Exploitation And Societal Reorganization Of Karl Marx And Mary Wollstonecraft

The work of a founding mother of feminism and the work of a philosopher who was a proponent for the working-class movement and an advocate for communism may seem to be too different to have overarching themes within them, but Mary Wollstonecraft and Karl Marx have many topics that can be compared to each other. Though their type of work and topics of discussion do differ to a great extent, their works both focus on the components of progress, how progress occurs, and what the final outcome will be. These influential proponents of feminism and communism, Wollstonecraft and Marx, are both attempting to use their works to aid in the understanding of what each of their goals were and how society is able to achieve them.

Division of labour is also credited with the rise of trade between different areas, the rise of capitalism, and increasingly complex manufacturing and industrialization. For Karl Marx, the production portion of Capitalism signalled great trouble. He believed production in Capitalist society worked in a way that the rich factory owner benefited and the poor factory workers lost. In his manner of reasoning, the Capitalist system was inherently meant to benefit the rich and exploit the poor: “All the bourgeois economists are aware of is that production can be carried on better under the modern police than on the principle of might makes right. They forget only that this principle is also a legal relation, and that the right of the stronger prevails in their ‘constitutional republics’ as well, only in another form.”[ii] Marx’s view of society and the world lead him to believe that humans create change in their lives and in their environment through practical activity in the practical world.

Marx's theory on Capitalist exploitation is an incredibly deep theory, but to explain it in a nutshell, it is that the working-class people are improperly compensated for their work. The rich, the higher-ups, they continue to expand their wealth by exploiting the working class, the Capitalist system not only allows but effectively demands that Capitalists increase their wealth, long-term or short-term, whether at the cost of the working-class or not. There are three “values” to take into consideration, the use-value, the exchange-value and the

Designed over two hundred years ago, Karl Marx’s philosophy defines specific characteristics known today as the Marxist approach. In this critical approach, whomever holds the power and controls the factories or means of production, consequently controls the whole society. Marx’s opinion states that the laborers running the factories and thus holding the means of production should be the ones holding the power. However, this idea rarely holds true in practical society. Frequently, Marx notes, powerful people hire others to carry out the labor. This division of power reflects current culture. Two main classes or categories of people exist, the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisie is the powerful, or those who are in charge of

Neither Mary Wollstonecraft nor Karl Marx were content with the society in which they were living in during their time, and they both had different ideas and how to change it. They both agreed that our species is unique in that all humans have the ability and potential to control their lives and make what they want out of it. They have the ability to feel good about themselves and have a sense of self-fulfillment. However, each of these philosophers had a different opinion in mind on which obstacle was preventing humans from making full use of their potential to succeed and be happy. Wollstonecraft, in particular, was referring to how women do not get the same opportunities as men due to the fact that they are not looked at as equal to men. This was due to a few reasons. Men were being biased towards females, they could not get a good education, and most women themselves did not see a need to change. Wollstonecraft felt that the way to combat all this was to start allowing women to get the same education as men do, which would also allow them to be independent. Only then will they realize that women are just as intelligent and rational as men themselves are. Marx, on the other hand,

This essay will compare and contrast Wollstonecraft’s and Marx’s thoughts on inequality, in consideration of the following topics. What does each author see as the primary form of social inequality? According to each author, Why do many consider this form of social inequality to be legitimate? Why does each author think this form of inequality is illegitimate? Wollstonecraft addresses gender inequality in the home and in society. Marx addresses class inequality amongst the bourgeoisie and proletariat. For Marx the bourgeois take away the proletariat's ability to choose to create for themselves, rather to create for a wage. Both Wollstonecraft and Marx believe the ideology of those in power is spread throughout all of society in an attempt to keep themselves in control. Those in control of society want everyone to believe that their way of life is natural and best for them. For Wollstonecraft, men, those in control, say that gender inequality is natural. For Marx, the bourgeoisie, those in control of the economy, justify their actions through free market. Wollstonecraft believes that gender inequality is

In Capital, Karl Marx reveals the ugly truth that capitalism lays on the foundation of class exploitation. Without such exploitation, there is no profit to be made and capitalism will cease to exist. Capitalism, which relies on the reproduction of capital, creates and concentrates wealth to a small portion of society’s population while reproducing poverty and widening the size of inequality.

