Karl Marxs Views on Capitalism - Essay Example

? Karl Marx's Views on Capitalism Scholars interested in the disciplines of political and moral philosophy have been debating about the concept of justice as revealed in the philosophical discussion of Karl Marx’s works. The discussions about Marx’s ideas on justice as seen from his description of capitalism has consequently resulted on debase whether he considered capitalism unjust or not. Over the years, there have been those who have argued that Marx did not explicitly consider capitalism unjust while others have argued that from his arguments, it can be deduced that Marx saw capitalism as unjust. This essay reviews current literature on Marx’s philosophical views in order to survey the case for thinking Marx considers capitalism unjust and the case for thinking that he does not based the textual evidence adduced and supporting argument put forth on behalf of each. This essay will first analyse Marx’s views on capitalist exploitation followed by analysis of literature on those who consider his arguments as pointing to capitalism as unjust and then those who are of the opinion that it not before arriving at a conclusion. Prior to the analysis of Marx’s arguments concerning capitalism, it is imperative to make a brief analysis of his general views of the ideology. To summarize Marx’s views on capitalism exploitation, such efforts must rely on the two facets distinguishable in the wage relation. Firstly, capitalism exploitation according to Marx can be analysed in the context of circulation. Based on circulation framework of capitalism exploitation, Marx claims there is a trade of equivalent values where the worker is given wages for labour-power (Appelrouth, 2008). Workers sell their capacity to work as their commodity whereas from the capitalist, the workers receive in the exchange process, the wages that represents the value of the commodity they sell. These wages are seen as being the value of what goes into producing such the labour as commodities for this exchange. Therefore, according to Marx, what workers receive from the capitalist, represents the full equivalent in value of what workers sell consequently, he does not see any reason to believe there is any cheating involved in such a process (Sitton, 2010). Secondly, Marx highlighted capitalism exploitation on the facet of production. Marx claims that workers, whose labour is the main source of the value pegged on commodities produced by the capitalist, will have to work longer hours than the time required reproducing the value equivalent to their own labour-power. This further translates to working for a longer time than is necessary for the value of the wage they have received (Bellofiore, Starosta and Thomas, 2013). Based on this approach of capitalist exploitation, the workers perform surplus labour therefore generating surplus-value to be appropriated by the capitalist inform of profits. Marx saw operation of labour-power as creating value that is greater than what the value labour-power itself represents and is purchased for (Struna, 2009). The two facets therefore represents two contrasting features of capitalism, seen in the balancing aspects of the wage relations evident in circulation process and in the in the facet of production, where workers produce surplus value to be appropriated by the capitalist. It is from the two facets of capitalist exploitation that the question whether Marx think it unjust or not stems. If according to Marx there is no injustice or fraud in the wage the capitalist pays for the purchased labour, it is because he saw the capitalist and the labourer exchanging on an equivalent basis. However, this is only true of the preliminary and narrow viewpoint of the circulation process where the wage relation is treated as an exchange of equivalents where there is an exchange of labour for power. Where Marx concentrates his efforts is in the surplus labour, which the worker must render for the capitalist to get his profit. On basis of surplus labour, Marx sees the capitalist exploiting the workers, which makes him view the wage relation as contrary to exchange of equivalents (West, 2005). Marx notes that to claim that capitalists offer anything in exchange for labour-power, let alone something of an equivalent value is a mere illusion, semblance appearance and pretence given that the worker must perform more than is necessary for the amount of wage given at the end of the agreement with the capitalist (Weeks, 2011). Sitton (2010) notes the worker offers services in two parts during his production service to the capitalist. The first period is when labour is compensated while the second period the worker adds value to the product free of charge, which translates into a surplus. The additional labour is what some claim makes Marx sees as unfair thus leading to the conclusion that Marx saw capitalism as unjust. Although Marx, does not equivocally term capitalism unjust, the attributive words that he uses to describe the ideology points to his views on the subject of justice. In his description of capitalism, Marx describes the capitalist’s appropriation of surplus-value using words such as ‘robbery’ and ‘theft’ whose interpretation is that the capitalist has no right whatsoever to appropriate the surplus for himself, consequently, the fact that this is what happens makes capitalism wrongful and therefore unjust (Tabak, 2012). To cement his view on surplus labour, Marx uses an example of the conqueror who buys commodities from the conquered using the money stolen from the conquered people (Sharzer, 2012). According to Marx even in cases where the capitalist might use the tribute to purchase the additional labour-power, as the basis of exchanging equivalent for equivalent, it does not make the transaction right (Pack, 2010). The controversy over Marx thought on exploitation as seen in his concepts of capitalism stems from the definition of what exploitation is according to Marx. Those of school of thought that he did not consider capitalism unjust sees his definition as being descriptive. According to this school of thought, such a definition depends on the availability of surplus in actual labour that is over the necessary labour. Further, it is argued that all societies rely on such surplus in the provision of labour for provision of public services such as defence, education, health care, and infrastructure. To claim that existence of surplus in labour-power is unjust means that no society in the world is just. Therefore, characterizing capitalism exploitation as unjust based on Marx’s views will be meaningless given that no society will function without such exploitations (Reiff, 2013). What one might consider as unjust is the fact that the worker does not have any sort of control over the surplus produced given that the capitalist appropriates all of it however, Marx him himself denies that this is so. Marx point out that once the capitalist has contracted the worker for labour, he has every right to the labour and the subsequent fruits derived from it (D'Amato, 2006). Therefore, the mere fact