Marxist Sociological Theory - Essay Example

? Marxist theory College Marxist theory is defined as a sociological theory that recognizes economic factors as the primary determinant of social structure and change. Capitalism is an economic system that is inherently prone to crisis. The capitalism crisis is driven by various forces that cause it to be unstable self destructive and anarchic. In the Marxist theory, the major issue is to understand the cause of the capital crisis and the necessity and the possibility of the revolutionary change of the crisis. He believes that the existence of poverty and inequality only is not what may turn the employees against the capitalist system. This capital crisis has been a major problem in almost among the daily human workings. Of greater ideological and social impact the instability, ruin and insecurity that periodically inflicted on the working- class people’s lives by the economic crises (Blackledge, 2006pp. 84). This theory states that capital crises have a large impact on the capitalists’ fortunes as well. The saying, ‘operating the union of the capitalist class’ is broken up and led to all- out fight for survival between capitalists themselves and the capital against the working class. Due to this, political instability, an intensification of the class struggle, war and ideological confusion among the ruling class may come around as a result of the capitalism crises. In that case, Marx argues that capital crisis is the most frightful devastation and like an earthquake, it causes bourgeois society to shake to the very foundations. Out of the capitalist crises there is an emerging of the revolutionally change. This is not guaranteed but it comes about in the hands of the working class. Most of the cases, the people found in the lower classes do not look forward living in their old ways (Cohen, 2000 pp.75). Additionally, the capitalism crises persistence makes the revolutionary change possible and an urgent necessity. According to Marx, historically, this capitalism crises fight always ended up either in the common ruin of all who were involved or in the revolutionary reconstitution. Marx describes various most fearful devastations that may be brought about by the capitalism crises. These may include the poverty, war, hunger, environmental destruction which have increased since his time. Conversely, he agues that the capitalism which is prone to crisis brings about the need to socialism. It does not only abolish inequality and poverty but it eliminates the recurrent economic and social disasters that are endemic to the capitalist system (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001 pp. 85). Many people have argued differently concerning the capitalism. For instance, Adam said that the free market and the capitalism were caused by the propensity in human nature in order to truck the barter exchange. Conversely, Lionel Robbins argued that capitalism consist of an interdependent series which is in the relationship with the men and economic goods. They both viewed the economic relationships as the relationship between the people and the products. On the other hand, Marx went in to their contrast and argues in capital as the relation between capital and labour wage. He said that the two determines the whole character of the production mode of the capitalist. He was aiming at studying the process of exchange which clearly tells the under surface happenings. He stated that if the rules and the mechanisms are focused only, the economists will claim that everybody participated as equal whether one was rich or was poor (Eubank, 2011 pp. 94). The Marx’s method Conversely, he argued that by analysing the production sphere the relation between the capital and the wage-labour is able to expose the hidden class contradictions in the system. These contradictions are the ones that are likely to be ignored by the capitalist economists. Additionally, Marx also views capitalist relation as the natural order of things that is rooted from the propensity of the human nature where he supported Adam smith. According to him, movement of the market – prices, alterations of the crisis and prosperity, its conjunctures and the world market are all the overwhelming natural laws that force their will in an irresistible manner. He also argued that the capitalist process of production is a form that is historically determined that is socially production process in general (Hartwick & Peet, 2009pp.78). Conversely, he decided to analyse the market and capitalism but not as an unchanging natural laws production. He also analysed it as a dynamic system which comes into being at a particular human history stage unlike the other class societies. It is regularly, not determined by its own interior contradictions. According to Marx, the transformation of nature to produce things needed to maintain the existence of the society. He argues that in society classes one class is always dependable over the other. For example, one of the classes takes the product of labour of the other. For instance in the feudalism, the lords are likely to take the serf’s labour production. In that case, the serfs spent half of the week trying to make their own production while during the rest of the week, their labour go on to produce goods for the lords. They are likely to consume very little out of their production while much of their production was