Rethinking Marxist Communication Theory in the Light of the Information Society - Essay Example

Marxist theory College: Pleios, G., . Communication and Symbolic Capitalism. Rethinking Marxist Communication Theory in the Light of the Information Society. TripleC (Cognition, Communication, Co-Operation): Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 10 (2), p230-252. Marx can be seen as having provided two groups of ideas. However, many people have accepted one particular set. For instance; Marxist offered the theory of society that explains how a particular society operates, how and why history has developed and in particular an account of the nature of capitalism. These ideas are very important in illustrating what is happening in the world and also in understanding issues and directions of the society. Similarly, Marx believed that Capitalism is highly unsatisfactory and was very concerned with its elimination through revolution and creation of communist society. The theory is also about political objectives and actions (Pleios, 2012). Apparently, few individuals in Western societies currently recognize Marxist’s second set of ideas. Many believe that Capitalism is important and others do not need to see it ruined. Also, a significant number of Westerners do not like the idea of communism or revolution. The following discussions intend to reveal the worth of the first of these suggestions. One can recognize Marx’s ideas as being very important for the purpose of knowing our society without accepting his criticism about capitalism, his recognition for political action, and his political values (Pleios, 2012). With regard to economic substructure, Marx contends that the economic setting, form of productive systems is the most relevant factor in determining all the societal aspects like social organizations, system of law, education and morality. These are elements which are found within the societal superstructure. Therefore, Marx is perceived to be a “materialist”. He argued against Hegel’s philosophy in which ideas were considered to be relevant historical determinants. Also, Marx contends that most of the ideas are as a result of economic or material conditions and therefore strongly contradicted reformers who believed that transformation in ideas can transform the society (Pleios, 2012).. The main types of society that were distinguished by Marx was feudal, Primitive, and capitalist. In a capitalists setting, capitalists own and manage the productive wealth, workers posses only their labor and work on behalf of capitalists, who eventually own the product and trade it off with a profit. The important thing about understanding the society at any given point is to concentrate on the kind of production involved. In feudal societal setting, land was an important productive aspect and the feudal lords possessed d and controlled it. In Capitalists society, machinery, mines, and factories are the main productive factors, and are owned and managed by capitalist (Pleios, 2012). Marx found out the relation between two factors as the major determinant of the kind of society that exists and of social change. Productive forces may be loosely treated as the kind of technology the society is in possession of such as machine, technology, and labor. The relations of productions refer to social organization of production like basically who is the owner of productive forces, or how they are managed. For example, in a slave community masters force the slaves to work whereas in the feud society, serfs are forced to work for the lords for a specific number of days per week. In the capitalists setting, capitalist own society’s productive resources and utilize workers to operate it for a wage when capitalists believe that profits can be made (Pleios, 2012). Fuchs, C., & Moscow, V. (2012). Introduction: Marx is back -- The Importance of Marxist Theory and Research for Critical Communication Studies Today. TripleC (Cognition, Communication, Co-Operation): Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 5 (2), p127-140. Initially, the relationship between new factors of production is progressive or beneficial to the society in general. Marx points out the huge increase in human welfare that economic development under capitalism had created. The new social relationship of production starts to prevent full growth and application of new production forces. For instance, in the recent feudal era, it was not in the concern of the lords to permit land to be sold or workers to sell their work freely to the boss. Such practices were not recommended although they finally became necessary in the capitalist mode of production and therefore in the growth in production and benefits that capitalists introduced (Fuchs & Moscow, 2012). Similarly, today many people cannot use powerful technology to undertaking crucial issues like designing long lasting goods and feeding the hungry just because of the existing social relations in the line of production. The meaning is that relations of production takes form in which control on application of productive forces lies in the hands of capitalists and not in their interests to participate in socially beneficial issues. There is a major difference between the modern and ancient capitalists. Such differences have been internal in all perspectives and each has established a gradual growth to an extent where they lead to revolutionary change. Therefore, the relationship between forces and social production issue is the main dynamic role in the primary cause of social change (Fuchs & Moscow, 2012). Social production relations involve five various classes. The basic determinant of an individual’s class is his or her association to the means of production. For instance, in the capitalist’s society, the two common classes remaining are the possessors of the means of production, like