|
Sociology
Sociological Theory Chapter 2:
Karl Marx (1818-1883) was Prussian-born (Prussia was part of Germany before Germany became a united nation) and ethnically Jewish, though his father converted to Christianity to avoid persecution, and Marx himself abandoned all religiosity early on in his education. Unlike nearly every other theorist in this book, Marx never held an academic position (i.e., he was never a professor). This did not stop him from being a lifelong intellectual, but it does indicate that he lived a life very different from most of the thinkers we will cover. To put it simply, Marx never worked in a university because he was far too radical. Though someone with his talent and scholarly productivity should have easily gained a professorship, Marx was blacklisted by universities and failed to get appointed to such a position. By the time he was 31 years old he had been more or less thrown out of three different European nations -- Prussia, France, and Belgium -- for publishing his radical ideas and actively participating in revolutionary organizations and activities. At some point it became clear to Marx that a communist revolution was not waiting around the corner, and he withdrew into a more cerebral lifestyle. The last half of his life was spent largely in the reading room of the British Museum in London. He continued to write until the day he died, though much of what he wrote was not published until after his death. Marx knew suffering first hand. Though he and his wife originally came from what can be called "middle class" families, Marx spent most of his adult life in extreme poverty. Marx's dedication to his vision of a better society took precedence over practical matters. He lost three children, his wife, and eventually his own life as a result of this deprived lifestyle (malnutrition, starvation, disease, and cold).
IN A NUTSHELL Humans are good by nature -- it is the economic system that corrupts them, making them greedy and exploitative. People naturally prefer to live in a condition of freedom, and will try to strive towards a way of life that allows the greatest freedom. Also, human beings naturally love to work - it is the alienating condition of the economic system that makes them want to avoid labor. The material conditions of your historical period -- i.e., your society's economy and your place in it -- have a strong influence on the way you think and live. I.e., the economic "base" or "substructure" of society gives rise to, and limits, the forms of cultural thought (the "superstructure") in that society. When these material conditions change, the thoughts and lives of a society's people change with them. All societies begin with economies that can be described as "primitive communism." After advancing through slavery, feudalism, and capitalism, all societies will reach a state of modern communism. This process is inevitable. The forces of production, or "productive forces," can be described as just about everything it takes to produce things. The "relations of production" are the relations between the people involved in production. In most civilizations, the "relations of production" are that one category of people owns most everything, and another category of people does most of the work. The value of a thing is equal to the amount of labor it took to produce it. Workers who are paid less than the value of the labor they have put out are being "exploited" (taken advantage of by their employer). I.e., the capitalist keeps the extra value of his employees' labor as profit. Labor was once used to create products for use, not for sale. Labor was also an activity that bonded people together - a rewarding activity, not one to be avoided. In capitalism, workers have been separated, or "alienated" from their labor. They are forced to sell it to the capitalist for a wage, and to compete with each other. Labor is no longer satisfying to workers, and is instead seen as a means to an end: wages. "Reification" is when people fail to understand that something is a human product. Instead, the thing in question is seen as naturally occurring/ existing, and beyond the influence of humans. In capitalism, the market and the capitalist system are examples of reified things. When something becomes reified we forget that, because we make it ourselves, we can change it. When technology allows the "forces of production" to change, the "relations of production" will change to fit them. A revolutionary class will organize itself, and put an end to the current stage of society with a violent revolution. Before it can do this, members of the new class must see the contradictions between forces and relations of production, and recognize that they have common interests. I.e., the class must achieve "class consciousness." Members of the exploited class may be stuck in a state of "false consciousness" -- fail to recognize that they have common interests, and fail to see the contradictions between forces and relations of production. The elite maintains the false consciousness of the working class by producing and spreading ideologies: ideas that justify the economic system. Businesses will replace workers with machines in an attempt to lower prices and outsell competitors. The market becomes flooded with goods, causing prices and profits to fall. In the long run, monopolies or oligopolies will form as failed business are swallowed up by others and/ or prices are fixed. Ultimately, decreasing wages relative to the cost of living increases exploitation of workers, and thus the possibility that workers will achieve class consciousness and destroy the capitalist system. Under a communist economic system, machines do most of the labor, and people are free to spend the most their time in unalienated labor and leisure. There are no hierarchies in communism -- people take turns doing different jobs. Because communism eliminates misery and greed, and allows for the most freedom and fulfillment, people will cease to need a government to keep them from violating the rights of others. Eventually, government will fade away, and society will exist forever in a state of anarchy.
REMEDIAL SOCIOLOGY anarchy - the condition of having no government in a society. class - a category of people that are similar to each other in wealth, political power, and social status. E.g., the working class, the upper-middle class, the lower class, etc. culture - anything invented by human beings, such as languages, clothes, rules, hairstyles, marriage, machines, etc. Culture tends to get passed down from one generation to the next in a group or society, so that different groups and societies may have different cultures. economic determinism - the idea that the economy (its nature, changes in it) determines most or all other social phenomena. egalitarian -- a condition in which people tend to have equal access to resources, power, freedom, and other desired goals. A relationship, group, or whole society may be described as more or less egalitarian. elite - the category of people in a particular society that have the most of whatever resources are most valued (e.g. land, money, stock, military might). The American upper class, a medieval aristocracy, and the communist party of the former USSR are all examples of elites. hierarchy - a condition of organizing people according to some sort of rank or position, where people in higher positions have authority over those below them, as in bureaucracies like the military, a school, a corporation, etc. humanism - the philosophy that human beings are important, and that they can and should seek to create a better society. Humanism tends to see supernatural ideas as false or unimportant. hunter-gatherer society - the most technologically primitive society known. In such small societies, people survive by hunting and gathering food rather than growing it. inequality - a condition in which people tend to have unequal access to resources, power, freedom, and other desired goals. Relationships, groups, or societies may be described as having a greater or lesser degree of inequality. When we say a society has a high level of inequality, we mean that some categories/ groups of people in that society have much more of something than others. masses - the common people in their large numbers. monopoly - when one company controls the entire market for a product or products (i.e. the consumer has no choice but to buy from that company). oligopoly - when a small number of companies control the entire market for a product or products. These companies may purposely agree not to compete so that prices are kept high. private property - Property owned by individuals rather than owned collectively or owned by no one. In some societies, there is no concept of private property (e.g., no understanding that land, horses, etc. can be owned by individuals). In societies with the idea of private property, force may be used (usually by the state) to protect the property of individuals from others. propaganda - information/ messages spread purposely (e.g. over TV, radio, billboards) to try to influence public opinion. The information in question may be true, partially true, or false. socialism - an economic system in which the state tries to influence the economy so that there is less inequality. The state may do this a variety of ways (e.g., placing high taxes on wealth, taking over certain industries like transportation or medicine, guaranteeing all citizens a minimum standard of living, setting high minimum wage, etc.). the state - the government. totalitarianism - when a society's government restricts the freedom of individuals, does not recognize their human rights, and tries to control them whenever possible. utopia -- a
