- The classes, under capitalism, are basically reduced to two
- The relationship between classes rests on a fundamental contradiction
- The conditions of the workers will necessarily become more wretched
Do you think these three points hold as true today as they did in Marx's time? I think they do, and here's why:
- If you think about the Occupy Wallstreet movement, it's pretty clear that such sentiments are alive in our society. Some people might argue that the "middle class" in our country disrupts Marx's vision of two dichotomous classes, but I'd argue that the difference between the Proletariat and the "middle class" is small in comparison to the difference between either of these classes and the Bourgeoisie of today. If there was an extra "middle class," how would that change the dynamic of the whole situation? Wouldn't that make the poorest class feel more taken advantage of?
- I think this may actually hold more true today than it did in Marx's time. With the rapid rise in technology, today's products are becoming more and more technical and electronic-based. Many of these products are relatively inexpensive to make, but the mystery behind proprietary software and the difficulty behind re-engineering such products allows companies to set arbitrarily high prices. Similar to what we said in class, each iphone 5 costs Apple $167.50 in parts. Each one sells for $650 (even if you get the phone with a two year data contract, your service provider pays Apple the full price). It would be hard to argue that there isn't some surplus value at work here; the money certainly isn't going to these people.
- Has anyone ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair? That's what Marx's third point reminds me of. If you haven't, Wikipedia has a nice page on it. This is essentially the author's portrayal of an unregulated capitalist system--wages are low, workers are alienated in every possible way, and the conditions are awful. The worst part? It was written in response to the actual meat packing industry of the United States. That being said, this is the point that has received the most tangible addressing in recent history. Federal agencies sprung up after such conditions were brought to the public's attention to regulate food production. Do you think such regulations are a result of the Proletariat's power when banded together or are they simply a concession by the Bourgeoisie to appease the Proletariat before they band together?
What do you think? We aren't in all-out class warfare, but it certainly seems like the symptoms Marx laid out are present. When looking back at the Presidential Debate from earlier this week, both Governor Romney and President Obama acknowledged a difference between the "average/middle class" citizen and the members of our country that fall in the highest tax brackets. Isn't that indicative of a perceived tension between two classes?
1. I agree that if there were more classes, it would be harder to band together and that the lowest class would feel all the more disadvantaged. However, we do have more classes today. We've got the middle class and upper-middle classes. I know this doesn't seem like much of a difference, but in conversation it means a world of difference. Even if the upper-middle class isn't far from being middle class or lower class, the gap between them and the Bourgeoisie is increasing. Hence social tensions are growing and the Occupy movement takes flight. People are scared because the classes are shrinking and the wealth distribution gap is growing.
ReplyDelete2. Thank you so much for the link to the BBC news report, and I completely agree. I've never understood the cost of production v. the prices of a product in our world. I guess so long as everyone on our end is sittin pretty and we don't hear of too many suicides from across the way, we're gonna keep on doin what we're doin, because hey... it's just business.
3. I think it's a bit of both. The force behind the unified Proletariat class can cause positive change. However, some of those changes are bad for business. So how do we keep the lower class in check? We appease them just enough so they think they've gotten their way and they're better off so that they don't start thinkin they could have more.
As to your last note, I'd agree completely that it sounds like conflict theory of economic classes. Marx is prevalent today, no doubt. Especially since we live under an oneupsmanship way of life, how can Marx's symptoms not be recognized?
I also agree with your point that it seems like Marx's theory is becoming more relevant to our society everyday. After watching the debate Wednesday, it seems like the struggle for the middle class is a topic that has caused a lot of controversy in this year's election. We are seeing the tiny upper class get richer and richer and the tension of the lower and middle classes get greater and greater. It will be interesting to see if Romney or Obama will be effective with their economic plans appease both sides of the conflict.
ReplyDeleteAnd on the note of appeasing the conflict, I liked the description Dr. Johnson gave about how America is simply "plugging the holes" in the system of capitalism. We make laws that suppress the anger and rebellious feelings in the lower classes to ultimately keep the upper class safe. I agree that this is a troubling concept and seems to rear its ugly head more and more each year.
Dr. Johnson also said that capitalism, like every other great economic era, will die. It will cycle out just like the feudal systems and monarchies over the last thousands of years have. But when will this take place? Will it be sooner rather than later? Will we start to see its breakdown in our lifetime? I guess only time will tell.
1. I agree with you that the difference between the Proletariat and the middle class is exponentially smaller than the difference between the Bourgeoisie and either of the other classes. The inequality between the Bourgeoisie and the middle classes is so great that the addition of any other middle classes would only increase that unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity. The concept of the 99% (Proletariat) versus the 1% (Bourgeoisie) stemming from the Occupy Wall Street is the perfect example of the class inequality Marx emphasized so strongly.
ReplyDelete2. While I am not well read in economic policies, I agree that it doesn't make sense why the obvious surplus value isn't going to the workers that are living in less than ideal conditions to make the product and whose labor is repeatedly exploited. One would think that since many factory jobs have been replaced with technology that many workers would be without jobs, but exploitation of workers still exists to the point where they have to put up "suicide nets" around the edges of the buildings/factories.
I think you're right about there being evidence of Marx's theory on the two classes. There has been such an emphasis on the division between classes especially in this presidential debate that it has become part of the political vernacular, largely thanks to the Occupy Movement. While some could argue there is evidence of there being more than one political party, most could agree on the concept of the 99% versus the 1%