There are only few times in history when a person changes the way everyone views the world. Karl Marx is a figure that inexorably changed the future of social thought; as an economist, historian, and as a social thinker. Karl Marx wrote in a time of civil unrest, and with his writing came revolutionary ideas about the formation of society. With all profound statements about the make up of social fabric, Marx’s writings are debated and disputed around the validity of his claims. Marxian philosophy has received unfair treatment on both sides of the aisle. The left has taken his writing as a literal call to arms and used it to always point to the endings of capitalism, while the ideological right has seen his works as blasphemous, and an unwarranted attack upon capitalism. These polar assumptions about Marx’s writing are unfair, for they move past Marx’s perspective on how society functions and move directly towards his conclusions of his earlier works. This absence of detailed introspection on the workings of Marxian thought is ultimately the downfall of most critiques of Marx. Marxian thought stems from his view upon the material world, more specifically the way Marx views economics. To truly understand the statements of Marx, one needs to first understand Marxian economic thought and how it applies to the world. Marxian thought can be viewed in three ways; the prophet, the sociologist, and the economist . To clearly understand the ramifications of Marx as the prophet and sociologist, the crux of the Marxian argument need to be understood, which is Marx’s view on economics. Marx saw the world changing drastically before his own eyes. The old world known before industrialization was slipping away and in its place a capitalist system was taking hold. Marx looked into the economy to see what he could make of this new epoch of capitalization. And what Marx ends up with is a materialistic view of the world, where everything in the world can be explained by money and how it is sought. What he came up with was something not entirely his own; a system based upon the value of labour and production which had been the brainchild of Ricardo before him. All things are based upon the value of production; how much the raw materials cost added to the cost of the workers would be the true price. All true cost is associated with the direct contact with the production of a given product, and all added cost is made above that. While Ricardo saw the economic world founded on the same principles, it is necessary to note that Ricardo did not come to the same conclusions as Marx did. To Marx “value” was a definitive and fixed term, in the same way a person is definitively made from flesh. The value of the commodity is directly proportional to the amount of labour put into the product, on a scale of one to one. Ricardo saw prices in more of a relative term, with the value being the relative price. This discrepancy is what directly led the difference between Marx and Ricardo, and what made Marx adopt the theory of exploitation. Marx strays away from the standard Ricardian model is his conclusions from this assumption, where Marx sees the profit made from this system as unpaid labour. Marx sees the proletariat as being driven by another ruling force, one that is driven by profit and yet does not directly contribute to the formation of the commodity; the bourgeois. Profit then becomes the means for exploitation for the worker; for owner can only make a profit by having their workers produce more than they are paying for, thus exploiting the workers wage for the owners gain. This theory of wages, workers, profit and social interaction is
the crux of what Marxian theory is based off of. Marxian social theory is laced with the notion of wealth owners looking for ways to squeeze out more profit and filled with ideas of the rich just getting richer. In his earlier writings Marx ends up getting wrapped up in a notion of exploitation, which he sees as unavoidable and inevitable. This exploitation is what ultimately causes capitalism to come to a grinding halt with the eventual revolution of the working class. It is this prophetic end of capitalism is the main focus of Marxian scholars and critics, because of its profound implications and also is the source of Marx’s political thinking. The exploitation is something that Marx sees that has happened throughout time independent of capitalism. This class warfare is something that Marxists give much merit, and it is a foundation upon how they see the world and history. Marx challenged the norm with the implications on economic thinking, he also changed the way social thinkers view the political realm. For Marx, economics transcended the boundaries of orthodox economic thought and was defined and sculpted by culture. Marx saw that the private realm of capital and enterprise is connected intimately with the public realm. Since all economic issues are ultimately tied to government, Marx did not see how political action was separable from economic concerns and thus economic interests. Traditional economists saw the world in terms of harmonious workings of various interests between social groups, where Marx saw the conflict of labour and owner. Marx saw this inevitably spilling over into the political realm where government seeks to stabilize the friction between the two conflicting interests. The government was nothing more than a tool for the private sector to secure their interests publicly. Everything from wars to tax policy was now to be questioned in light of economic concerns, and no longer could politics be separated from the materialist background. Politics and money run hand and hand, and there is no doubt that Marx was the one who started asking about who was gaining from those being in power. The phrase “follow the money” is often used in reference to authorities catching the culprit, but was now used to look at the authorities to see their motives behind their actions. The question arose who was benefiting from any given action. In economics and politics there are those who benefit and those who do not, and we now look into who is benefiting from any given action. All economic policies initiated by the government end up benefiting someone, and Marx saw the governmental authority as the apparatus for the rich to secure their interests. Politics and the public sphere became the battleground for the private interests of various classes, and one does not need to look further than the people who ran the government to see what interests the government serves.
