Marx and Disequilibrium in Market Socialist Relations of Production - Essay Example

MARX’S PERCEPTION ON CAPITALISM By Student’s Name Code + Course Name Professor’s Name University Cite, State Date In Karl Marx views, the aspect of capitalism is depicted as being distinctive from other models used in production processes. This is ascertained to the assumption that regards market anarchy as well as intrusive activities of capitalist exploitations habits. Karl Marx perceived capitalism as a progressive historical phase that eventually was held-aback as a result of internal contradictions and thereby tracked with elements of socialism. Marx’s defines capital as a social and economic form of relationship that is created between human beings as opposed to a creation of a relationship between human beings and things (Arnold, 1967). Following this line of reasoning, it can be vehemently established that the definition seeks to eliminate the aspect of capitalism in the society altogether. Under this notion, it is perceived that the aspect of private ownership of the means of production is existent because it is certainly meant to enrich the underlying capitalists within any given society (Gordon, 1976). This enrichment of the owners of the capital base is conducted at the expense of the already exploited workers. In this regards, it is certainly postulated that the owners of the underlying means of production operate their activities in a way that always exploit their respective workforce (Arnold, 1967). According to Karl Marx, the distinctive dynamism that can be found within capitalism is meant to counter the existence of the working class there later lead to the emergence of social conditions that highly favor a higher degree of revolution (Arnold, 1967). The aspect that relates to private ownership of the numerous means of production as well as distribution is perceived as having created a stringent over-dependence of the non-owning classes of people within the society visa-vie the underlying ruling class. It is, in turn, perceived as being an ultimatum on the source of restriction of human being freedom that is expected to be enjoyed without any form of restrictions for that matter (Arnold, 1967). Marx’s emphasizes on the perfect capitalism for which there are no monopolies, union or rather special forms of advantages for any given participant within the market. This platform sets a proper pricing mechanism for all of the commodities produced within any given moment in time (Wilicki, 1968). It is argued that the value of a commodity should be equalized to the amount of labor put in the course of production. For this case, labor should be distinctively manual labor and whether direct or indirect, Marx postulates that it should be reflected within the value of commodity (Wilicki, 1968). It is important to note at this juncture that most of the Marxists have continued to avail numerous inter-related lines of arguments that perceive capitalism in terms of its contradictory-laden model that is immensely characterized by the ever-recurring crises, which depicts a predisposition towards catapulting the level of severity (Wilicki, 1968). Significantly, he provides a clear rationale depicting the distinctive ways through which the aspect of free labor can be exploited. He emphasized that the level of antagonism that is present between a laborer and capitalists is vehemently systematic to the notion behind capitalism and therefore, it cannot be abolished without trying to eliminate the capitalist approach of production (Wilicki, 1968). In this regards, it is expected that the capitalist must in one way or another exploit the level of labor present within the market. The exploitation, as Marx puts forth, can be achieved in the developments made with both value and profits. It is ascertained that only human beings labor is the only one that can create a distinctive mode of value. Karl Marx puts forth that labor time equals the underlying unit of a given commodity value, which is otherwise a common aspect that allows immeasurable products to be easily changed (Wilicki, 1968). Given that value is determined and thereby measured in respect to labor time, profit is depicted as being the right of the underlying capitalist to necessitate the appropriation of production without actually spending on the labor factor. It is should be understood that labor value that should be paid to the laborer is only determined on the underlying labor price within the market (Wilicki, 1968). A surplus value arises whenever there is a difference between the value of a given number of commodities produced by labor and the resultant cost of wages that is to be paid to labor components. This value constitutes the section for which workers engage in its production but it does not belong to them whatsoever. Thus, in Marx’s view, capitalists can only exist in the event that workers are able to be separated from the underlying means of production and thereby transform to being commodities themselves (Wilicki, 1968). This distinctive level of expropriation or rather prehistoric accumulation of capital factor is responsible for the creation of a decisive state of inequality of power between the underlying capitalists and the immediate workers that can only own labor power. Under this notion, capitalists can thus be free to either invest or not their income capacities within a factory however; matters related to labor should be provided on a free basis (Brenner, 1977). Subsequently, in Marx view, capitalists can exploit workers through the use and exchange value phenomenon. Use value, in this manner, translates to the usefulness attributed to a given level of human purpose (Elliott, 1976). The fundamental purpose of the immediate economy rests with the production of socially necessary or useful commodities at any given moment in time. In a pre-capitalist society, the phenomenon attributed to product exchange is vehemently governed