Does Marx's Account of Alienation Condemn Free Market Economies - Essay Example

?Does Marx’s Account of Alienation Condemn Free Market Economies? Module Module ID: THE PAPER Distinguished 19th century German thinker Karl Marx (1818-1883) is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers the world has ever produced. By dint of his innate talent, profound intellect and strife for winning equal rights and privileges for all the humans at large, he has rightly been stated as the Father of Socialism (Ruhle, 2005: 4). Being a great torch-bearer of justice and egalitarianism, he looks for identical distribution of wealth, resources and opportunities for the individuals belonging to divergent ethno-racial groups, communities and socioeconomic statuses of social establishment. Consequently, he appears to be determined to launch a crusade against the existing injustices for the individual and collective wellbeing of humanity without any discrimination on the foundations of caste, class, community, region, religion and gender. It is therefore his entire work revolves round the condemnation of capitalistic (or free market) economic system, which maintains unabated perils of exploitation of the proletariat or haves-not at the hands of bourgeoisie or haves in its horrible fold. Marx’s famous theory of alienation is viewed to be the profound critique of free market economy, which would not allow the workers any share in the surplus value of the organisation in which they are rendering their services. Since free market economy, Moseley observes, does not admit the very reality that surplus-value is produced by the surplus labour of workers, thus workers become prey to exploitation in capitalism (2001: 2). In addition, Marxism vehemently criticises such a political scheme that looks for projecting and promoting the exploitative economic system (i.e. capitalism) through the statutes of law had been in vogue in major part of his contemporary industrial states of Europe. Marx believes, Zimmerman observes, that laws are the product of class oppression, which would have to get eliminated or revised as long as communism replaces the free market system ultimately (2009: 96). One of the most imperative reasons behind Marxism’s repudiation to give way to free market economy includes its being beneficial for only the rich stratum of society. Capitalistic economic system is exclusively advantageous for the producers, mill owners and elite stratum; for it bestows worthwhile privileges upon the elite by letting them take the lion’s share in the profit of an industrial unit on the basis of the investment they have made. The free market, Sayers notes, operates as an alien system with a life of its own. It is an uncontrollable and inherently unstable mechanism. It leads to periodic crises in which huge numbers of people are thrown out of work and useful means of production are wantonly destroyed (2008:1-2). On the other hand, the workers obtain very little amount of money as remuneration against their hard toil they make from dawn to dusk in the industrial units. In other words, free market economy deprives the workers of their right and share in the surplus profit the organisation has earned. Since the workers are not in a position to obtain anything sufficient to keep the wolf from the door, it results into the decline of their interest in work and work place as well. As a result, the gulf between the rich and the poor starts expanding, which touches the dangerous end subsequently. The clash of interests between the producers and workers turns out to be challenging for the very peace and harmony of society in general. As a result, conflict arises between different strata of society, during the course of which the workers are in a position to snatch their right from the possession of the upper stratum by establishing socialistic political and economic system in society. The division between classes, Rummel observes, starts widening, and the condition of the exploited worker deteriorates so adversely that entire social structure collapses. Eventually, the class struggle is transformed into a proletarian revolution (1977: 4). Although aptly attributed to Karl Marx, alienation theory seeks its roots in ancient Greek and Roman civilisations, where the Sophists frequently declared the notion as the product of conflict between the Divine laws and human laws, which produce the sentiments of estrangement in human minds because of the injustices committed by the strong against the weak. Socrates and the Sophists set into motion a great flowering of philosophical speculation about the nature of human society and its inner conflicts (Steiner, 2004:3). It is therefore the city state’s act of decreeing order against Socrates by compelling him to drink the goblet of poison was also a reflection of alienation, which forcefully separated Socrates from his pupils and friends. Moreover, Aristotle’s expulsion from the Academy, and his departure from Athens was also the example of alienation in the eyes of the critics. Abrahamic mythology is abundant with the events of alienation, where man first time experienced estrangement when he was expelled from the Eden Garden after tasting the fruit of the forbidden tree out of the seduction made by Satan. However, Marxist perspective associates the estrangement with economic policies and corporate strategies, where workers find insurmountable gulf between themselves and the place of their earning. Since