Capitalism and Class as Prominent Concepts of Marxism - Essay Example

? Introduction Capitalism represents an economic system that is intrinsically crisis-prone and driven by forces that render it to be unsteady, self-destructive, and chaotic. The underpinning theme of capitalism details the utilization of wealth to generate more wealth. Marx asserted that capital or the connection between wage-labour and capital shapes the whole make-up of the capitalist method of production. At the heart of Marxism is the development of the theory of class-struggle, which Marx outlines that societies and civilizations progress via a process of struggle between the clashes of interests among the various classes, and the prominent institutions within the society that present the means of support to the prevailing class within that society. The notion of class-struggle is an observation rather than a doctrine given that classes should struggle, but they do struggle between themselves. Marx perceived the working class as the progressive force towards revolution. This paper explores two prominent concepts of Marxism: capitalism and class. Capitalism Marx’s perception of capitalism can be considered two-sided, whereby his deepest critique of dehumanising aspects of the system detailed that the defining features of capitalism encompasses alienation and exploitation. Marx’s critique of capital can be regarded as part of an intricate argument expressed at social phenomenon, and actions of social agents that are responsible for generating them. Marx asserted that there are collective laws shaping social change, and future changes within the society can be forecasted based on these laws. According to Marx, the fundamental laws of history are in essence economic. As such, they fashion the character of the social, political, and spiritual processes of human experience (Bratton, Denham and Deutschmann 2009, p.11). Economics oversee everything as the economic base steers the association of work, individual’s connection to the land, hierarchies of influence, and how this is organized, affirmed, and acknowledged. Hence, it is the proposals generated by the ruling class that direct the material force of society. Marx stipulated that individuals should seek to oust capitalism and accelerate its downfall. Marx proposed that capitalism signified a predictable inclination of history that would eventually be replaced by a class-conscious proletariat amid an impending revolution. Nevertheless, this forecast does not appear to materialize, and many authors have pursued to revise Marx’s original ideas to render them to be more attuned with the happenings in history (Katz 1993, p.363). As such, the authors imply that the elementary of Marx are precise, but the forces of production have simply developed in a manner that could not have been foreseen. According to Braveman, in his book Labour and Monopoly Capitalism (1974), the labour force has not been becoming increasingly skilled and discriminated, usually perceived, but was becoming deskilled as Marx had advocated (Braveman1998, p.2). The economic validation and automation that is at the heart of capitalism means that most people are less plausible to develop a diversity of skills. The contemporary society manifests specialists in diverse fields who fix the machinery and technology representing only a small percentage of the workforce (Braveman1998, p.2). The anti-capitalist critique of Marx structures around core themes: the unfairness of exploitation; the loss of autonomy from alienation; and, absurdity of the system. Marx’s critique of the industrial age capitalism featured that: immiseration in which he argued that capitalism immiserate the workers owing to exploitation of labour, as real wages drop and working conditions decline. Marx critique of capitalism viewed the system as crisis where workers remunerated less and less, and the capitalist system was vulnerable to pervasive, unending crises of overproduction (Bratton, Denham and Deutschmann 2009, p.12). Marx’s other most controversial and inquisitive prediction critique of capitalism entailed stagnation, whereby, when economies stumble, the real profits would drop. Marx’s other critique detailed alienation, whereby the labour output is dissociated from the providers. Marx argued that the alienation capitulated to a plunge in self-will power or a loss of meaning, accomplishment, and purpose. This affirmation appears to hold true today even in the contemporary workplaces where most workers remain alienated (detached, uninspired, and demoralized). Marx also asserts that one of most harmful aspects of the industrial age capitalism details that the workers may be unaware of the exploited (false class consciousness), and the workers might even champion the factors propelling their exploitation (Sitton 1996, p.1). Marxian Class Theory Marx’s class theory hinges on the principle that “the history of existing society is alive to history of class struggles.” Classes are shaped by the forces that outline the mode of production, and classes representing an aspect of the relations of production. As such, the classes so not emanate from distribution of products (income differences), status honour, which flow from relationship to the process of production. Marx divided capitalism into three classes: capitalism, proletariats, and landowners that comprise within their mutual opposition to the framework of the contemporary society (Sitton 1996, p.1). In Marxism, Marxian class theory stipulates that an individual’s position within a class hierarchy determined by his or her role within the production process and asserts that political and ideological consciousness is shaped by class position. As such, Marxian class theory frequently relates to the discussion over pre-existing class struggles. Marx’s perception of class stemmed from a series of personal interests resting on social alienation and human struggle, whereby the establishment of class structure hinges on the acute historical consciousness (Sitton 1996, p.2). Moreover, political-economics also forms part of Marx’s theories grounded in the concept of “origin of income.” Marx pursued definition of class as entrenched in productive relations rather than social status, and his political and economic thought was oriented towards production, rather than distribution. Class