As stated beforehand the sole source of livelihood for the worker is their labour power thus they may leave an employer but cannot leave the whole class of purchasers that is the capitalist class without renouncing their existence. The worker may not "belong" to their employer like a slave belonged to their master but they are a "slave" to the capitalist system as they do not own what they produce and depend on the capitalist who is in possession of means of making a livelihood - the factories, mines etc. and the worker is compelled to work for them for their continuing existence. This is why the worker sells their labour power to the capitalist, In order to live. Marx then exposes the reality of work under capitalism in a way which has great resonance even today: "The exercise of labour power, labour, is the worker’s own life activity, the manifestation of his own life" (Marx-Engels pp 204).
It can be inferred that the person would be in favour of a revolution for equality rather than the passive method of distribution of wealth. This proposes the best way to create equality and prosperity for society is to destroy the social structure. The source, regarding the issue of the status quo in society, is a resolve that connects to communism. Communism is a rejection of liberalism, meaning that it proposes violence in order to create change. In the source, the man contains collectivist ideals, explaining that a laissez-faire economy causes problems within the working class.
Usually the things that we can buy for super cheap come at the expense of exploiting some child laborer working an illegal amount of hours in some factory while being paid basically nothing. We tend to forget, or chose to forget, that this is the reality we live in. In addition, Marx argues that alienated labor in a political economy is a result of private property. Also, political economy itself begins with the idea that labor is the soul of production. However, it gives everything to private property and nothing to labor.
"What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable" (Marx, 1848). Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels famous work ‘ The communist manifesto’ is on of the most influential doctrines on the theory of Marxism. Marxism, as concluded from Marx and Engels is a conflict theory, which means that it believes that society is based on inequality and unequal distribution of power and wealth. The Marxist methodology uses economic and sociopolitical inquiry and employs that to the critique and analyse the development of capitalism and the role of class struggle in systemic economic change.
CHAPTER 3 CLASS STRUGGLE Generally class struggle means conflict between the upper class and lower class the idea of Class struggle is long-used mostly by socialists and communists, who define a class by its relationship to the means of production such as factories, land, and machinery. From this point of view, the social control of production and labour is a fight between classes, and the division of these resources basically involves conflict and causes damage. Societies are socially divided based on status, wealth, or control of social production and distribution, and in this division of class conflict arises. It is important to know Karl Marx theory on class struggle; he viewed the structure of society in relation to
Therefore, the exchange value is based on the human activity under particular historical and social conditions. The worker in a capitalist society sells the labor, hence getting a small return, the capitalist on the other hand sells the commodity and gets a greater return. The worker in this process has neither control over his product nor any agency. A surrogate, like a worker in a factory, has no control and agency over her ‘product’. Her labour too like that of a worker is ‘alienated’ because of the fact of relinquishment.
The second, is alienation from the product. In Marxist time and in today’s modern world we are involved in an abundance of mass production. In a capitalist system, people are placed in a position where they are responsible in making a minor part of the goods. The goods of work belong to the capitalist and is sold for their profit, whereas the workers gain nothing. Therefore, Marx concluded that the greater effort the workers put into their job, the lesser they benefit.
Marx’s main concern was that of capitalism and class conflict. In the words of Giddens and Sutton (2013), capitalism is ‘a system of production that contrasts radically with all previous economic systems.’ It was Marx’s belief that all societies, including capitalist societies, are divided into classes, with one being the dominant class. In the case of capitalism, there are two main classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Class conflict, Marx believed, was what encouraged the evolution of society. To quote Marx himself, The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Without private property, workers or laborers would not also exist. What does alienation means? Alienation is a condition of workers in a capitalist economy, resulting from a lack of identity with the products of their labor and a sense of being controlled or exploited or simply being estranged of oneself. According to Fall (2007), to be alienated from something is to lack wholehearted identification with it and instead to regard it as strange or alien and perhaps as an obstacle in one 's way or as menacing to oneself. Private property ownership arises and as it arises owners seek workers to grow and earn profit.
The theory believes that agency and social, political and economical rhetoric is what surrounds international relations theory. Therefore if you cite the agency of which is produced for example in capitalist sense then from a historical perspective you can question the agency. Notably one of the most acknowledge constructivist scholars, Alexander Wendt discusses how anarchy effectively something formed of discourse surrounding international relations theory (Wendt 391-425). Similarly in Teschke article he writes how ‘Dissatisfaction with universalizing IR theories has made room for arguing the historicity of international organization by inquiring into the nature of the political order that preceded the European absolutist and capitalist states systems’ (Teschke 6). The correlation between constructivism and Marxism is apparent when looking at the criticism of capitalist theory.