that the contracted labour creates a surplus for the capitalist is only a good luck and by no means an injustice towards the seller (Reiff, 2013). It can be argued that what makes the exchange between the capitalist and the worker not unjust in the context of the surplus is the legal right of the capitalist to do as they wish with the acquired labour-power. Once the capitalist has purchased the labour-power, Marx points out that this commodity belongs to the capitalist as of right (Rosen, 2000). Consequently, the purchase gives the capitalist the right to use these commodity and the products generated from the use of the purchased labour. Seen from the worker’s point of view, the implication of Marx’s views is that the instant his labour actually commence, it has already ceased to belong to him (Wood, 2013). It can also be concluded from Marx’s views on rights to mean that he did not see any injustice in the wage relation. Marx claim that the analysis of what is right must be done in the context of the cultural and economic dispositions of the given society. Therefore, according to him, any argument on morality must not be done in isolation but in consideration of what informs such ideas in terms of historical and social contexts (Blackwell, Smith & Sorenson, 2009). Therefore, whether or not capitalism is viewed as unjust depends on the historical and societal agreements that are put in place for the different production agents to follow based on voluntary decision and consent of both parties (Johnson, Schein, & Winders, 2013). Consequently, any content is just on condition that it follows the means of production and is adequate to it and it becomes unjust only when it is effect on contradiction of such means. Slavery based on the capitalist mode of production becomes unjust, as is cheating about the quality of produce (Seed, 2010). If by extension, a concept that is just is a matter of subjective perspective, then Marx’s ideas may be said not to be a relativist one but should be seen based on objectivity since the standards of justice are then appropriate to any society by virtue of the real social function they perform. Marx’s ideas will only remain relativist when the different principles of justice are connected to specific mode of production in the way described, and accordingly making each such principle unfit to provide a basis for judgment across history. On this account of things, it is not possible to create independent standards of justice, outside capitalism that will adequately assess it. There can be no principle across historical periods and which would provide a basis for Marx to condemn capitalism as unjust. Further, it can be argued that Marx’s condemnation of capitalism is based ion the view that it is alienating and never as unjust. Marx notes that a man can truly fulfill his real self if one directs his motive for production to humanity instead of for himself. He gives the reasons for the collapse of capitalism through a revolution as the increasing misery of the proletarian as the capitalist seeks to extend the profit margins through exploitation of the workers in addition to declining profits, and periodic and deepening crises coupled with business cycles (Younkins, 2002). From the foregoing, it is apparent that Marx’s view on whether capitalism is unjust should be based on both the context of circulation and production. Based on the concept of circulation, Marx saw it as being just to the extent that the exchange that the worker receives the value equivalent to the labour as a commodity sold to the capitalist. Where much controversy is is in relation to the production processes where the worker is seen to produce more that the wage given by the capitalist therefore translating into a labour surplus. It is the surplus that some see as making capitalism unjust. However, it has been argued that what this surplus cannot be considered unjust given the social and historical context in which the capitalist and the worker operate. It is assumed that both the capitalist and the worker have a binding and consensual agreement based on capitalism as a mode of production. Further, it has been noted that the capitalist takes full ownership of labour as a factor of production the moment a worker begins the production process. The capitalist therefore has the legal right to use this labour for the agreed upon time to generate the product, which he can consequently do with as he pleases. There is no legal right therefore to make any claim of unjustness when both the capitalist and the worker abide by the legal systems in their exploitation of the factors of production. What Marx considers unjust is getting the labour through other means that are not consensual like through slavery or making a false claim about the quality of the produce. Therefore, it can be noted that Marx was concerned with what a just society should look like but not what is just or unjust. Reference Appelrouth, S., & Edles, L. D. 2008, Classical and contemporary sociological theory: Text and readings, Pine Forge Press. Bellofiore, R., Starosta, G., & Thomas, P. D. 2013, In Marx's Laboratory: Critical Interpretations of the Grundrisse, Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Blackwell, J. C., Smith, M. E., & Sorenson, J. S. 2009, Culture of prejudice: Arguments in critical social science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. D'Amato, P. 2006, The meaning of Marxism, Chicago: Haymarket Books. Johnson, N. C., Schein, R. H., & Winders, J. 2013, The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Cultural Geography, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Younkins, E. W. 2002, Capitalism and commerce: conceptual foundations of free enterprise, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group. Tabak, M. 2012, Dialectics of Human Nature in Marx's Philosophy, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Reiff, M. R. 2013, Exploitation and Economic Justice in the Liberal Capitalist State, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rosen, M. 2000, The Marxist Critique of Morality and the Theory of Ideology, Morality, Reflection and Ideology, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pack, S. J. 2010, Aristotle, Adam Smith and Karl Marx: On Some Fundamental Issues in 21st Century Political Economy, Camberley UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Seed, J. 2010, Marx: A Guide for the Perplexed, New York City: Continuum International Publishing Group. Sharzer, G. 2012, No Local: Why Small-scale Alternatives Won't Change the World, Hants, UK: John Hunt Publishing. Sitton, J. F. (Ed.) 2010, Marx today: selected works and recent debates, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Struna, J. 2009, Towards a theory of global proletarian fractions, In: Harris, J. (Ed.), The Nation in the Global Era: Conflict and Transformation. Leiden Netherlands: Brill. Weeks, J. 2011, Capital, exploitation and economic crisis, New York: Taylor & Francis. West, R. 2005, Marx's Labor Theory of Value, Lincoln: iUniverse. Wood, A. 2013, Karl Marx, 2nd Ed, New York: Routledge. Read More