher pay9.

In the new system, the function of the general foreman, the key figure in a traditional factory organization, could not be competently performed by one individual. Instead, these tasks should be “scientifically” subdivided and moved to a planning department. The factory as a whole should be administered through a number of highly specialized functions. Marx writes: “But suppose the amount of national production to be constant instead of variable. Even then, what our friend Weston considers a logical conclusion would still remain a gratuitous assertion.”10 While the proposal for extreme specialization proved unacceptable to many manufacturers and was criticized for its focus on task analysis, which neglected the synthesis of the organization as a whole, many of concepts were integrated into the organization of the modern Argentinean firm11.

The knowledge of the worker could be carefully studied in action and explicated in order to yield its secrets. Work tasks had to be observed, analyzed, and measured in meticulous ways in order to discover “the one best way” for doing a specific task. The new management translated new relations into step-by-step detailed instructions for workers that went as far as prescribing when a worker had to sit down and relax in order to preserve the body’s capability to work over an extended period of time. Marx admits that a worker: ‘is an imaginary member of an imagined sovereignty, divested of his actual life and endowed with an unactual universality”12

With the application of these five principles, a structure of work was created narrow enough to eliminate the individual worker’s discretion and independent judgment, presumably leaving the worker no choice other than to follow the prescribed “right” way to do the job. It was the development of corresponding logistic principles incorporated in moving assembly lines that actually signaled the broader transformation of previous craft production structures to the modern mode of mass production. Inspired by the assembly line concept, combining mechanized and highly fragmented tasks with management control over the work pace and production output. The function carried out by the worker became subordinate to the function of the machine. Direction and guidance were built into the technological design and the resultant work system13.

From a Marxist perspective, takeovers were aimed at establishing managerial control and coordination over the work process on the assumption that this would improve efficiency and quality, he believed, along with many of his engineering colleagues, that workers’ attempts to restrain their efforts was perfectly rational and in line with their own interests. Thus, he proposed that the productivity increases to be gained from more efficient task organization should be shared in the form of the differential piece rate system14. Management frequently intensified the pace of effort by changing piece rates as workers learned to meet the standards. In general, workers showed little enthusiasm for the new system of machine-paced labor, though the application of new methods improved on the strenuous ways of accomplishing tasks in many cases. Mars writes: “The values of commodities are directly as the times of labour employed in their production, and are inversely as the productive powers of the labour employed”15. Success in supplier-dominated markets depended on the ability to increase output at a relatively low price based on largely standardized products and far-reaching mechanization of the manufacturing process. The growth and economic payoffs in mass production, modeled after working principles over the following decades, firmly established this approach to industrial production in the Argentinean workplace. It continues to be the dominant form of work organization today, although its limitations are becoming increasingly obvious in the rapidly changing economic and social environment16. Marx wrote: “The bureaucracy is a circle from which one cannot escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge. The top entrusts the understanding of detail to the lower levels, whilst the lower levels credit the top with an understanding of the general, and so all are mutually deceived”17

These changing assumptions about human nature did not challenge the structure of work. Rather, the focus shifted to the work environment and worker management18. The growing industrialization, in part a result of the integration of production principles with production methods, had increased the standard of living such that people started to focus on more than material subsistence. In other words, workers could “afford” to be social beings, reflecting needs other than mere material concerns. The human relations created by takeovers contributed to the strengthening of managerial authority, which had been badly shaken by the economic changes. McLellan agreed with the necessity of unity of purpose and central authority19. “Since the capitalist and workman have only to divide this limited value, that is, the value measured by the total labour of the working man, the more the one gets the less will the other get, and vice versa. Whenever a quantity is given, one part of it will increase inversely as the other decreases”20. However, takeovers and management principles continued to dominate the process of production, with workers having little or no influence over the content of their work. If anything, the view of management as “the guardian of special knowledge,” able to understand information and its implications for coordination, administration, and profitability, carried with it the responsibility to protect the rights of ownership, while workers could not be trusted to act in ways that supported the well-being of the firm Central to the human relations approach was the improvement of the organizational climate, stemming from the assumption that motivation increases if workers feel good, and that workers feel good in a pleasant environment with supportive social relationships. The work environment thus was not to be organized so as to narrowly channel work efforts and prevent deviation, but rather to create the conditions conducive to performance21. Personnel departments now aimed toward sustaining work output by fostering communication, often through superficial improvements of the work environment. As critics have suggested, the worker continued to screw in the same two bolts all day long, but the drudgery was now sweetened by a radio playing in the background, flowers on the table, and an occasional friendly word22.

