In Alison Jaggar’s Feminist Politics and Human Nature she discusses, among many topics, human nature and how it relates to capitalism and socialist feminism. Though Jaggar proposes a strong and valid argument for her position on why work is awful under capitalism and how using an error theory worker’s are not inherently lazy, I will be critiquing Jaggar’s error theory, and as a result, her views (as well as some of Marx’s views) on capitalism in a broad sense. I believe that Alison Jaggar does not have a sound argument in her error theory against Thomas Malthus, strictly due to her interpretation on why capitalism is awful due to Jaggar’s interpretation intrinsic value under capitalism.
An Overview of Jaggar’s View of Capitalism and How it Isolates Workers, Human Nature, and Response to Thomas Malthus
(quote summarized areas with actual quotes from text readings)
Jaggar supported Karl Marx in the sense that they both believed that the capitalist alienates the worker under capitalism and even exploits the worker. According to Marx, the worker should create a product freely in order to develop his or her capacities. But under capitalism, the worker who creates a product does not have control over how the product is made, over what product is made, or what is to be done with the with the product once it is finished. Marx argues that the strong connection that should exist between the worker and product is fragmented; therefore workers are alienated under capitalism. He also argues that workers are often enemies because they are competing for jobs that are offered by the capitalist (Lecture, 10/7).
Jaggar then goes onto describe human nature. To summarize, it is with in human nature to work purposefully transform our world to me...
... middle of paper ...
... could respond to Thomas Malthus in a more effective manner. Though the error theory is unsound, I am one to still accept her vision of an economic democracy, although capitalism is still a great alternative. Her arguments against mandatory motherhood, compulsory heterosexuality, and the structure of work would still remain valid and sound as well.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Jaggar’s error theory is unsound due to the fact of a fundamental misinterpretation of capitalism in which Jaggar believes that work is generally awful under the economic system, when in actuality it is not so awful. Work is not so awful under capitalism due to the nature of capitalism that promotes competition to encourage entrepreneurship, which benefits society as a whole in comparison to socialist feminism. Although Jaggar’s error theory is unsound, the rest of her theory remains unaffected.
Diamond discusses the importance of ideology and the ways in which they “pave road” for society to appropriately organize upon. Diamond specifically outlines the ways in which changing an ideology can alter society in Chapter 14, From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy, as society evolves through the spread of an ideology. Both Diamond and Hunt agree about the importance of ideology in society, but their standpoints are critically different in their perspectives. Diamond focuses on other aspects just as well, such as immunity to germs or resource production, whereas Hunt specifically focuses on the ways in which changes in ideology impact the development of capitalism. Thus, both Hunt and Diamond have different thought’s on economic history, but converge in the ideal of signifying ideological
This essay will compare Marx’s understanding of the relationship between laborers and capitalists and Wollstonecraft’s understanding of the relationship between women and men. Both Marx and Wollstonecraft’s conception of these groups of people show a large gap between their treatment and status in society. Marx argues that capitalism is not created by nature and the unequal relationship between laborers and capitalists is not humane. In other words, it is actually the cause of social and economic problems during that time period. On a similar note, Wollstonecraft believes that the oppressive relationship between men and women is also unnatural. The standards for men and women are placed by society, not by biological facts. Society and how people
Capitalism as an economic system has not been around for a very long time. Stanford indicates that this economic system began in the mid-1700s in Europe . For a considerably young system, it almost seems impossible to imagine a different way of living. Capitalism has become deeply embedded in our social structures; it is naturalized as a way of doing day to day things. If this is the case, then we as humans have a long way to go if we are to achieve social and economic justice. The question I aim to explore is whether capitalism is capable of achieving socio-economic justice. I am arguing that it cannot achieve justice because there is too much focus on profit rather than people and it dislocates the consumers from the modes of production which indirectly promotes social inequality. Our current economic system which I will be interchangeably using as capitalism throughout the paper will examine why the focus on profit is detrimental to the social well-being of people and explain how capitalism is divisive and why this can pose negative outcomes for individuals and communities. It is with these arguments that outline the need for a fundamental change to how our economy is structured and managed.
