Marxist Political Economy - Essay Example

Question A discussion of Karl Marx’s Materialist Method The materialist method is a theory developed by Karl Marx to explain how the society and its economy are organized. This essay lucidly examines how Marx explains the impact of the change in material conditions on the organization of a society’s economy. To begin with, an exposition of Marx’s “First Premises” in relation to a society’s economic organization is necessary. These premises are presented by Marx as the real and empirically verifiable components of the materialist method. Marx uses these first premises to effectively explain his theory. The first premises are discussed as below; The first premises have a fundamental basis in the existence of human beings as the basis of the theory. This premise underlines the importance of understanding how human beings are physically organized and how human beings relate to nature and among themselves in the economic organization of a particular society. Marx posits that as soon as men are born, they distinguish themselves from other animals by engaging in productive activities for subsistence. This production for subsistence heavily relies on the type of means of subsistence that men find available to them at the beginning and have to replicate by reproduction. Marx explains that this activity of production is not abstract, but rather a definite activity that shapes the way of life of men using a particular method of production. As population increases, production will also be increased due to the demand created by this increase in population. Inevitably, people have to relate with one another in order for the production process to be carried on without conflicts and to run smoothly. In this regard, Marx again states that the relations among people are dependent on the nature of production they are engaged in. At the highest level of relations, it is no longer relations among individuals but includes how nations relate with other nations and the internal relations between citizens. Nation to nation relationships are ordered by the levels of specialization each country has achieved in production leading to division of labour. Division of labour internally is presented by Marx as leading to the conflict of interests between country and town. According to Marx, the division of labour is evidenced by the methodology employed by each country in its commerce, industry, and agriculture. Further, division of labour is closely related to the modes of ownership involved. Here, Marx uses the historical approach to ownership to cogently explain how division of labour is arranged. He identifies three forms of ownership as the tribal, ancient communal and state, and lastly estate or feudal ownership in the historical order of emergence [1977, 25]. At the beginning, ownership was tribal where rudimentary means of production were prevalent. At this stage, agriculture was the most advanced production technique. At this stage, division of labour is still not well pronounced and is restricted to division in the family unit. Slavery is said to begin at this stage with increase in human wants and population. Subsequently, tribal ownership is replaced by state or communal ownership when several tribes unite or involuntarily brought together by conquest. In this ownership type, the notion of private property develops while the relationship of slavery is fully pronounced. Citizens gain power over slaves but only in the individual communities as a result of the private property held by the community. This form of ownership gives rise to the third and most advanced form known as the estate property or feudal system. In this system, the concept of property is fully developed and corporate ownership has taken route. Here, people begin to work for those who own the means of production for wages. Even though slavery is not pronounced exactly, owners of means of production exploit the laborers in a slave like manner. This leads to the establishment of social classes made up of the proletariat the middle class and the bourgeoisies. The owners of the means of production determine how the society is economically organized since they control the means of production. With the system of private property is associate the slavery in which division of labour occupies the higher ranks. One is not able to move from one job to the other freely for fear of being unable to impress the employer and running the risk of losing out on employment, the means of sustenance. Marx does not fail to mention the underlying importance of the influence of basic human wants to the production process. He gives these wants a historical perspective and also relates on the aspect of human reproduction. Marx’s ideologies sharply differ from Hegel’s Idealism. Marx prefers to expound on the material conditions that exists and tries to explain them in a logical and cogent manner. On the other hand, Hegel only sought to handle ideas irrespective to material conditions that made the realization of such ideas practicable. Question 2 The Labour Theory of Value The idea brought forward by Marx in the labour theory of value is that the value of a commodity is only dependent on the labour that is required or used to produce the commodity. This value is posited by Marx as entailing a two tier structure of a use value and an exchange value. In order to understand the wealth of a capitalistic society that emphasizes wealth as the accumulation of commodities, one has to first understand what really a commodity is according to Marx. Marx defines the use value of a commodity as the utility of a particular commodity. This utility gains its preciousness from the fact that it is unique to the particular commodity and only that commodity can satisfy the particular want associated with it. In addition, it does not depend on the amount labour exerted on the commodity by the laborers. Use value is further presented as having definite quantities and only becomes a reality upon consumption or use. On the other hand, he defines exchange value asarelation of quantities. He explains this by saying that it is the proportion by which values used in one instance is exchanged for values used in