place of their work is somewhat sacred and most imperative one in the eyes of the workers, their estrangement with the same not only invites dissatisfaction, frustration and despair in the entire social establishment, but also paves the way towards an ultimate conflict between the deprived stratum on the one hand, and the privileged classes on the other. Human society enters into a “social contract” in which the rights man is endowed with by nature are transferred to a sovereign body, the State, whose function it will be to ensure that the commercial business of civil society proceeds unhampered (Steiner, 2004:4). It is therefore Rosa Parks (1992) suggests that the political authorities must be custodian of human rights, which include their corporate activities as well; Marxism emphasises upon the same reality that the state should intervene in the economic sector in order to ensure the preservation of the interests of every stratum, so that the exploitation of the workers as well as subsequent clashes could be restrained, which could appear in the aftermath of the exploitation of the proletariat at the hands of bourgeoisie (Coser, 2002: 171). Since in a free market economy, the political authorities seem to be standing at the side of the elite class, it creates frustration and eventual alienation among the working classes. Furthermore, Marxist perspective is of the view that economic system should be established in such a manner where the labourers and workers could obtain considerable remuneration against the labour and services they render for the progress and prosperity of their work place. Such a system, according to him, would be equally beneficial for the producers as well because of the very fact that if the workers have respectable place at the organisation, and obtain significant amount and privileges from the same against their hard work and efforts, they would work more diligently by applying best of their energies and proficiencies for the progress and profit increase of the organisation. Consequently, they would consider their work place as their home and personal belonging, which may appraise their morale to an imperative extent, and they will remain loyal and committed to the producer and organisation. Nevertheless, it does not mean that the workers should be declared as the sole beneficiary of the surplus value by refuting the particular right of the producers, which have made investment of time, money and energies from the establishment of the industry to the process of it smooth running. However, it is not possible in capitalistic system, which concentrates upon obtaining maximum benefits for the producers out of the toil exercised by the working class. It is partly due to the bitter fact that the producer or owner has obtained some particular amount of wealth and money through many years hard labour, and has taken a great risk of absolute loss even by making investment in an industrial unit. It is therefore, he must have the right of keeping private property (Hoppe, 1990: 3). Nevertheless, socialism argues in favour of the workers only, and exclusively focuses upon the wellbeing and socioeconomic uplift of the workers. It is of the opinion that workers could be compared to the nuts, bolts and equipments of a machinery, without which even the most precious machinery would be unable to make any production altogether. Since instead of acknowledging their vital role, the exploitative free market economic system pushes the workers and labourers far away from the work, the working class undergo the state of alienation even in their work place and the stratified social structure as well. Hence, Marx vehemently condemns such an economic establishment that is unable to provide the individuals with the equal opportunities of growth and development. Since capitalism appears to be supporting for only one specific social group, it is exploiting the remaining strata by crushing them under the chariot wheels of injustice and inequality. It is therefore Marx declares capitalism as the root-cause of all social evils prevailing in a political and cultural structure, which creates estrangement and alienation in society (Turner, 1977: 45). Marxist perspective elucidates four components of alienation the working classes experience while living and working in a capitalist society (Coser, 2002: 51-53), which turns their life more adverse in the wake of the corporate strategies articulated by the owners of an industrial unit, factory or mill etc, has been established under capitalistic system. The first state of alienation appears at the time when the workers receive low wages or trivial remuneration after consuming the most productive part of the day at their work place. The wages or benefits the producer offers to them as the price of their efforts signify his sole ownership of the productive unit, where the workers do not have any concern with it; hence, the growth as well as extra profit of an industrial unit would not give the message of the growth and progress of the workers altogether. As a result, they feel themselves as strangers at the place where they spend their quality time and render the best of their services for the increase in the productivity of the industrial unit (Ritzer, 2007: 55). In due course, feelings of alienation haunt their minds in such a way that they start considering them as the rival of the producer, which is determined to squeeze their potential against a