John Marx 's Capital Volume I And The Witch

This intimate relationship between man and nature, his activity and the objects of nature, is the ‘appropriate’ relationship because worker is not capable of creating without nature, that is, without the sensual external world. Hence, the world is the material into which man invests his labor, through which he produces things, and without it he cannot live. However, in a capitalist society, such relationship does not exist and man is alienated from nature, from the products of his activity or work. Under capitalism, workers produce for the market rather than for their own use or enrichment. According to Marx, the object produced by labor in modern society stands as an alien being to the worker. His labor is embodied in the product he created, and this product is an objectification of labor which represents a loss to the worker, as well as servitude to the object. Hence, alienation occurs when worker lacks control over the products of his labor. Additionally, during the process of production, man’s labor are seen as much an object as the physical material being worked upon, since labor is a demand in modern society, which can be bought or sold. The more objects the worker produces, the fewer he can personally possess, and therefore the greater is his loss. For instance, in

In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx identifies a dichotomy that is created and bolstered by the capitalist mode of production. In this mode of production, the dichotomy presents itself in a division of labor that forms of two kinds of people: capitalists, the owners of the means of production, and laborers, those who work under the domain of the capitalist. Marx harshly criticizes this mode of production, arguing that it exploits the laborer and estranges him from himself and his fellow man. According to Marx, this large-scale estrangement is achieved through a causal chain of effects that results in multiple types of alienation, each contingent upon the other. First, Marx asserts that under capitalism, the laborer is alienated from his product of labor. Second, because of this alienation from his product, man is also alienated then from the act of production. Third, man, in being alienated both from his product and act of production, is alienated from his species essence, which Marx believes to be the ability to create and build up an objective world. Finally, after this series of alienations, Marx arrives at his grand conclusion that capitalist labor causes man to be alienated from his fellow man. In this paper, I will argue in support of Marx’s chain of alienations, arriving at the conclusion that laborers, under the capitalist mode of production, cannot retain their species essence and thus cannot connect with one another, and exist in a world

Social reproduction refers to the continuous intergenerational physically and emotionally exhausting household labour that is needed to maintain life (Trotz, lecture, Jan 13, 2016). This kind of labour though is considered to be a woman’s duty. Since an economic activity happens where there is a market, social reproduction is not considered as one as it doesn’t have a visible market. Even though, it doesn’t have market value, domestic work greatly contribute to the economy (Waring, 2013). Since this work is done in homes and by women who are usually marginalized, it remains invisible and thus not considered for pay. This kind of work depends on the traditional division of labour in which women are seen as housewives while men, breadwinners. Thus, the gendering of social reproduction is a result of “doing gender,” where women’s abilities to be mothers are naturalized (Coltrane, 1989); in other words, women are made to fit into the simplistic “domestic = family = heterosexual woman = care and love” equation (Manalansan & Martin, 2008, p.2), while any man who does the caring work in a family is feminized and considered a lesser man (Coltrane, 1989).Thus, a woman’s femininity depends on her motherhood while a man’s masculinity depends on “not doing mother’s work” (Coltrane, 1989, p.473).

The economy over many centuries have changed and developed in a variety of ways. One of the most influential economic systems that had developed between the 1700’s and the 1900s is capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system that is controlled by individuals, rather than the government, and requires the working class to use all its resources in order for the capitalist class to retain a profit. One question that still remains is this; how do women’s rights compare to capitalism? There are many theoretical concepts that have helped shape capitalism throughout history. Women’s rights are the rights given to women to express equality when being compared to a man. In the year that capitalism was developed, patriarchy played a dominant role regarding home life and the workplace, which motivated women to take action. Women’s rights are significant in the development of capitalism because it protested the male dominant atmosphere to create opportunity for women to take part as working class and to obtain equal status with a man in regards to everyday living. This resulting in a dramatic change in our economic system. Gender inequalities during the 18th and 20th centuries had a mass contribution to how capitalism developed.