another instance. Exchange value of commodities has the nature of changing from time to time and from place to place. In summary, the exchange value of a commodity is only an expression of something or things of equal value to the commodity in question.Marx proceeds to examine and bring out the role labour play in the value of a commodity. In this regard, a commodity only has value only because labour has been expended and manifests itself on it. The trouble only begins in the measurement of the value. Marx determines that measuring the quantity of labour is the only solution to the problem. Marx warns that the quantity of labour to be measured is only that one used in the production of the commodity and not time wasted when a laborer is lazing around [1904, 27]. It is clarified how labour enters the value of a commodity during production. From Marx’s expositions, it can be summarized that the more usefuland necessary labour is expended on a commodity; the more will be the value of that commodity if all other factors remained constant (ceteris paribus). This leads to the conclusion that the value of a commodity would maintain its constancy if the labour and time needed to produce it remained constant. But if the productivity of labour varied at any instance, the value of a commodity would be significantly affected. Exchange value manifests itself in various forms namely; the relative form, equivalent form, elementary form, expanded form, general form and finally the money form. The relative form expresses the value of a commodity or a quantity of it to another commodity or its quantity. In this comparison however, the parameters of comparison must remain the same. For example in the linen and coats example used by Marx, some quantity of linen must be equal to some quantity of coat to form a firm basis for comparison. In the relative case, the value of a commodity can only be meaningfully expressed with reference to another. For example, it is absurd to say that 20 yards of linen equals twenty yards of linen. However, if twenty yards of linen is equated to one coat, it makes more sense. In the same vein, the elementary form merely expresses the value of a commodity as compared to another without further analysis of relationships involved.Marx posits the money form of value as an exponent of the other forms such as the relative form. Question 3 How Exploitation Takes Place In part 3 of Capital, Volume One, Marx tries explain how he thinks exploitation occurs. This section discusses the views of Marx on exploitation and whether those views are valid in the modern working relationship set up. According to Marx, [1990, 148] exploitation arises as a result of the working relationship between the employer and the employee. In this system of production, the employer economically exploits the employee. This is by way of the employer compensating the employee with fewer wages than the true value of labour provided. Because the worker needs to survive, he has no option but to sell the labour to the employer in order earning a living. Marx explains that the employer accumulates and exploits the surplus value of the labour provided by the employer in the resultant products of labour, which in an ideal situation; the laborer should be fully entitled to. The status quo remains because the proletariat has to survive, meaning that they have to work for the capitalists. In addition, the state uses its power to enact laws that preserve this working relationship. To further explain this exploitation, Marx uses the concepts of Working Day, Necessary Labour and Surplus Labour to advance the idea of exploitation. According to Marx, the concept of working day is cleverly exploited by the capitalist in order to get as much as possible from the proletariat. He states that even though there are a set number of hours that a laborer is supposed to work in a day, this limit it is not definite. Sometimes the proletariat works more than he is supposed to thus surpassing the necessary labour expected of him and of which he is supposed to be paid for. The joy of the capitalist is to see the proletariat serving him. He takes the opportunity to gain on every surplus labour by the proletariat since he will benefit in the form of more profits that he robs off the laborer. The capitalist is enabled to make the working day as long as possible, with practically illimitable surplus labour. The determination of the length of a working day, according to Marx, remains a point of struggle between the capitalist and the proletariat. To further promote the interests of the capitalists, the relationship between the proletariat and what is produced is further hidden in the fetishism of commodities. Marx opines that the proletariat is made to associate their efforts in coming up with a product as a relationship between their labour and the final product and not a relationship between themselves. This further promotes the exploitation as the objective relationship between labour and final product removes the attachment and appreciation of efforts from the laborer. Appreciation of the results of labour is only realized when commodities in their complete form are exchanged from one person to the other. In this way, the proletariat continues to slave, not fully appreciating the results of the labour while the bourgeoisie continues to enjoy the fruits of labour borne by the proletariat’s work. The reality of Marx’s view on industrial exploitation has not lost relevance centuries after his works were published. It is true that exploitation exists as evidenced by rampant industrial actions by workers all over the world in protest against poor pay and poor working conditions. Interestingly, the workers always end up going back to work as a result of the need to survive even under the same conditions earlier complained of. Bibliography Marx, Karl. Capital, Volume One. New York, Charles H. Kerr, [1867] 1904 Marx, Karl. Capital, Volume I, London: Penguin Classics, [1867]1990. Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick.The German Ideology.Edited by Arthur, C.J. New York: International Publishers [1845] 1977. Marx, Karl. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy [1859] Read More