New approaches to work organization

At the same time, employee skill and knowledge gained in importance; operator mistakes on the capital-intensive, technologically advanced production equipment became increasingly costly. In the context of a booming economy, a tighter labor market, social unrest, and the emergence of post-materialist values, many workers became unwilling to follow the detailed instructions and orders inherent in takeovers work organization. Absenteeism and turnover were rampant in the auto industry and the blue-collar worker blues became a much-discussed topic. Based on these notions, the design principles of job rotation, job enlargement, and job enrichment emerged. The managers focused on job enrichment since, as he pointed out, zero plus zero still equals zero, as in the case of simply rotating different monotonous and unsatisfying jobs, for example. He emphasized that jobs had to be enriched so as to include planning, preparation, and control tasks in addition to mere execution functions. Conceptually, this indicated a radical departure from new principles of strict separation of planning/control and executing functions. According to the proponents of job enrichment, work motivation was no longer to be regulated through technology and/or external motivation systems. Instead, workers were to be encouraged to “regulate” themselves, to take on responsibilities and become interested in their work23.

Even before the emergence of the Argentinean job enrichment movement, another approach radically departing from human relations developed in Europe. In the British coal mining industry, which provided the central source of energy at the time of postwar reconstruction, stagnant productivity, labor disputes, and high worker turnover prompted a number of research projects conducted by scientists24. The focus was on improved labor-management relations and the diffusion of innovative work practices and organizational arrangements, in an effort to increase productivity without major capital investments. In this context, the almost accidental discovery of a new approach to organizing work led to the formulation of a set of principles that became the foundation of the takeover’s systems approach. In this perspective, organizations were viewed as consisting of both a social and a technical system, each of which functions according to different rules and thus has to be regulated and organized according to different principles. Finally, the concept of socio-technical systems designs implied that the system as a whole cannot be optimized through independent optimization of solely the social or the technical system; the integrated or joint optimization of both systems leads to the optimal functioning of the organization as a whole25, 26. The optimal functioning of open, continuously changing systems is seen as predicated on the degree to which the resources and competencies for controlling the work of different organizational units are returned to the members of that unit. The principle of motivation through task orientation rather than external control is enhanced in relatively independent organizational units that allow increased scope for the self-regulation of workgroups. Acknowledging that individuals are guided by varying goals and motivations, work has to be organized in a manner that allows different individuals to satisfy varying needs and to develop new goals and aspirations. And rather than enriching jobs in consultation with external experts, employees themselves are to plan and regulate their work activities by means of direct participation based on the principle of self-design27. This conceptualization of human nature and work leads to forms of work organization aimed at the development of competencies by giving workgroups the scope and latitude to complete tasks based on their own planning and guided only by specified deadlines and standards. There is no longer a “one best way” for doing things; rather there is discretion and decision latitude rooted in the recognition that different paths might equally well28. Petras writes: “At first, this “internal union” functioned clandestinely to avoid being identified by the union bureaucrats and fired by the employers. The organizers raised demands for job protection, worker power in the factory, better working conditions, an end to lying by trade union functionaries, and most important, open discussion and votes in factory assemblies”. 29

Though often highly successful in terms of productivity increases, workplace safety, and worker commitment, various factors prevented the widespread adoption of this approach. In particular, work rules rooted in traditionally adversarial labor-management relations, management’s reluctance to share control over work organization, and the expanding economy in many industrialized countries during the sixties provided little impetus for change. A breakthrough came with the Norwegian Industrial Democracy project30. A lag in industry modernization had slowed Norway’s economic growth compared to other countries of the region. These economic difficulties, combined with surging union demands for worker participation and control, led to a number of sustained takeovers. Yet the diffusion of production systems declined as workers lost interest in designs focused on changes in job distribution and wage systems rather than on workers’ concerns. Similarly, in implementing projects developed jointly by union and management, conflicts between union and management goals became evident. Largely management-dominated designs led unions to shift their focus to a collective resource approach, involving researchers, workers, and union representatives in the design of technologies linked to opportunities for skill development and expanded influence on the organization of work31.

