Means of Production, Relation of Production, and Procreation - Essay Example

Sociology essay Assignment Means of production, relation of production and procreation Introduction The origin of the family in the sociological and anthropological theory dates back to the late 19th and 20th century. It is theorized that the conjugal family grew out of more complex systems of kinship, cohabitation, marriage and division of labor. Early sociological theories are associated with Frendrich Engles and Marx. They link family and marriage especially monogamous nuclear family to the development of sedentary agriculture and the development of private property Means of production, relation of production and procreation Engels links it to the elaboration of exchange relations between men and women and this is manifested in gendered division of labor. In this arrangement, women are historically associated with the domestic sphere or private sphere and men with the public sphere. Engels assumed that this division of labor was both natural and egalitarian, meaning that neither of the spheres was valued over the others. However with the rise of patriarchal nuclear family and property relations between men and women transformed this balanced division of labor. This created hierarchical order in the human societies where women’s labor, personality and sexuality were undervalued and controlled. The origin of the family links the association of women with the domestic sphere and men with the public sphere. The origin of the family and marriage is related to the narrowing of kinship relations to patriarchal nuclear family with increased economic specialization. There are at least three sources of the origin of the family. First, are the social and physical lives of non human primates. All primates share some characteristics which were preconditions for the evolution of the human family. To begin with, young ones are born relatively helpless. They need attention of the parents for over months and years. The long childhood and maternal care produce close relations between the young ones and the mothers who exist together and help to tend to the juniors till they grow up. Secondly, monkeys and apes like human beings mate in all the months of the year instead of Estrus. Due to biological evolution, human female’s sexuality is regulated by mental images, emotions, cultural rules and preferences. This makes human beings and other primates distinct from other specific mammals such as all primates form bands, troops composed of both sexes and the children who need protection. Primates therefore socialize continuously through mutual grooming, playing and frequent sexual relations. Second, the tools and home sites of prehistoric and proto human beings discovered through archaeological studies. Fossil records notes that apes which were ancestral to human beings roamed widely in Asia and Europe and Africa and an early man Ramapethecus appeared in India and East Africa. However before its appearance, there were time spans in which the climate became drier and subtropical forests dwindled and reduced. Therefore its hypothesized that apes in Africa had to come down from trees and adopt to terrestrial life and overtime they developed feet and hands used not only to grasp and tear but also to carry objects like weapons and infants which before clung to mothers body hair. And third, the lives of hunters and gatherers discovered and studied in the modern times and this includes the simple band societies and other non developed peasant groups. Common characteristics include: resources were owned communally; the household is the main unit of economic production with men, women and children dividing labor and pooling produce; leadership went to intelligent, respectful and courageous men and women who constituted the elder strata of organization (Marx, 1977)believes that the overall structure of society is heavily influenced by how the economy is organized. To him society is divided into two that is those who own the means of production and those who only own their labor. Those who own the means of production control the society. They exploit the workers with meager wages and this imbalance of power leads to conflict between the owners and laborers. He was disturbed by the social conditions produced by the capitalist which include long working hours, harsh working conditions and low pay. He argued that the ills of the capitalist system will not be solved until the workers overthrew those in power. Conclusion A socialist society will not have classes and oppression, meaning that societies will not be split into small classes which monopolize economic and political power and large masses of people who benefit little from the wealth their labor guarantees and the economic system will come under communal ownership and a more equal and participatory social order will be established. Division of labor, market exchanges and universal opulence Introduction Adam Smith is a Scottish who has theorized on issues that pertains to division of labor and its relation to the market principles and finally on its universal opulence Division of labor, market exchanges and universal opulence According to (Lisa, 2004) Smith saw the importance of industrialism by noting that division of labor represents an increase in productivity qualitatively. He further notes that the level of specialization leads to economic progress. He notes that specialization and concentration of the workers on their single sub tasks leads often to greater productivity and skill on their assigned tasks than it would be achieved by the same number of workers each undertaking the broad task Furthermore, he notes the significance of skills matching with the use of equipment usually in the context of a firm. For instance he uses the example of pins makers being organized with one team making the head while the other making the body each using different equipments In addition he emphasized on exports lead industrialization rather than import substituting industrialization. He bases his arguments of comparative advantage meaning that the countries were to focus on what it could sell very well in the international market as in the developing countries would focus on primary products while the developed countries would focus on manufactured goods. Further his arguments emphasized on liberalized or free trade. It was against protectionism as was advocated by the governments. This free movement of goods and services would encourage a variety of goods to be traded internationally. The main thesis in his works notes the invisible hand of the state. He notes that the state should take a back seat and regulate operations rather than dictate the flow of goods and services. He breaks it down by noting that the productivity of free exchanges thrives when both parties benefit. For example, if a butcher doesn’t supply meat out of a good heart but because he profits from the selling of meat as he is interested in the business. Therefore, it’s the butcher’s awareness to sell meat at a good cost that clients are ready to pay so both individuals benefit and the governments roll was to ensure that the existing laws were enforced. Further he notes that the role of the state should be limited to state security, universal education, and infrastructure, enforcement of the law and punishment of offences. Moreover, he notes on a solid currency that would ensure free market principles. A solid currency would eliminate the probability of states depreciating currencies and hard metals were used as a backup. Stiglitz’s review of Adam Smith’s theory He argues that the imperfections in the market make the government intervene. Moreover, he notes that structural reforms like the liberalization of the market have led to major results in the stability of the economy. In addition, he notes that for there to be growth in the long term, policies that are stable have to be formulated