perfect society (from
the original Greek,
literally: "no place";
i.e., a society that
doesn't exist) IDEAS THAT MADE IT 2.1 Historical Materialism The material conditions of your historical period -- i.e., your society's economy and your place in it -- have a strong influence on the way you think and live. When these material conditions change, the thoughts and lives of a society's people change with them. The source of ideas in a society is material living conditions, and not philosophical contemplation. This may be Marx's most important idea -- the concept that both sums up his view of society, and helps us understand society better. Later theorists (e.g. Durkheim and Veblen) say similar things. Though the term sounds fancy, the meaning is simple: your experiences in the physical, material world (especially your economic activity, such as working) have a great effect on how you think. ------------------------------------------------- In Your Terms: Cassie, a 21st Century American college student, learns about the life of a serf, who lives in medieval Europe. The serf was born on a manor (farm) owned by a "lord" (minor aristocracy), and by law he cannot leave. Every day he and his family work the land -- plowing, planting, harvesting, praying for the right weather. Though his wife has given birth to eight children, only three have lived past infancy. Every day he strains his back and drives himself to exhaustion to make the farm produce, because if he doesn't, there won't be enough food for both his family and the greedy lord of the manor, who seems to take more each year. On occasions when serfs like him complained or resisted the authority of their rulers, armed troops were sent in to kill the families of those who dared question the "God-given authority of the King." He cannot read, owns no books and no more than one or two sets of poor clothing. Most everything he has is made on the farm by himself or his wife. He understands that not everyone shares his fate. He has seen the knights and the lords and the clergy -- he has seen how they dress and eat, and how they regard him. He understands that his position is low, that he owes them his back-breaking work, that he is clearly less important than they are. These ideas are reinforced weekly in his church, where a priest compares the king and his subjects to God and His faithful. He knows that questioning the king is like questioning God -- and would have similar consequences. His father and mother and sisters and brothers, and almost everyone he knows or has ever heard of, now and in the past, lives the way he does (or died living that way). He does not like his life, but cannot imagine another. He accepts that, for some reason, he was born "common" instead of noble, and therefore his fate is to suffer. The future seems to hold no alternate possibilities. His way of life demonstrates to him certain social, cultural, and political realities: land is owned by Lords and worked by serfs; serfs have little or no human rights; some people in society are naturally "above" others. These are his thoughts, this is his life. Cassie reads about this lifestyle, and is confused. She wonders why people in that time period chose to live that way, rather than the way that people live in modern America. She feels happy to live in a society with a better economic system, and democratic government -- a society where everyone seems to have a chance to make it if they try. Cassie lives in a capitalist society. As a child she understood that one or both of her parents had to go off to work for a company or other organization that paid them. As she grew up, she was taught basic skills in school, and she was also taught to conform to the rules of the institution -- how to obey authority figures and wait in line. She understands that, to move up in the world, a person has to obey the rules and work hard. All around her she observed people she knew entering into the sorts of relationships found in a capitalist economy. People work for corporations, for bosses. People buy things from businesses that compete in a more or less free market, and that do all they can to keep profits high. The goal of business is to make money, and so these actions are natural. As Cassie becomes an adult, she does not question the fact that she must go to school, earn some sort of degree, and get a job working for a company. That is simply what people in her society do -- most of them anyway. From the time she was a little girl, people asked her and others what they wanted to be when they grew up. Certain answers were expected, encouraged, and discouraged. It seems clear to Cassie that she will end up in a very similar sort of position as her family and peers. She has seen what is possible by observing life in her "class," and aspires to end up in a middle-class lifestyle with financial security. Perhaps she will some day be able to invest some money in the stock market, or a business venture, and get rich. She is not quite sure yet how to become a millionaire or billionaire, like some people she's heard of but never met, but it seems possible in her society. She has also heard of and seen cases of people who make poor choices. She has seen old high school classmates drop out of school, marry right after graduation, take jobs without attending college, etc. Cassie has seen the consequences of these actions -- lifestyles with less luxury and less security. Cassie has also heard about the problems of communism and socialism. She remembers the end of the Soviet Union, has heard about people having to wait in lines to buy things, and of totalitarian governments there. She's heard about outrageously high taxes in socialist nations, and their practice of "socialized medicine." In Canada, she heard, a person may have to wait months to see a doctor because the medical system is controlled by a government bureaucracy with all its "red tape." These are Cassie's thoughts, this is her life -- and it is difficult to imagine why she would think otherwise, given her life experience. What we should notice here is that she believes that the (capitalist) economic system of her current society is better than other sorts of economies. Marx would say that this is because her way of life in a capitalist economy demonstrates to her certain social, cultural, and political realities: most people have jobs working for businesses owned by rich people; to become one of those rich people requires hard work and sacrifice; capitalism is naturally the most efficient and fair economic system. She has seen capitalism in action, seen it "work." More to the point, she has not been exposed to any other way of living -- except in the abstract (i.e., except in the form of ideas learned in school or elsewhere). ------------------------------------------------- Marx compares his idea of historical materialism with what we can call "idealism" -- the notion that it is ideas that influence material living conditions. You may have been called an "idealist" for stating your ideas about how the world could be made better. You were being criticized for being unrealistic, for living in an "ideal" world rather than accepting the real world. It may seem odd that Marx criticizes the notion that ideas can change the world, since he had ideas that he thought could do just that (and they did change the world, though not in the way he expected). His real point was that people will not accept a philosophy until they see it working in the real world. Thus, it is not enough to teach people new ideas. The economic conditions of society must be changed first -- and then ideas will change in response to these. This belief is one reason why Marx encouraged action as opposed to philosophical contemplation (see Class Consciousness and Revolution, 2.6). Marx has been described as a "materialist" instead of an idealist. He has also been described as an "economic determinist," because of the importance he gave to the economy (i.e., he thought the economy determined other things about society). His concepts of base and superstructure are strongly related to his basic historical materialist philosophy. 2.2 Base and Superstructure The economic "base"
or "substructure" of
society gives rise to,
and limits, the forms of
cultural thought (the