Once again, a combination of economic forces and changing values gave rise to a new way of conceptualizing work and work organization and experimentation with new organizational choices. In the United States, these forces have only recently come into focus. Rapid technological change, quality instead of quantity of output as the key competitive element in an increasingly global economy, the shift from a producer- to a consumer-oriented market, and the changing expectations of an increasingly educated segment of the workforce have created an environment in which companies are forced to search for new ways to assure organizational success and survival. Petras underlines that “The Marxist trade unionists criticized the left parties–including their own–for engaging in politics with a “pail over their heads”: their own slogans echoed in their ears, and they confused the echo of their own voices with what the vast majority of workers were thinking and saying.”. 32

Marxist theory states that these structures and processes have a powerful influence on the characteristics and behavior of the organizational members. People in rigid and bureaucratic organizations tend to develop rigid and bureaucratic personalities; if the organization does not change, people are not likely to change either33. Organizations that are flexible and dynamic tend to “reproduce” similar characteristics in their employees. While characteristics of work and organizational design reflect the changes in the economic, political, and social environment, rather than replacing each other, different elements of the design approaches discussed here tend to coexist in various combinations in today’s organizations or in different industrial contexts34.

Competition is also intensified by the increasing globalization of economic exchange relationships and markets. Resulting changes in the size and variety of markets require quick responses and adaptation to new demands. Delayed or inadequate reactions to changing demands are likely to decrease competitiveness in the global economy. The ability to respond adequately to these challenges and to develop proactive strategies requires flexible forms of production and organization. High value-added production processes in adaptable and flexible organizations place new demands on employees’ skills, competence, and commitment to organizational goals. As the need for physical labor input decreases, the nature of skill is redefined. The traditional view of labor as a variable cost factor becomes contradictory to the training and ongoing competence development required for these different, often mental inputs35. Working-class abilities, in concert with the application of new technology, become a source of creativity, problem-solving, and improved decision-making in support of productivity, quality, and flexibility. The question of whether new technology is an opportunity or a threat is really the question of how new technology is designed and applied in work systems. Properly implemented, with a view toward enhancing human performance and creativity, the adequate application of new technologies offers new opportunities for improvements in workplace design and work organization36.

More recently, the production concepts underlying the sweeping success of the manufacturing industry, both at home and in the growing number of production facilities abroad, have caught the attention of Argentinean as well as European managers. Heralded as the model for the manufacturing process of the future, automotive and electronics manufacturers, who in the fifties and sixties sent their executives to the United States to learn about making cars and TVs have become the destination of a reverse pilgrimage. Thousands of Argentinean managers, sometimes accompanied by union leaders, have visited the new economic powerhouse, determined to discover and, it is hoped, to adopt the secret for success. The social, cultural, political, and economic context characterizing post-revolutionary countries also played a key role. The close cooperation between government and industry and a capital financing system that decreases dependence on short-term profit-oriented shareholders reduce the pressures for quick profits in favor of long-term product development and marketing strategies37. Furthermore, a more homogeneous, almost universally literate population, close ties between the education system and the employment system, and an employment relationship in which the destiny of the worker is closely linked to that of the employer (lifetime employment, seniority-based wage rates) engender a mutual commitment and incentive to invest in worker training and skill development38.

Relations between two social classes

In sum, takeovers in Argentina changed the nature of work and relations between two social classes: the working class and the bourgeoisie. Critics of takeovers and new products have argued that to ignore all these important factors or to subsume them under the concept of lean production reduces its utility for companies operating under different economic and cultural conditions. The influence of the manufacturing system on efforts to improve competitiveness and to adapt traditional mass production to changing technologies, markets, and customer demands has been considered in the United States and, increasingly, in Europe. Yet, takeovers in Argentina have emerged in the manufacturing sector that must be contrasted with the lean production approach, as they appear much more promising from the perspective of participatory work design and competence development. Class struggle in Argentina takes a peaceful form and did not lead to confrontations between worriers and the “bourgeoisie”.

