As such, they will use them in any way they want to be able to enhance their performances. This can explain the increasing number of unpaid interns o.
According to Marx, employers have the power to engage in almost anything to ensure the survival of their respective companies or organizations.
This implies that employees only exist to follow the rules and regulations without any question. This is because they actually lack the power question the authority. Paid employees may have some power with regards to deciding the course of their companies or organizations.
On the other hand, interns have no power whatsoever. This implies that no matter how they are treated, they must respect the will of the employer considering the fact that they will need his or her recommendation to gain access to permanent employment in the future. Marx also argues that employers in the society use their positions in the society to deprive employees the chance to progress or enhance their skills and knowledge.
This is done by depriving them the chance to access important aspect of the production systems. In capitalist society, this is done to ensure employees remain dependent to their employers or masters. With this being the case, the poor remain poor while the rich become richer.
The Exploitation Theory. Marx fails to grasp that wages are only possible under the division of labour in a capitalist economy. In the absence of division of labour in a market economy wages do not exist.
For Marx if you look at a pre-capitalistic society without division of labour and capitalists — individuals receive the full value of their labour.
Everyone works and produces their own final consumer products and can then exchange them for other products. The crucial thing is that the full value of what they produced belongs to them. When capitalism arises it now expropriates what the labourers produced and compensates them a small portion of the full value and capitalists keep the surplus value, so thinks Marx.
The grave error Marx makes is that he assumes that the income individuals receive in this pre-capitalistic society is wages when it is actually profit. The income you receive when selling a product of your own labour is not wages but profit — you are selling a final product and not your labour.
There are a number of differences between wages and profit. Firstly, when you sell a product it is possible for you to make a profit or a loss. When earning wages — you complete your work and earn your wage; there is no profit or loss possible.
Your wages is determined by the completion of the labour you provide and not by whether the product you have participated in making is sold or not.
Think about how it is possible for a worker to earn their wage while simultaneously the business makes a loss. Secondly, income from selling a product is always received on completion of the sale transaction. Income from wages is received on completion of work provided for some agreed upon time — there need to be a single product sold before a wage is earned.
If you look at a pre-capitalistic society you find all the elements of profit earners and not wage earners. In a pre-capitalistic society you must make your final product which you then must go and sell in order to receive an income.
If no one purchases it you can make a loss; you can only receive an income on completion of a sale transaction. Therefore in a society without division of labour, where each person makes their own final products for exchange or consumption — there are only profit or loss takers and no wage takers.
This leads to a fatal blow for Marxist exploitation — There is no exploitation of wage earners workers by capitalists possible because wages only come into existence with capitalism and division of labour.
Under slavery, exploitation is naked and obvious to exploiter and exploited alike. The slave is forced by sword and lash to work for the master, who provides just enough to keep the slave alive--all the rest of the fruits of their labor are forcefully appropriated by the slaveowner.
Similarly, under feudalism as it arose in its classical form in Europe, the serfs work on a plot of land that belongs to the lord. They work for part of the time for themselves, producing their means of subsistence, and the rest of the time, the product belongs to the lord.
The terms of exploitation are clear to serf and lord alike--the serf labors for the lord, and receives nothing from the lord in return. Capitalism is different among the chief forms of class societies Marx examined in that the exploitative nature of labor is hidden by the wage system. Except in cases of outright fraud, workers are hired, labor for a given amount of time and receive a wage in return.
It appears on the surface that an equal exchange has taken place--but this isn't the case. Why not? The capitalist, in addition to purchasing various inputs into the productive process--machinery, raw materials, etc. Under capitalism, most needs are met, at least for those who can afford them, by commodities--commodities being goods and services produced for sale on the market.
Working-class people, who don't own the means to produce and sell commodities, have one commodity they can sell: their labor-power, their ability to work.
In this way, workers are forced to sell themselves to some capitalist piecemeal in order to acquire money to buy the necessities of life. Labor-power, according to Marx in writing his first volume of Capital , is "the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in the physical form, the living personality, of a human being, capabilities which he [or she] sets in motion whenever he [or she] produces a use-value of any kind.
Labor, on the other hand, is the actual process of work itself. Like the buyer of any commodity, the capitalist claims the right to consume the commodity they purchase. In this case, the consumption of labor-power consists of the control of the labor process and the ownership of the products workers create during it. According to Marx's analysis, unlike machinery, raw materials and other inanimate inputs that pass on their value to the product but create no new value, labor-power is a "special commodity The distinction between "labor-power" and "labor" is the key to understanding exploitation under capitalism.
When a capitalist pays a worker a wage, they are not paying for the value of a certain amount of completed labor, but for labor-power. The soaring inequality in contemporary society illustrates this--over the past three decades of neoliberalism, the wealth that workers create has increased, but this has not been reflected in wages, which remain stagnant. Instead, an increasing proportion of the wealth produced by workers swelled the pockets of the superrich, who did not compensate the workers for their increased production on the job.
It appears that the capitalist pays the worker for the value produced by their labor because workers only receive a paycheck after they have worked for a given amount of time.
The aim of historical evolution was the progressive liberation of human beings, but collective liberty, not the individual liberty championed by classical liberals, which Marx saw as selfish.
At its base, history was economic and expressed itself in a series of clashes between classes, following their objective economic interests, as society moved through different stages, defined by changing means of production.
Watch it now, Wondrium. In each case, the base reality was economic, and the superstructure of ideas, values, and social norms was built on top of that base.
Even religion was a reflection of economic interests or a kind of narcotic for economic misery. And capitalism was not the end stage of human history, but rather the next to last stage of development when all these clashes reached a climax. Learn more about Marxism after Marx. Industrialization as a means of production depended on a complicated division of labor, subdividing tasks and work, and in the process alienating the worker.
Marx conceded that industrial capitalism had bound the world together, globalizing it, making it cosmopolitan, and had accomplished some amazing feats of development. The bourgeoisie had played a revolutionary role.
0コメント