Contents
- Introduction:
- Origin until the discovery of Capitalism
- 19th -20th century development of Capitalism and the critique of its nature
- Social System in the Society of Capitalism and Human Alienation
- Conclusion
Introduction:
We cannot deny the fact that the economic system that shapes our life choices, worldviews, and goals in terms of culture and society in today's society. Every day of our lives is dedicated to the accumulation of money, products, and services that require the flow of money, labour, etc.; these activities in some way or another contribute to the movement of capitalism in society. Although globalisation is not new, the current iteration is strengthening inequality and capital accumulation. Today, it is simple to transfer labour, money, and expertise internationally.
Globally renowned cities include New York, London, Brussels, Tokyo, Manila, Mumbai, Paris, and the other big cities. These cities provide their residents and the migrant global citizenry with a wide range of services and facilities. In the process, it serves the needs of those who are acknowledged by the state and contributes to the development of a system that normalises the exploitation and pauperization of those on the edges. The capitalist system of the modern, globalised world provides opportunities for wealth accumulation and the rise of billionaires and millionaires.
Up until recently, the global North and South could be used as a binary to understand discrepancy. Currently, this gap is rapidly closing, and in the not too distant future, Asia might have the greatest concentration of billionaires. Modern capitalistic systems provide their customers with a wide range of services and goods.
However, a significant portion of the population, particularly in developing nations, is kept outside the system. The wealthiest get riches as the poor get poorer. We simply cannot in the circumstances at hand. The daily wage earners who toil day and night to provide for their basic requirements and to survive, while billionaires, on the other hand, reap the rewards of their labour. But how did human civilization come to be known as the capitalist era? Marx argues that historical conditions dictate how human agency will develop in the future.
By this, he emphasises that the primary conditions for the transition of human society from one phase to another are the means and mode of production as well as relations, forces, and technologies of production. Thus, European nations helped pave the way for the demise of feudalism and the emergence of a new society under the age of capitalism by amassing money and gold from colonies. In this new system, which was based on the idea of domination of one class over another, i.e., the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, monarchies and royalties no longer held sway.
The capitalist class will now have the means of production in this system, and capitalism is a system that enables the protection of this class' interests through and by the modern state through its laws and institutions for maintaining law and order. The market economy controls how humans evolve in this system. This economy not only rules the state but also the society, its culture, and its social fabric. The content that follows sheds light on possible growth and expansion trajectories for capitalism throughout the global North. It also looks at how capitalism causes people to become estranged from one another and from themselves.
Origin until the discovery of Capitalism
There are various methods to comprehend what capitalism is and how it came into being. Marx views capitalism as largely a system of market anarchy rather than a system of disparities in income and power. The perceived domination of people by commodities and, to a lesser extent, the rule of people by people are the main outcomes of such anarchy. On the other hand, according to the definition of capitalism used today, it is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or corporations, investments are made based on individual judgement, and prices, production, and distribution of goods are largely influenced by free market competition. These concepts just scratch the surface of capitalism's overall significance, history, and evolution.
As far as we are aware, humankind was able to develop the concept of barter or exchange in the early ages of history as a result of realising their distinction as reasoning beings. Because of this, it is merely a straightforward method of demonstrating one's possession of something and exchanging it for something else that is essential for their subsistence. The concept of a market was developed by human communities as part of this trade mechanism. Soon enough, the economy's monetization resulted in a further inversion of capitalism in social interactions.
Profit and excess capital are produced in capitalism. One illustration is investing a particular amount of money in the stock market or banks, where the investor can earn additional income as a result of the interest it accrues after a certain maturity.
Through summarise the history of capitalism, from the 13th to the 16th century, European nations expanded through trade, mercantalism, and colonial conquests. Portuguese and Spanish, two nations with strong navies, conquered territories in South and Central America. These colonies' economies grew at incredible speeds as a result of resource extraction. Later, this also applied to Germany, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom. European countries practised modern mercantilism through trade and imperialism. This extra cash and materials would subsequently serve as the impetus for the expansion of the industrial revolution in Europe.