Footnotes

  1. Bagchi, A. K. Neoliberal Economic Reforms and Workers of the Third World at the End of the Second Millennium of the Christian Era. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 41 (2000), 43.
  2. Hollander, Samuel. The economics of Karl Marx : analysis and application. (Cambridge University Press. New York, 2008), 72.
  3. Kuczyniski Jurgen. The Rise of the Working Class. (New York: World Univ. Library, 1990.), 98.
  4. Bellofiore, Riccardo, Roberto Fineschi. Re-reading Marx : new perspectives after the critical edition. (Palgrave Macmillan. New York, 2009), 41.
  5. Wynia, G. W. Argentina: Illusions and Realities. (Holmes & Meier,1992), 34.
  6. Braverman Harry. Labor and Monopoly Capital.( New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004), 87.
  7. Sawers, L. I. The Other Argentina: The Interior and National Development. (Westview Press, 1996), 51.
  8. Wynia, G. W. Argentina: Illusions and Realities. (Holmes & Meier, 1992), 55.
  9. Scholl, Ann; Arrizabalaga, Facundo. Reclaiming Democracy: A Lesson from Zanon. New Politics, 10, 1, (2004) pp. 110-112.
  10. Marx Karl, and F. Engels. 1972, Selected Works in One Volume. (New York: International), 168.
  11. Sawers, L. I. The Other Argentina: The Interior and National Development. (Westview Press, 1996), 72.
  12. Marx Karl, and F. Engels. 1972, Selected Works in One Volume. (New York: International), 68.
  13. Petras, James. Popular Struggle in Argentina: Full Circle and Beyond. Monthly Review, 55, 4 (2003), pp. 22-37.
  14. Roemer John. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1992), 87.
  15. Marx Karl, and F. Engels. Selected Works in One Volume. (New York: International, 1972), 202.
  16. McLellan, David. Marxism after Marx. (Palgrave Macmillan. New York), 2007, 33.
  17. Marx Karl, and F. Engels. Selected Works in One Volume. (New York: International, 1972), 31.
  18. McLellan, David. Marxism after Marx. (Palgrave Macmillan. New York, 2007), 42.
  19. Ibid., 23.
  20. Marx Karl, and F. Engels. Selected Works in One Volume. (New York: International, 1972), 217.
  21. McLellan, David. Marxism after Marx. (Palgrave Macmillan. New York, 2007), 76.
  22. Lichtenstein Nelson. Labor’s War at Home: The CIO in World War II. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999.), 72.
  23. Elster Jon. Making Sense of Marx.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 38.
  24. Geschwender James. Class, Race & Worker Insurgency: The League of Revolutionary Black Workers. (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), 57.
  25. Gorz André. Farewell to the Working Class. (Boston: South End, 2002), 32.
  26. Braverman Harry. Labor and Monopoly Capital. (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004), 82.
  27. Form, William H. The Internal Stratification of the Working Class: System Involvements of Auto Workers in Four Countries. Argentinean Sociological Review, 38, 6, (1973), pp. 697.
  28. Elster Jon. Making Sense of Marx.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 22..
  29. Petras, James. Popular Struggle in Argentina: Full Circle and Beyond. Monthly Review, 55, 4 (2003), 22-37.
  30. Lichtenstein Nelson. Labor’s War at Home: The CIO in World War II. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999.), 72.
  31. Braverman Harry. Labor and Monopoly Capital. (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004), 62.
  32. Petras, James. Popular Struggle in Argentina: Full Circle and Beyond. Monthly Review, 55, 4 (2003), 22-37.
  33. Lichtenstein Nelson. Labor’s War at Home: The CIO in World War II. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999.), 72.
  34. Geschwender James. Class, Race & Worker Insurgency: The League of Revolutionary Black Workers. (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), 38.
  35. Geschwender James. Class, Race & Worker Insurgency: The League of Revolutionary Black Workers. (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), 41.
  36. Ibid., 77.
  37. Geschwender James. Class, Race & Worker Insurgency: The League of Revolutionary Black Workers. (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), 27.
  38. Ibid., 65.

