Marxs Class, Alienation and Capitalism - Coursework Example

Marx’s Alienation and Capitalism of Institute Marx’s Theory of Alienation Marx considered alienationas a historical process rather than a mental one and is in large influenced by historical and socioeconomic conditions. He borrows his work from anthropological models of Feuerbach’s writings and presents them in a Hegelian form (Churchich, 1990, p. 36).This is explained by the intellectual climate in which, Marx’s work was dominated by the influence of Hegel. Together with many of his contemporaries, they were part of a group known as Young Hegelians. Marx disagreed with Hegel on the genesis of alienation, which he offered as resulting from the material conditions of the political economy. In his manuscripts of 1843 and 1844, Marx uses the term Entfremdung (‘alienation’ or ‘estrangement’). The term suggests the separation of things according to Wood (2004, p. 2) which, naturally belong together. It can also refer to the establishment of some relation of indifference or the hostility of things that are in proper harmony. In his theory of alienation, he claimed that other determinants such as class relational and emotional conflicts are also responsible for class conflict (Scheff, 2006, p. 256). He went on to implicate the emotions associated with alienation being impotence that Scheff (2006, p. 256) translated to shame while indignation to anger. These emotions are reflected as a result of capitalism pending that it generates disturbances in social relationships and the self. Capitalism according to Marx has transformed the labor of human beings into a dehumanizing and exhausting experience. This is further supported by Wood (2004, p. 3), who asserts that division of labor is ‘alienating’ in that it separates people into rigid categories and sets human activities in an ‘alien’ relation to each other. This is done by developing specialization, which, in effect results to the detriment of each person’s individuality and integral humanity. Industrial production, with its division of labor, specialization of functions and intense competition contributes to artificial segmentation of the whole of human nature and relations (Caoili, 2012, p.305). Individuals become separated from their counterparts as their focus becomes entrenched in work. Caoili (2012, p. 305) further outlines how an individual at this point as explained by Marx becomes an abstraction which is used to refer to any factor which, appears isolated from the social whole. This framework of alienation then can be used to review the totality of human relationships in its various aspects. The theory interestingly enough, is not deprived entirely of psychological connotation as highlighted by Churchich (1990, p. 43) as Marx believes that the socioeconomic relations that unite men with nature and society are the real relations. It would then be true to argue that real human beings cannot be understood unless they are related to their social milieu and nature. Marx on other hand regarded alienated individuals as being involved in some sort of irrationality as both producers and victims of life circumstances, which do not make sense. He comes quite close to describing alienation explicitly as lack of meaning or self-worth. He affirms that alienated workers are people who have been robbed of all actual life content (Wood, 2004, p. 9). The economic implications brought about by capitalism further alienated people from one another by making them indifferent to the needs of others. This is primarily driven by the desire to be ahead of others, taking on a self-centered attitude to achieve goals and be considered economically powerful (Wood, 2004, p.4). Alienation, as studied by Marx, can be in four different forms. They include alienation from the end product, the work process, the true self, and others. In alienation of the end product, the workers feel they have been separated from the goods that though they actively participated in producing it, it does not belong to them. The workers end up feeling as though they have no stake in the goods. Ultimately, they have no pride in their work because they feel that they are just an extension of the means of production (BookCaps, 2011, p. 1). In alienation from the work process, the worker feels they have no control over the process and they feel powerless. This implies that the work role they occupy in general is considered of little importance in comparison to other roles the individual occupies in his or her life. They could range from family, community and to leisure contexts (Rabindra, 1982, p. 79). With the true self, Marx called this form of alienation species being which, describes the social alienation of people from their true nature (BookCaps, 2011, p. 1). He believed that it was human nature to be free, productive, and considered capitalism as a concept that destroyed this freedom. He described in two parts the nature of the species essence. The first is known as plurality and it is based on the belief that it is human nature to want to do more than one activity at a time. The second part is dynamism and he described it as the ability of human beings to conceive results of their activities. Alienation from other people is based on the premise of capitalism being the force behind driving people away from their social life and plunging them into the world of work. Marx infers this from the previous observation that human beings are alienated from their species being. This results into alienated subjects being unable to relate to each other