This paper examines the core elements of Marx’s Critique of Classical Political Society and identifies the validity of its theoretical underpinnings. Overview At the heart of Marx’s critique of classical political economy were three basic assumptions. First, capitalism was a commercial system grounded in productivity and transferring private property in a liberal market. Secondly, property was valued by reference to the extent of human work put into production. Thirdly, the classical political economy involves a capitalist state where competition and profits give way to exploitive behavior tensions between classes. What often occurs is too much production which leads to crises which in turn threaten the capitalist state. Thus historically, capitalism will prove to be inefficient and inequitable in terms of protecting the individual and “social welfare”.5 The recurring theme in Marx’s critique of classical political economy is Marx’s attention to David Ricardo’s theory of value. For Marx, classical political economy was flawed by virtue of its inconsistent logic and methodology and thus rendered it incapable of explaining and developing an efficient political economy.6 Essentially Marx was of the opinion that classical economics overvalued production and failed to appreciate the production throughout history has always shared similar elements. Classical political economists failed to distinguish between the common elements of production throughout history and the elements of production specific to capitalism. For the most part, production and labour in capitalist societies were the main sources of “income” and “power of the dominant social class”.7 Thus a prominent theme in Marx’s critique of classical political economy was his focus on value theory and the idea that capital conferred power on the elites as a result of its ability to deliver profits. Value Theory Marx identified four theoretical flaws in Ricardo’s value theory that form the bases of his critique of classical political economy. The four theoretical flaws were, the theory of wage labour; the theory of capital and exploitation; the theory of completion and the theory of rent.8 Each of Marx’s theoretical flaw sin value theory are analyzed below. Theory of Wage Labour Marx took the position that the value theory was flawed for its predisposition to place a value on property by reference to the labour value applied to production of the property or commodity. For Marx, this explanation was intrinsically flawed as it made no sense for the value of a specific commodity to rely on another commodity’s value. Classical political economy could not provide an adequate explanation for this theory of value. Marx specifically stated: Labour itself has exchange-value and different types of labour have different exchange-values. If one makes exchange-value the measure of exchange-value, one is caught up in a vicious circle, for the exchange-value used as a measure requires in turn a measure. This
Cite this document
(“The Validity of Karl Marx's Critique of Classical Political Economy Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/sociology/53905-what-criticisms-did-marx-make-of-ychclassical
(The Validity of Karl Marx'S Critique of Classical Political Economy Essay)
“The Validity of Karl Marx'S Critique of Classical Political Economy Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/sociology/53905-what-criticisms-did-marx-make-of-ychclassical.
Cited: 0 times
The Validity of Karl Marx’s Critique of Classical Political Economy By Name Institution Course Date The Validity of Karl Marx’s Critique of Classical Political Economy Introduction Marx’s critique of classical political economy is essentially an expression of his own conceptualization of capitalism.1 Marx essentially argued that the greatest difficulty with classical political economists was that they did not take a detailed account of historical developments in society.2 Marx claimed that the classical political economy had emerged as a result of historical developments to a natural progression toward capitalism.3 Marx was informed by historical methods of production such as slavery an…
The workers perform labor; they generate output for companies (Plamenatz 1975, 263). The companies sell these products and obtain revenue from it. The revenue earned is invested by companies to invest in machinery which in turn replaces the workers. For example, in the past workers were being used to do construction, but now machines do all the work thus unemployment has increased.
Indeed if communism or socialism is considered as a social theory, explaining the course of the evolution of human society as well as human history from a more or less contented viewpoint, the mode of production and the labor put into it, the Communist Manifesto can be accepted as the political guidance for those who are involved in the production system of the modern capitalist society.
It will be argued that his economic theory is inseparable from his interpretation of history. For Marx, history is defined by a progress of the class struggle – the struggle is between those who own their own means of production (bourgeoisie) and those who have to sell their labor in order to subsist (proletariat).
Marx has presented extensive argument for his stance and against the existing social structure that he strive to change and uproot in order to establish a society that was free from the strains and shackles of workmanship, bondage, and capitalism (Marx). Although the Manifesto covers a lot of topics in great depth, a complete analysis of the book is beyond the scope of this paper.
Karl Max, a German philosopher, socialist, revolutionary socialist, economist, journalist and a historian, was born in 5th May 1818 and died in 14th march 1883 (Mehring 12). He contributed immensely in the development of socialist political movement and social science with his ideas. During his lifetime, Karl Max published a number of books, for example, ‘The Communist Manifesto in 1848’ and ‘Capital’ in 1867.
I will also shed light on Marx's notion of affluence, what Marx says about wealth and charity, Marx’s solution to this problem and how he justifies it. I shall also attempt to explain what Marx meant when he wrote ‘worker of the world unite’ and ‘religion is the opium of the masses’.
Friedrich Hegel was a major figure in German idealism with historicism account of reality with which he developed a philosophical framework that accounted for integrated and developmental way of for the relation of mind and nature, the subject and object of knowledge, psychology, religion history and philosophy (Barbour, 2012).
He distinguished between appearances and reality, believing that historically and socially, ideology is what has prevented people in societies from seeing the material conditions of their lives clearly. This belief has been updated and made relevant to today's society through a recent documentary filmed by Morgan Spurlock titled Super Size Me.
According to the paper, Marx’s understandings into actors and organizations must be understood in the setting of his assessments on human nature, which is the source for his critical study of the inconsistencies of capitalism. In his opinion, an illogicality exists concerning our human nature and efforts in the capitalist organization.
3 pages (750 words)Essay
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you!Try us!
Let us find you another Essay on topic The Validity of Karl Marx's Critique of Classical Political Economy for FREE!