low, embarrassing and humiliating compensation only. Second state of alienation raises its awkward head at the time when the productive unit observes boost and development during the course of time. However, the multiplication of profit volume and increase in sales of the products do not allow extra benefits to the labourers and workers, according to Marx. On the contrary, the producer declares the increase in sales and profit as an outcome of the extra investment he has made for the enhancement of production level. Moreover, the ownership also claims its share in the extra profit because of the vigilance and prudence it has exercised from the setting up of the unit to the recruitment of workers on the one hand, and from penetrating into the corporate environment to the establishment of business relationships in the market on the other. As a result, the management absolutely negates the contributions the workers have made by striving hard and paying extra time for the successful increase of production magnitude. However, on finding no extra benefits out of the extra profit generated by their work place, the workers appear to be standing at the point, where they seek no concern with their organisation altogether. Thus, they become the prey to alienation eventually. Third component of alienation suggested by Marxism that appears under a capitalistic economic set up is the denial and absence of friendly relationships between the co-workers. Marx proposes two different reasons for the same; the first one is this that the workers remain engaged at work from morning till evening at a stretch, and thus are unable to manage time for the colleagues and fellow-workers. Since they are not in a position to share their joys and sorrows with the fellow workers, they undergo sheer feelings of disappointment, dejection and gloominess. Thus, they remain stranger to one another even being the part of one and the same organisation. Secondly, since the capitalistic system concentrates upon earning maximum profit only, it turns every labourer and peasant as rival to his fellow labourer. Every labourer becomes the competitor of the other, which forbids him from sharing anything from the other related to the organisation with the hope of getting promoted at organisational scale. Somehow, during the process of earning more and more, as well as getting closer to the ownership and management, he unintentionally goes away from the colleagues (Ritzer, 2007: 58). Thus, his ownership remains his boss, instead of adopting the status of friendship. Similarly, he has also lost his companions because of his struggle for winning the heart of the administration. Thus, he finds himself as companionless after spending several years in the organisation, as he was alone at the eve of joining that work place. Another reason behind estranged relations between the co-workers, according to Marx, includes the work environment, where man enters into interaction with the senseless and emotionless machines. Since he becomes accustomed to working in the company of machines, he also grows into senseless and emotionless equipment like machinery, and feels intense state of estrangement subsequently. The fourth and final component of alienation in a capitalist society, according to Marx, is the increase in work hours. Man consumes a major part of his everyday life at work, and carries the load of responsibilities like an animal. As a result, he cannot manage any spare time for recreation and personal enjoyment. It not only drags him far away from his social network, including friends and relations, but also he becomes stranger for his family members as well. Having no amusement, thrill and recreational activities for his enjoyment at all, the sense of alienation attacks on his mind and body, which turns him sick and retarded subsequently. Karl Marx is of the opinion that bankers, teachers, government officials, soldiers and workers remain dissatisfied with their work place and become prey to the situation of alienation. On the contrary, writers, poets, lawyers, artists and actors lead comparatively happier, more jovial and contended life due to the very fact that they work as freelancers, without having the bar or burden of working more and more for the interest of the organisation that is the property to some other person. Although Marxist perspective is determined to continuously condemn and rebuke capitalism by declaring it as the worst possible economic system, yet it is not actually the case. Contrarily, capitalsim carries several advantages too in its fold, which force a large majority of the globe for adopting the same economic system for their states. The concept of keeping private property infuses new ray of hope in the minds of the individuals, and urge them to make more struggle in order to lead a happy, contended and prosperous life. Moreover, it is the free economic system that encourages the people to set up their private corporate and business unit, where they help and support the state by creating the job vacancies and work opportunities for the jobless members of society. In addition, free market economy allows the people to obtain the remuneration against the magnitude of work they have performed, and hence does not offer the same amount to the people working longer and shorter to one another. Furthermore, free market economy also turns out to be supportive in respect of encouraging the people to get involved into innovative ideas and