Karl Marx looks at human societies as a whole, and asks how they reproduce themselves, and as a result, change. For Marx a fundamental question about any society is whether it can produce more than it needs to reproduce itself, that is, a surplus product. Karl Marx believed that the middle class is based upon economic factors and rooted in solely that perspective. Many people have examined his work closely arguing that economic factors could not possibly be the only definition o...
Commodity fetishism has blinded people into believing that value is a relationship between objects, when in reality, it is a relationship between people. This in turn, prevents people from thinking about the social labor condition workers have to endure; they only care and value about how much objects costs. They think that the source of the value comes from the cost, but it truly comes from labor (FC). Through this objectification stems alienation and estrangement. Marx starts with the assumption that humans have an intrinsic quality. As human beings, individuals like to be create and manipulate his or her environment. Creating is a part of people; therefore, people their being into their creations. However, Marx postulates that capitalism and specialized division of labor separates that working class from their creations in four ways- through alienation from the product, the labor process, one’s species-being, and humanity itself. The working class suffers through this hostility to make create more wealth for owners of factories. They get trapped in a cycle to make products for profit, but as automation advances, machines begins to take over people’s jobs; therefore, there less employment opportunities available, which in turn allows factory owners to decrease wages and exploit and devalue the working class (EL). In the The Poverty
Much of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto discusses the relationship between how a capitalist society produces its’ goods and how this affects the social structure of the society. Throughout the manifesto, Marx used the term mode of production to refer to how a given society structures its’ economic production, it also refers to how a society produces and with what capital the society produces. Human capital plays a large part in Marx’s communist manifesto, concerning himself with the relations of production, which refers to the relationship between those who own the means of production (bourgeoisie) and those who do not own the fruit of their labor (proletariat). This is where Marx believes that one can find the causes of conflict, asserting history evolves through the mode of production. The constant evolution of the mode of production toward a realization of its’ full potential productivity capacity, creates dissensions between the classes of people, which in capitalism, are defined by the modes of production (owners and workers). Marx believes that one such dissension is that since Capitalism is a mode of production based on private ownership of the means of production, and entities within a capitalistic economy produce property to be exchanged to stay competitive, these entities are forced to drive the wage level for its’ labor as low as possible so as to stay competitive. In turn, the proletariat must create means with which they can keep the interests of the bourgeoisie in check, trying to avoid being exploited to the point of extirpation. Marx holds that this example shows the inherent conflicting nature of the social infrastructure of production, which will in turn give rise to a class struggle culminating in the overthrow ...
When you hear the name Karl Marx (1818-1883), it is tempting to wonder and question why you should be studying him, considering that he’s been dead for over a hundred years already. This German philosopher had become one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century. Marx’s ideas all come together and holds that human societies develop through class struggles, a conflict between the ruling classes (known as the bourgeoisie) that dominates over the working class (known as the proletariat). He was well known for studying the disputes that occur between different classes in society, also refer to as the ‘conflict theory.’ Through his theories of alienation, Marx argued that capitalism promoted the idea of inequality, commodification, and the exploitation of labor. The purpose of this paper is to view Marx’s concept of capitalism and alienation along with how it affects the workers.
ABSTRACT: I defend the continued viability of Marx's critique of capitalism against Ronald Aronson's recent claim that because Marxists are 'unable to point to a social class or movement' away from capitalism, Marxism is 'over' 'as a project of historical transformation.' First, Marx's account of the forced extraction of surplus labor remains true. It constitutes an indictment of the process of capital accumulation because defenses of capitalism's right to profit based on productive contribution are weak. If generalized, the current cooperative movement, well advanced in many nations, can displace capitalism and thus counts as the movement Aronson challenges Marxists to point to. It will do this, I argue, by stopping capitalist exploitation, blocking capital accumulation, and narrowing class divisions. But in defending Marx by pointing to the cooperative movement, we have diverged from Marx's essentially political strategy for bringing about socialism onto an economic one of support for tendencies toward workplace democracy worldwide.
