The
main idea that I have to disagree with is that production cost is the
only necessary cost to take into account. I do agree that labour does
follow the supply-demand curve, but I do have my reservations about
the idea of surplus value. There is production cost, but the
distribution and organization are important aspects of a product.
We as a society put a price on organization and distribution, and
they also follow the supply-demand curve. We do not have many people
competing for the positions of organizations and distribution, and
that is why they get paid a good bit more. But now the argument
becomes if you take into account all of these “extra” people into
the production and distribution cost, do they earn more than those
costs? I think they do, but that surplus is used to increase
productivity,
but what about the amount that isn't? Is
money wanted purely for the sake of money? Or is there another
reason? I think there is also
another
reason. People want money for happiness, security, and survival, but
I do believe that there is a point where a person gets enough money
to the point where they have all their needs and wants satisfied, but
they develop a desire to have money for the sake of money, because
their brains have developed a direct connection with money and
happiness. They get to the point where they feel as though money is
an end, and not only a means to happiness, and security. That is what
I think becomes scary about capitalism. People try to earn more and
more money to fulfill their “need” for money, even if they are
infringing on the rights of other people. I think that this where
Marx see the scary aspect of Capitalism as well. He wants to see a
society where people are content when their needs and desires are
satisfied, without creating needs and desires. What do you guys
think? Is what I portrayed accurate? If it isn't, what are some other
factors that I need to take into account? I am sure that society is
much more complicated than I made it, but I feel as though there are
certain aspects that can be glossed over for a greater understanding,
rather than being overwhelmed with information. Thank you.
I agree with you that the accumulation of money has become more than just fulfilling any needs for survival. It seems to have become more as a status of power than anything else. So Marx's theories about fulfilling someone's need and desires and removing the concept of having money for the sake of money is where Communism comes into play. While advocates for Communism see it as advantageous for this reason, somewhere down the road the repression of people's needs and desires becomes so overwhelming that Communism fails. So while Capitalism is corrupt and creates division among people, Communism seeks to repress people's human nature of having needs and desires that seems to only be fulfilled by attainting money.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you, the need for money has become far more of a material means as opposed to simply means of survival, considering people these days see greater accumulation of money directly correlating to status and happiness. I also agree with Grace's statement of Communism inevitably failing due to the repression of man's natural desires. However, is this repression of needs directly related to the desire to attain money? I believe that while the desire to accumulate excessive money is a natural desire, I do not perceive these limitations caused by Communism to be the only cause of inevitable failure.
ReplyDeleteI also agree, since the needs that Marx discusses are not only based on survival concerns things could get out of hand. However, I wonder if this would be a problem within Marx's society? Since his communist epoch is to come after our capitalist epoch, would the proletariat consider money obsolete since that has been one of the main means of suppressing them under the bourgeoisie all that time before? It seems kind of like some sort of sci-fi, futuristic prediction on what it really could look like; although needs are not based solely on survival would money still hold its place as it does in the capitalist world, as a necessity for physical and "social" survival?
ReplyDelete