"superstructure") in
that society. Another way to understand the idea of historical materialism is to view society as having an economic "base," and a "superstructure" built upon that base. The superstructure can be described as the way people in that society think. Included in the superstructure are such cultural elements as political philosophy, the law, informal norms, values, academic theories, and other ways of thinking. The base limits what sort of superstructure is possible. For instance, Democracy (a political philosophy) is probably not possible in a feudal economy, because that economy requires that serfs be tied to the land, with few rights and no political power. Democracy fits better with a capitalist economy, because industry in capitalism requires free workers that can be hired and fired as needed. Democracy also requires a relatively educated population of voters, and so fits better with capitalism, because capitalism requires a better-educated, skilled workforce. ------------------------------------------------- In Your Terms: Imagine a contractor who lays the foundation for buildings. He knows many different ways to make foundations. He also knows that he must take into consideration what kind of structure will be built upon the base he is creating. A certain foundation can hold only certain kinds of buildings. Of course, the exact form a building takes can vary, and still stand on the foundation. But there are limitations for the structure, in terms of weight, number of floors, whether or not a basement can exist, types of plumbing and electrical systems useable, materials used, etc. In other words, the structure of the "base" helps determine and limit the "superstructure" that will be built on top of it. ------------------------------------------------- Any given aspect of the superstructure should "fit well" with the economic base, or "reflect" it. We should be able to see how base and superstructure are related. Let's take another example -- the legal system in capitalism. In capitalism -- an economic system where most people work for a small, wealthy elite -- we might expect the legal system to be designed in a way that favors the wealthy, protecting them and their property. In the US this is certainly the case: the crimes of the poor (e.g., armed robbery) are more likely to be caught and prosecuted, and carry harsher punishments than the crimes of the rich (e.g., tax fraud). It is hard to describe the exact relationship between base and superstructure. Marx did not say the base directly determines the superstructure, but he did say that the superstructure "arises" from the base. There is no "chicken-egg" dilemma here: there is no question of, "Which came first?" Try to remember that the "base-superstructure" idea is really just an analogy -- an abstract model. This model helps us imagine how Marx's concept of historical materialism applies to a whole society's culture, rather than just one individual's way of thinking. Base and superstructure can only be seen as separate on paper: in real life, it is impossible to separate a society's culture from its economy. The nature of the economy is part of a society's culture. Likewise, an economy requires cultural rules and beliefs to work. Clearly, the economy and the rest of culture are interrelated -- and one cannot exist without the other. When human beings develop culture, they must take into consideration the economy they live in. For instance, it has become more culturally acceptable for married women to work outside the home in recent decades. The cultural role of wife/ mother has adjusted to the change in the economy. Half a century ago, American women were expected to be homemakers only. But at that time, the economy was such that a family could make it on just Dad's salary. The economy has changed, and culture with it. We can even argue that the economic base is itself "supported" by the cultural superstructure. For instance, the continued existence of capitalism depends on people believing it is good. The idea that capitalism is a good economic system is widely accepted by the American population; if communism or some other system were preferred by most people, how long could capitalism last? Our political system, our educational system, our legal system -- all of these help keep capitalism going. Again, the relationship between base and superstructure is complex. The point is not to know which came first, or which causes which, but to know that the two fit together nicely. ------------------------------------------------- In Your Terms: David, a journalism major at a community college, takes over as program director at the campus radio station. He replaces the existing "Top 40" music format with more hard-hitting, cutting-edge music -- music preferred by many students but considered "offensive" by the majority of the local community. He replaces what he considers a dull talk show called "Cooking with Carla" with "Scroggin," a show hosted by two of David's twisted friends, who take calls from listeners with "relationship" problems, and who rely largely on jokes concerning bodily functions. Though the station's ratings rise, local businesses withdraw their sponsorship because the community is complaining about the station's obscenity and immorality. The college administration informs David that the programming must be changed, because there is not enough money in the college budget to support the radio station without advertising dollars. Disgusted, David quits and the college finds a less controversial program manager. David has learned, the hard way, that our economic base can limit the form that culture takes in the superstructure.
------------------------------------------------- 2.3 Forces of Production and Relations of Production The forces of production, or "productive forces," can be described as just about everything it takes to produce things: machines, raw materials, land, skills, labor power. The "relations of production" are the relations between the people involved in production. In most civilizations, the "relations of production" look like this: one category (e.g. "class") of people owns most everything, and another category of people does most of the work. When technology allows the "forces of production" to change, the "relations of production" will change to fit them. A violent revolution is required to change the relations of production, because the elite benefits most from the old relations of production, not the new. It is important for us to know what Marx meant by "forces" and "relations" of production, but it is more important to understand the relationship between them. Each type of economy has certain "relations of production" that work well with the "forces of production" in that economy. Consider primitive communism: Forces of production. In this sort of society, technology is such that it is difficult for a person or group to save up a lot of resources. There is no way to store and preserve grain (and in fact grain is not yet harvested), land can't be owned because tribes move from place to place in search of food. There is certainly nothing like money, or even much that can be called "private property" (except things worn and carried, and anyone can make these from materials found in the wild). For the most part, people live hand to mouth: they find food, and they eat it soon after. Relations of
Production. To
survive, members of the
tribe must cooperate. If
a person finds more food
than needed, he or she
shares it (it will go
bad anyway). In any
case, a person must
cooperate in sharing
food, because there will
be times when he or she
cannot find it, and so
must depend on the
willingness of others to
share. In primitive communism, the relations of production do not involve domination. There are no "classes." There is not one group that has the ability to control another. Such unequal "relations of production" are not possible in a world where the limited "forces of production" (hunting, gathering) require that all able-bodied people work, and work together. But what happens when technology improves (and it is always doing that) to a point that would allow one group to control another? Slavery becomes the "relations of production" when the "forces of production" change from hunting and gathering to farming. We know that in early civilizations (e.g. Egypt, Sumer, Greece) slavery was practiced. Marx argues that a "revolution" is required to change the "old" relations of production to the new form. In the case of the first slave societies, what probably happened was that a small, organized group of people used violence to force a large, unorganized category of people into a condition of slavery. This revolution could not happen, however, until the invention of farming. I.e., it could not happen until new "forces of production" were used. Slavery wouldn't work in hunter-gatherer society because each and every able-bodied person was needed to find food. But once farming was invented, it became possible for quite a bit of food to be grown on relatively small areas of land: not every member of society had to work the land. This became clear to some ambitious leaders, a revolution occurred, and society became divided into slaves (people who worked) and masters (people who controlled the slaves and what the slaves produced). Again we see the relationship between the forces of production (farmland, plows, animals, slave labor) and the relations of production (slavery) these forces allow. There could be no master-slave relationship without technology that allowed extra food to be produced -- this technology allowed some people to avoid hard labor, and put their efforts towards controlling the other members of their society (for instance, by organizing a military). 2.4 Exploitation and The Labor Theory of Value The value of a thing