Even in the 19th century, Marx pointed to the tendency for capitalism to make super-profits from the exploitation of women and children. He wrote: "The labor of women...was the first thing sought for by capitalists who used machinery.” (Marx, Capital)

Capitalism is an unnatural perversion of society in Marx and Engel’s The Communist Manifesto. It is constantly consumptive, unable to exist without further expansion. It warps society through its exploitation of labor and the class that provides it. The Communist Manifesto goes beyond just a sociopolitical critique of capitalism, and adds otherworldly, almost Gothic elements. Repeated supernatural, fantastical language reinforces the idea that capitalism is an illegitimate twist of the natural state of human affairs.

1. Frader argues that the ideas of public and private realms led to women’s work in the Industrial Revolution being devalued, thus causing exploitation of women during this time. Examples of exploitation in the essay are shown by the division of labor, in which women's income was seen as frivolous “in order to justify paying women low wages” (311).

Marx’s conception of society has its grounds in a theory of action: as he put it, human beings make their own history. But Marx goes on to argue that they do this is circumstances which are not of their own choosing, and he develops an analysis of how action is organized by these circumstances as material conditions of production which structure and determine the social relationship that are primarily generated by the particular material forces of production utilized, which include not only raw materials but also the technology which is used to extract and work them into products (Jenks 15).

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

The fundamental message presented throughout Karl Marx’s Capital is that wage-laborers are exploited under capitalism. Marx argues that regardless of how well a worker is being paid, they are still being exploited by the capitalist in the form of unpaid labor. The focus of this paper will be to explain how and why this relationship between surplus labor and the exploitation of workers is formed in Marx’s opinion.

A conversation erupts between Karl Marx, a German philosopher and economists, and Cynthia Enloe, a feminist writer and professor. The two brilliant minds speak of many topics, but eventually settle on one. While both Marx and Enloe would agree that current working conditions have led to a loss of identity as humans, Marx would argue that due to private ownership, people have become estranged from the practice of work because their products has been taken away from them. Enloe would argue, however, that the loss of identity is caused by inhumane treatment of workers.

In their materialist reading of history, Marx and Engels proclaim that with the necessity for survival driving history/ and man to the development of social interaction and thus the establishment of the economy, staged progressions will come forth as a result. To Marx the economy will ultimately be responsible for all aspects of society. It will be from the development, and circumstance stemming forth from such development of the economy, that the stages of history will progress. And as such to Marx and Engels Capitalism will be a stopping point upon this staged progression route of history. In this way it is concluded that Capitalism is a mode of production stemming from the economy [means and relations of production], which in itself is a result of the history of materialism [the innate struggle for survival and the social relations built upon this struggle].

According to Marxism, there is a struggle or conflict between individual rights and social rights. In many regards, Marxism places more emphasis on societal rights than it does on individual rights. In fact, some critics even state that Marxism ignores the rights of the individual altogether. As can be observed when Marxism is implemented under the umbrella of communism. However, Marxism takes into account the inequality and unfairness that exists in society. The inevitable truth is that contrasting groups in society will always conflict with one another and will be unable to agree on the way in which resources should be distributed. Furthermore, there is also a difference between genders, specifically in terms of the equity of how the roles

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.

Tremendous economic and technological growth marked by the industrial revolution that was beginning to take shape at in the 19th century. With this change also brought a process of greater specialization in the workforce, also known as the division of labor. Both Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, under this context of burgeoning market economy, sought to understand modern society and the underlying relations that lead to their formation and progress. In this essay, I will argue that while both Marx and Durkheim acknowledge the role of economic growth as a main driver of human society in their theories, they differ on the type of social relations that developed in tandem, relations that formed the basis of the division of labor. Marx (1978, p. 212) views the division of labor as a result of the capitalism driven by profit, while Durkheim (1984, p. 1) sees it as a necessary condition for social progress. Next, I will also explore differences both writers posit as the consequences for this process, relating to both Marx’s theory of labor alienation and Durkheim’s idea of organic solidarity.