capitalists and those who own their labor like the workers or proletariat. Therefore, in any historical time, subservient and dominant categories can be recognized. In equality in power and wealth was a basic moral worry to Marx. Some organizations came to control others and to win for an irrational share of the society’s wealth, power and privileges. The eventual goal Marxists intends to realize is at a classes community where all people enjoy more or less equal resources and power (Fuchs & Moscow, 2012). Marxists points out that history is simply about the struggle between classes just for the purpose of wanting to dominate. The history all up till now the existing society is that of class struggle. Marxists highlights the fact that social evaluation should focus on class framework and relations. In other words, the most significant question to ask regarding a society is concern with what societal groups dominate or achieve most of the benefits from the status quo. Also, it involves those whose interests make the policy or situation proposal work well. In capitalists society, the capitalist elite benefits a lot, especially the ones who own and manage production mean. They get un-proportional share of resources, status, and privileges. However, there are other categories but with time, these are sandwiched into either small capitalists class or the big working class (Fuchs & Moscow, 2012). Chibber, V. (2011). What Is Living and What Is Dead in the Marxist Theory of History. Historical Materialism, 19 (2), p60-91 With regard to international relations, there is significant difference between big business that includes the transnational organizations and banks as well as small businesses. Most of the small companies and family organizations or shops are normally struggling, only giving their owners with minimum earnings. These individuals are not investing capital so that they can make profits from firms in which they have no other share, hence not part of the capitalist category or the big working class (Chibber, 2011). Indeed, there is an indication that many individuals own some resources like houses although it is not capital. It can be observed from the previous situation that Marx suggested a historical idea which he believed would explain the historical dynamics. The fundamental element here is Hegelian principle of dialectical development. This is the point where original idea or thesis exists with antithesis developing at the same time. In any historical time, like feudalism, contradictions that are inherited come to lead in some kind of revolution and are addressed when a new social order becomes stable. Therefore, history is the basic function of material or economic status. The relationship between types of productive skill in use and social links or organization and management of those forms of production is what has established the nature of feudal, slave, capitalist society, and what has shifted the society from one form to another (Chibber, 2011). Marx believed that his historical theory was the main achievement and one of the two insights which put in place Marxism as a form of study. However, the recurring cycle will eventually be terminated. The idea of capitalism and the proletariat will give into synthesis which will ultimately see the realization of class oriented community. Since it has been the presence of class misunderstandings which has created change, the dialectical system will have ended. This does not translate into the idea that there is more development or change in science and art, but it does appear to mean that there will be no more political shift (Chibber, 2011). Forces of production in capitalist’s society include factory design and intensive machine skill. This mode needs large capital investments to be implemented mines and plants. And it incorporates an extensive use of technological and scientific approaches in developing the highly sophisticated systems. The most significant of the social productive association in capitalist society include; possession and management of society’s productive wealth are owned by few individuals who invest in their capital and make their factories only productive when they believe that profits are likely to be made. Another reason is that most of the members of a particular community must sell their work to capitalists, accept workplace policies, and remain submissive when it comes to production issues which are not related in any way to their pay. Marxists argues that only work should be able to give money to an individual. In other words, they do not believe that people who are wealthy should be able to get income as interest to their savings or investments. In particular, this means that the richer a person is, the more the revenue he or she gets without even having to work despite rich people consuming products made by people who should work for their revenue. Also, Marxist believes that the value of products should be determined through the amount of labor that went into their production. However, this is not the case in conventional economic perspectives, but takes it as the value whatever will be paid in the market (Chibber, 2011). Bibliography Chibber, V. (2011). What Is Living and What Is Dead in the Marxist Theory of History. Historical Materialism, 19 (2), p60-91. Fuchs, C., & Moscow, V. (2012). Introduction: Marx is back -- The Importance of Marxist Theory and Research for Critical Communication Studies Today. TripleC (Cognition, Communication, Co-Operation): Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 5 (2), p127-140. Pleios, G., (2012). Communication and Symbolic Capitalism. Rethinking Marxist Communication Theory in the Light of the Information Society. TripleC (Cognition, Communication, Co-Operation): Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 10 (2), p230-252. Read More