Marx’s, Engels’, Weber’s Ideas on World Development

Predispositions for the building structure of the modern world were formed not so long ago – when European colonist countries began spreading their influence into other parts of the globe. This expansion, in the end, determined the direction of social development, setting the course toward a new order of things, although continuing old traditions as well. Marx and Engels, in their Manifesto of the Communist Party, state that the bourgeois society takes its roots in feudal society, following its order of class antagonism of oppressors and oppressed. As Marx also claims in The German Ideology, “the division of labor – one of the chief forces of history – manifests itself also in the ruling class as the division of mental and material labor” (p. 1). This is an incredibly important note: labor has always been one of the most important pillars of society, and its division into two very rigid categories directly supported class inequality.

In a functional analysis of society, each of its interconnected parts – the economy, the family, and the government – interacted on the basis of a system of shared norms and values. Per these norms, the socialization of individual members of society took place. This collective consciousness provided the moral basis for society’s control over the aspirations and desires of individuals and protected them from conflict. With labor division, relations between people were built on the basis of the specialization of their labor functions. According to Marx and Engels, “society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other – Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (p. 15). This approach set the direction for industrial society and, in the future, served as one of the pillars of the socialist movement.

Marx and Engels substantiated dialectical materialist approaches to the study of society. In the general context of their views, the industrial city acted as a sign of the historical process and was a step towards economic development and the construction of socialism. This city destroyed the “idiosyncrasy of rural life” and formed ‘class consciousness,” the unification of the proletariat, and, subsequently, the social revolution. In the communities created in cities, the working class appeared and reached enormous numbers, coming face to face with its exploiters. Here, the elements of the class struggle” begin to develop, but also they reach their highest manifestation, and the transformation of the proletariat “from a class in itself, into a class for itself” takes place.

Marx raised the question of the movement of society into the “realm of freedom,” which is why his forecasts are often considered utopian. However, he always turned to the analysis of the essence of phenomena, and tried to delve into the fundamental laws of social development. It was important for Marx to explore the deep contradictions of social processes: birth and death, progress and regression of social systems. For Marx and Engels, the industrial city – a product of feudal history and the pinnacle of modern society – is a reflection of the essential features of the capitalist mode of production. The city becomes the center of a new division of labor, new technologies, and the organization of production, represented by the division into two dominant classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Cities become the scene of class conflicts and reflect the monopolization of capital, the collapse of small firms, and their absorption by large ones. Thus, the city, in their concept, is not the cause but only one of the features of capitalism.

Both Marx and Weber paid attention to conflict as the driving force behind any world changes. However, they had very different opinions on how a conflict should be resolved. For Weberian sociology, the main question was how different social groups fight for control in big communities, as well as how different groups maintain their power. In Science as Volition, Weber discusses how the scientific approach changed throughout history and how political, economic, social, and other world shifts influenced these changes. According to Weber, “Science today is a ‘vocation’ organized in special disciplines in the service of self-clarification and knowledge of interrelated facts” (p. 143). Meanwhile, Marx and Engels explained that the proletariat had to fight against the existing state system. In the course of the proletarian revolution, it was necessary to create a qualitatively different state structure capable of replacing the old forms of power. Marx and Engels believed that this new structure could determine the general prospect for the further socio-economic development of society.

Marx, Engels, Weber – all deemed it unacceptable to reduce the complex and diverse features of a community to one determinant. One needs to look for similarities in pre-industrial and modern societies but avoid reducing them to some kind of generalization and ultimately to simplification. Thus, one cannot make serious studies of the modern world without relying on history to determine how the ambitions of certain status groups or economic institutions have shaped the face of society. Each of the authors provided a convincing view on the development of modern society, which direction it is headed in, and what humanity could await in the future.

References

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1964). The German ideology. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1966). Manifesto of the Communist Party. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Weber, M. (1946). Science as a Vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (pp. 129–156). essay, New York: Oxford University Press.

