The Evlis of Capitalism
Evils of Capitalism Marx was hardly the first thinker to denounce the evils of capitalism. Indeed, anti-capitalism is at least implicit in much of the Judeo-Christian tradition, with its attacks on greed, materialism, and selfishness.
According
to Karl Marx, the evil of capitalism is not the competition it
fosters or its supposed lack of concern for the poor. Rather, it is
the inevitable problem of surplus labor. To Marx, capitalism was a
flawed system because it inevitably deprived the worker of some of
the profits of his work. While his theory itself is fundamentally
flawed, it is nevertheless the basis for much communist doctrine. The
theory of surplus value/labor is based upon the assumption that the
cost of a product is determined by how much labor was required to
make it. While that sounds logical, capitalism is based on a
different assumption. Capitalists believe that goods are worth
whatever someone is willing to pay for them. This seems to fit what
we see in the world a little better. Consider the following example.
A farmer is tilling his field when his plow hits an enormous diamond
partially buried in the ground. He picks it up, takes it into town,
and sells it to a jeweler for several thousand dollars. He then
returns to his field and works until harvest. Once he has collected
his crop, he takes it into town and sells it at the market. According
to the communist theory of value, his produce should be much more
costly than the diamond because it required much more labor than
picking up the diamond. Of course, we know that this is not what we
see in the real world.
The Bourgeoisie and Proletariats
According to Karl
Marx collaborator Friedrich Engels, bourgeoisie
is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of
social production and employers of wage labor. By proletariat,
the class of modern wage-laborers who, having no means of production
of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to
live.
During the time of
Karl Marx, he saw the history as the story of class struggles, in
which the oppressed fight against their oppressors. According to him,
as history unfolded, the victory of one class would pave the way for
the future freedom of the rest of society. There are certain views
that Karl Marx unfolding the process of history as it follows: 1)
Ancient and mediaeval society the landed and wealthy had oppressed
the slaves and the poorest plebeians and laborers 2) A new
technologies were invented and market forces grew stronger,
everything changed. The middle classes, gaining wealth and power from
trade and manufacturer, challenged the power and authority of the old
rulers 3) the stage of a new struggle was formed and these are
Bourgeoisie
and
Proletariat.
Marx argued that
bourgeoisie (The capitalists) were mercilessly exploited the
proletariat (The working class). He even acknowledged that the work
provided by the proletariat produced great help for the wealth of the
bourgeoisie. The products or goods produce by the factory or outcome
of the workers' labor were sold for more than the value of the
labor itself, that is to say more than the workers' wages. For
instance, the industrial worker may get paid $200 to produce a
one set of dining table. The Bourgeoisie (capitalist) then sells the
dining table for $500. In this way, the owner of the products,
who controls the process of production, makes a profit. But the
worker does not gain from this added value, and fails to acquire
benefit from the fruits of his/her own labor.
Marx believed that
capitalism contained the seeds of its own demolition/destruction. He
described how dependent the wealth of the bourgeoisie
(The capitalists) on the work of the proletariat
(The working class). Therefore, bourgeoisie
requires an underclass. But Marx foresaw and predicted that the
continued exploitation of this underclass would create great
resentment and bitterness. Sooner or later, the proletariat
would direct to a revolution against the bourgeoisie.
The final struggle would put an end to the capitalism and its
supporters. One of the writings of Karl Marx, he wrote that modern
bourgeois society 'is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to
control the powers of the nether world that he has called up by his
spells.'
Subsequently the
defeat of capitalism by proletariats’, a new form of equal and
classless society would appear based on the idea: 'It will be
according to his abilities and skills and to his wants and needs'. In
such a society, industry, wealth, land, and labor would be shared
between all people. All people will have the privilege and right to
an education, and class structures would eradicate. Harmony would
reign, and the state would simply 'wither away'.
By
the sphere of necessity, Karl Marx means the area of economically
necessary labor, labor to meet man’s material needs. He contrasts
this realm of necessity to the realm of freedom, the sphere of
activities that’s not so determined. However, it is a mistake –
though common – to suppose that the sphere of necessity is
consequently the sphere of not being free. This conclusion is based
on the presupposition that economic labor is necessarily not free.
There’s no proof that Marx made this presupposition either here or
there.
The
concept that economically necessary labor can be free and fulfilling
is essential to Marx’s viewpoint, both here and all through his
work. However, it’s not familiar to many modern philosophers.
Aristotle and Plato look upon a fully human life as the life of
reason, needing the excuse of labor, which they look upon it as a
lower activity catering only to lower needs. In Immanuel Kant’s
view, human beings are rational beings and humans’ material nature
is lower and merely animal aspect of our being. In the Christian
thought, work is treated as a curse. It serves as a punishment of our
fallen nature. Work is also seen as toil by the hedonism which
underlies utilitarianism and classical economics. On this view,
humans are essentially consumers rather than producers who only work
just to satisfy man’s needs.
