163). Marx, in this work, points out the buyers are naive to where the products come from. We glance past the fact that these laborers are exploited for our gain. In The Alienation of Labor Marx discusses a political economy. Political economy is, “what we would call macroeconomics, that is the economics of large systems” (pg.
Marx also thinks that what the workers want it to feel less alienated. This includes feeling alienated from the product, the process and more .He thinks that under capitalism the only think the bourgeoisie want is profit and to become richer. Marx also speaks about how capitalism will fall and how it will affect the state. He says with the fall of capitalism a revolution
According to Marxist theory, social stratification is created by the differing economic competences among people and the relationship to the processes of production. Two distinct classes can be created in a society, one who own the factors and those who sell their labor in the production chain. Marx recognises that aside from the two distinct classes, bourgeoisie and proletariat, there are two other distinctive group that somehow manage to relate: the petite bourgeoisie, those who own some of the means of productions but their profit earning power is not enough to earn them a position among the bourgeoisie and the underclass who have no social status such as beggars and the
Karl Marx’s goal in developing this theory on alienation was to help people come to terms with inequality and losing themselves while working. He specifically focused on capitalism and how capitalism forces people to experience a loss of meaning in life. He wanted people to understand that “the worker becomes a slave of his object…” (p. 43). He believed in false consciousness, which is “the inability of the proletariat to see the situation they are in vis-à-vis the bourgeoisie” (Karl Marx PowerPoint). He wanted to educate people for their own sake on how to breakthrough the inequality and save themselves from capitalism.
Marx argues that due to division of labor and class struggle, “man comes to objectify himself through this mere one-dimension he has created and identifies with” (Marx p.475). The class struggle resulted from division of labor created an inequality where some will own the means of production, and the lower class who provides or sells their labor or “self” to survive working for those owners of means of product. This two groups are simply explained as bourgeoisies and proletariats by Marx. As the industrialization and society modernizes, the inequality will prevail observably. Marx argues that the proletariats will revolt against bourgeoisies and lead to the fall of capitalism and rise of communism.
Marx argues that the division of labor results in alienation, and he focused on the social inequalities between two social classes. Unlike him, Durkheim claims that the division of labor is not necessarily bad for the society, it creates a feeling of solidarity between group members. Marx is quite concerned with how people relate to the most fundamental resource of all, their own power of labor and the problems of alienation. The deprive of the ownership of their labor and their own thoughts, according to Marx, causes the alienation of workers from their nature and consequently causes conflicts between the two social classes. In his opinion, the division of labor and class inequality will eventually bring about the social stratification.
Marx and Arendt are two brilliant political theorists who pose different concerns, beliefs and ideals when it comes to the relationship between economics and freedom. Marx defines freedom as creative self- actualization which contrasts Arendt’s definition of freedom as worldly and eruptive action. Marx’s definition is more focused on the individual, which in turn will better society while Arendt is more focused on action as community. Marx believes in a society free from economic oppression by the elite while Arendt believes in one where poverty and politics do not meet. Economics and freedom, according to Marx, are intertwined in such a way that they cannot be separated.
This aftermath from the "deep-rooted myth" that fetishizes race and does not include the colonized from membership inside the human race by separating the black man from the white colonizers and confining the colonized to the rank of an animal . In Fanon 's racialized separation amid colonizers and colonized resonates Karl Marx 's dichotomy amid capitalists and workers. As Marx explains, this capitalist distinction is indicative of the "mysterious character of the commodity-form," that is crafted by the ostensible detachment of the worth produced by the labouring procedure . This worth is observed as an inherent attribute of the commodity that generates the expression of capitalism’s communal relations across the money- form and facilitates the exploitation of the operatives by their capitalist oppressors. Though, David Marriott asserts in his article "On Racial Fetishism" that there is an "antinomian relation" amid the theories of Marx and Fanon because, even though Marx 's commodity fetishism stays relevant in the capitalist area, it is inadequate to clarify Fanon 's assembly of contest in the colonial context .
Marxism was a theory of conflict. It was part of the society as a bases and superstructure. It supported capitalism under the concepts of Labour theory of value, exploitation, alienation and class consciousness. Marxism as a theory of conflict: The conflict that went on was between the working class or Proletariat and the capitalist or the Boergeoisie on the other hand. The worker class was treated like slaves because the capitalist owned the factories and businesses and used the workers class to do their work for them so that they can be rich and so that they can live in poverty.
In addition to his observation of the division of labor, Karl Marx believed, that due to the technological shift from craftsmanship to machinery this also caused division of labor and the appreciation of proletarian handmade goods was disregarded. Through “The Communist Manifesto” one is able to imagine a conversation between Karl Marx and Adam Smith. One where Karl Marx replies to Adam Smith’s theories on the manufacturing process, wages, and the division of labor with the reality of the proletarians, that Adam Smith disregarded. In this essay, I will argue for the shadow of change that machinery has cast upon laborers and the socioeconomic changes that were triggered as a result of the Industrial Revolution and the shift to machinery in factories . When reading “The Communist Manifesto” one is