Karl Marx and Capitalism - Essay Example

Karl Marx and Capitalism To envision that Karl Marx, through his doctrine, would espouse Capitalism seems almost impossible at first glance. But, understanding his philosophy, it becomes apparent that these seemingly diverse views can co-exist in harmony. This paper is what forms my attempt to look into the possibility of Marx’s economic theory forming a ground for advancement and modernization of capitalism rather than its annihilation as Marx himself had predicted and wanted. A paradox of sorts? While we are aware of Marx’s antagonism toward capitalism as a state of economic and political being, and his denunciation of it, what we are unaware of are certain paradoxes a reading of Marx’s theory would present, which led to capitalism becoming a stronger entity: not by striking against these paradoxes, but feeding on them, by incorporating certain ideas that formed the basis for Marx’s anti-capitalist sentiment as indispensable for its survival. I discuss these points under three areas that form the premise of my argument. The first deals with Marx’s Labor Theory of Value in which Marx talks about the distribution of wealth as being unfairly in the control of the capitalist, and the profits being usurped by the provider of capital, leaving the laborer with meager wages that just provide them for nothing more than bare existence. In the second, I analyze the idea of doing away with private ownership of property and its being under the State’s control. In the third, I draw a parallel between labor and capital in the way they work, establishing that capital and capital instruments are a necessity in the means of production, and hence that their investors are legitimately eligible for the profits generated through surplus. Thus I bring forth the ideas that lead me to believe that Marxian theory, in effect contributed to the development of, rather than demolish the capitalist structure it had set out to do away with. Having said this, I would also like to add that while this is an interesting phenomenon to observe, one cannot completely discount Marx’s role in developing the economic theory and his contribution to the recognition of the value of labor at all levels in an economic and political setup that forms the social structure of today. The basic premise of Marx’s theory about the value of labor is the claim that the value of a commodity is defined by the average number of labor-hours that go into its production. Then, the profit a capitalist makes when such a commodity is sold is what forms the surplus value of the commodity, and is not his rightful share but what he makes by cheating the laborer. The capitalist buys labour-power in order to use it; and labour-power in use is labour itself. The purchaser of labour-power consumes it by setting the seller of it to work.” (Kelso, 2005, n.p.) Here, if one were to take into account the scientific and technological developments the world has seen since the industrial revolution, we find that it’s the capital-provider who becomes the rightful recipient of the profits made by them by selling the product. Let me elaborate. With the advancement of technology, we have seen times, as much as we are seeing now, the production of machines that create more machines, automated ones too, which create a commodity that is sold. The machines themselves form a commodity too. Thus the profits that are brought home would be deserved by the ones that produced them: the machines which are owned by the capitalist, and hence the profit should go to him or her. Besides, if a product’s value were to be defined by the number of labor-hours that go into it’s making, then the fundamental paradox that is brought out is an interesting one: how can a product, say, an automated coffee-maker be of such a low value as the number of man-hours a labourer spends in operating the machine that makes it? Or, say, the value of a cup of coffee it makes be what it takes to make it: pressing the on/off buttons? I am not overlooking the fact that in my example a cup of coffee is not just a machine and a worker, but raw material too. Here, let me invoke one more paradox: if the cup, the coffee beans and the milk and sugar have been provided by the capitalist, then the worker’s share must include the profit made on the entire sales proceeds. Or should it? Thus we see that it’s the use of machines and the reduction of man-hours in their operation is what Marx had seen, but had not comprehensively elaborated on. Marx advocates the ownership of property by the state, and its relocation to the subjects under the state’s supervision. While he did understand the dependence of the capitalist on private property, what he perhaps did not realize was the fact that placing political and economic power in the hands of the state would leave everyone even more vulnerable to exploitation by a few who formed the government. While this could just have been the fear of the people for long, the fall of the Soviet Union only compounded the belief that economic power in the hands of a few was a better alternative to economic and political powers- both in the hands of a fewer. This was the very nature of a capitalist setup he had set out against. I am not trying to put this point across in my analysis as one of the aspects of Marxian theory being more intensely capitalist in nature than his vehemence in criticizing it. This is another of the glaring contradictions that he perhaps overlooked. While the Marxist utopia elaborates itself on the basic premise that if exploitation, as it is perceived under capitalist modes of production is eliminated, the basic “goodness” in human beings will ensure an ideal existence. This is made possible when political power and the means of production is seized by the proletariat. The ensuing establishment of a socialist state is envisioned as the proletariat itself, run by a few on their behalf. This, through the example of the erstwhile Soviet Union, has proved to be the hamartia of the Marxian theory. Given the defeat of the “goodness” theory, it is argued by many that a possible alternative, albeit not from a Marxist location, is the equal distribution of private property among all citizens. Marx elaborates as the reason for unequal possession of capital, primitive accumulation.