Analysis of Marx’s Alienation Theory

Summary

Sociologists are concerned about Marx’s alienation because it contributes to social inequality and conflict. Alienation occurs when people are detached from the products of their labor, from each other, and from the process of labor (Johnson, 2008). It leads to feelings of isolation and disconnection, which can breed resentment and hostility. Marx believed that alienation was the root cause of social inequality and conflict. When people are alienated from the fruits of their labor, they become resentful and angry (Bratton & Denham, 2014). They feel like they are not being treated fairly, and this can lead to social unrest and revolution. Sociologists are concerned about Marx’s alienation because it has the potential to create chaos and upheaval in society.

Definitions

Marx’s alienation has three main ideas that will be compared in the paper. The first idea is the alienation from the product of labor, which means that workers feel a sense of detachment from what they produce. They are not in control of the work process and do not see the direct results of their labor (Johnson, 2008). This idea can result in a number of negative consequences, including a feeling of powerlessness and meaninglessness, as well as a sense that one is not in control of one’s own life. Marx believed that alienation was a key factor in creating class distinctions between workers and capitalists. He argued that capitalists were able to exploit workers because they controlled the means of production and that this domination led to feelings of alienation among the workforce (Raekstad, 2018). By understanding these concepts, people can begin to see how Marxist theory can help in understanding some of the underlying causes of inequality in societies.

The second idea is the alienation from the process of labor, addressing how workers are divorced from the actual act of producing goods or services. They are reduced to cogs in a machine with no sense of purpose or creativity (Raekstad, 2018). Marx’s idea of alienation was that workers were alienated from the process of labor when they were no longer in control of what they produced. They are also alienated from the product of their labor and from each other. When workers are not in control of what they produce, they become passive and mindless robots, doing the bidding of someone else (Johnson, 2008). They no longer see themselves as humans who are creating something beautiful but instead, as machines that are simply performing a task, which leads to feelings of boredom and emptiness.

The third idea is the alienation from other workers, where employees are pitted against one another, competing for scarce jobs and limiting solidarity. Karl Marx’s theory of alienation is a philosophical critique of capitalist society (Raekstad, 2018). Employees were estranged from one another, their jobs, and the rewards of their effort under capitalism. Workers are alienated from one another because they are competing for jobs and wages. They are similarly alienated from their work because it is not fulfilling or enjoyable (Johnson, 2008). Moreover, they are alienated from the fruits of their labor because profits go to the capitalists instead of to the workers. Marx’s theory of alienation has been criticized for being too pessimistic, but it remains an important idea in Marxist thought.

Similarities

It is important to note that the alienation from the product of labor and the alienation from the process of labor share some commonalities. In both cases, workers feel disconnected from what they produce. Regarding the product of labor, workers feel like their creations are not their own. They are not in control of how the product is made or what it is used for (Bratton & Denham, 2014). Concerning the process of labor, workers feel that they are machines, carrying out tasks without any real control over their work. They do not get to make decisions about what they produce or how they produce it, and therefore, both forms of alienation lead to a feeling of powerlessness and boredom. Conversely, there are few similarities between alienation from the product of labor and alienation from other workers. For example, all of them can lead to a sense of estrangement or disconnection (Johnson, 2008). Additionally, both can result in a feeling of powerlessness or lack of control, together with isolation and loneliness.

Differences

On alienation from the process of labor and alienation from other workers, there are a few differences. First, while both forms of alienation lead to feelings of isolation and disconnection, alienation from the process of labor typically leads to a sense that one is not in control of their life. This can be particularly demoralizing and frustrating both at the workplace and personal level. Second, while alienation from other workers can lead to tension and conflict, it also presents an opportunity for solidarity and connection. By contrast, alienation from the process of labor typically results in a feeling of competition or even hostility towards other workers (Johnson, 2008). Finally, while both forms of alienation lead to a sense of powerlessness, this powerlessness is experienced quite differently in each case.

