Capitalism and Labour Power - Essay Example

capitalism and labour power by The of the The of the School The and where it is located The Date Capitalism and Labour Power If one takes a close look at the human civilization, one will be able to point out that the economic constituent of it has always played an important role. Indeed, while the scholars may note the development in science or culture, it is beyond any doubt that the history of the humanity should also be viewed through the prism of different transformations that the economic dimension of it has experienced. According to the view that was developed by Karl Max, the primitive society evolved from slavery through feudalism into capitalism, while communist was regarded as a better alternative to it. Indeed, capitalism was largely critiqued by this philosopher. One of the major claims focuses on the idea that it treated the labour power as a kind of commodity which constituted the most distinctive feature of it. This paper will analyze the above mentioned claim in great detail and will argue the validity of it. To begin with, it would be logical to focus on the key word in the expression, namely commodity. Indeed, it may not be an exaggeration to suggest that employers who are capitalists largely view the concept of labour power in terms of supply and demand – the categories which are commonly used for commodities. Thus, every large company which may be considered to be a stronghold of capitalism tries to determine the available supply of the labour force that there is on the market so that the demand for it can be readjusted (Wood 1975, p. 142). In other words, the attitude towards people who are willing to work is depersonalized and primarily relies on the numerical data which determines the efficiency of engaging people in the production (Rourke & Rourke 2005, 128). All this results in the fact that the capitalists do not hesitate when they have to make a reduction. For them, labour power is nothing but an economic variable that is influenced by the external factors and needs to be readjusted (Carchedi 1991, p. 13). It is quite understandable that capitalists should not take problems of the people who work for them too close to their hearts as there are just too many of them; nevertheless, the cold logic of capitalism argues whenever there is a crisis that can be solved by layoffs, the latter will be used without hesitation (Meuse 2003, p. 310). In order to develop a better understanding of the idea that was expressed by Marx, one should also take into close consideration the notion of labour power. Thus, it must be noted that according to this German philosopher the development of the social environment is largely determined by the conflict between the two classes: the capitalists and the labour class (Rees 1998, p. 80). That is why the latter should be regarded as an irreplaceable part of the society and not some kind of an artificially created as well as abstractly determined group of people who fight for their rights. In other words, if one class is able to practice such treatment of the other, this reflects the deep lack of balance between the parts of the society (Fuchs 2008, p. 191). What is more important is that the idea of labour power should be understood in some kind of abstract terms, but should be closely associated with a particular group of people. For example, at the present moment one of the most popular types of organization generates a category of employees which should be regarded as the main representative of the labour power nowadays (Abercrombie & Urry 1983, p. 52). Indeed, the above mentioned conflict between the classes of the society should not be considered to be a phenomenon that happens in the abstract environment only, but rather a part of every day life (Bartos & Wehr 2002, p. 180). As a result, all people who are employees should think about the way they are being treated by the top management. It is quite understandable that Marx did not point out the problem in question for the sake of mere theorization: he called it the most distinctive feature of capitalism, suggesting that the understanding of it is likely to result into a better understand of a more complex phenomenon. Indeed, in the economic theory that was developed by him, different forms of human society are defined by base and superstructure; while the former heavily relies on the way one part of the society treats the other (Sanderson 2001, p. 65). For example, if for capitalism the labour power is regarded as a commodity, for slavery, a much earlier base, it was seen as property. In spite of the fact that these two notions might seem similar, they do feature significant differences that explain the peculiarity of slavery and capitalism (Robinson 2000, p. 4). So, it would not be a mistake to point out that the labour power as well as a different part of the social environment should be viewed in dialectic unity as without the first there is no distinct role of the latter (Scott 1996, p. 283). In other words, if there had not been employees who are engaged in the production, the capitalists would have never been able to treat them as commodity and develop a peculiar economic base for a society. This means that the treatment should not be viewed in one dimension only. Speaking of the process of treatment, one should put emphasis on some aspect of it as well. Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to suggest that capitalism features a rather superficial approach towards the labour power. As it has already been mentioned, the employers are not able to develop a deeper understanding of their employees since there are just too many of them; nevertheless, this may not be considered to be an excuse for making decisions that are able to have a negative impact on the labour power and which could have been avoided (Phillips & Gully 2014, p. 462). It is true that in broad perspective, different parts of the labour power feature certain similarity and are able to be replaced with one another. Nevertheless, every person even with the same qualification as another one is unique; so, it is somewhat illogical to adopt such a superficial approach towards labour power as it is featured by capitalism. Thus, the result of such treatment is the adoption of one size fits all ideology, according to which employees are viewed as screws in a bigger mechanism which is much more complex and important that any single element that comprises it (Lewis & Goodman 2004, p. 419). However, if there is truly no difference between one screw and the other and they might be easily replaced as one wears off; the similar treatment of people should not be allowed to be practiced by capitalists as it diminishes the dignity of a person should be label as completely inhumane. Therefore, I would like to agree with the idea of Marx regarding the fact that treatment of the labour power as a commodity should be considered to be one of the most distinctive features of capitalism. There are several reasons for that. First of all, this can be easily seen in the modern world. If one analyzes the experience of large corporations that are extremely successful in their field of activity, one will notice that they primarily treat their employees like commodity: they invest into them, trade and may even reserve (Besharov 2011, p. 117). In other words, the humanistic approach towards treating people can hardly be found in the business world nowadays. Secondly, keeping in mind the trends of the contemporary development of the world, one would make no mistake, pointing out that the above mentioned kind of treatment is not likely to change as it proved to be rather effective, at least for some individuals and in the long run, companies would not like to introduce any kind of adjustments into their business processes and they will be afraid of losing competitive advantage (Mello 2002, p. 15). Thus, judging from the idea that was articulated by Marx, if capitalism develops a different treatment of the labour power, this will mean the end of capitalism. It is quite obvious that the part of society that is currently enjoying a considerable income from the activities that are performed by other people will not be willing to change anything. Having examined all the evidence that was analyzed in the paragraphs above, one is able to come to the following conclusion: Karl Marx is right when he points out that the distinctive feature of capitalism is the way capitalists treat the labour power, namely regard it as some kind of a commodity. There is numerous evidence that can be used to back up this claim. To begin with, the capitalism largely views the labour power in much broader economic categories that are often applied to commodities. In addition to that, the treatment of people is generally superficial which reflects desire of the dominant class to apply one size fits all approach. That is why capitalism should be defined as a system when the labour power is regarded as a commodity. References Abercrombie N & Urry 1983, Capital, labour, and the middle classes, G. Allen & Unwin, London. Bartos O & Wehr P 2002, Using conflict theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Besharov D 2011, The Workforce Investment Act implementation experiences and evaluation findings, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, MI. Carchedi, G 1991, Frontiers of political economy, Verso, London. Fuchs C 2008, Internet and society: Social theory in the information age, Routledge, New York. Lewis P & Goodman S 2004, Management: Challenges for tomorrows leaders, Thomson/South-Western, Mason, OH. Mello J 2002, Strategic human resource management, South-Western College Pub, Syndey. Meuse K 2003, Resizing the organization managing layoffs, divestitures, and closings : Maximizing gain while minimizing pain, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Phillips J & Gully S 2014, Human resource management, South-Western Centage Learning, Mason, OH. Rees J 1998, The algebra of revolution the dialectic and the classical Marxist tradition, Routledge, London. Robinson C 2000, Black marxism the making of the Black radical tradition, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Rourke T & Rourke R 2005, A theory of personalism, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD. Sanderson S 2001, The evolution of human sociality: A Darwinian conflict perspective, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD. Scott J 1996, Class: Critical concepts, London: Routledge Wood A 1975, A theory of profits, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Read More