is equal to the amount
of labor it took to
produce it. Workers who
are paid less than the
value of the labor they
have put out are being
"exploited" (taken
advantage of by their
employer). I.e., the
capitalist keeps the
extra value of his
employees' labor as
profit For the record, Marx borrowed the concept of the labor theory of value from an early socialist group (Swingewood 2000). The idea is that human labor transforms the world into the things we want. Machines and fuel do part of the work, but even these had to be put together. Ultimately, production of anything from butter to market research can be measured in terms of labor. Now, in capitalism, labor produces things that can be sold. To be fair, the money gained from the sale should be distributed according to the amount of work each person put into the finished product. If someone (usually the boss, the capitalist, the business owner) is paid more than he or she is putting in, someone else must be losing out. That someone is the worker. Clearly, a business owner invests money into a business venture, and deserves to get out of it what he or she put into it. Once these "overhead" expenses are covered, anything left is profit. The business owner then has some choices: (1) from this profit, pay employees as little as possible, and keep the rest, or (2) divide the money up in proportion to the amount of work done by each person, including him or herself. According to the labor theory of value, the capitalist is not entitled to money unless that money is linked to his or her own labor. When the capitalist takes choice #1, we say he or she is exploiting the workers: using them, profiting from their hard work. Exploitation does not require capitalism, of course. A feudal lord who takes as much as he can from serfs is exploiting them, and a master who benefits from the more or less free labor of a slave is also involved in an exploitative relationship. In all these cases, the worker's labor is benefiting someone else - someone whose position in the relations of production is advantageous. ------------------------------------------------- In Your Terms: Fuzzy the pimp turns out three prostitutes, each of whom brings in about $600 a night, making Fuzzy's gross income about $1800 per night. Fuzzy has a certain amount of legitimate overhead: payoffs to the police, a nagging heroin habit, ammunition, new feathers for his hat, etc. Let's say after all this he still has $1300 a night profit left with which to pay himself and his girls. If we assume a fair wage for his "managerial" services is, say, $200 per day, that leaves him with $1100 to pay his employees. But instead of doing the courteous thing and splitting the remaining cash evenly between his three workers (in which case they would each get about $366), he pays them each $50 and a vial of crack worth only $10. Thus he has exploited their labor to the tune of about $306 per proletariat ("proletariat" is the fancy word Marx used to describe members of the working class). I.e., their labor is worth about $366 each but they only get $60 each. What Fuzzy has done, in Marxian terms, is stolen most of the value of their labor. One doesn't need to be a prostitute to experience this kind of theft. As an undergraduate student, I sold my labor to a local capitalist, washing dishes. My starting pay in 1989 was $3.50 an hour, and I don't think it ever went beyond about $4.75 when I quit in 1992. One summer I felt particularly exploited because 5000 mobile homes showed up in town for a convention. The restaurant was swamped with business, day and night, and my boss made several thousand dollars profit each day because of it. The waitresses benefited from this boom as well, because more customers meant more tips for them. I washed a lot of dishes that summer. According to the labor theory of value, then, the value of my labor increased. My boss benefited from this increased value. But since dishwashers don't get extra compensation for increased labor during the time they work, I made no more money than usual. Though I knew little about Marx at the time, I felt exploited.
------------------------------------------------- 2.5 Alienation and Reification Labor was once used
to create products for
use, not for sale. Labor
was also an activity
that bonded people
together - a rewarding
activity, not one to be
avoided. In capitalism,
workers have been
separated, or
"alienated" from their
labor. They are forced
to sell it to the
capitalist for a wage,
and to compete with each
other. Labor is no
longer satisfying to
workers, and is instead
seen as a means to an
end: wages.
"Reification" is when
people fail to
understand that
something is a human
product. Instead the
thing in question is
seen as naturally
occurring/ existing, and
beyond the influence of
humans. In capitalism,
the market and the
capitalist system are
examples of reified
things. When something
becomes reified we
forget that, because we
make it ourselves, we
can change it. Marx used the concept of alienation in many ways. Some of these ways are very abstract and not particularly useful, and some are not stated clearly. But in all uses of the term, there is some element of separation of the worker from something. Alienation can, for example, mean: The separation of workers from each other. They no longer work cooperatively, but (often) separately and in competition. Separated into positions on an assembly line, or into cubicles. Separated in the sense of being made into competitors: competing for promotions, commissions, etc. The separation of the worker from the product of his or her labor. Products are taken and sold by the capitalist. The thing made by the worker is no longer meaningful to him or her. Workers have little emotional attachment to the products of their labor. Products are whisked away for sale -- or if not an actual object, the product of labor is used by someone other than the worker. The product of a shoe-shiner's work soon walks away; the research done by the researcher is handed to someone else who uses it; the sale made by the salesperson profits mostly the boss, and the hard-won relationship created during the sales often ends as soon as the transaction is complete. The separation of the worker from the pleasure of work. Work should be fulfilling, but in capitalism we seek only to avoid work. Our labor becomes an intimidating, "alien" thing we hate. Though this is more true for some jobs than others, even highly skilled, intellectual jobs can seem a chore rather than a path to fulfillment. Imagine the author who must have a book done by a deadline, or a computer programmer forced to write a program he or she finds useless and boring. The separation of the worker from the work itself. In capitalism, workers sell their labor on the market for "the going rate," whatever it is. Work is no longer seen (by bosses or workers) as connected to a living, feeling human being. Instead, we come to see work as an object to be bought and sold, like everything else on the capitalist market. These examples of alienation are from capitalist society because Marx did focus on capitalism when he wrote about alienation. Certainly, we can imagine workers in other sorts of societies feeling alienated. For instance, it is unlikely that a slave would feel he had control over his own labor. But capitalism may be the best example of an alienating economic system. Remember that, before capitalism came with the modern era, people in Western society were more used to traditional ways of life -- lifestyles that put them into stable and secure (if not comfortable) relationships with others. The slave or serf, for example, may have worked hard and suffered, but he or she was part of a stable, traditional way of life. A slave doesn't worry about getting fired, or whether or not the boss is paying a high enough wage, or competition with other slaves. By contrast, the worker in capitalist society leads a relatively free but confusing, insecure life. He or she is forced to always be on the lookout for work (or better work), to be suspicious of bosses and other workers, to compete rather than cooperate, to wonder if he or she is working hard