since labor under capitalism has stripped them of the capacity to do so. In Alienation and social class, Marx expounds why alienation is particularly negative. He states that, while both the possessing and the proletariat class are subject to alienation, the latter feels more destroyed in this alienation. This is because they lose so much especially socially as opposed to the bourgeoisie. Marx’s notion of alienation rests on a shaky assumption. It assumes that people can successfully abolish a market-based society and replace it with a democratic, comprehensive planned society. With his theory, it becomes difficult to create a comprehensively planned system that puts an end to scarcity and uncertainty (Concise Encyclopedia of Economics). On the opposite side, Marx gives an overview of how non-alienated labor may look like. He considers it to be characteristic of an individual being able to maintain his identity even when involved in labor and not feel as though their identity has been lost. Additionally, there would exist a mutual relationship between the producer and consumer who both affirm each other. Lastly, non-alienated labor would confirm human beings’ fundamental character as social beings. Peffer (1990, p. 54) argues that although it may be tempting to claim Marx’s theory of alienation and the associated values of freedom, self-development, and self-realization. The theory then raises two problems. First, it would not be able to account for Marx’s concern for how the above values especially that of freedom is distributed. The second problem is that without some sort of principle to determine these values, it becomes difficult to implement them in improving the work environment. Marx Class Theory Karl Marx Class theory is based on the notion that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. This view instigates that the human society has remained in a divided state between classes who fight in the pursuit of class interest. It has remained so since human being became less primitive and more civilized. In capitalism, for example, the factory is the center of differences between different types of classes; those being exploited and the exploiters or the buyers and the sellers (Levine 2014, p. 261). It is not a functional collaboration as it assumed. Marx proposed that the class interest and the existence of power confrontations were the basis determinants of social states and historical processes. Marx suggested that relationships between people are dependent on their current position to a means of production. That is the viability in the access of power and resources, which are a scarce resource to attain. He did not think that irrelative access should not always lead to active class struggle under every condition. He argued that the probability of class conflict was individually dependent on a society differentiation. Such a society produced elements of conflict that were a characteristic of that society, as the social structure behaved differently especially in terms of production. Marx interest was more focused on how the social structure designed the experiences of the people in it, therefore, influencing their action to improve the society welfare (Hudis 2013, p.67). However, it is important to note that class interests are not developed instinctively. They grow and become prevalent as people are exposed to particular social positions in a given social circumstance. For example, workers are divided amongst themselves by competition to outdo each other. However, when a common problem like increment in wages occurs, they are united to fight against a common “enemy”: the employers. Separate individuals group when it comes to fighting a common battle against another class. However, in normal circumstances they are hostile to each other as they are in competition. Class interests are different from individual interests. Common interests are mainly derived from belonging to a particular stratum within a social structure that infers healthy and productive relations. The fate of common interests is changed from “class in itself” to “class for itself” when individual members of that class are involved in the same kind of struggles. It leads to the development of a communication network that makes them aware of the existence of a common fate if the problem persists (Burkett 2014, p. 123). At that point, individuals form a group to articulate common interest. Though individuals may be in the stratum of a position, they only become aware of their similar interest in their differences with an opposing class. Marx believed that the foundation of stratification lies on how different individuals are interconnected to one means of production. He proposed that major classes are composed of owners of labor, capital, and land, who depend on wages, profit, and rent. Class referred to a group of person who were engaged in one function in the organization of production. However, self-conscious classes formed an interesting group of people. They shared a common fate and had an inherent need to be visible when facing a common enemy when endeared in an organization structure. Such self-conscious classes emerged only when there was a convergence of material interest. That is a combination of economic and political requirements that intoned with the moral and ideological need. Therefore, Marx used the same kind of thinking to argue that, exposed to appropriate conditions; a class was bound to develop consciousness. He argued that a bourgeois could not develop consciousness due to the existing competitive