activities, which bring development and prosperity by inventing new and novel things of everyday usage. Thus, free market economy is also bringing people closer to each other instead of mere creating anarchy and alienation in society. Capitalism is, according to Scott, designed to promote the productive use of societal resources in order meet consumer needs in the short run and to raise the standard of living through time. As a result its regulatory frameworks give priority to promoting productivity rather than the fine points of equalizing competitive resources on a given day or during a given season (2006: 9). However, an impartial examination of 19th century Marxist perspective, and comparing it the contemporary era, it becomes crystal clear that the theory appears to be as valid as it was during the time it was first presented. For instance, the individuals working at machinery, computer sets and other technical devices and equipments related to communications, navigations and other articles of domestic, commercial and professional use have started leading a life of complete or at least partial isolation. They seek interest in earning money, and are losing social contacts and health stamina as well. They appear to be selfish and insincere towards other members of society. It is therefore the elderly are leading a life of forced alienation in old homes in all capitalist societies of the world at large. The researches reveal that the Americans are becoming more and more isolated at social and professional scales, where their hardly find any associate that could serve as their confidant for giving vent to one’s ideas regarding the domestic, social and organizational problems. The number of people saying there was no one with whom they discussed important matters more than doubled, and, increasingly, even those who had a confidant frequently had only one — their spouse (Gely & Bierman, 2007:289). On the contrary, the eastern societies are comparatively more concerned about their friends and relations, and do not leave them in the lurch in such a manner as their western counterpart practice. Nevertheless, the situation is also taking the same change very swiftly in the fast growing countries of Asia and Africa, where the people are also experiencing the same state of affairs, where they have hundreds of people as acquaintance, but almost none of them could be regarded as true friend or companion. Renowned 20th century fiction-writer and novelist D. H. Lawrence has also pointed out towards the same bitter reality in his short story under the title “The Rocking Horse Winner” (1969), where the mother of protagonist always keeps her son pressurized by stating that “there should be more money.” It not only makes the boy a money generating machine, but also slowly pushes him towards his ultimate end eventually. The boy works day-in and day-out in order to fulfil the demands and requirements of her mother. At last, the son starts growing weaker and weaker, and kicks the bucket at such a young age subsequently. Actually his lust for earning more and more money not only isolated him socially, but also he used to go in isolation in order to escape the frustration and tension because of scarcity of wealth, opportunities and resources at large (1969:116). Thus, the literature is also replete with the supporters of Marxism, which indirectly condemn free market system by declaring it as an unjust, unfair and exploitative politico-economic scheme. Being an arch supporter of individual freedom and liberty, Marx suggests the jobs for the individuals that are the reflection of their aptitude and inclinations. Thus, he rejects the very idea of establishment and expansion of industries, which would pave the way towards the replacement of humans with machines. He cites the example of cobbler, who is habitual of preparing as well as mending the shoes by working with his hands. Somehow, after the advent of machines, a large number of the workers and labourers would be kicked out of work, and machines would perform all for the customers. In addition, getting involved into an activity, according to Marx, which brings frustration and displeasure, cannot be stated as productive or creative one. On the contrary, such type of physical or mental engagements come under the definition of slavery, where the owner appears to be imposing his own will on the workers-cum-machines, just for his personal pecuniary gains and benefits. Since he has no concern with the professional or financial progress and uplift of the workers, he neglects the needs and requirements of the workers and labourers. As a result, instead of developing interest in their occupation, and paying due heed to their responsibilities, the workers undergo the perturbed state of alienation to the work place, and seek relief in the escape from their duties and obligations. His magnificent Das Kapital (1867) lays stress upon the workers to unite under one banner and make struggle in order to break the shackles of exploitation with the help of collective efforts (Mahajan, 2002: 379). Marxist and Marxist feminist perspectives devise social conflict theory, which are of the opinion that since capitalism creates alienation among the individuals belonging to one and the same society; it also pushes the deprived members to get indulged into committing crimes in order to snatch their share from the exploiting strata. Thus, they regard crime as the product of social injustices and