The story of Jacques Coeur provides us with a complete backdrop on the evolution of capitalism at this period, including in France. He gives a stunning illustration of how money may be made quickly by investing wisely in foreign goods. Although these situations have certain characteristics of later capitalism, they are in some ways distinct due to their smaller scale. Markets have always existed, and there is little doubt that certain people have used them in every society to make a fast fortune. According to Harvey (2010; 102)
“The essential characteristics of capitalism become evident with an increase in scale - in two quite separate contexts. One is the formation of joint-stock companies, in which investors pool their resources for a major commercial undertaking. The other, not evident until the Industrial Revolution, is the development of factories in which large numbers of workers are employed in a single private companies.”
Similar to many other situations that were developing, this was possibly one of these in Europe. The merchant class was first able to engage in a new type of entrepreneurship, namely a business of manufacturing, because to the excess riches and pillage from colonies. This was only the beginning. Some of the merchants even questioned the legitimacy of the imperial state as they had grown strong and well-liked. Over time, capitalism, which replaced feudalism, came to rule Europe's social and political landscape. In his book "Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy," Barrington Moore proposes that Britain took a similar course at this time. The concept of individual political rights was also born out of the idea of private property.
19th -20th century development of Capitalism and the critique of its nature
The feudal system in Europe began to be gradually influenced by capitalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. As the early stage of capitalism begins to institutionalise itself, private property, the modern state, new laws, and bureaucracy also start to take shape. The trends' essence shifts into several perspectives. As time passes and the world experiences rapid development, capitalism also changes in various ways as a result of new technological advancements or the transition to the modern era.
The wealth divide in Western civilization widened over time as a result of growing industrialization and economic expansion. Marx had good reason to criticise this system during this time because the masses' misery and pauperization were likely at their worst.
“His (Marx’s) economic analysis of capitalism is based on his version of the labour theory of value, and includes the analysis of capitalist profit as the extraction of surplus value from the exploited proletariat. The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx’s prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by communism. However Marx refused to speculate in detail about the nature of communism, arguing that it would arise through historical processes, and was not the realisation of a pre-determined moral ideal”.
Marx was a humanist, thus he tried to understand how the capitalist system worked and what circumstances were necessary for it to survive and reproduce. In doing so, he attempts to demystify Adam Smith's "invisible hand" through the conceptual framework of capital accumulation and uncover the abstract idea known as "surplus value." In doing so, he also brings up crucial issues like who is involved in this capital accumulation. And he makes an effort to depict the power dynamics in this market-driven political economy, where even the government promotes capitalist interests.
He observes how the working class is powerless in this market because all they have to offer is their labour force. On the other hand, the capitalist owns and governs the means of production. As a result, labour is reduced to pauperism and employed by capitalists to generate profits in the form of wealth accumulation.
Social System in the Society of Capitalism and Human Alienation
Marx has maintained that a social structure supporting the capitalist system's foundational principles of exploitation and the creation of surplus value is a need. In light of this, he proposed that the market economy produces a mirror image of itself inside the social context of such societies. The social system must necessarily be designed so that exploitation appears natural in order to appropriate excess value. So, in many ways, the capitalist economy produced the nuclear family in Europe.
Engles claims that this was the fundamental unit that permitted the invisibalization of women's labour, which in turn led to the production of free or cheap labour for males in the market. Without the free labour provided by women who cared for the family, capitalism would have failed. In order to increase profits, women's wages were also lower than those of their male colleagues. Similar to how the market and political economy directly impacted the social realm as a whole, if one were to use Marx's argument. As a result, the educational system could be seen as an adjunct to the capitalist economy. The relationship between the state and society, marriage as a social institution, legislation, governance, social norms, and value systems can all be affected.
In his 2010 book "Reading Capital," David Harvey explores how this exploitation system and its ideology of dominance are eventually assimilated within society. Control over the bodies and brains of the working class is accomplished through the state, as Louis Althousser notes. As a result, the ideology of capitalism becomes indisputable and hegemonic. The progressive alienation of humans from this system over time results from this system. In the context of contemporary societies and contemporary nations, the alienation process is also apparent in the writings of Durkheim (Anomie and Suicide) and Weber (rationalisation and bureaucracy).
Marx therefore believed that the political economy also dictated the social, cultural, and economic aspects of society. The exact ideologies and mechanisms that oppress us are supported by these cultural institutions. Therefore, according to Marx, the only way to topple this system is by a bloody revolution that calls for the destruction of the capitalists. Marx claims that this is difficult since one of the first stages is to acknowledge that the working class is being exploited. He contends that the moral order of religion justifies exploitation and pauperization. Thus, according to Marx, religion is the opiate of the people.
