Marx's Conception Of Species Being

“Political economy conceals the estrangement inherent in the nature of labor by not considering the direct relationship between the worker (labor) and production” (Pg. 30). According to Marx, human nature is neither fixed nor transcendent; instead, it is alterable and embedded in the productivity of everyday life. The only fixed attribute that we have is our openness. We are different from other animal species in the sense that we are able to adapt to different natural environments by creating a social environment. We recognize what Marx termed us as ‘species being’ when we plan our actions, organize collectively to draw a living from nature, and make sense our experience in the different form of cultures. Generally speaking, estrangement

However, the functionalist ideology that rewards enjoyed by the wealthy are acceptable due to their social importance does not thoroughly constitute the cause of economic inequality (Colomy 31). Karl Marx, a known proponent of the conflict theory, exemplifies the dilemma of economic inequality through the relationship of the the proletariat and the capitalists. The proletariat or the labour worker and the capitalists are involved in a revolving system of exploitation. The capitalist pays his worker less to produce a surplus (Marx 479). It is the lucrative profit that is obtained through the capitalist industry that fuels this vicious cycle of exploitation. The worker produces the

The notion of man as a ‘species-being’ for Marx meant the recognition of man’s human essence as a member of a species. A species which takes part in a process of conscious production whereby we produce as human beings for one another; Marx perceived this to be the process of mans ‘active species life’ (Bottomore; 1963 ). Marx specifically used the term ‘species being’ as a method to distinguish human life from animal life; where production is more a consequence of ‘blind instinct’ rather than conscious productive labour. The recognition of man as a ‘species’ becomes eminent to the theory of Alienation, which is central to Marx’s work and vital in reiterating the human essence of man.

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

Next I would like to define and connect means of production and capital. The means of production refers to institutions or establishments, such as: factories, offices, or any places of business that are privately owned. Marx sees financial interest in these foundations as deficient in relation to the return on investment created by the workers who make them valuable. Under Marx’s theory of value, these establishments are only valuable as a result of the workers’ labor and not the financial or capitalistic investment. Capital can therefore be defined as the money

when conducting my readings for this assignment i was really confused at first, it was like i was reading another language. Marx writes in a very weird confusing way. after reading, reading, and reading i finally started to get it little by little.

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.

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

     In capitalism the worker is a commodity in so as to produce the products needed for the market. Each individual does what they are best at producing and if everyone does this then each person’s needs are taken care of. When each person is working they are paid money for their labor. With this money they can buy goods, which can fulfill their own desires, and so the trading of money for goods can take place in a capitalist market driving the economy forward (Smith 158).

Society is flawed. There are critical imbalances in it that cause much of humanity to suffer. In, the most interesting work from this past half-semester, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx is reacting to this fact by describing his vision of a perfectly balanced society, a communist society. Simply put, a communist society is one where all property is held in common. No one person has more than the other, but rather everyone shares in the fruits of their labors. Marx is writing of this society because, he believes it to be the best form of society possible. He states that communism creates the correct balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. And furthermore thinks that sometimes

Marx’s analysis of capitalism begins with an investigation of the commodity because the wealth of capitalist nations is essentially “an immense collection of commodities” (Chapter 1). Marx differentiates between the use-value and the exchange-value of any given commodity. The use-value of a commodity refers to its qualitative ability to satisfy a human need, while its exchange-value is the “quantitative relation… in which use-values of one kind exchange for use-values of another kind” (Chapter 1). Therefore, exchange-value is not an intrinsic quality of a commodity; it is only discovered in comparing a fixed quantity of commodity A to a fixed quantity B. Since differing quantities of these two commodities appear to have the same value,

Marx viewed the ‘commodity’ as the most elementary form of modern wealth. The essence of the commodity is the

People always wonder what makes them who they are. However, the extent to which our characters are derived from ourselves is always an argument for many philosophers. Marx, a German philosopher, and Mengzi, a representative thinker of Confucianism, present similar accounts in explaining how humans are shaped. Both Marx and Mengzi believe that our individual character is not solely shaped by ourselves but are shaped in ways by external forces. However, I will argue that, compared with Mengzi’s view of the moral attributes that inherently exist in humans themselves, Marx’s account is more systematic and compelling due to his emphasis of the effect of the interrelationship between humans themselves and the external forces of labor and social structures.

In capitalist production, goods are produced for the market in order to get a profit. What matters for the worker, as I’ve said, is that he or she gets an adequate amount for his or her labor. What is being produced is, in this sense, immaterial.

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