In The Origin of Capitalism, Ellen Wood addresses misconceptions about the origin of Capitalism. In addition to challenging the naturalization of Capitalism, she draws attention to specific social forms and the particular ways in which Capitalism departs from them. Wood reviews John Locks’s Second Treatise of Government, which brings a new and revolutionary attitude towards property by turning the acquisition of property into a moral calling and associating it with dignity. She sees Locke as a prophet of Capitalism, arguing that Locke’s doctrine led to value added becoming a strong argument for expansion and annexation. Specifically, it is in the fifth chapter that Locke discusses property. Locke begins with the original condition of nature, in which the creation of property is through the labor of one's body and the work of one's hands. Labor is, for Locke, the source of all value and our title to ownership. Human labor, not nature is the source of property and of acquisition. Moreover, by the end of that chapter, there is the creation of a sophisticated market economy with various inequalities of wealth and property, within the state of nature. With a series of shifts, Locke neutralizes the radical discourses of property of his time; although natural law clearly has democratic implications, Locke, in effect, excludes people from the system by restricting the rights of commoners.
Marx’s idea of the estrangement of man from the product of his labor described the suffering of countless hours or work by the laborer, contributing to the production of a product that he could not afford with the wages he made. He helped to produce a product that only those wealthier than he could afford. As the society around him became more object-oriented, he became increasingly more alienated. In the lager, one factor that distanced the laborer from his product was that he no longer worked for a wage, but for survival. In a description of his fellow worker, Levi wrote, “He seems to think that his present situation is like outside, where it is honest and logical to work, as well as being of advantage, because according to what everyone says, the more one works the more one earns and eats.” Levi pitied his fellow worker for his naivety, as the Lager was not a place of labor for prosperity, but strictly a place of labor by force. One worked in order to live, focusing more on the uncertainty of their next meal, day, or even breath than the product of their l...
Marx states that the bourgeoisie not only took advantage of the proletariat through a horrible ratio of wages to labor, but also through other atrocities; he claims that it was common pract...
Karl Marx’s article titled Estranged Labor as found in his 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts pays significant attention to the political economic system, which is commonly referred to capitalism. He further delves into nature of the political economy with a keen focus on how it has negatively impacted the worker or laborer. Therefore, the laborer forms the subject of his critical and detailed analysis as tries demonstrates the ill nature of the political economy. To start with Karl Marx portrays how the political economy as presented by its proponents has led to emergence of two distinct classes in society; the class of property owners and on the other hand, the class of property less workers. According to Karl Marx (2004), proponents of the political economy have introduced concepts such as private property and competition indicating without providing any form of analytical explanation but rather just expecting the society to embrace and apply such concepts. In particular, political economists have failed to provide a comprehensive explanation for division that has been established between capital and labor. Estranged Labor clearly depicts Marx’s dissatisfaction as well as disapproval towards the political economy indicating that proponents of such a system want the masses to blindly follow it without any form of intellectual or practical explanation. One area that Karl Marx demonstrates his distaste and disappointment in the article is worker or the laborer and how the worker sinks to not just a commodity but rather a wretched commodity (Marx, 2004). This is critical analysis of Karl Marx concept or phenomenon on the alienation of the worker as predicted in Estranged Labor in several aspects and how these concepts are ...
(3)Dickson, Tony and McLachlan, ”In Search of ‘The Spirit of Capitalism’: Weber’s Misinterpretation of Franklin,” Sociology, Vol.23, No.1 (81-89).
Karl Marx is among the most important and influential of all modern philosophers who expressed his ideas on humans in nature. According to the University of Dayton, “the human person is part of a larger history of life on this planet. Through technology humans have the power to have an immense effect on that life.”[ii] The people of his time found that the impact of the Industrial Revolution would further man’s success within this world and would ensure his success as a species. Marx was extremely radical in finding that this was a positive impact on humans in nature.
There has always been a debate nowadays over the topic of capitalism. Those who favor capitalism argue that it is doing more goods than bads for us. But people who criticize capitalism, on the other hand, hold...