Class Inequality In Karl Marx And The Propertyless Class

Q17. Would changing the asset definition in the conceptual framework to one concerned with property rights have any other ramifications? Discuss.

The concept of property has long been one of the most crucial aspects for the U.S. citizens, as it is a major part of the Constitutional, and, therefore, human rights. Although the perception and understanding of “property” have been considerably changed, especially in terms of political and philosophical vision, it still has a particular meaning for the Americans. In general, the idea of property is the question of the political thought and conceptualized thinking common for the United States. In most cases, its transformations are connected to the introduction of capitalism and related governmental decision in politics. Therefore, as any other topic, the value of property has undergone harsh debates. In particular, such important figures as James Fenimore Cooper, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walt Whitman have developed a fundamental scope of analyses with regard to the property rights in America.

(p. 105) The property owners are often of the upper class and have control of their life situation. In contrast those who own no property are primarily of the lower-middle classes and have little control over their life situation since they must follow certain societal rules put in place by the ruling class (those with the most property/greatest economic status).

The axis of inequality that will be focused throughout this paper is the social class. Social class is defined as a group of individuals who are categorized according to class (i.e. poor, middle, and upper) due to their income, wealth, power, and occupation. Social class is socially constructed by the way we view how much income and wealth a person possess (Ore, 20011a, 10). In reality it is much more than that. According to the text, poverty is not only the shortage of income, but it is the rejection of opportunities and choices that leads a person to a standard way of living (Ore, 2011a, 10). Stereotyping also contributes to it being socially constructed. These stereotypes influence us by defining who is who based on their principles in each class category. This can cause some to feel worthless.

One component of this idea is a social mobility. Social mobility is the movement of individuals or families within layers of social stratification. For example, if some family of first generation of immigrants (who are usually considered as low-income families) will work hard and get some college education, they probably can improve their social-economic status and move upward direction to the lower-middle class or even to the middle class level. However, to move from the low-income class status upward to the upper class status will be very difficult or even impossible for this family. As was written above, only 1-3% of American population is in the upper or upper-upper classes and this is like “private club” for the rest of population. The membership of this “club” is difficult to earn; many members of this upper class group received their statuses from their parents or grandparents and this looks like a “cast” of privileged people. This privilege gives many advantages and influence in political, educational, religious and other institutions. These advantages make upper class as a dominate group and underprivileged lower classes as subordinate group; and this stratification is describing classism. Carol Brantley and her colleagues (2003) state that “Classism is the systematic oppression of subordinated groups (people without endowed or acquired economic power, social influence, and privilege) who work for wages for dominant group (those who have access to control of the necessary resources by which other people make their living).” Classism says that upper class members are more educated and smarter than low-income and working classes’ members because they and their children can afford very expensive or exclusive education worldwide. Whereas, oppressed groups are lacking this opportunity to get prestige

Another issue that Peery discusses about and plans to solve is to classify or categorize large groups in a way that will help us understand how they would move under what conditions (The Future is Up to Us 22). This issues is between the workers and the capitalist. Peery states that giving leadership and ownership to various groups have led to contradictions, and struggles. Struggles such as race and gender originated with capital and has its specific features (The Future is Up to Us 22). Peery also gives an example with landownership and how it created separate groups with one group being called the haves and the other group the have-nots. The class known as the haves would take advantage of the

Karl Marx developed his theory on class division by suggesting that all societies have two major classes, a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class owned a means of production such as land or capital, whereas the subject class did not. Marx argued that this leads to the ruling class exploiting the subject class. The ruling class use a superstructure of the legal and political systems to justify its position and prevent protests by the subject class. In capitalist societies the main classes are the bourgeoisie (capitalist) and the proletariat (working class). In these societies the bourgeoisie exploits the working class through wage labour. The capitalists pay wages to the workers, but make a profit because they pay the workers less than the value of what they produce. Capitalism is the newest type of class society but it will also be the last. Eventually it will be replaced by a communist society in which the means of production

The Communist Manifesto discusses class and class struggle as a vital part of the capitalist system. Marx and Engels state that class is made up of people who are in the same position in relation to the ownership and control of the means of wealth production.(cite) For Marx and Engels the class struggle between the upper class, or bourgeoisie class and the working class, or the proletariat class is the epitome of modern social change. Marx identified three classes: wage for labor, profit for the capitalist and rent for the landowner (Knox, 1988: 160). Since capitalism succeeded in absorbing the landlord class, which left society with only two social classes: capitalists and workers. The Marxist theory of class is opposed by those people who explain class not in terms of ownership or lack of ownership, but in terms of prestige and

Karl Marx’s critique of political economy provides a scientific understanding of the history of capitalism. Through Marx’s critique, the history of society is revealed. Capitalism is not just an economic system in Marx’s analysis. It’s a “specific social form of labor” that is strongly related to society. Marx’s critique of capitalism provides us a deep

Marx’s theory of alienated labour is structured around a class-based system. It is vital to acknowledge that Marx’s evaluation of the capitalist system is based focused the Industrial Revolution a century and a half ago, and therefore must be kept somewhat in that context. Within Marx’s simplified capitalist society model, one class of people own and control the raw materials and their means of production. They are referred to as capital, bourgeoisie, or the owning class. The capitalist does not just own the means of production, but also all the items produced. By virtue of their ownership of production property they receive an income and earn a living from the operations of their factories and shops. The owning class owns the productive resources, though they do not usually operate the production means themselves.

As capitalist societies expanded, Marx argued that exploitation amongst workers became more apparent. Marx believed that the only way to get rid of the exploitation, oppression and alienation was for a revolution amongst the proletariat workers. Marx suggests that it is only when the means of production are communally owned, that class divisions among the masses will disappear.

All the three philosophers, whose work I am going to scrutinize on, have very specific, yet in most cases common views on property. First of all, let me define what the term property means. Property, as I see it, is an object of legal rights that is possessed by an individual or a group of individuals who are directly responsible for this it.

Karl Marx, also a philosopher was popularly known for his theories that best explained society, its social structure, as well as the social relationships. Karl Marx placed so much emphasis on the economic structure and how it influenced the rest of the social structure from a materialistic point of view. Human societies progress through a dialectic of class struggle, this means that the three aspects that make up the dialectic come into play, which are the thesis, antithesis and the synthesis (Avineri, 1980: 66-69). As a result of these, Marx suggests that in order for change to come about, a class struggle has to first take place. That is, the struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist class, the class that controls

Most societies throughout history and the world have developed a notion of social class. It is refers to hierarchical distinctions between individuals or groups within society. How these social classes have been determined has been a common topic among social scientists throughout time. Two individuals who have headed this long standing debate are Karl Marx and Max Weber. In this paper I will be summarizing Marx and Weber’s theories on social class; how they are determined, their interests, and problems that may exist among groups. I will then provide my own critiques of their arguments.

Property - is a complex and multi-level category . At the first level , or on the surface phenomena property expresses the relationship of man to things , man's power over the thing . This power is manifested in human capabilities own, manage , use the objects property. Man's relation to things , being