interest existing among capitalists despite its collective interests. Economists draw a picture of an economic system whereby a market economy is a one mans world. He works for his interest and is interested in maximizing his gains. He, however, contributes to the harmony and interest of the whole system. Therefore, an individual despite working for their interest will contribute to the overall functioning or downfall of a system. Utilitarian contrasts to Marx theory argued that self-interest acted as a regulator to a harmonious society. Marx saw individual self-interest especially among capitalists, led to the ultimate destruction of capitalism and their class. He opinionated that the fact that many capitalists acted without the interest of other persons or even that of their society led to the deepening of the economic crisis. It led to the ultimate destruction of all. The roles and condition work exposes to workers initiates’ togetherness. It helps them to overcome the competitiveness that existed at first and replaces it with combined action aimed at attaining a common interest. In contrast, capitalists are bound by the competition that exists in the market. Their structural position hinders them to get to the point whereby they can have the same common interest. Capitalism separates individual players using market and competitiveness. Marx believed that capitalists had the ability to go beyond personal interests. However, such a need only existed when it came to political or ideological system that entertained the existence of collective interest. Therefore, it is evident that political power and ideology serves the same purpose on capitalists, which class consciousness imparted on working class. However, the probability is only apparent. According to Marx, the bourgeois will always be the victim competitiveness characteristic of capitalism as a way for its survival. Bourgeoisie existed only in a particular realm. It can lead to a rise of consciousness but one that is a “false” consciousness: a consciousness that does impart self-interest to the bourgeois. A bourgeois dominance is at stake when such economic conditions encourage the working class to unite by solidarity (Draper 1978, p.34). The working class becomes aware of the common interests that binds them and get the push from the necessary class of ideas to be able to face its enemy. If a worker realizes that they have been alienated from the production process, capitalism is at the risk of being wiped away and the whole system reinvented. Marx’s Capitalism Commodities are meant to satisfy human wants and needs. They form a fundamental part of capitalism, a form of economy that bases its ideology on the capacity to accumulate such objects. The criteria that are used to determine the value of a commodity is based on its real usefulness in satisfying a particular want or need. The usefulness forms the use-value, an element of the commodity that is intrinsic to it. Furthermore, a commodity has to have an exchange-value: the relative value in relation to other commodities during a transaction. However, unlike the use-value, the exchange is not bound to a commodity. Exchange value only helps the owner to determine what value it has in relation or comparison to other existing commodities. Notably, in a complex market, any commodity, despite how many wants or needs it satisfies, is measured in a measurable form of money. The monetary value in terms of exchange-value refers to the value it holds in a market situation. Marx then poses the question, where does “value” come from?” he questions how commodities that have different use value can be measured using the scale of monetary units (Marx 1999, p. 74). He answers those questions by proposing that the universal measure of value expressed in monetary form, relatively corresponds to the amount of labor use to come up with that commodity. He argues that labor is the only fundamental thing that is common with commodities having a different satisfaction of needs and wants. It is where Marx labor theory of value is propagated. The theory implies that commodities have a social dimension, as they are not intrinsically bound to the exchange value. People, however, depend on a society entire labor division and economic interdependence where people produce varying products bound for a common market. Therefore, the value of labor measured in monetary terms is used to refer to systems social and economic interdependence that it inherently produces. Marx expounded on a commodity’s value and its social dimension as in a relationship. He argued that commodities were useful in two ways; Firstly, objects of exchange with a monetary value. Secondly, they reflect on the labor that went into them and the social relation of production that labor was put into. Capitalist’s society construes that a commodity value only comes from its price, and not what money stands for, which is social labor. Marx felt that the way people reduced the quality of a commodity to its monetary exchange was not right. Marx argued that capitalists had created a mythical significance to money. He noted those bourgeois reduced economies, the production involved and the interchange of commodities to the behavior of money. They failed to address what commodities represented in terms of its social aspect. Marx argued that capitalism viewed money as something that needed to seek after and accumulated. He argued that capitalists started with money that they transformed into a commodity and then transformed those commodities to more money. Therefore, capital