According
to Karl Marx, however, work has a different place in our life. We are
necessarily active and creative beings that can improve and
accomplish ourselves through productive activity. In his writings, he
defines labor as our vital/essential activity in human life for it is
the basis on which human beings are dissimilar from other animals.
According to Marx the animals produce, but what they produce is only
what is vital for themselves and for their young to survive, whereas
when man works, he works universally. For Marx, through work, we
segregate ourselves from nature and establish a self apart at the
same time we start the process of conquering the division from
nature. By means of objectifying ourselves, we come to know our
strengths, capabilities and powers as genuine and objective, and thus
develop self-consciousness.
In
this way, Marx meant work/labor not only as a means to satisfaction
of material needs, but also a necessary activity of self-development
and realization. This process of objectivity and realization to self
is present not only in labor but also in other forms of practical
activity.
The Freedom of Consumer Choice
i. One of the
most expansive and ingrained freedoms
ii. production of
commodities is crucial to capital and profit accumulation
iii. its twin
freedom to shop
iv. it’s an
everyday freedom as opposed.
v. its natural
for us to be consumers, to shop, to consume and to own things, that
we dont consider it as a special freedom or privilege. We consider it
our existence.
In this
“consumer” period the capitalist becomes like other men: he
regards himself as a free agent, able to step back from his role as
producer and accumulator, even to give it up entirely for the sake of
pleasure or happiness; for the first time he sees his life as an open
book, as something to be shaped according to his choice.
As capitalists in an age of consumption become free, one would think, and pursue their own happiness instead of the aims of a relentless alien Power, they must inevitably become less fervid and blindly compulsive, more mellow, pliable and humane — more “humane” if only because more human, less like angels or machines. Now of course, Marx felt, this might well happen in some cases; but there were very good reasons not to be too optimistic. Fetishism, he saw, might prove so powerful as to make a fetish of the very desire that would dissolve it. The capitalist system then would simply devour and assimilate this nascent desire for happiness, and turn it to its own advantage.
The Use of Machinery and the Division of Labor
The
development of work is the progress of production. Precisely
speaking, man is the only one that can produce. Man can creates
something when he makes use of mechanical, physical, and chemical
forces to make instruments, tools, and machines which are the
extensions of the man’s body and could make his job productive.
Human labor can be productive only when man uses machines, tools, or
instruments. Man is the motive behind a tool, yet a machine can
become a tool when used by man. The machine is a device that consist
different parts in order to make it work. Machines are devices
derived from modified tools and are continued to be repaired by
tools. The motive of man is the power behind both tool and machine.
With
machine in place, division of laborers occurs. The division of labor
is about workers or cooperating individuals that performs specific
tasks and roles together in order to produce commodities. The
division of labor refers to the task distribution of any individual
or groups according to their capabilities and tools those people or
groups possess. Man becomes the tool in a pessimistic manner. An
individual becomes a part of the machine, not that an individual is
seen with his/her unique ability. In a factory, people are
replaceable because machines work continuously without steady
supervision.
Class Struggle and History
Marx
inherited the ideas of class and class struggle from
utopian
socialism
and
the theories of
Henri
de Saint-Simon.
Karl
Marx introduced the idea of class into sociology and here are the key
points:
1.
Marx sees
society
evolving
through stages. He focuses on dialectical class conflict to control
the means of
production
as
the driving force behind social evolution.
2.
According to Marx, society evolves through different modes of
production in which the upper class controls the means of production
and the lower class is forced to provide labor.
3.
In Marx's dialectic, the class conflict in each stage necessarily
leads to the development of the next stage (for example,
feudalism
leads
to
capitalism).
4.
Marx was especially critical of capitalism and foresaw a
communist revolution.
5.
The bourgeoisie try to preserve capitalism by promoting ideologies
and false consciousness that keep workers from revolting. Marx
predicted that class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat
would
lead to capitalism's downfall.
For
Marx, society was characterized by class conflict.
Capitalism will Pave the Way Towards Communism
Communism
and capitalism, the totally opposite systems, will always be under
dispure, although the capitalism is a bit older than the communism.
The viewpoints of these systems about the economy are totally
different. The capitalist system uses the opinions of liberal economy
policy.
Their
perspectives about social life are totally different. The capitalism
encourages the individualism.
In
capitalism, the social life is formed with respect to the principles
of "Consume-Obey-Die". People don't have enough time to
think, and examine their lives. They are encouraged to consume
without thinking what will happen as a result of their actions.
To sum it up, Communism and capitalism have some problems. The principles of capitalism are against the humanity which is formed by the things which distinguish a human from an animal. Capitalism leads to an idea which is that all the actions done in order to get capital(funds) can be acceptable.
No comments:
Post a Comment