enough. Some terms that may help us understand alienation better are "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" motivation (these terms were not, as far as I know, used by Marx). An activity is intrinsically motivating when the activity itself gives us pleasure and satisfaction. Examples of behaviors that are intrinsically motivated might include: sex, reading a novel, playing a game, watching a movie, eating sweets. We do these things not because doing them will get us something else, but because they are an end (goal) in themselves. Now, of course some of these could be used as a means (way to get) to an end. We might be playing a game to win money, or having sex to get pregnant (or to get money), or reading a novel because a teacher assigned it. If this is the case -- of an activity is done to get something else -- we say that activity is extrinsically motivated. If we hate our job, but do it so we can keep paying our bills, that labor is extrinsically motivated. It's the money we want, not the thrill of telemarketing. ------------------------------------------------- In Your Terms: Steve, a graduate student, has made coffee tables for years in his spare time, as a hobby. The tables are beautiful and well constructed. He has used them himself, and occasionally given them as gifts to close friends and relatives. On many occasions people have commented that he should sell the tables -- that they would fetch high prices. Needing the extra money while he finishes school, Steve decides to dedicate more time to his tables. He puts an ad in the paper and takes orders, building tables to people's specifications. He promises that the tables will be done by certain deadlines. Though he is making decent money, and avoids taking on more work than he can handle, Steve soon finds himself dreading going into his workroom. He used to make tables when he felt like it, and he could build them any way he wanted. He made the tables for one reason -- he enjoyed it. Now, as he forces himself to finish another product, he thinks mainly about getting done so he can get paid. Steve's motivation was once intrinsic, it is now extrinsic. Though he is self-employed, Steve's labor can be said to be alienated, where it was once unalienated. ------------------------------------------------- Unalienated labor is the opposite of alienated conditions of labor. Marx's vision of a perfect society (see Communist Utopia & Anarchy, 2.10) is one in which most or all labor is unalienated -- where people can focus on the pleasure of labor, and feel fulfilled. Many of the theorists in this textbook tried to understand how human beings -- who are used to a traditional, predictable, community-oriented lifestyle -- adjusted to the modern era (capitalism included). For them, as for Marx, capitalism and modernity itself are something like "alien" forces compared to the centuries of tradition that came before. Further, like Marx, these other thinkers proposed solutions to the problem of modern society. Reification is related to alienation, and is also a tricky concept to understand. It is hard to remember that many of the things we see as having their own power and existence are in fact created and maintained by human beings. To reify something is to "make it real." To take a very simple example to start, consider gods. Though you may believe in a god yourself, the scientific study of religion would suggest that gods are something invented, at some point, by human beings. Evidence for this is the thousands of gods that can be found in thousands of societies, existing now and in the past. So as not to offend readers from major religions (Judeo-Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism), let us take the example of Odin. Odin was worshipped by the Vikings centuries ago. Whether you are religious or not, you will probably agree that Odin, as a physical being, doesn't exist now and didn't then. Where did he come from? People made him up, of course. But worshippers of Odin never thought that. They believed that he existed, discussed him, drew pictures of him, prayed to him, obeyed his laws, worshiped him, made sacrifices to him, etc. Through these actions, Odin kept on "living" in Viking culture. But no Viking would have thought that it was the society itself that kept Odin in existence. In other words, the Vikings reified Odin: thought of him as if he had his own existence and power, rather than an existence that depended on the beliefs and behaviors of the faithful. We reify many things in our society: laws, morals, beliefs, institutions. To take one non-religious example, think about marriage. Marriage is a socially constructed institution. I.e., at some point in human history people invented the idea of marriage, and made up the rules that go with being married. Of course marriage varies from society to society, and even from marriage to marriage - but in most all cases married individuals feel some kind of constraint on their behavior. Marriage seems as "real" as anything, and it is real - but it is a reality created and maintained by humans. This being the case, it can be changed by humans (and think about how much marriage norms have changed over the last century). For Marx, the most important reified thing is the capitalist system itself. We take for granted that capitalism is some naturally existing (rather than humanly-created) thing, that it cannot be affected by us, and that we must live with it. There are more specific examples of aspects of capitalism that have been reified. For instance, we take for granted that the market sets what prices we must pay - and that things are actually "worth" that much. Labor has become "reified" in that we have become convinced that it is worth whatever the market says it is. We have accepted that it is alright for capitalists to make great profits, even if it is at the expense of the worker or consumer, because we accept the self-interested pursuit of profit as a natural and positive goal. A famous example of reification is what Marx called a "commodity fetish." Commodities are things that have "exchange value" - that is, they have value on the market (they can be bought and sold). What we forget is that "exchange value" is not necessarily a true indication of what an item is worth in other terms. For instance, are your textbooks really worth what you paid for them? If you paid $89 for your Physics book, did as much labor go into it than the $39 you paid for your English book? Are the materials worth that much? What makes the former cost $50 more? The answer is that exchange value is not necessarily related to labor value. It is not necessarily related to "use value" either. Use value is a representation of how much use you will get out of it. Exchange value is the value of a commodity on the market. It is the amount of money the commodity can bring - what people are willing to pay for it. Of course, exchange value may have some relation to use value or labor value. On average, people are probably willing to pay more for something they can really use. Likewise, the labor cost will have something to do with the price an item can fetch. Marx used the term "fetish" because it appeared to him that the value that the market assigns to a commodity is almost "magical" (a fetish is an item supposedly full of magic power, used by, say, a shaman). The product has this "magical" value because the market has provided it. The best example of commodity fetishism is probably name-brand or designer items. If you buy a popular, name-brand T-shirt for $35 instead of a bargain one for $4, what are you paying for? The $4 shirt accomplishes the same basic function (covering your torso), and requires the same amount of labor to make as the $35 shirt. Why are you paying the extra $31? You may have heard the expression, "all you're paying for is the label." Trendy, name-brand items fetch high prices because they are believed to be valuable (e.g., demand in the market is high). Such increased demand is often due to successful advertising campaigns. An item catches the attention of the masses of consumers, becomes commonly used, and people find they must purchase it in order to be "in style," or "cool." Suddenly, it becomes important to have the right label. In a few years, the same clothes are worthless and a new "commodity fetish" comes onto the scene. ------------------------------------------------- In Your Terms: Barbara, a middle-aged housewife, is thrilled to have found the perfect, mint-condition "Beanie Baby" to complete her collection. She is happy to pay $400.00 for an item that cost 75 cents to make, and $3.00 to buy in the store two years ago when it first came out. "Is that thing worth $400?," asks a close friend. "It is to me," answers Barbara. "And it's a good thing I snatched it off the shelf when I did, because I know a few others in town that would have paid the same for it." Is the bean-filled doll worth $400? What makes it worth $400? Will it be worth $400 ten years from now?
