Marxist View of the Capitalistic Mode of Production and Exploitation

For example, it shapes the nature of religion, law, education, the state and so on. According to Marx, capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. For example, by polarising the classes, bringing the proletariat together in ever-increasing numbers, and driving down their wages, capitalism creates the conditions under which the working class can develop a consciousness (or awareness) of its own economic and political interests in opposition to those of its exploiters. As a result, the proletariat moves from merely being a class-in-itself (whose members share the same economic position) to becoming a class-foritself, whose members are class conscious – aware of the need to overthrow capitalism. The means of production would then be put in the hands of the state and run in the interests of everyone, not just of the bourgeoisie. A new type of society – socialism developing into communism – would be created, which would be without exploitation, without classes and without class conflict. Marx’s work has been subjected to a number of criticisms. First, Marx’s predictions have not come true. Far from society becoming polarised and the working class becoming poorer, almost everyone in western societies enjoys a far higher standard of living than ever before. The collapse of so-called ‘communist’ regimes like the former Soviet Union, and growing private ownership and capitalist growth in China, cast some doubt on the viability of the practical implementation

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

During the late 1800s, the eminent German philosopher, Karl Marx sought to create an equilibrium between the social strata by abolishing social classes. His doctrine, Marxism, is based on the idea that the means of production is the foundation of society, and ownership of this dictates the fate of the civilization. Marx attempted to place the means of production, including factories, into control of the people who operated the means of production(proletariat), and not just the owners of it (bourgeois). In Marx’s vision, society is driven not by spirituality, but by material objects. The proletariat and bourgeois may have ambivalent views on the division of wealth, but ultimately, the owners of the means of production make the decision. The

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

In this paper, I will (I) explain Marx's theory of the nature of capitalist exploitation; and (II) indicate how the phenomenon described in the previous paragraph may be interpreted as evidence against Marx's theory, and sketch an interpretation of this phenomenon according to which it is consistent with Marx's theory. My interpretation will suggest that the average worker's access to luxury items can be explained by the necessity in capitalism of reproducing the working class.

Marx believed that the capitalist system causes the world’s wealth to be concentrated in the hands of the greedy few, inflicting an even bigger gap between the rich and the working class. Needless to say there is always going to be never-ending tensions between these two classes, especially since our society has been split between the “99%” of the working class and the “1%” of the privileged people getting richer every single day. When there are no principles of order and no boundaries of rules, the free market is able to produce more than what the capitalist can sell. However, when too much of one product is made, the value and the demand of the product decreases, showing red flags of what Marx’s calls a period of overproduction. It concludes that the supply is greater than the demand, creating a cost instead of a profit for the capitalist since that have to sell what they overproduced. Regardless of this, it is important to know that overproduction isn’t seen as a problem for the rest world unless they are the owners of the means of production- the capitalist class- because it only matters in the concept of profit. The reason behind it as described earlier is if too much was produced and the demand isn’t as high, profit would decrease due to the unbalance of the equation. It makes more sense in Marx’s words which he states, "So long as the most urgent needs of a large part of society are not satisfied, or only the most immediate needs are satisfied, there can of course be

The capitalist form of production, through the process of exploitation which is solidified by wage subsistence labor, increasingly divides the population into two classes (Marx #11 p. 246). The classes are characterized by their relationship to the capitalist form of production in that one owns the means of production (the bourgeoisie) while the other (the proletariat) owns nothing but his labor power, which he must sell in order to gain access to the means of production for survival (Marx #11 p. 251).

With the first approach, it will discuss the Agrarian origins of capitalism, and how the collapse of feudalism led to the emergence of competition between classes as the driver for economic activities, and thus the eventual emergence of capitalism. This dominant Marxist view on capitalism is strongly rooted in social relations and defines and focuses on production and class. This implies that the real driver behind development was class struggle.

Marx suggests that this class antagonism was built upon by the bourgeoisie during the Feudal Ages and has continued to expand beyond all recognition, to encompass a ‘dehumanising and alienating’ market which has paved the way for what Marx describes as modern bourgeois society “conjuring up such giant means of production and of exchange, like a sorcerer that is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells” . The means of production that Marx is referring to include creating machinery, application of chemistry to agriculture, electrification of railways and steam navigation, with means of exchange referring to capital and investment.

Marx’s believed that the rise of the capitalism was found in the historic growth of material and mechanics and he also highlighted that the economic production was a big feature within the societal structure.

A capital society is the “mode of production based on private ownership of the means of production.” (SparkNotes Editors, 2005) This productions goal is to make as much money as the private owner can get, “Main focus of capitalism is profit - businesses exist to make money” (Johnson, n.d.) This is achieved by exploitation, “Capitalists enrich themselves by extracting a “surplus-value” from their labourers—in other words, exploiting them.” (SparkNotes Editors, 2005) The capitalists will pay the workers as little as possible usually enough to just get by on, which in turn creating a better profit for themselves. In doing so, “The working class would get poorer (pauperisation); that the rich would get richer and that

Karl Marx doctored one of the more referenced and enduring analysis’ of the capitalist society and system in his work The Communist Manifesto, Marx points directly at the human cost of industrializing societies and how through intricate means of exploitation and alienation, society is split into two distinct groups or classes, the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie. Marx makes the argument that because of the restlessness of Bourgeoisie to satisfy their needs and maintain their upper status, the Proletariat is forever locked in a system of production for Bourgeoisie consumption, that serves the purpose of maintaining the upper class.

According to Marx, the Bourgeoisie consists of the property-owning class, whereas the Proletariats are the industrial working class. These two classes are the focus of Marx’s argument, where he claims the Bourgeoisie harshly exploit the Proletariats. This however, is in the capitalist mode, therefore making the Bourgeoisie reign over the Proletariat class. Within capitalist production, exploitation is a defining factor, meaning that the removal of surplus value from laborers is the key focus of profit and accumulation. Between the Bourgeoisie and the

Karl Marx was an influential German philosopher who is widely known for his work on capitalism. Class was a notable social category for Marx; he discussed ruling class ideas and explained how a person’s class was defined by their relation to the means of production. Specifically, in the “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” Marx (1859) writes, “In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production” (pg. 20). In this essay, I will be discussing what Marx means when he refers to the relations of production as “independent of [men’s] will,” in that people enter into enforced, coercive relationships with owners of capital because of the economic system which structures society. The class relations are built upon a base and a superstructure which in turn shape the structure of society and its means of production. Consequently, the forms of social consciousness of society are predetermined and dictated by the ruling classes as people must enter into these relationships in order to survive, thus creating a dialectical economic superstructure.

Of particular interest in Rima’s summary and critique of Marx’s background and social/economic contributions is the quote: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness.” Karl Marx, in reference to modes of production, which refers to the social relationship present in ownership and the use of the means of production, explains how the effects of the control of modes of production on society are intrinsic in a