Structure Marx differentiates one class from another based on a set of criteria: ownership of means of production and control of the labour power of others. Based on this, Marx defines the contemporary society as manifesting three distinct classes: capitalists or bourgeoisie representing those who own the means of production and solicit the labour from other; the workers, or proletariat bearing no access to the means of production or the capability to purchase the labour power from others, but rather sell their own labour; and, a petite, intermediary class, referred to as the petite bourgeoisie, who own adequate means of production, but do not purchase labour power. Hence, class determined by the property relations, rather than by income or status. The nature of Class Relations-Conflict An analysis of class divisions and resistance are particularly critical in establishing a concise understanding of the nature of capitalism. According to Marx, classes delineated and structured by the relations relating to (a) work and labour and (b) ownership or property control, as well as the means of production. The economic factors completely govern social relationships within capitalism. Karl Marx provided one of the powerful sociological explanations of social conflict by positing a class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie inherent in capitalist industrial society (Hodges 1961, p.23). This assertion can be regarded as powerful, vibrant, and appearing to suit with history. Marx’s definition of class hinges on the ownership of property, whereby the ownership of property awards individuals with power to exclude others from the property, and utilize the property for personal purposes. Marx stipulated that the bourgeoisie society derived from the ruins of feudal society that has not yet dissipated class antagonisms. As a result, the capitalist system heralded new forms of classes, new order of domination, and fresh modes of oppression to substitute the previous ones. Marx asserted that the epoch of bourgeoisie manifest the idiosyncratic features of simplified class antagonisms as the society is split into two prominent classes that confronted each other: bourgeoisie and proletariat. Marx outlined conflict as a critical driving force of history and the core determinant of social trajectories; nevertheless, in order to comprehend the nature of “class conflict” it is essential to understand that such conflict emanates from a unified class interest (class consciousness) (Levine 2006, p.20). Class consciousness detail an aspect of Marxist theory delineating to the self-awareness of the social classes, the capability to act rationally, or assess the level to which an individual determines historical tasks that their class outlines for them. Marx first highlighted the establishment of class conflict as confined to capitalists; nevertheless, owing to the maturation of capitalism, the life conditions of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat started to grow more desperate, whereby the heightened homogenization within the classes to facilitate the environment for individual struggles to be rendered more generalized (Hudis 2012, p.84). In the event that the rising class conflict manifest at the societal level, class consciousness and shared interests also increase. As a result, owing to the augmentation of the class consciousness, policies are structured to guarantee the duration of such interests for the ruling class (Hughes, Sharrock and Martin 2003, p.19). This heralds the utilization of the struggle for political power and classes to become political forces. Given that the distribution of political power is anchored the power in power derived from production, or capital, the bourgeoisie utilizes their wealth to legitimize and safeguard their property and consequent social relations; hence, the ruling class details those who hold economic power and are in charge of making decisions (Levine 2006, p.21). Marx presumes the inevitability of the revolution of capitalist society owing to the eventual discontent. Marx argued that the socialization of labour driven by the increase of large-scale production yields to an increase in power dimensions, as well as power of finance capital that avails the core material foundation for the eventual arrival of socialism (Hudis 2012, p.84). The proletariat, in this case, can be regarded as the physical, intellectual, and moral architect of the revolution, whereby, the resistance against the bourgeoisie ultimately becomes a political struggle with the objective of political conquest by the proletariat (Edward 1997, p.3). Post-capitalist assert that, even with the revolutions that occurred in Russia and China in which the societies came to be dominated by leaders from communist parties the masses have gained little economically. In most cases, the political liberties enjoyed by the masses have reduced. These assertions have been countered by modern Marxists who continue to maintain that even today; the rich persist to exercise immense economic and political power. Indeed, even the changes that have been registered within the capitalist class structure bear far less significance given that the redistribution of wealth and income have heralded minimal change among the poor (Resnick and Wolff 1989, p.142). Although, skilled sections of the working class have gained more affluence, there have been minimal changes witnessed in their attitudes and values. Moreover, the distribution of the political power as suggested by the theory of democratic pluralism has been less profound. Class and Capitalism in contemporary society Marx believed that class conflict determined the course of history appeared to melt away in an affluent era of free enterprise and free trade. At some time, the deeply entrenched power of globalization that links even the most isolated areas and the prominence of capitalist tools of trade, heavy investment of foreign investment, and entrepreneurship seemed to uplift the masses to new heights. Nevertheless, the global economy has delved into a protracted crisis manifested by burdening of joblessness, rising debt, and stagnating incomes. This reinforces Marx’s theory detailing that the capitalist system is intrinsically unjust and self-destructive and would eventually impoverish the masses (Levine 2006, p.20). It is