Karl Marx and Marxism - Essay Example

MARX The current investigation looks into Karl Marx and Marxism, focusing on Marx’s Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. The idea of alienation is described in this work, especially in terms of how the proletariat is alienated from the fruits and process of labor (division of labor). Marx does not just focus on economics, however, so the current report also looks at how Marx’s criticisms of religion connect to his conflict theories regarding capitalism, human nature, and other aspects of philosophy. Although I think that Marx makes some good points, I personally believe that his theories are based too narrowly on European society of his time, and history up to that time, to be universally applicable today. Writing about how capitalism alienates people, Marx’s points on the capitalist labor process that cause the alienation fourfold are all determined ultimately by the organization of material production, including rules of surplus value. The first thing that a human being wants to do is satisfy his/her needs, and the production process is an extension of this. As the human becomes more social, they become more ruled by the modes of production, which produces the wealth of society while alienating the producer (proletariat). The mode of production is therefore the basis of society, and it consists of everything in the spectrum of production, from raw materials to social relations between workers. Therefore, each of Marx’s four-prong critique of alienation are all related to Marx’s formulation of historical materialism. Political change in this society can only occur through change in the modes of production, which would in turn change the surplus value equation and decrease this alienation. The state has its basis in the mode of production, and the conflict between intercourse and production is complicated by the alienation of labor. Basically, this represents Marx’s point of view that the Hegelians were isolated and unable to connect with the real world, while he was able to see historical progress in a new way and thus see new developments such as surplus value and worker alienation. In examining his four-fold theory of alienation, Marx establishes the legitimacy of his arguments by stating that communism is not an over-intellectualized or abstract process, but a real phenomenon based on the real world and real events, such as the capitalist labor process as he sees it. He supplies these events throughout his text in the form of historical processes that are seen to be continuing in the present. Marx sees many other types of historical scholarship as being too abstract by the nature of the abstract lives led by the scholars themselves, and proposes communism in opposition to this sense of a theoretical world, thus establishing it in the world of people and systems rather than the world of ephemeral ideas. He wants to make it clear to the reader that communism is not a wish-list or a set of unrealistic demands, but an extension of the historical process of proletariat isolation and alienation as it has been continuing in Europe for many years, through serfdom and capitalism and the set-up of the capitalist labor process. He states that the conditions of the communist movement are not installed by ideas, but already exist. works together in a critique of capitalism based on things like the principle of division of labor. In this principle, industrialization has led to a type of society where a person cannot make a whole product anymore. The labor to make a product is divided among many people working. For example, on an assembly line, each worker adds a part. The individual action of the worker adding the part, something like the tail-light wire on a car, is not the same as that of a craftsperson making something from start to finish, like a piece of cabinetry. From this perspective division of labor has changed a lot, and each thinker values it in a different way. So it is definitely important for the proposed report to look at these theories as well, in terms of differences as well as similarities. Marx states that the proletariat laborers, “who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market” (Marx, 1993). The proletariat worker becomes a sort of willing slave to the system that perpetuates insecurity, and is thus insecure him/herself, as the laws, conventional morality, and religion perpetuated by the system seem to all lead back to the bourgeois motivations set by capital and private property. A Marxian view of history concentrates on the social stratification of groups into social classes since the fall of serfdom and the rise of private property and the middle class, or bourgeois social-class, who were seen to become the social oppressors of the working-class or proletariat social-class (the alienated class). The worker is subjugated in this system in terms of opportunities for basic human fulfillment: “By reducing the worker’s need to the barest and most miserable level of physical subsistence… he (the capitalist of the dominant class) says: Man has no other need either of activity or of enjoyment” (Marx, 1993). Marx sees history as a continued and continuing between the class oppressed and oppressor in which the worker is perpetually alienated from the fruits of his/her labor until the bourgeois is overthrown. Marx states that this exploitation manifests itself most clearly in the four-fold alienation of the proletariat, and also mentions that the proletariat creates more wealth than they get paid for. I think that I can relate to this directly because I often feel that all of the fruits of my labor are not enough. “Business cycles were another creation of the modern epoch. These recurring crises of overproduction put on trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. The bourgeoisie surmount these crises by finding new markets to exploit” (Boyer, 2003). I don’t personally relate as well to the international or global tone of the manifesto I think that I can relate to Marx’s theory of alienation because of its roots and conflict theory, and the conflict that is going on between the way the government wants to present the country to the world and the way it really is for the working man, particularly in the south. Conflict theory is different from functionalist theory in that it concentrates on the clashes between social groups rather than the balance of society as a whole. Marxists are often called conflict theorists because of their focus on continuing class struggle. They see the social order as being maintained through the imposition of authority onto the people by those in power, who write laws that reinforce their power. In terms of focusing on my own reaction, conflict theorists may emphasize the economic position played by the individual worker in terms of authority and belongingness, and may see the stratification of people like my ancestors into different reputations as being an issue of class representation. The stated goal of Marx’s communism is the “Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, (and) conquest of political power by the proletariat” (Marx-Engels, 2010). Marx is concerned with abolishing the bourgeois system of private property, but not all property standards necessarily, stating that the bourgeois system creates capital, not true property. Seeking to elevate the status of the laborer, he states that “In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer” (Marx-Engels, 2010). Again regarding alienation of labor, according to Marx freedom is being free from persecution and alienation by the class system of the bourgeois and the economic system of capitalism. The main point of Marx is that the political advance of the bourgeois has replaced the person’s natural freedom with self-interest and created a system where the bourgeois owners of land and capital control the means of production and naturally oppress the proletariat’s freedom, who is then isolated and alienated, and cannot mobilize in terms of consciousness of the class struggle. With a capital base for all forms of commodification, the bourgeoisie is seen to exploit the proletariat in order to continue the capitalist system of alienation. Marx states that this exploitation manifests itself most clearly in the oppression of the proletariat’s freedom to complete a whole product of their own labor and enjoy the fruits, and also mentions that the proletariat creates more wealth than they get paid for. Therefore the freedom against bourgeois self-interest would perhaps have been highlighted from this conflict-theory, rather than functionalist, perspective. “No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc. The lower strata of the middle class… all sink gradually into the proletariat… swamped by competition with the large capitalists” (Marx, 1993). This theory of freedom concentrates on the clashes between social groups rather than the balance of society as whole. Marxists are often called conflict theorists because of their focus on continuing class struggle. They see the social order as being maintained through the imposition of authority onto the people by those in power, who write laws that reinforce their power. In terms of focusing on freedom conflict theorists may emphasize the economic position played by the people in terms of authority and belongingness, and may see the stratification of freedom into different patriotisms and reputations as being an issue of class representation. Conflict theorists may also examine issues of minority presence in terms of visibility and representation of freedom. Basically, what Marx wanted to do was revolutionize society, which he saw as an unfair relationship between the oppressed and the oppressor in the capitalist system. He did not like the capitalist system, and criticized it very deeply as being nowhere near the perfect state of communism, which can only be approached by socialism, not capitalism, in economies. Marx saw the relationship between the bourgeois and the proletariat as naturally conflict driven in a society where the financial bottom line replaces concerns of humanity, community, and fulfillment. Marx set the standard, and then it was either picked up or challenged by later thinkers like Weber, who reacted in many ways against Marxism by stating the primacy of religion, something which Marx considered generally of no real value to the proletariat and dispensable In the view of Marx, an expiation of the proletariat in terms of bourgeois evil follows: the reader sees that commerce and industry brought about the end of serfdom, the industrial middle class replaced the guild system, and the factory destroyed the workshop. This is due to their implicit opposition of modern industry and alienation, a position that may have bound more coherence in terms of a more progressive argument. Of course, this is hypothetical, and as mentioned, the main point of Marx is that the political advance of the new bourgeois has replaced natural right with self-interest. With a capital base for all forms of commodification, the bourgeoisie replaces “exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (Marx, 1993). REFERENCE Boyer, G. (1998). The historical background of the Communist Manifesto. Journal of Economic Perspectives. Marx, Karl (1993). The Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. New York: International Publishers. Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels (2010). Manifesto of the Communist Party. http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1848-CM/cm.html. Read More