In the modern capitalist society, social class is the most prominent and common categorization of people based on their income, occupation and education. In Marx’s view, this type of social system requires educated citizens to become either the owner of the means of production or workers that sell the labour to function the society. To this end, school are used as a mechanism to reproduce an efficient and obedient working force and maintain the dominant position of the elites. This essay seek to analyse and criticize the central purpose of schooling implied by Marx’s historic materialism. It is important to investigate the causal factors of inequalities underlie the seemingly fair education structure, so that we can search for ways to reform to achieve human liberation ideals, prevent exacerbate the class division.
Karl Marx, is a German political philosopher. Jean (2011) documented that he developed the historic materialism relates social formation to the modes of production. He divide the society into two components, the superstructure and the base structure. The superstructure, contains family, media, politics etc regulates, control and monitor the base structure which includes relation and means of production; the base structure offer life necessities and support the superstructure. School is an institution that is placed at the intermediate position integrated with these social relations. Therefore, to explore the roles of education in this form of society, we need
Marx begins his analysis of social order with the historical development of materialism that results in the industrial capitalist society. For him, the history of society depends on the understanding of “real process of
Karl Marx is considered to be one of the most influential thinkers of our age. Born in Germany in 1818, he was greatly influenced by philosophers such as Hegel, Feuerbach & St. Simon. He made an immense contribution to the different areas of sociology- definition of the field of study, analysis of the economic structure and its relations with other parts of the social structure, theory of social classes, study of religion, theory of ideology, analysis of the capitalist system etc. In this essay, we will deal with his contribution to the study of social development or the materialist conception of history.
Marx (1959) divides class structure into three categories, these being the ‘worker, the capitalist and the rentier’. With each category living in similar milieu; sending their children to similar schools, they are therefore taking ownership of their class; therefore, Marx suggests movement between classes is difficult. Marx (1959: p16).
The education system in the United States has expanded over the years to prepare individuals for the demanding labor market that constitutes our society. It has shifted from the development of mere intellectual scholars to the development of intellectual scholars competitive enough for a work force that now requires a degree for entrance. As this system of education has expanded throughout the country, so has the reproduction of inequality. To explain the manner in which this system has been structured to achieve a gap of inequity among society’s affluent and disadvantaged members, conflict theorist Karl Marx claims that, “School institutions are intentionally designed to integrate individuals into an unjust society” (Brand lecture, January
During the 19th century, Europe underwent political and economic change resulting in a shift from craft production to factory work. This was a time known as the Industrial Revolution, in which class division and wage labor were the most foregrounded aspects of society (Poynton). Karl Marx’s theories during this time gave way to new perspectives and different ways of viewing oneself in class positions. Comparisons between social and political structures in the 19th century and the 21st century expose the similarities that have yet to be modified. Marxist theory proved to offer a framework for society to undergo evolutionary change that would put an end to the capitalist mode of production that developed during the Industrial Revolution in Europe (Connelley). Marxism greatly outlines the struggle between different classes and groups belonging to the political world and how this class struggle affects the means of production. Broadly speaking, capitalism is a structure of political inequality and once overcome will lead to communism, inevitably weakening the boundary between classes. Although beneficial for the workers who want to live as free men, the upper class will be placed on that same wavelength. The greater political structure will form into a realm that will abolish the exploitation and oppression of workers, thus placing power in the hands of those who do not benefit from the unequal distribution of wealth. It involves a combination of political and economic factors
As mentioned in Item A, Marxists take a critical view of the role of education. They see society as based on class divisions and capitalist exploitations. The capitalist society is a two class system as mentioned in Item A and it consists of a ruling class, the bourgeoisie and the working class, the proletariat. The bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat according to Marxists and they believe that the education system only serves the needs and interests of the ruling class, as mentioned in Item A. Marxists also education as functioning to prevent revolution and maintain capitalism.
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 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
Typically, people tend to respect the social status of a person with little regard to how it was acquired. During the time period of the Russian revolution and his exile from Germany, Karl Marx defined social class as an economic scale system where one group works materials while the other group benefits from their labors (Nederman 360). This economic scale system seems to most as a given, yet we do not question where it comes from.
Marxists see the capitalist society as being ruled by the economy. The bourgeoisie rule the majority of the country’s wealth and the power to rule. The proletariat are exploited because they payed fairly. This is the foundation of class inequality. One of the most published conflict models is the model proposed by Bowles and Gintis in Schooling in Capitalist America (1976). Bowles and Gintis, like functionalists, see education has a vital link to the economy. But, unlike the functionalists, it is the requirements of industrial capitalism. Bowles and Gintis argue that education operates within the ‘long shadow of work’, which is the education system regulates the organisation of workers for the ideal workforce of a capitalist society (Giddens,
Karl Marx describes “Society as a whole [as being] more and more [split] up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other-bourgeoisie and proletariat” (Marx 124). As Marx made his distinction between upper class, bourgeoisie, and lower class, proletariats, it is important to keep in mind the societal structure at the time. To understand how classes were created and the disparity between the rich and poor, or, bourgeoisie and proletariat, it is necessary to examine how people came to be rich and poor. Exploring a time before money existed will help us to process and understand reasons why the binary between rich and poor exists and how it is reflective of low and high art distinctions.
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
Though Marx views the communist revolution as an unavoidable outcome of capitalism, his theory stipulates that the proletariat must first develop class consciousness, or an understanding of its place within the economic superstructure. If this universal character of the proletariat does not take shape, then the revolution cannot be accomplished (1846: 192). This necessary condition does not pose a problem within Marx’s theoretical framework, as the formation of class consciousness is inevitable in Marx’s model of society. His writings focus on the idea that economic production determines the social and political structure (1846, 1859). For Marx, social class represents a person’s relation to the means of production, a relation that he believes is independent of
To start of my essay I will compare and contrast between the two theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber on the topic of social class that will be discussed widely. The inequality between people is the basis of the democratic system, which is “a political system”. It is said that “those who have the skills and abilities to perform and produce will succeed in life.” But this belief is the assumption that all people are given equal opportunities and advantages. During the 19th century Karl Marx and Max Weber were two of the most influential sociologists who developed their own theories about why inequality is maintained with social class in society. Many might argue that there are many similarities and differences between these sociologists theories, however although Marx’s and Weber’s both examined similar ideas. This essay will compare the differences and similarities between Marx and Weber’s theories of class within society, which are based on economic inequality and capitalism. And lastly this essay will demonstrate that Max Weber comes across as the greater theorist as he can relate his concept more towards today’s society. Anthony Giddens (2nd edition) quoted that “You need greater equality to achieve more social mobility.” Therefore social class is referred to a group of people with similar levels of wealth, influences, behaviours and status. Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887) American Politician states that the “ignorant classes are the dangerous classes.”
Human societies have been class based in some way and the class factor has been the most basic dividing or differentiating factor between broad social groups. In the economic sphere that Marx’s theory focuses on, there is a class that own and control means of economic production which could be referred to as the upper class, and there is the class that maybe own nothing, but their ability to sell their labor power in return for wages which could be referred to as the middle or low class. From that understanding, and based on the conflict theory, one might argue that unequal distribution of resources and access