------------------------------------------------- 2.6 Class Consciousness and Revolution A revolutionary class will organize itself, and put an end to the current stage of society with a violent revolution. Before it can do this, members of the new class must see the contradictions between forces and relations of production, and recognize that they have common interests. I.e., the class must achieve "class consciousness." Beginning with the "Ancient Slave System," every type of society (except the final stage of communism) has an elite -- a ruling class/ category of people. This elite category benefits from the current (older) relations of production, and has no interest in changing them, even if the new forces of production make such a change possible. Thus, a violent revolution led by a new group is necessary to change the society (during this violent revolution, the old elite will be killed/ driven off). Shortly before a revolution comes, there will be a high degree of contradiction between the forces and relations of production. I.e., the old relations of production will really no longer fit the new forces of production that technology has allowed. Still, these relations will continue to be maintained by the elite. For example, the old feudal system's relations of production -- keeping serfs tied to a farm -- doesn't fit an industrialized economy. The "forces of production" in an industrialized world call for a different labor arrangement: free workers who can be hired when needed, then fired when demand for production decreases. It should be clear why a factory owner would prefer these relations of production: he does not have to support workers when he does not need their labor power. Let's take a specific example: The French Revolution. It is the late 1700s, some other European nations (e.g. Holland, England) have industrialized and changed to something resembling what Marx would call capitalist societies. France is also trying to industrialize. A "middle class" of merchants and craftsman, living in the cities, has been gaining wealth for a long time. They are educated with new, Enlightenment ideas of "equal rights," and they are organized. What they want is for the aristocracy (nobles like the King, Barons, Lords, etc.) to give the common people (which includes both this middle class and serfs) some rights. The middle class wants less taxes, less aristocratic control over its business activities, and a release of the serfs from the manors -- so that serfs can come work in the factories. In Marx's terms, the middle class wants the economy to complete its change from feudalism to capitalism. It wants the relations of production to change. The current ruling aristocracy is not terribly interested in changing the relations of production. Part of the aristocracy's power lies in the farmland it owns. By giving serfs the right to leave the farm if they want, that farmland produces less. Another part of the aristocracy's power is its ability to collect taxes and tariffs (fair or not) from whomever it wants. Clearly then, the King has no interest in reducing his regulation of business. At the time of the French Revolution, the French Aristocracy were in bad shape. They had borrowed heavily from the business class, were fighting expensive wars abroad, and not paying attention to the fact that the people of the city were starving and ready to kill ("Let them eat cake"). This weakened position, Marx would say, was due to the fact that the French Aristocracy was living in the past - trying to maintain an old economy and power structure that no longer worked, even as the middle class built its own wealth and influence through factory production and trade. I.e., there was a contradiction between forces of production and relations of production. Marx said that every revolution is carried out by a group that emerges in society and recognizes it is time to change the relations of production. In every case, this revolutionary class has something to gain by this economic change. The middle class French had something to gain, as did the first slavers who "overthrew" the egalitarian hunter-gatherer society form. Marx said that a revolutionary class must attain what he called "class consciousness." A class has class consciousness when: (1) The class sees that there is a contradiction between forces and relations of production, and (2) Member of the class become aware that they have a common interest in changing the relations of production. The way Marx put it, the class must go from being a "class in itself" to a "class for itself." ------------------------------------------------- In Your Terms: The year is 2002. Brenda, a waitress and single mother of two children, rents an apartment from a slum-lord in the south side of Chicago. She can afford either to pay her skyrocketing health insurance premium, or to buy food this month -- but not both. Brenda's apartment sits a few miles from the downtown area, where numerous high-rise, corporate headquarters employ executives who earn salaries around one-hundred times what Brenda makes at the restaurant. There are a lot of people like her, who work hard, and pay hard, so that others can make enormous profits. Her father was also a hard worker, at a factory, but lost his job in 1978 when an upgrade in technology replaced his job with a machine. Before that time, Brenda's father was able to provide a good living for his family. Today, Brenda works even longer and harder than her dad, for less money -- and the cost of living is much higher now than then. What Brenda can't understand is why she must work extra shifts until her legs burn with fatigue, and her fingers develop carpal tunnels, even though so much production in her society is accomplished by machines. Why is she forced to go without basic necessities in a society that has the technology to travel to Mars and create artificial hearts? Clearly, this technology benefits someone. A great deal of wealth is being generated in Brenda's high-tech society, and some (like the corporate executives) have more wealth than they can spend. There seems to be a contradiction here, between what is possible, and what is real. Brenda imagines that, considering the level of technology in her society, there must be a better way to organize economic activity. She has recognized the contradiction between forces and relations of production, and is dreaming about new "relations of production." Marx would say she has taken the first step towards "class consciousness." ------------------------------------------------- Knowledge of the big contradiction and your class position is one thing, revolution is quite another. How does this occur? In the case of the change from capitalism to communism (which has never happened in real life), Marx explains more precisely how the impending revolution should happen (see Crisis of Capitalism, section 2.9). But in general, the nature of a revolution depends on the specific situation. We know already how some revolutions have, or might have, occurred (as discussed above). We know also of revolutions that failed. Revolution is a topic in itself, and one that can be studied sociologically (see for instance Skocpol 1979). As we might expect, Marx was sketchy about the details of things that have not yet happened (see Communist Utopia & Anarchy, section 2.10). One thing we can say is that Marx was a man of action, and encouraged others to be. It was not enough, for him, to understand society -- the goal was social change. His Communist Manifesto, for instance, is hardly an academic work. It can only be described as propaganda -- as a deliberate attempt to encourage revolution. One important detail that should be mentioned is that Marx thought the final transition to communism would be a world revolution. Though it might begin in one society, it would quickly spread as workers throughout the industrialized world came to see the possibility of new relations of production, and achieved class consciousness. 2.7 False Consciousness and Ideology Members of the
exploited class may fail
to recognize that they
have common interests,
and fail to see the
contradictions between
forces and relations of
production. I.e., the
class may be stuck in a
state of "false
consciousness." This
false consciousness is
maintained, in part, by
ideologies:
ideas that justify the
economic system. It is
in the interest of the
elite to produce and
spread these ideologies
within the society, and
they do this by various