consumed by the nobles. According to Marx, this extra labour is referred to as surplus labour and its extraction was referred to as exploitation (PriscillaMcGeehon.Goldstein & Pevenhouse,2009 pp.120). Basing his argument on the given example over lords and the serfs, the lords are the capitalist while the serfs are the workers. He tries to emphasize how the capitalists are likely to obtain the worker’s surplus labour. The way through which exploitation takes place under capitalism due to the market functioning is more camouflaged than in the previous production modes. The process through which the exploitation can clearly be exposed is the Marx’s labour theory of value (Hobden & Jones, 2004 pp. 98). Marx’s law of value The law states that, each production system should be able to regulate the people’s labour which is spent while producing one product versus the other. It states that this is very essential to the society to avoid lose of labour to useless things. Generally, the pre- capitalist societies directly produced things for other people but not for marketing. In this case, they produced for sell but not for exchange meaning, their production was taken care of their needs and wants, their community, lord, slave master, and their family unit. Conversely, capitalism is different from the past production modes (Zarembka & Desai,2011). According to Marx, almost all the human products which are out of their labour are very essential commodities. In that case, they are all produced for sell. He termed this the generalised commodity of production where by people are able to obtain their wants and needs through market purchasing. They produce the other people’s needs and sell them to the market. On the other hand, production for sale brings about a new dynamic which is different from other societies which produce directly for use. Making the allocation of labour in such economy is under the regulation of the law of value (Limqueco & MacFarlane,1983pp. 88). According to the law, the out come of the exchange of goods is the amount of labour time that is essential in the production of something important. This is what Marx termed as socially necessary labour time. He argues that this was the amount of time which is set aside for the production of a community of high quality. This is done through the best methods and technology that are available widely. According to Marx, the value of a commodity is equal to the labour time of production. Conversely, Marx further explains how the capitalist finally gains more than he or she started with. He states that any worker’s ability to work is an essential commodity that is something to sale. He further tries to explain the differences between the labour power and labour. Firstly, he termed the labour power as the worker’s ability to work of which is the commodity he or she sells in the market place. Secondly, the labour is the amount of work done and this is the value of the commodity. In that case, if the payments done for the wages are lower than the goods value, the possibility of the worker’s profit is obvious (Parkin, 1979pp. 74). The capitalist is now able to gain more than what he or she started with because he will attempt to make little payments for the worker’s payments then he conversely tries to get as much labour as possible hence the profit. According to Marx, this is how the surplus labour is extracted under the exploitation method of capitalism. He says that with the only view of the buying and selling in economy may not be able to expose this method of extraction. Again, he states that in the market place both the workers and the capitalist try to sell their commodities for the best prices. To the capitalist he tries to sell his goods while the worker tries to sell his labour power for the best prices. When production is viewed under the value term the capitalist should always make various efforts towards to be profitable (Pashukanis,2002 pp.90). 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 labour 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 (Taiwo, 1995 pp. 65 ) . Bibliography Blackledge, P. (2006). Reflections on the Marxist theory of history. Manchester [u.a.: Manchester Univ. Press. Cohen, G. A. (2000). Karl Marx's theory of history: A defence. Oxford [u.a.: Clarendon. Dougherty, J. E., & Pfaltzgraff, R. T. (2001).Contending Theories of International Relations. Eubank, L. (2011). Why Marx was wrong: A refutation of the major tenets of Marxist economics. Bloomington, Ind: AuthorHouse.  Hartwick, E., & Peet, R. (2009).Theories of Development Contentions, Arguments, Alternatives.New York:The Guilford Press. Hobden, S., & Jones, R. W. (2004). Marxist Theories of International Relations. In J. Baylis, & S. Smith,The Globalization of World Politics(pp. 142-159). Limqueco, P., & MacFarlane, B. (1983). Neo-Marxist theories of development. London: Croom Helm [usw.. Parkin, F. (1979). Marxism and class theory: A bourgeois critique. London: Tavistock Publications. Pashukanis, E. B. (2002). The general theory of law & Marxism. New Brunswick, NJ [u.a.: Transaction Publ. PriscillaMcGeehon.Goldstein, & Pevenhouse. (2009).International Relations, 8th Edition. Taiwo, O. (1995). Legal naturalism: Marxist theory of law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Zarembka, P., & Desai, R. (2011). Revitalizing Marxist theory for today's capitalism. Bingley: Emerald Books. Read More