Marxian thought can be viewed in three ways; the prophet, the sociologist, and the economist . To clearly understand the ramifications of Marx as the prophet and sociologist, the crux of the Marxian argument need to be understood, which is Marx’s view on economics. Marx saw the world changing drastically before his own eyes. The old world known before industrialization was slipping away and in its place a capitalist system was taking hold. Marx looked into the economy to see what he could make of this new epoch of capitalization. And what Marx ends up with is a materialistic view of the world, where everything in the world can be explained by money and how it is sought. What he came up with was something not entirely his own; a system based upon the value of labour and production which had been the brainchild of Ricardo before him. All things are based upon the value of production; how much the raw materials cost added to the cost of the workers would be the true price. All true cost is associated with the direct contact with the production of a given product, and all added cost is made above that. While Ricardo saw the economic world founded on the same principles, it is necessary to note that Ricardo did not come to the same conclusions as Marx did. To Marx “value” was a definitive and fixed term, in the same way a person is definitively made from flesh. The value of the commodity is directly proportional to the amount of labour put into the product, on a scale of one to one. Ricardo saw prices in more of a relative term, with the value being the relative price. This discrepancy is what directly led the difference between Marx and Ricardo, and what made Marx adopt the theory of exploitation. Marx strays away from the standard Ricardian model is his conclusions from this assumption, where Marx sees the profit made from this system as unpaid labour. Marx sees the proletariat as being driven by another ruling force, one that is driven by profit and yet does not directly contribute to the formation of the commodity; the bourgeois. Profit then becomes the means for exploitation for the worker; for owner can only make a profit by having their workers produce more than they are paying for, thus exploiting the workers wage for the owners gain. This theory of wages, workers, profit and social interaction is
Reply
Marx challenged the norm with the implications on economic thinking, he also changed the way social thinkers view the political realm. For Marx, economics transcended the boundaries of orthodox economic thought and was defined and sculpted by culture. Marx saw that the private realm of capital and enterprise is connected intimately with the public realm. Since all economic issues are ultimately tied to government, Marx did not see how political action was separable from economic concerns and thus economic interests. Traditional economists saw the world in terms of harmonious workings of various interests between social groups, where Marx saw the conflict of labour and owner. Marx saw this inevitably spilling over into the political realm where government seeks to stabilize the friction between the two conflicting interests. The government was nothing more than a tool for the private sector to secure their interests publicly. Everything from wars to tax policy was now to be questioned in light of economic concerns, and no longer could politics be separated from the materialist background. Politics and money run hand and hand, and there is no doubt that Marx was the one who started asking about who was gaining from those being in power. The phrase “follow the money” is often used in reference to authorities catching the culprit, but was now used to look at the authorities to see their motives behind their actions. The question arose who was benefiting from any given action. In economics and politics there are those who benefit and those who do not, and we now look into who is benefiting from any given action. All economic policies initiated by the government end up benefiting someone, and Marx saw the governmental authority as the apparatus for the rich to secure their interests. Politics and the public sphere became the battleground for the private interests of various classes, and one does not need to look further than the people who ran the government to see what interests the government serves.
Reply
Leave a comment