On the other hand, alienation from the product of labor refers to the worker’s experience of being disconnected from what he or she produces. For example, the worker may feel that he or she is not in control of the production process and that the work is meaningless (Bratton & Denham, 2014). Alienation from other workers refers to the worker’s experience of being disconnected from other workers. For example, the worker may feel that he or she is competing with other workers for limited job opportunities and that there is little camaraderie among coworkers.

Conversely, alienation from the product of labor is the idea that people can be separated from the things they create. For example, a worker in a factory might create a product but then never see or touch it again. It would go off to be sold somewhere else, and the worker would have no connection to it (Raekstad, 2018). Alienation from the process of labor is the idea that workers can be separated from the work they do. For example, a worker might spend eight hours at a factory making something but then feel like they have done nothing when they go home. They might not see or feel any connection to what they made at work.

General Critique

Marx’s theory of alienation is one of the most important and influential theories of social isolation and estrangement in human history. It posits that capitalist societies alienate workers from the fruits of their labor, resulting in a feeling of powerlessness and lack of purpose (Johnson, 2008). While Marx’s theory has been criticized for its overly pessimistic view of human nature, it remains an important tool for understanding the effects of capitalism on individual psyches. Marx’s theory of alienation holds that when people are disconnected from the products of their labor, the process of labor, and other workers, they become alienated from themselves and their societies. This can lead to a number of negative consequences, including unhappiness, reduced productivity, and social unrest (Raekstad, 2018). While Marx’s theory has been challenged over the years, it remains an important framework for understanding the effects of disconnection on individuals and societies.

From the sociological theory, one of the key limitations of alienation from the product of labor is that it can lead to a disconnect between people and their work. This can result in a lack of satisfaction with work and a feeling that work is not fulfilling (Bratton & Denham, 2014). Additionally, when people are alienated from the product of their labor, they may feel as though they are not in control of their work, which can lead to feelings of frustration and powerlessness. Finally, when people are alienated from their work, it can be difficult for them to see the value in their labor; this can lead to a devaluation of both themselves and their work.

Limitations of alienation from the process of labor, in regard to course, is that it can lead to a lack of understanding or appreciation for the work that is being done. This can have consequences for both the worker and the organization as a whole (Raekstad, 2018). For example, when workers feel disconnected from their work, they may be less likely to put in extra effort or go above and beyond what is expected of them. They may similarly be more likely to engage in counterproductive behaviors such as tardiness, absenteeism, or loafing on the job. Moreover, a lack of understanding or appreciation for the work being done can lead to decreased creativity and innovation among workers (Johnson, 2008). Similarly, alienation from other workers makes employees feel disowned by the company and can lead to feelings of loneliness or isolation.

References

Bratton, J., & Denham, D. (2014). Capitalism and classical social theory (2nd ed.). University of Toronto Press.

Johnson, D. P. (2008). Contemporary sociological theory. An integrated multi-level approach. Springer.

Raekstad, P. (2018). Human development and alienation in the thought of Karl Marx. European Journal of Political Theory, 17(3), 300-323.

Marx’s Thesis on the Fetishism of Commodities

Marx’s thesis on the fetishism of commodities focuses on society’s tendency to place value on commodities based on contributed labor, which inevitably causes domination of the products over people. Furthermore, the fetishism affects the social interactions between the customer and producer: the valued objects are independently exchanged for the respective purposes. Such exchanges of objects occur independently of human needs or decisions (Ritzer, 2011). In this case, it is essential to note that the term fetishism does not suggest any sexual connotations; it only explains people’s inclination to devote themselves to the mentioned principles.

In modern society, we have fetishized technological trends in the same way that Marx’s thesis suggests. For example, Apple products are known to be highly appreciated for their “high-quality” and “accessibility”. The labor that goes into creating the products, despite sometimes being considered unethical, benefits the brand’s overall image. Since hours and hundreds of workers are dedicated to producing the items, their values increase independently of their quality. The product’s value is then highly dependent on the importance placed by the general public and marketing strategies rather than its original worth. Moreover, the workers that are required for the brand’s success also become commodities, as mentioned in the Manifesto of the Communist Party (Marx & Engels, 1818-1883). In this way, although existing independently of one another, all major parts of the modern socio-economic system become disconnected from their actual worth.