inequalities prevailing in the Capitalist societies. The theory submits to state that social injustices always give birth to frustration and aggravation, and the deprived strata of society seriously undergo the state of alienation subsequently. They find their fellow-beings in better financial position and enjoying respectable status in society, while they are working very hard to keep the wolf from the door. Thus, they appear to be determined to take revenge from the haves by force by depriving of their wealth and assets. It creates conflict between haves and haves-not, which ultimately results into conflict and clashes between the two. The haves-not get indulged into stealing, robbery, financial corruption, embezzlement and other criminal activities in order to win superior social status on the one hand, and to lead a comfortable and luxurious life on the other. Actually Marxism is entirely based on conflict theory articulated by Karl Marx, and it states that conflict between different social classes in a society leads towards alienation and criminal behaviour. The social researches reveal the very fact regarding involvement of gypsies in criminal activities. As they live far away from social institutions, there are bight chances of their indulgence in criminal activities that is the by-product of biased behaviour of the members of society. In the same way, injustices exercised on some specific gender or age group also causes criminal behaviour. It has often been observed crimes are usually conducted in order to obtain which man has been kept away from or had been deprived of in his adolescence or early youth. These deprivations and unfulfilled desires assume the form of delinquency and man adopts every possible way to achieve them all. It is therefore the studies show that an overwhelming majority of the offenders of the crimes belongs to lower stratum of society. To conclude, it becomes crystal clear that Marx’s all theoretical framework condemn free market economy by declaring it responsible for creating the unpleasant and untoward state of alienation among the members of society belonging to divergent classes and communities. Additionally, Karl Marx’s famous social conflict theory also refutes the possibility of private ownership, and is interested in allocating all the resources to the state for the just and equal distribution of wealth and opportunities. The theory actually is resolutely based upon the idea of a relationship between society and nature. Investigated and analysed within the historical perspective, the fundamental concept of Marxist doctrine concentrates upon human labour. It is the developing interchange between man and nature, which at the same time creates, and progressively transforms, social relationships among men. (Bottomore, 1977: 38-39) Marxist perspective submits to state that labourers, workers and peasants toil hard from dawn to dusk, but obtain almost nothing in return. Thus, a large proportion of the labourers and peasants remained poor and downtrodden due to scarcity of resources, including food, proper education, appropriate recreational and career opportunities; they are unable to gain recognition as well as luxurious life in society. In order to make society congenial, homogenous and stable, socialist system should be given the opportunity to replace capitalism. It will not only eliminate the conflict and clashes from society, but will also pave the way towards the collective progress of all members of a social establishment in general. Bibliography Bottomore, Thomas B. (1961) ‘Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Society and Social Philosophy’ Second Edition Middlesex Penguin Books pp. 1-29 Coser, Lewis A. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context, 2nd Ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 1977 Gely, Rafael & and Bierman, Leonard (2007) ‘Social Isolation and American Workers: Employee Blogging and Legal Reform’ Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 20, Number 2 p. 289 Spring Available at Hoppe, Hans-Hermaan (2004) ‘The Ethics and Economics of Private Property’ Edward Elgar Lawrence, David Herbert. (1969) ‘The Rocking Horse Winner’ C. E. Merrill Pub. Co. Mahajan, V. D. (2002) ‘A History of Europe Since 1789’ Chand Publications Delhi Marx, Karl (1867/1992) ‘Das Capitale: A Critique of Political Economy’ Penguin Books Moseley, Paul. (2001) ‘Economic Crisis, ‘Political Sustainability’ and the International Financial Architecture’ ‘The IMF after the Asian crisis’, The World Economy, vol. 24, pp 597-629. Parks, Rosa. (1992) ‘Rosa Parks :My Story’ Dial Books Ritzer, George. Sociological Theory 6th Edition. McGraw Hill 2004 Ruhle, Otto. (2005) ‘Karl Marx: His Life and Work’ Translated by Eden Paul, Cedar Paul Kessinger Publishing Rummel, R J. (1977) ‘Marxism, Class Conflict, and the Conflict Helix’ Understanding Conflict and War: Vol. 3: Conflict in Perspective Available at Sayers, Sean. (2008) ‘Marxism and the Crisis of Capitalism’ The Times 20 October Available at Scott, Bruce R. (2006) ‘The Political Economy of Capitalism’ Available at Steiner, Alex. (2004) ‘From Alienation to Revolution: A Defense of Marx’s Theory of Alienation’ Turner, Jonathan H. (1978) The Structure of Sociological Theory. The Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois. 1978 130-132 Zimmerman, Augusto. (2009) ‘Marxism, Law and Evolution: Marxist Law in both theory and practice’ Journal of Creation 23(3) pp. 90-99 Read More