means. If you understand class consciousness, just remember that false consciousness is the opposite of that. False consciousness is a failure to see that relations of production in your society could be better. Workers with false consciousness accept that the capitalist system is fine just as it is. By Marx's definition, many or most people in the United States have false consciousness because they see capitalism as fair - as the "natural" way to organize labor and distribute resources (i.e., the natural way to run an economy). In America, we tend to think it is all right for a business owner to try and make as much money as he or she can - even if that means exploiting the labor of others. After all, if a worker doesn't like his or her pay and working conditions, he or she has the option of working somewhere else, right? That's what a free-market economy is all about. ------------------------------------------------- In Your Terms: A new call center business moves into an isolated rural town, offering workers a few dollars per hour more than they can earn at most of the other unskilled labor jobs in town. Many people working for local retailers, factories, restaurants, etc., quit their jobs and come to work for the call center. After a few months, the local Chamber of Commerce puts pressure on the owners of the call center to lower wages. The Chamber has been getting complaints from local businesses that they are losing workers, and would have to raise wages to keep them. Because it must deal with other local businesses and the Chamber (which has a certain amount of power to make or break new businesses), the call center agrees to lower starting wages for new employees. The result is that the average worker can now expect to get paid about the same low wage, regardless of where he or she looks for employment. ------------------------------------------------- By the way, Marx thought that the elite does have class consciousness. I.e., members of the elite realize they have certain economic interests in common -- and they work together to see that these interests are served. Likewise, they are aware that the relations of production could be changed in a way that would benefit workers and not themselves. Again, they are active in making sure that this does not happen by taking part in politics (as the box above demonstrates) and in the spreading of ideology (see below). Indeed, the capitalist class is a class for itself. Though wage fixing and other shifty business practices exist in capitalism, the worker with false consciousness sees no reason to band together with his or her fellow proletariat (worker), and resist the power of the bourgeoisie (Marx's word for the class of owners/ capitalists). Instead, fellow workers are seen as competitors. Students, for instance, are taught early on that they will need that "competitive edge" for the job market. Whether its landing that first job, or getting that promotion or raise ahead of your work-mates, we are taught to view other workers as adversaries. This adversarial feeling is another aspect of false consciousness, according to Marx. Those with false consciousness see the current system as "natural." They cannot imagine a better way to organize economic activity. It is even possible that they have never thought about this topic. Marx said that an exploitative system works best when it is invisible -- when people take it for granted so much that they don't even think about it or notice it. ------------------------------------------------- In Your Terms: I once found myself in a conversation with a man who had lived through World War Two. During this war, it was of course important for weapon-manufacturing factories to be supplied with enough metal. The man told me of the time when, while he was serving in the military overseas, he heard about a labor strike in an iron mine back in the US. He boasted to his commanding officer that he could fix that situation with a few dozen armed soldiers. His point was that the miners had no right to strike during a time of crisis, when their labor was needed to defeat a deadly enemy overseas. At first glance, this idea seems reasonable. Then again, why not force the owners to give the miners what they wanted (increased pay, safer working conditions, or whatever), so that work could continue? Why did this man, himself a working class person, instantly and thoughtlessly take the side of the capitalist? In this man's mind, it is alright for the capitalist to use the violent power of the government to keep wages low and profits high - but it is not alright for workers to band together and look after their own interests! Why did he view the right of the capitalist (to make a profit) as untouchable and unquestionable, while at the same time being unable to imagine that a hard-working miner had the right to demand what he wanted? ------------------------------------------------- Thus, an important question that must be answered is: "Why do workers take the side of the capitalist?" I.e., why does a worker think like an owner? False consciousness is beneficial to the capitalist when the worker has it. Understanding this, the "class conscious" bourgeoisie takes steps to keep workers in a state of false consciousness. This is accomplished in many ways, and volumes of books have been written about it (see for example Chomsky 2002), but the main method is ideology. Marx recognized, as did much earlier thinkers such as Machiavelli (1984) and Plato (1955), that it is far easier to control people with ideas than with force. He emphasized that a society's elite takes great trouble to invent and disseminate (spread through the population) ideologies. An ideology is an idea, or entire belief system, that serves to justify the injustices of the social system. I.e., it explains why the economic system is fair, natural, and should not be changed. A quick and simple example, mentioned earlier, is the idea that a king deserves to rule because he is chosen by God or has "royal blood." This idea, like all ideologies, is essentially an excuse for the unfairness of the social system. In real life, people are controlled partly by ideas and partly by the threat of force -- but Marx's point is that force is not enough. Ultimately, working people must believe that the economic and political system they live in is legitimate - or the elite is in trouble. Most people in our society, owners and workers alike, believe in what we might call "the American Dream" ideology: i.e., we believe that the capitalist system works because it is possible for anyone to get rich -- but it is up to the individual to make the most of his situation. If he or she can't, the fault belongs to the individual, and not the system. How does one make the most of capitalism if one is but a lowly worker? Well, one obeys the boss, competes with fellow workers, works his or her way up the ladder, and eventually acquires enough wealth to start his or her own business and be his or her own boss. Because the American Dream is possible for some, the capitalist system must be fair for all! ------------------------------------------------- In Your Terms: As mentioned in section 2.4 (Exploitation & The Labor Theory of Value), Fuzzy the pimp has exploited his employees -- stolen the value of their labor. Fuzzy (the capitalist) looks at this stolen "labor value" in a different way than Marx. Fuzzy calls the money he makes above and beyond his overhead costs "profit," and considers it a fair payoff for his pimping endeavor and all the risk it entails. After all, why should his girls get a piece of the pie when it is Fuzzy who has gone through all the trouble and expense of setting up "Fuzzy's Teen Escort Service, Inc.?" If the business flops, all the employees lose is their jobs, while Fuzzy could very well be washed up (literally so, on the banks of the Hudson river, if he can't pay off the loan sharks he used to acquire the starting costs of the business). Further, it's not as if the girls had to take that particular after-school job. If they don't like what they're being paid, they could always work for someone else or start their own business! Because there is choice involved for the proletariat, and risk involved for the capitalist, the free-market capitalist system is fair. Your success or failure in the system depends on your own talent and ambition. This is the essence of the American Dream ideology. Let's get back to my own exploitation, at the restaurant during the "summer of RVs." When I complained that I received no extra compensation for the extra labor I was putting out, my boss informed me that if I wanted tips I could apply for a job as a waiter. In my case, as in many, the blame for an injustice in the system falls on the individual worker. For me, the point was not that I wanted to change jobs, but that I couldn't understand why the conditions of my current job weren't more fair. ------------------------------------------------- In America we have often heard