was a means to acquire more money. It summed up the primary aim of capitalists: to accumulate capital and not commodities. To increase capital, capitalists rely on labor power. Workers in turn return treat their labor power as a commodity that they turn into monetary value by selling it to factory owners. The capitalists, using the commodity of labor, increase the value of the commodity and sell it on a higher bid on the market. Through the creation of surplus value, the capitalist accumulates capital. Importantly, a commodity value equals the labor value that has been put into it, which comes from the workers initiative (Giddens, 1973, p.94). Marx argues that, therefore, a capitalist will force workers to invest more man-hours so that they can generate the needed surplus value. The capitalist needs to set a particular length of working time that will translate into profits. He divides the working hours into two; one that pays the workers and the other that generates the surplus that initiates capitalism. It forms of workers exploitation. A capitalist ensures that their commodity is presented to the market at the most competitive price. They buy labor at the lowest price available, which is only meant to keep the worker alive. The capitalists have been allowed to set the rules of engagement with the worker and that are detrimental to the worker and beneficial to the capitalists. Marx states that the relationship that exists between capitalists and labor has been construed to be normal by the existence of capitalist states (Shanin, 1983, p. 47). He argues that the mode of exploitation presented by a capitalist economic system will lead to the end of it. Marx addressed the idea of alienation of the worker from his humanity. While in exile in England, Marx was able to have a real picture of capitalism in the textile industry economy. He witnessed textile laborers living in poor living conditions barely surviving. It was in contrast to the growth in production and boom that was evident in England and all around Europe. Marx emphasized that with capitalism poverty was going to be prevalent. He argued that poverty would continue as capitalism advanced. The poor working laborers would be at the mercy of the capitalists as there would be no defense mechanism for the workers. However, he pointed out that for the capitalists to survive in the competitive market, he would have to endanger his business. He introduced the class theory that showed that classes would grow on common ground that advanced their interests (Marx 1992, p.194). The bourgeois will tend to unite against the workers to defend their monopoly using any necessary means. On the other hand, workers, through a common interest, start to initiate a push against the capitalists, as they demand for their rights and better-working conditions. If the situation is left unchecked with the interference of the administrative units, it will escalate to violence. The workers attack the aristocratic members of the society, as they feel exploited. They believe they are living on their sweat and need to share with them the much that they are enjoying from their labor. Bibliography BookCaps. 2011. Marxism in Plain and Simple English: The theory of Marxism in a way anyone can understand. BookCaps study Guides.www.bookcaps.com. Burkett, P.,2014. Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective. Chicago: Haymarket Books. Caoili, A.M., 2012.The Concept of Alienation in Marx. Philippine Social Sciences Review 48. No 1-4. Churchich, N., 1990. Marxism and Alienation. Cranbury: Associated University Press Cutler, A., and Hindess, B., 1977. Marx’s Capital and Capitalism Today. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Books. Draper, H., 1978. Karl Marxs Theory of Revolution, Vol. 2: The Politics of Social Classes. Seattle: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform Giddens, A., 1973. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goldner, L., 2005. Herman Melville: Between Charlemagne and the Antemosaic Cosmic Man: Race, Class and the Crisis of Bourgeois Ideology Ideology in an American Renaissance Writer. Maryland: Queequeg Publications. Harman, C., 2010. Zombie Capitalism: Global Crisis and the Relevance of Marx. New York: Haymarket Books. Hudis, P., 2013. Marx’s Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism. Oregon: Historical Materialism. Lancaster, C., 2012. Marx’s theory of alienation and its relevance to religion. Word press. Levine, R F., and Collins, P.H., 1998. Social Class and Stratification. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Levine, R., and Acker, T., 2006. Joan Social Class and Stratification: Classic Statements and Theoretical Debates. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Marx, K., and Fernbach, D.,1999. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. London: Penguin Classics. Marx, K., and Fowkes B., 1992. Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy. London: Penguin Classics. Peffer, G.R., 1990. Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice. New Jersey: Princeton Legacy Library. Rabindra, K, 1982.Work Alienation: An Integrative approach. New York: Greenwood Publishing. Scheff, J.T., 2006. The Emotional/Relational World: Shame and the social bond. Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Springer Publishers, pp.256-270. Shanin, T., 1983. Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and the Peripheries of Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press. Wood, W.A., 2004. Karl Marx. New York: Routledge. Read More