Marx’s thesis fails to explore how a commodity gains its value purely from the amount of labor included in the process. This could be outlined as a critical disadvantage to the thesis, as it ignores a central perspective that aid in changing the materialistic values of society. Another detail that was not mentioned in Marx’s work is related to the nature of commodities, why some are more valued than others. Still, the Manifesto of the Communist Party and Marx’s thesis provide a solid foundation for analyzing modern socio-economic relations.

References

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1818-1883). The Communist Manifesto. London: Electric Book Co.

Ritzer, G. (2011). Classical Sociological Theory (6th Ed). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Karl Marx and Max Weber’ Views on Sociological Theory

Comparing Ideas of Marx and Weber

Marx and Weber developed quite different theories concerning the dynamics of social change and the human society’s evolution. Marx believed that the conflict of interests and the fight for resources were the basic driving forces contributing to the society’s evolution and social change (Sanderson 131). Weber believed that the social changes was a result of the interaction of cultural values and the material base (Harper and Leicht 23). Thus, the two thinkers understood that ideas and material basis were instrumental in initiating the social change. However, the theorists had different views on the driving forces of the change as Marx saw it as the conflict between different groups while Weber focused on rationalism or charismatic leadership.

The Role of Conflict and Wealth

For Marx, the distribution of wealth was the major stimulus for the social change. Different social classes were in conflict for resources, which resulted in the social change (Weinstein 122). Weber did not pay as much attention to conflict as Marx did. Weber believed that rationalization was the major force that drove the changes in the society. The conflict could be between the rational (institutions, law) and non-rational (religion), and the societies tend to choose rationality (Michie 1543). According to Durkheim, the major conflict in the society was the crime. The individual’s action is in conflict with the norms that often change (Gunderson 150).

The Glue of the Society

The three theorists saw the aspects that united individuals within the society differently. Marx believed that ideology was the glue that kept the society together (Andersen, Taylor and Logio 335). The theorist also thought that the class ideology was the most important glue that united classes and encouraged them to struggle for wealth and resources. Weber saw rationalization as the most important aspect that held societies together. According to the thinker, the society was based on the strive for an order based on particular traditions and values (Michie 1543). Durkheim stressed that the collective conscience was the glue that united people within societies. The collective consciousness is the set of values, traditions, beliefs accumulated in the course of the society’s development (Gunderson 150).

A Concept to Discuss

As regards Marx’s perspective, the idea of the struggle for resources is the most valuable. This struggle can be seen as one of the most influential driving forces of any changes. Thus, individuals start experiencing their creativity when they want to access some resources. Being more assertive, hardworking, creative and so on can be regarded as the result of people’s struggle for resources (salary, societal status and so on).

Weber’s perspective is interesting in the thinker’s idea on the rationality. Institutions play a significant role in people’s life. Moreover, people manage to create more and more institutions that address some issues. At present, individuals are united, and their efforts create the value in terms of various institutions created. For instance, education is the institution that prepares younger generations to operate. Parents do not have to transfer all their skills to their children as schools, universities and so on do it in a more effective way. Of course, parents may focus on the spiritual or a very specific aspect.

Durkheim’s concept of the collective consciousness is the most relevant. A set of traditions, beliefs and values unites people without setting strict rules or boundaries. People feel connected and empowered when they understand that there is the set of values other people share.

Works Cited

Andersen, Margaret L., Howard F. Taylor and Kim A. Logio. Sociology: The Essentials. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.

Gunderson, Ryan. “Recovering a Disillusioned Modernism: The Enlightened Pessimism of Classical Sociology.” Social Theories of History and Histories of Social Theory. Ed. Harry F. Dahms. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 2013. 129-161. Print.

Harper, Charles L., and Kevin T. Leicht. Exploring Social Change: America and the World. New York: Routledge, 2015. Print.

Michie, Jonathan. Readers’ Guide to the Social Sciences. New York: Routledge, 2014. Print.

Sanderson, Stephen K. Rethinking Sociological Theory: Introducing and Explaining a Scientific Theoretical Sociology. New York: Routledge, 2015. Print.

Weinstein, Jay. Social Change. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010. Print.