by the notion of use values. It is established that the fundamental objective of a pre-capitalist model of exchange is focused on the immediate increment attributed towards an individual’s store of use values rather than on making profits on the resultant exchange or thereby accumulate more commodities than one can actually utilize (Elliott, 1976). The aspect of exchange can only be initiated and thereby terminated with a useful commodity. Under the capitalism notion, the working class continues to conduct their tasks on the aforementioned basis whereby they are forced to exchange the use value of their respective labor power for money and thereby later, exchange the money for the commodities that avail use values for their immediate consumption needs. However, on a significant notion, the capitalist is forced to act in accordance with a distinctively different logicality (Brenner, 1977). On the other hand, the exchange value translates to the commodities that are generated for the immediate market needs and not basically for use and the fundamental objective of the economic exchange rests with the enjoyment of profits (Elliott, 1976). Marx attributes profits as being the direct essence of capitalism where it is distinctively associated with the elements of private ownership, labor wages and market exchange that are all directed towards profits and never utility aspect (Elliott, 1976). Exploitation arises whenever, a laborer power to produce is purchased at the underlying labor market price but then, the laborer is forced to work beyond the recommended time for him to generate produce value that is sufficiently enough to counter wages received. The worker is forced to conduct the additional and uncompensated work since the capitalist is the sole decision maker for the length of workday and thus, forces the laborer to accept the conditions or give up work for a willing individual worker (Elliott, 1976). Notably, the surplus level of labor the worker contributes generates a surplus value that is credited to the capitalist that later converts it into monetary profits by way of selling it to the commodity markets. Almost the entire means of production provides a fundamental contribution however; labor power significantly represents the major contributor of newer or surplus value. It is established that the immediate exploitation of labor power represents the invisible mechanism behind the emergence of profits given that labor market price is always separated from other commodity markets that is represented by profits while laborers are separated from the surplus level of value they are able to generate but are not compensated for in return (Brenner, 1977). In regards, to class struggle over exploitation, it is ascertained that the capitalist is only focused on the underlying rate of their respective profits. That is to state, according to Marx, that these capitalists are only focused on the exchange values rather than use values. They are always in competition for enormous levels of profits with other capitalists hence forcing them to exploit labor power as much as possible (Elliott, 1976). At one time, it might appear moral for the capitalists to treat their laborers fairly, however; the aspect of capitalism makes it impossible to attain. Their underlying objective is to compel laborers work as much as possible to affect surplus value while at the same time paying them little monetary benefits (Elliott, 1976). They ensure that these workers are unorganized, powerless and immensely insecure and thereby set conditions that rule against time wastage as well as elongating workdays as much as possible (Elliott, 1976). The notion of unemployment is considered to be a powerful tool that results from the class struggle over the immediate level of wages. Karl Marx does not conform to Malthus arguments that lower levels of wages are the immediate result of a lack of working-class sexual connotations and the activities of procreation and the overpopulation of potential laborers that results from this indiscipline (Brenner, 1977). Marx, however; depicts it as being a libel on the underlying human race where capitalism creates its own overpopulation by way of a systematic unemployment that is directly caused by displaced workers at any given moment in time (Elliott, 1976). From the above discussion, it is fairly well to stipulate that Karl Marx was against the notion of capitalism as a whole. This was mainly because it translated to exploitation of the labor power by the capitalist venture thereby creating an unfair work system. It should be understood that the notion of capitalism within any given society arose out of the fact that the capitalists needed to make more money profits by way of using such inhumane tactics as elongating the immediate length of working days and also, subjecting workers to an ultimatum that called for them to either conform to the requirements of elongating their respective labor power or give up their immediate levels of employment for willing parties (Brenner, 1977). Notwithstanding, the capitalist are perceived as having concentrated too much on the exchange value rather than use value. Therefore, Karl Marx perceived this system as being over-exploitative to the middle crises that eventually led to the cases of unemployment being witnessed until today. References List Arnold, N, S. 1967. Marx and disequilibrium in market socialist relations of production, Economics and Philosophy, vol.3: pp.23-48. Brenner R. 1977. The origins of capitalist development: A critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism. New Left Review, vol. 104; pp. 25-92. Elliott, J, E. 1976. Marx and contemporary models of socialist economy, History of Political Economy, vol.8: pp.151-64. Gordon, D. M. 1976. Capitalist efficiency and socialist efficiency, Monthly Review, vol.24: pp. 19-39. Wilicki, A. 1968. Karl Marx as philosopher of freedom, Critical Review, vol.2: 10-58. Read More