Now that we've defined exploitation and alienation, we can go into further detail. Marx opens each of his publications by analysing the concept of commodity production. A useful external thing produced for trade on a market is referred to as a commodity. Thus, the existence of a market, where exchange may occur, and a social division of labour, where different people produce different products, without which there would be no incentive for exchange, are two prerequisites for commodity production. Marx argues that goods have an exchange value, which is originally to be interpreted as their price, as well as a use value, or a use in other words.
Marx contends that whereas use value is simple to understand, exchange value is a perplexing issue that requires an explanation of relative exchange values. Why does a certain amount of one commodity trade for a certain amount of another? His justification is in terms of the labour input necessary to produce the good, or rather, the socially necessary labour, which is labour that is exerted at the typical level of intensity and productivity for that sector of the economy. The quantity of socially necessary labour time needed to manufacture a good determines its worth, according to the labour theory of value.
Marx offers a two-stage defence of the labour theory of value in addition to this one. A "third thing of similar magnitude in each of them" must exist for two objects to be compared in the sense of being placed on either side of an equals sign, according to the first step of the argument, which states that if this is the case, then both objects are reducible to this third thing. Marx claims that since commodities can be traded against one another, there must be a third characteristic that all commodities share. The search for the right "third thing," which is labour in Marx's opinion as the sole tenable common element, is then motivated by this, and this is what drives the second stage. Naturally, there are strong counterarguments to both of the argument's steps.
Marx claims that capitalism entails the market's structuring of exchange, but that this goes beyond the simple exchange of goods to include the growth of capital through monetization and the creation of profit. The capitalist's gross profit is made up of the actual cost of production, labour and wages, as well as the expropriation of surplus value. The flow of money follows a specific path, starting with the purchase of one set of goods, which is followed by the transformation of those goods into another that fetch a higher price using plentiful and conveniently accessible inexpensive labour, which ultimately results in the generating of profit.
Adam Smith, who lived before Marx, also tried to understand how this process truly worked but gave up with the notion that the market is guided by an invisible hand that permits the unchecked and continually increasing capitalist market to perpetuate itself. Marx criticises Adam Smith's analysis at this point and argues that the only way to make money is to take advantage of cheap labour. In capitalism, the owner class buys the labour of the working class in exchange for wages. Surplus value can actually be created in this act and the one that comes after it.
Once a product or commodity is made, its price is established in the same way as all other prices, i.e., in terms of the amount of labour that is required to produce it in order for society to function. The term "socially necessary labour power" refers to all elements, such as labour, raw material costs, time, other investments, etc., that go into producing a finished good. However, the commodity also has another element known as the surplus value when it is sold. What is this extra value, though?
Marx asserts that the working class receives only the wages necessary to sustain them for one day, or the value of a day's labour. When employed by a capitalist, a worker is only compensated for the time necessary to produce a certain good and not for the additional time invested. As a result, the worker just makes enough money to survive in order to contribute to the capitalist owner's excess profit. Let's use an illustration to show this. Let's say it takes four hours to produce a certain good. As a result, the first four hours of the workday are dedicated to creating something that is worth what the employee will be paid in pay. It is referred to as essential labour.
Any additional work the employee performs is referred to as excess labour, which generates surplus value for the capitalist. Marx argued that surplus value is the origin of all profit. Labor power is the sole good in Marx's analysis that has the potential to produce more value than it is worth; as a result, it is referred to as variable capital. Other goods do not add value; they only transfer value from themselves to the completed goods. They are referred to as steady capital. The extra effort a worker does over and beyond what is required to produce the value of his or her salary results in profit.
This is the profit theory of surplus value. This research seems to imply that the rate of profit should decrease as an industry becomes more mechanised, utilising more constant capital and less variable capital. Because less capital will be invested in labour, which is the only factor that can produce value (Ritzer, 2012).