stories of those who "worked their way to the top" - people whose hard work and talent took them from poverty to great wealth. While this can certainly happen, Marx would point out that these cases are rare exceptions. I.e., the "game" of capitalism may seem fair, but it isn't: its fixed. The proletariat does not own the "means of production," and so has no choice but to sell his or her labor to the capitalist. The capitalist does everything possible to keep workers poor, powerless, and dependent on their next paycheck. I.e., members of the working class work hard - they just don't work their way up. If this is hard to believe or understand in real life terms, simply ask yourself: how many people do you know who have gone from rags to riches? How many people, on the other hand, do you know who have not moved up in class at all (or even moved down) - even though they have always been good, hard workers? Have you bought into the American Dream ideology without knowing it? Related to this specific American way of thinking is what Marx called the ideology of bourgeois individualism: the idea that we should selfishly pursue property, and that this will bring us happiness and personal freedom. I.e., the "Greed is good" idea. Like all ideologies, this one serves to justify the economic system. What Marx notes is that the "individualist," by trying to serve him or herself, is really just serving the demands of the market system. I.e., by being selfish, you make the exploitative system function as it does: transferring resources and power from the poor to the rich. Think about the way that the capitalist economic system encourages us to view other human beings the same way that the market views them. For a business, if keeping a worker is not profitable, that worker is fired. We don't question the firing of thousands or millions of workers in the US because we accept that that is just what happens when the economy slows down (as it has increasingly during the turn of the most recent century). The fact that these people have lives, families, needs, etc., is of no interest to the market -- and so it is of no interest to us. We apply this inhuman perspective to many situations: making a sale, buying products and services, competing for work. The most important goal is getting the best deal, making the most money, increasing the bottom line -- human needs are irrelevant. We are slaves to the needs of the market. ------------------------------------------------- In Your Terms: In the last decade or so we have seen interesting changes in the health insurance industry. Premiums (what you pay the company for your insurance coverage) have skyrocketed, coverage (how much of your medical bills the company pays) has dropped, and insurance companies have actively tried to find new ways and reasons to deny payment of insurance claims. We see signs of this in commercials by law firms, claiming they can help fight to get you a better payoff from the insurance company. We see it in movies like "As Good as it Gets" and "John Q," and in TV dramas like "ER" -- where the selfishness of insurance companies is portrayed as a reality of modern life. Other signs are less entertaining, like the tens of millions of Americans who can't afford insurance but don't qualify for government programs like Medicaid. It is estimated that thousands of Americans die each year because they cannot get the care they need, either because they don't have insurance or because their HMO refuses to pay for procedures the doctor orders (e.g., tests that can detect serious disease while it was still treatable). Here we see an obvious example of market forces -- profit making and cost-cutting -- taking priority over humanity. From the point of view of the individuals responsible for this state of affairs, they are just doing what they are supposed to do: trying to make profits. The problem is that they have been blinded by the market: they no longer see human beings -- only market reports, profit statements, membership totals. ------------------------------------------------- Perhaps Marx's favorite example of ideology was religion, which he referred to as "the opium of the people." As you may know, Marx was a dedicated atheist (another reason he was, and is, hated). He believed that religion's purpose was to keep the lower class from complaining, by promising them a heavenly afterlife. As long as people look forward to this future "reward," they will not be as concerned with material living conditions here and now. Marx, then, thought religions should be eliminated so that the reality of the material world and its injustices would be more obvious. Religious belief may also include ideas about the authority of rulers. Throughout history, priests (or monks, shamans, etc.) have received the support of the ruling elite. In return, these religious groups preach to the people that the elite is legitimate - that it is OK for the elite to have the wealth and status, while most people slave and suffer. Though we should see Marx's point, he probably went too far in condemning religion as only ideology. In real life, religion serves many other social functions, as we'll see when we get to Emile Durkheim. Also, some religious movements and organizations work for social equality, not against it. The Civil Rights Movement, lead by Martin Luther King Jr. (a Christian minister), and organized around churches, is a good example here. Marx could probably not have imagined how advanced the methods of creating and spreading ideology would become in the centuries following his death. Today, Marx would see pro-capitalist ideology in sitcoms, movies, commercials, televised speeches, the news, and every other major media source. A common piece of ideology used today is "trickle down" economics -- the idea that, by giving tax breaks and other benefits to the rich, wealth will somehow "trickle down" to the poor. Politicians and others often try to argue that we must "stimulate the economy" by providing "incentives" (government money) to businesses. This idea has influenced public policies for decades. People still believe in it, even though there is no evidence that the wealth given to the rich ever finds its way to the poor. Indeed, the only sense in which there is any "trickling down" going on is that someone is urinating on your head and telling you its raining.
2.8 Humanism and Human Nature Humans are good by
nature -- it is the
economic system that
corrupts them, making
them greedy and
exploitative. People
naturally prefer to live
in a condition of
freedom, and will try to
strive towards a way of
life that allows the
greatest freedom. Also,
human beings naturally
love to work - it is the
alienating condition of
the economic system that
makes them want to avoid
labor. Marx was a humanist. That means he believed that humans were the most important thing (as opposed to, say, God), and that we should strive to reduce the suffering of human beings, and increase their freedom in the world. He believed that the fate of humankind was up to us - that we were in control of our destiny, and so we could make things better. Marx was also very optimistic about "human nature." Many economists (of his time and today) assume that human beings are naturally selfish, and so would try to get as much material wealth and power as they could. Marx did not assume this, but instead believed that people were born innocent and cooperative, and naturally desired to help one another. The reason human beings compete and fight, said Marx, is that they live in a world that encourages and requires such behavior. This idea is in line with his basic historical materialist philosophy: put a human being into a lifestyle where people are forced to compete, and encouraged to exploit others, and that is what they will do. They will see such cutthroat competition, and human suffering, as "natural." Living conditions determine our ways of thinking. It is also in line with the ideology of bourgeois individualism (section 2.7). Marx said that it is ultimately up to us to return our priorities to where they should be. Changes that society goes through, through time, are a result of historical and economic forces, but they are also a result of human will. It is human beings who will recognize the possibility of a better way to organize labor (i.e., the possibility of new relations of production). This desire for freedom, in the long run, will lead to a method of organization (communism, see section 2.10) that allows the greatest freedom possible. As long as people live without freedom, and see that it is possible, they will struggle for it. When maximum freedom is reached, this need will be satisfied, and there will be peace and social stability. Anot |