Furthermore, he notes that the use of subsidies, tariffs and corruption are the main causes of economic and political instability. For that he offers the solution of transparent and accountable institutions. He notes that the free trade is a conspiracy against the developing countries and it would stunt the growth of indigenous industries and further notes that the developed nations did not liberalize there markets until the infant industries had grown. This would lead to inequality as there would be those at a different level than others. Conclusion His works marked the beginning of modern capitalism and economics. He championed free markets. His invisible hand carries on to be a powerful force today. He inverted the miserable observation of mercantilism and offered us a idea of plenty and freedom for all. The liberalized market he envisaged, though it is yet to be realized, might have raised the world normal of living than any in history. . Rise and fall of capitalism and its transition to communism Introduction The mode of production is classified into three. First, is the means of production- defined as a combination of the objects of labor and the instruments of labor. The objects of labor refer to the natural substances on which man exerts pressure in order to produce goods like farmlands and mines and upon subjection to human action that is intended for further processing it is known as a raw material. Instruments of labor are the tools placed between man and the objects of labor; for example, machines like hoes and tractors. Second, the relation of production is whereby individual’s relation determines how goods and services will be produced and finally, the productive forces can be defined as the combination between the means of production and human labor power. In brief therefore, the mode of production can be defined as the combination of productive forces and the relationship of manufacture between the super structures- political, social, and cultural and the sub structure- the material need. Throughout history, six modes of production have been experienced and each mode has been characterized by different levels of development but this paper seeks to only discuss the capitalist and socialist mode as discussed by Engels and Marx The capitalist approach of manufacture is characterized by the following as below discussed. The class relations that characterize the capitalist societies are that a small group of people nearly own all the wealth in a state while the majority owns nothing. First, there is total separation of the actual manufacturer from the way of manufacture. As is those who engage in the actual production don’t have possession of the means of manufacture Second, class distinction became even sharper and two major classes emerged, that is the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the proprietor of the way of manufacture that is the factories, plantations and large trading cooperation’s among others while the proletariat are the workers and the only commodity they have is their labor power which they offer for sale like any other commodity and acquire wages. Third, under capitalism, human labor power was transformed into a commodity to be bought and sold at the market like any other article of trade. Fourth, there was total appropriation of the fruits of labor of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. The proletariat produced and whatever they produced was taken by the bourgeoisie and in return they were paid wages. Fifth, under this mode, private ownership of the ways of manufacture or wealth became widespread and each member of the bourgeoisie sought to maximize profits. Sixth, the relation of production was characterized by irreconcilable antagonism because the interests of the bourgeoisie are totally oppressed to the interest of the proletariat. This is because while the later desires higher wages, the former desires higher profits thus for profits to be high, wages must be kept low. Finally, the relation of production under capitalism is of exploitation of one group by another. This is because the proletariat works for very long hours and produce a lot of goods which are taken by the bourgeoisie and they are only paid paltry wages. The socialist or communist mode of production came up as a consequence of problems associated with capitalism particularly, the exploitation of one group by another. The socialist mode therefore was intended to address the problems relating to inequality in incomes and wealth ownership. Socialist mode of production is therefore characterized by the following. First, there is public ownership of the ways of manufacture. This means that the means of production is not owned privately but publicly which can be in two forms, that is government ownership and cooperative ownership. Secondly, the actual producers are separated from the ways of manufacture in the sense that the producer does not own the ways of manufacture privately but together with others, he owns the ways of manufacture through cooperatives. Third, relations of production are characterized by friendship, cooperation and mutual benefit because workers are engaged collectively in the process of production and there is no exploitation of one group by another group. Finally, under socialism, class distinctions are eliminated because opportunities that enable some people to acquire more wealth than others are totally done away with. In other words, in the communist mode, classes disappear and workers collectively tale over the control and ownership of the ways of manufacture. Stiglitz review of the theories Stiglitz supports Marx and Engles by noting that much as there is the economic and force, the two classes in society are brought about by the exercise of political power by moneyed interest rather than by legislative processes Moreover, he notes that the elite who exercise political power which is money driven to grant excessive power to the most wealthy. In a nut shell, power is used to insulate the wealthy, from competitive market forces by corruption, favorable tax treatment and a market share that is protected by the government. Further, he points out that government regulation are to remain functional by noting that without constraint the dominant interest groups use their leverage to make gains at the expense of others in this case the majority. To him, concentration of power in private hands is just as damaging as the dictation of the market operation. He challenges there theory by noting that a competitive market is beneficial to the society at large. Their response to the critiques Marx and Engels would respond the challenges by affirming there theory as their view is radical to social change and the need for redistribution of resources to eliminate inequality. This is so as to Marx, the struggle between the social classes is inevitable due to the exploitation of workers under capitalism. These theorists note that competition over scare resources is the basis of social conflict. Since resources like power and wealth are limited in supply, they are bound to compete with one another. Conclusion In summary, inequality between groups leads to social change which in according to these theorists is inevitable. However, Marx, notes that an end to the conflict is through the emergence of a stateless society. Furthermore, Marx views a complete restructuring of the society as necessary to resolve social problems. References Hill, Lisa (2004). Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson and the Division of Labour, University of Adelaide. Retrieved 21 oct 2013 Marx, K. (1977). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1. New York: Vintage Books, print. Rothbard, Murray. "The Celebrated Adam Smith". An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought. Mises Institute. Retrieved 2013-10-21. Tocqueville, Alexis de (1841). Democracy in America: Volume I. New York, NY: J. & H. G. Langley  Read More