…the accumulation of capital presupposes surplus-value; surplus-value pre-supposes capitalistic production; capitalistic production pre-supposes the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labour-power in the hands of producers of commodities. The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn in a vicious circle, out of which we can only get by supposing a primitive accumulation (previous accumulation of Adam Smith) preceding capitalistic accumulation; an accumulation not the result of the capitalist mode of production but its starting-point.(Marx, n.d., n.p.) This should ensure the existent disparity of initial capital in possession of individuals, which leads to subsequent debilitation and exploitation owing to the lack of equal means to capital. One of the criticisms lodged against the Marxian analysis of the economy is that it is invested in modes of distribution rather than that of production. Thus Marx investigates how the labourer is exploited by being worked excessively and denied an equal share of the surplus being produced. Further, Marx argues that all the profit from the sale of the commodity rightfully belongs to the labourer alone. The capitalist is sought to be made a labourer from his present position of being a mere investor. It is argued that this conclusion of Marx, that the capitalist is a useless appendage that usurps the fruits of the laborers’ effort is flawed. The capitalist is an essential part of the mode of production. The capitalist through investment, the administrator, the manager are functionaries who ensure that the various systems apart from the physical involvement in the forging of the good run smoothly. The scientist puts in intelligence to create machines that not only are increasingly replacing the demand for human labor in terms of manual labor but also in terms of the intelligence demanded of the labourer in every step involved in the manufacture of commodities. Thus the mental labor required on the part of the labourer during the manufacture of the good is pre-compensated by the scientist or the manager by creating a machine to work with, that already is capable of taking care of a particular component of labor that will be necessary in the process of production. The development and improvement of capital instruments as well as the element of supervision involved in regulating and making efficient the process of production involve labor, albeit of a different nature as compared to the manual labor of the non-specialised labourer. It is also argued that the field of research and technology occupies a more prioritised status as compared to mere labour since it is these fields that ensure ever-increasing productivity and efficiency in the mode of production sector. Marx only recognises the power of labour, what he overlooked was the importance and necessity of capital instruments along with labor, and even perhaps, the latter increasingly replacing the former in the creation of wealth. The capitalist as the source of contribution of capital to the production of capital instruments thus deserves a proportionate share of the surplus created from labor. Thus we see that Marxian theory has more than one aspect to it that is more in favor of capitalism than against it. Under the first of the three points above, we saw how the profits of a commodity can, justifiably, and toeing the Marxist line; belong to the capitalist who owns a production unit, a machine, for instance. This is the first of the ways in which I see in Marxian theory, a being. In the second, we see how a socialist set-up in which the governing body of a people, a state, is in-charge of the property; much in the same way as a capitalist set-up would be. In the third, we’ve seen how capital functions in the same way as labor does, in the process of production. The self-same line of thought that Marx follows to define, to underline the power, the value of labor, is what can be followed to accentuate that of the capital. And as I mentioned earlier, the structure of capitalism drew from its critiques to reinvent, to evolve itself into what it is today. The opposition that was presented to it by Marx’s theory was not met by retaliation, but by appropriation of elements that it had to consider; left unconsidered these negative aspects could have meant the death of capitalism. The capitalist world today boasts of increased labor-freedom, more individual and collective benefits for the workers, and in effect, increased sympathy rather than antipathy toward its structure from the workers’ end. As one can clearly notice, Marx did not lend destructive blows to the foundations of capitalism. On the contrary, he let his own logic form a platform for its evolution and further growth, becoming one of its greatest ever singular champions. Works Cited Kelso, Louis O., “Karl Marx: The Almost Capitalist”. Center for Economic and Social Justice. Reprinted from American Bar Association Journal, March 1957. Retrieved 24 Nov. 2005 from: . Marx, Karl. “Capital” Part 8 Chapter 26, Accessed from University of California website Retrieved 24 Nov. 2005 from: . Read More