Marx's ideas on labor value are very much alive for many organizations working for social change. In addition, it is apparent that the gap between the rich and poor is widening on a consistent basis. According to Marx, the course of human history takes a very specific form which is class struggle. The engine of change in history is class opposition. Historical epochs are defined by the relationship between different classes at different points in time. It is this model that Marx fleshes out in his account of feudalism's passing in favor of bourgeois capitalism and his prognostication of bourgeois capitalism's passing in favor of proletarian rule. These changes are not the reliant results of random social, economic, and political events; each follows the other in predictable succession. Marx responds to a lot of criticism from an imagined bourgeois interlocutor. He considers the charge that by wishing to abolish private property, the communist is destroying the "ground work of all personal freedom, activity, and independence". Marx responds by saying that wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism. Having linked private property to class hostility, Marx

Another concept that brought about inequality among the bourgeoisie and proletariat is the labour theory of value. As stated in the textbook Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory, “One of the basic truths of capitalism is that it takes money to make money, and the more money a business owner has at his or her disposal, the more ability the business owner has to generate profit-making schemes” (Appelrouth and Edles: 25). In this case, the bourgeoisies are at a benefit as they own the means of production, while the proletariat are at a disadvantage as they don’t have capital to make money. Marx’s ‘general formula for capital’ explains the class and power relations that predominate in modern capitalist society through the formula M-C-M. Marx describes this law of value to be beneficial to the bourgeoisies as they increase profits and capital. Bourgeoisies are able to do this because they have the money (M) to buy capital, which converts their money into commonality (C), which they then use to produce other commodities that are sold for money (M). Bourgeoisies predominate the proletariats through power relations as the formula is inversed for the working class, C-M-C. The working class sells their labour through commodity (C), which then is exchanged for money (M) and used to buy commodities (C) necessary for survival. The C-M-C

At its very core, Marx’s capitalist theory is an economic system based on three things: wage labour, which comes from land owners employing individuals to work for a wage, control of the means of production (factories, farms, offices and machinery), and production for exchange and profit. Considering the majority of society do not own the means of production, and are not private owners, they are forced to offer their ability to work in exchange for a regular wage,

In regards to the labour-capital relation within a traditional capitalist corporation Marx & Engels (2007) refer to the dialectic between the capitalists (or bourgeoisie) who own the property and the means of production and the laborers (or proletariat) who own no property and are obligated to sell their labour to the bourgeoisie to gain substance. For Marx & Engels, this labour market is inherently fraught with tension, since the interests of the capitalist and labourers are diametrically opposed, and the balance of power between capitalists and labourers tips further in the favour of the capitalists. Because workers have nothing to sell but their labour, the bourgeoisie are able to exploit them by paying them less than the true value created by their labour. Furthermore, because of the unequal positions of capitalist and labourer, labourers must work for someone else- they must do work imposed on them as a means of satisfying the needs of others. As a result, labourers inevitably experience alienation which Marx’s Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844) summarizes as the separation of individuals from the objects they create, which in turn results in one’s separation from other people, from oneself, and ultimately from one’s human nature.

There is deep substance and many common themes that arose throughout Marx’s career as a philosopher and political thinker. A common expressed notion throughout his and Fredrick Engels work consists of contempt for the industrial capitalist society that was growing around him during the industrial revolution. Capitalism according to Marx is a “social system with inherent exploitation and injustice”. (Pappenheim, p. 81) It is a social system, which intrinsically hinders all of its participants and specifically debilitates the working class. Though some within the capitalist system may benefit with greater monetary gain and general acquisition of wealth, the structure of the system is bound to alienate all its

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.

Not only is the worker alienated from his labour, but he is also separated from the result of his labour - the product. This is the most obvious manifestation of the alienation of the worker; he has no power over what he produces. The wage contract ensures that the products of labour are surrendered to the capitalist, who then sells them on the market, and pays the worker a wage. Marx points out that the alienation of the product is double - not only is the worker separate from his own product, but that product, as increasing the power of capital, actually weakens the worker's position. (4) Marx refers to the product of labour as 'the objectification of labour'. The worker's labour objectified is used against him in a capitalist

The system of capitalism is partially based around the unpaid surplus labour of workers that allows for the generation of profit for the workers ' respective superiors. Marx argues that such a system rewards those who have some sort of domination over the workers, the actual producers of commodities. This results in terrible living