This state of exploitation has become commonplace. The workers start to think that this is how the system functions and that it is just for them to get paid enough to survive. However, after a while, the monotony and hardship of the job start to affect the worker's physical and mental health. Additionally, the worker who is worn out and burned out from performing the same tasks day in and day out only finds "leisure" time when with the family. As a result, it becomes imperative to exercise the value of the family and women, in particular, in the healing of the worker's mind and body.
In this way, capitalism truly separates life into two basic categories: work and leisure. The majority of workers' lives are spent in the first binary, or working to survive. The capitalist is able to amass money and replicate it in several other ways thanks to this additional labour time. Marx claims that this leads to unhappiness and the poor working class leaving the system. He refers to this method as estrangement. According to Marx, there are four levels of worker alienation from the system. When a worker is cut off from his own labour power, that is the first stage. The labourer eventually reaches a point where she is unable to connect with the work she is doing as a result of this estrangement. Workers are thus cut off from the results of their labour. The main reason for their disinterest is the surplus labour they produce. Marx therefore argues that the alienation of the worker during the production of the good means that her labour not only becomes an objective reality with an existence outside of him, but also exists outside of him, independently, as something foreign to him. This objective external reality has a force of its own that challenges the aspirations and wellbeing of the workers.
“…so much does labour’s realisation appear as loss of realisation that the worker loses realisation to the point of starving to death. So much does objectification appear as loss of the object that the worker is robbed of the objects made necessary not only for his life but for his work. Indeed, labour itself becomes an object which he can obtain only with the greatest effort and with the most irregular interruptions. So much does appropriation of the object appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker produces the less he can possess and the more he falls under the sway of his product, capital”.
The lack of control over the thing she has created—what should be the design, to whom should it be sold, for what price should it be sold, etc.—represents the second level of alienation that Marx alludes to. Actually, the control over them rests with the owner and the product. The worker is now the product's slave.
“ . . . the object which labour produces – labour’s product – confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer”.
Marx identifies the objectification of labour and the identity it produces as the third phase of alienation. Marx is emphasising the reality that the existence of the working class in capitalism is contingent upon their employment. Being a human being is secondary to being a worker.
“The height of this bondage is that it is only as a worker that he continues to maintain himself as a physical subject . . .” 7
Alienation's component follows on from the first. Marx takes into account the workers' alienation from their productive job here.
“If then the product of labour is alienation, production itself must be active alienation, the alienation of activity, the activity of alienation”
Marx makes the case that the type of job and working conditions that wage employees must accept are harmful to their fundamental well-being in this passage. Instead of bringing satisfaction, this work exhausts the worker and instead leaves them frustrated.
“...in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He is at home when he is not working, and when he is working he is not at home. His labour is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labour. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it”
Marx claims that workers are alienated from their fundamental species-being in the third case/level of alienation. Marx is implying that each species' personality is reflected in the nature of its life activities and that the human species-being serves as a metaphor for "free and conscious" individuality. Marx, however, contends that wage labour is not authentically human activity since it does not adhere to the idea of free and conscious individuality.
“The object of labour is, therefore, the objectification of man’s species life: for he duplicates himself not only, as in consciousness, intellectually, but also actively, in reality, and therefore he contemplates himself in a world that he has created. In tearing away from man the object of this production, therefore, estranged labour tears from his species life, his real objectivity as a member of the species and transforms his advantage over animals into the disadvantage that his inorganic body, nature, is taken away from him”.
The "estrangement of human from another human" is the fourth aspect of alienation, which comes after the previous three aspects. In other words, rather than being truly human, relationships between people are dominated by their functions as agents in the process of economic growth and value agglomeration.
Conclusion
Marx was a learned man who recognised the flaw in the capitalist system. He was able to demonstrate quite clearly how the system's design fostered worker alienation. His understanding of how the worlds of work and play are divided into two categories greatly highlights the misery of both employees and mankind as a whole.
He thought that alienation would not be possible in a socialist society because a socialist society would permit the unrestricted development of human potential in a way that is not conceivable under capitalism. Is it conceivable to combine this element of the alienation theory with a materialist view of human nature, though? Making the case that our understanding of what it is to be human is influenced by culture could be one step toward a reconciliation. As a result, new ideas about what it is to be human have emerged as a result of the material advancements that capitalism has made possible. However, capitalism simultaneously inhibits the working class from realising this. This is undoubtedly one of its many fundamental inconsistencies.
Comments