Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Communism vs capitalism
The ideology of Karl Marx
Communism vs capitalism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Communism vs capitalism
It is understood that most functions in today’s society are specialized. From academia to the workplace, individuals acquire a specialization at which they become skillful. In his writings, Karl Marx ‘prophesizes’ the disappearance of such labour division (Sayers, 35). His argument is that division of labour forces people to give themselves up to one activity and therefore stunts creativity and stops people from realizing their full potential (Veugelers, September 24, 2012). However, division of labor can be practical and even necessary for society. People can chose their specialization based on their interests and skills, which in turn can produce skilled and knowledgeable workers that society can benefit from. Labour can also be combined with personal interests, making work fulfilling and even desirable. In The German Ideology, Marx praises communist societies, arguing that in such societies people can become experts at various tasks without giving themselves up for one activity (Marx and Engels, 159). For example, people can “hunt in the morning fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, without ever becoming a hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic” (Marx and Engels, 160). On the contrary, according to Marx, capitalism creates a division of labour, which forces people to undertake and specialize in one skill only (Marx and Engels, 160). He argues that such division of labour “is exterior to the worker” and the worker “does not confirm himself in his work, he denies himself, feels miserable instead of happy” and can not escape (Marx, 79). However, division of labour can be practical and engaging in ones labour can be satisfying. Many societies reached tremendous levels of advancement that Ma...
... middle of paper ...
...ying. However, people’s jobs can also be closely related to their personal interests and be enjoyable, stimulating and fulfilling. In fact, many people are anxious to work so that they can afford and enjoy certain luxuries. This can transform the dreadful and often stressful work into a desirable activity. Thus, division of labour can be fulfilling and desirable and related to individual’s personal interests. Marx argues that division of labour forces people into specialized tasks, which stunt peoples potential. However, specialization can produce skilled, knowledgeable individuals who enjoy their jobs. Such individuals surely are a benefit to society. There is no doubt that inequality persists but abolishing labour division may not be the solution, especially in complex societies. Instead, the focus should perhaps be on targeting inequality within occupations.
Before the industrialization movement began, there was more of a blend between the classes, and now there is a distinct separation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Because of the industrialization of the countries, the replacement of manual labor with the use of machinery and the division of labor, the work of the proletarian has become homogeneous. It does not contain the individuality or charm of the laborer as handmade goods do. The worker instead becomes part of the machine and is reduced to performing menial, repetitive tasks. Thus, the workman's pay rate reflects his work, and is reduced to minimum amount needed to barely sustain them. Therefore, as the skill needed to perform the job reduced, so does the amount of the wages. Also, as industrialization increases, so does drudge and toil. The worker become, in the eyes of the bourgeois in control, a part of the machine and as expendable and as easily replaced as any part of the machine. This is in the forms of prolonged work hours, amount of work done in a certain time, or by the increase of the speed of the machinery, which wears down and drains the workers.
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...
Division of labor created alienation for the proletarians, this is why Marx suggest abolishing the private property. The lower class stop living for themselves and live to make their owners rich. This is a problem because everyone that does not belong to the upper class suffer economically and mentally. If this pattern does not change then it will continue to be passed generation after generation. “... by the overthrow of the existing state of society by the communist revolution and the abolition of private property which is identical with it, this power, which so baffles the German theoreticians, will be accomplished in the measure in which history becomes transformed into world history” (p.163). Abolishing private property will set the lower class free and bring desire to live once again and thrive. To break this barrier economic power needs to be removed from the hands of privileged
"The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself" (134.). This statement was said by Karl Marx while he was talking about the alienation of labor. The alienation of labor was simply separating a person from his or her skill. "Each person-man, woman or child-must be paid in proportion to his contribution in capital, work and talent" (117). This implied that people should be paid according to their skills. In the 1750's work was much more skillful than it was in the 1850's. In 1750 people would work depending on what they were good at. For example, someone who was good at making shoes would be a shoemaker. In 1850 the alienation of labor took these skills away from people because they would do a simple task in a factory such as pulling a lever. Basically, in 1850 people's labor skills were being wasted because they were stuck in a factory doing a simple task.
Currently, human beings are thinking more on the line of they need work in order to make a living. For that reason, work has become meaningless, disagreeable, and unnatural. Many view work as a way to obtain money and not a meaningful human activity that one does for themselves. The author states that there are two reactions of the alienated and profoundly unsatisfactory character of the modern industrial work. One being the ideal of complete laziness and the other, hostility towards work. Fromm believes the reason why people have animosity regarding work is due to their unconscious mind. Subconsciously, a person has “a deep-seated, hostility towards work and all that is connected to it” says Fromm. I believe what Fromm is saying to be true, after all I witness it everyday. Millions of people each day goes to a work which they are dissatisfied with and that can negatively impact their attitude
Schumacher claims that mass production through specialization of labor actually do more harm to the poverty-stricken countries. He argues that the specialization of labor was developed to benefit nations with small populations, whose growth was restricted by the shortage of labor, and is therefore incompatible with developing countries that generally have large populations. Specialization of labor in nations with large populations serve only to enslave the majority of the populus to the monotonous production of goods that is devoid of any spiritual purposes and restricts the workers’ creative potentials.
...fitting from modern capitalism as they increase profits through the labour theory of value, while exploiting the proletariats. On the other hand, the proletariats are at danger, as they become alienated through mass production and the labour theory of value does not work in their favour. Durkheim views the specialization of labour to be effective until it is pushed too far, resulting in a state of anomie. The division of labour can be seen as beneficial to society as it allows mass production, increased profits, and creativity and interests to be used among individuals, keeping their human identity. At the same time, the division of labour can be seen as dangerous, as over specialization leads to anomie. Through both Marx and Durkheim, we can conclude that modern capitalism has both its benefits and dangers towards individuals and societies in a capitalist economy.
Marx had rather extreme views on the extent to which nature in his time had become humanized as a result of human labor. He commented, “Even the objects of the simplest, “sensuous certainty” are only given to him through social development, industry and commercial intercourse. ”[2] "Throughout their labor, humans shape their own material environment, thereby transforming the very nature of human existence in the process. ”[3] One always seemed to know their role in society.
For Marx, then labour is "alien to the worker.[and].does not." belong to his essential being. " Marx identifies two explanations of why men lack. identity with labour leads him to be estranged from labour. (1) "
Marx vison of the division of labor consists of this struggle between classes. That all of the ideas that we use as our own are really originated by the upper class to sustain and uphold their power over the lower class. The ideas of the ruling class are used simply to justify their procession of material stuff while you have nothing. Durkheim’s primary view of the division of labor was that of interdependence and social solidarity. I feel that both are generally convincing, but Marx makes a better argument. It is clear to see there has and will most likely always be class struggle. Our society is made up of hierarchical ladders, someone will always think they are better and need to be in
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 ...
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.
Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a more perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, but in which all individuals shared in the benefits of collective labor (Marx #11, p. 262). In order to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship between the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical mode of production, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individual’s relationship to the mode of production (Marx #11, p. 256).
According to Marx class is determined by property associations not by revenue or status. It is determined by allocation and utilization, which represent the production and power relations of class. Marx’s differentiate one class from another rooted on two criteria: possession of the means of production and control of the labor power of others. The major class groups are the capitalist also known as bourgeoisie and the workers or proletariat. The capitalist own the means of production and purchase the labor power of others. Proletariat is the laboring lower class. They are the ones who sell their own labor power. Class conflict to possess power over the means of production is the powerful force behind social growth.