apparent that the world’s wealth became has overtime been concentrated within the hands of a greedy few yielding to economic crises, and enhanced conflict between the bourgeoisie and the workers (Tucker 2002, p.117). Marx compared to the accumulation of wealth among the few to the amassing of misery, slavery, agony of toil, ignorance, mental degradation. This is not to suggest that Marx was perfectly accurately given that his dictatorship of the proletariat did not feature (Kendall 2012, p.215). Nevertheless, the consequence of the broadening inequality details just what Marx had predicted as manifested by the fact that the class struggle is back as the workers are increasingly becoming agitated and are demanding their fair share of the global economy (Ashcraft 1979, p.225). It is evident that capitalism has created a society in which individuals are denied their creative potential. Capitalist denies workers the “entirety of their life content” given that capitalism elevates division of labour by splitting production into a string of minute, highly specialized tasks, in which every task is undertaken by a certain distinct worker. This fashioned at enhancing profitability derived from the enhanced efficiency. The structural arrangement of capitalism translates to the notion of appropriating individual employees with one-sided roles to be undertaken for life (Levine 2006, p.20). This dispossesses workers the chance to be well-rounded individuals. The weaknesses highlighted by Marx are still alive today; the society no longer exercise control over the economic system given that the modern stock market slumps and booms accompanied by persistent layoffs, corporate scandals, and enduring unemployment. In the contemporary capitalist society, individuals are increasingly finding themselves under the yoke of impersonal powers right from economic forces and bureaucracies, of which, through human creations, the economic systems have real power over them. While capitalist system persists, labour will endure to be alienated (Collins 2006, p.47). Capitalism is fashioned around a system that all people are anticipated to live happy, self-fulfilling lives; nevertheless, this hardly materializes as feelings of frustration and alienation (Schuman, 2013). Instead of the capitalism heralding self actualization and propelling meaningful and fulfilling lives, most individuals, to some level, are condemned to a life full of isolation and those who disentangle the tag of alienation possibly engage in some mode of self deception. This may be necessitated by the desire to maintain a level of significance and self-worth aided by illusions concerning one and the circumstances in which one has found himself in. Although, some thinkers such as Albert Camus stipulate that alienation form an inalienable part of the human condition, much of alienation in contemporary society remains an outcome of class society and to extent the capitalist system. Consequently, the contemporary society that is typified by rampant alienation can only triumph if the economic system is restructured. Conclusion There no doubt that capitalism is embroiled in a crisis worldwide and Karl Marx is gradually going mainstream the core question remains-what could be the alternative. Although, relevance of Marx’s dream of a socialist revolution and the eventual rise of a community society remain contested, Marx esteemed ideas on capitalism and class can be considered as still applicable and alive in the contemporary society. Class conflict is thrusting its way to the centre, and it is appearing that Marx’s projection, “what the capitalists generate are its own grave diggers” may have received the exact opposite. The proletariat or the workers are far from witnessing the demise of capitalism, and it is ironical that it is the workers who are sustaining capitalism. It cannot be lost that the under-remunerated, and overworked workers such as China are producing ‘fodder’ to sustain the capitalist system as demonstrated by Chinese money bankrolling bankrupt capitalist systems. Indeed, it is not lost that British workers were compelled to bail out banks so as to sustain the disgraced system from collapsing to the benefit of the bourgeoisie while the poor are left to struggle amid job insecurity and debt. This has reinforced the critique levelled against capitalism featuring “the bourgeoisie has known how to compel the exploited to compensate for its crisis, and utilize them to defuse its opponents.” References List Ashcraft, R. (1979). Class and class conflict in contemporary capitalist societies, Contemporary Capitalist Societies 11 (2), pp.225-245. Bratton, J., Denham, D., & Deutschmann, L. B. (2009). Capitalism and classical sociological theory. Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Pp.11-12. Braveman, H. (1998). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century, New York, Monthly Review Press. Pp.2-8. Collins, R. C. (2006). Four Sociological traditions, Ventura, Cram 101. Pp.47-80. Edward, R. (1997). Marx: A Clear Guide, London, Pluto Press. Pp.3. Hodges, D. C. (1961). The intermediate classes in Marxian theory, Social Research 28 (1), pp.23-36. Hudis, P. (2012). Marx's concept of the alternative to capitalism. Leiden, Brill. Pp.84. Hughes, J., Sharrock, W. & Martin, P. (2003). Understanding Classical Sociology, London Sage. pp.19-141. Katz, C. J. (1993). Karl Marx on the feudalism to capitalism, Theory and Society 22, pp.363-389. Kendall, D. E. (2012). Sociology in our times: the essentials. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Pp.215. Levine, R. F. (2006). Social class and stratification : classic statements and theoretical debates. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Pp.20-22. Resnick, S. A., & Wolff, R. D. (1989). Knowledge and class: a Marxian critique of political economy. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Pp.142-143. Schuman, M. (2013). Marx’s revenge: How class struggle is shaping the world [Online] Accessed 26 April 2013. Available at: http://business.time.com/2013/03/25/marxs-revenge-how-class-struggle-is-shaping-the-world/ Sitton, J. F. (1996). Recent Marxian theory: class formation and social conflict in contemporary capitalism. Albany, State Univ. of New York Press. Pp.1-2. Tucker, T. (2002). Classical Social Theory, Oxford, Blackwell. pp. 116-155. Read More