The Capitalist Society: Marx and Engels


In modern society, the capitalistic system itself makes it possible to do net income for capitalists in society. Two categories exist, workers and middle classs. They are ever related each other. They need each other. Proletarians need capitalists for their lives and capitalists need workers to do their capital move to do net incomes. This relationship has been already been deep-rooted in the universe. Karl Marx precisely shows how capitalistic system affects two categories and inequality bing between these two categories. The Bourgeoisie is the capitalist who owns the agency of production, and is therefore able to purchase labour from the Proletariat in order to do net income. In his statements, Marx asserts that the Bourgeoisie pitilessly exploits the Proletariat. The Bourgeoisie achieves this by doing net incomes from the merchandises made by the labor of workers in mill, who earn meager rewards. Therefore, the Bourgeoisie depends on the labor to do wealth and does this by invariably coming up with great progresss in the agencies of production. Therefore, it is obvious that the middle class needs instruments of production, division of labour, cooperation, and excess value, if they are to do net incomes.

First, capitalists make net incomes from selling trade goods made by the labor. We normally think that workers work hard and the proprietors pay them. Therefore, the premise that the money made is the net income. Yet, really, this is non true. What they have made from working is rewards. Workers as Sellerss sell their labour power to capitalists as purchasers. Thus, workers really earn rewards from capitalists. In this sense, capitalists see workers as trade goods. Workers are controlled by the capitalists because they buy workers to do them travel their capitals. In modern capitalist economy, our capitalists are interested in net incomes. Therefore, whatever trade good comes out in the market, its monetary value is higher than the trade good that workers have used their ain labour power on. Harmonizing to Karl Marx and ?Friedrich Engels, “We know that the value of each trade good is determined by the measure of labor expended on and materialised in it, by the working-time necessary, under given societal conditions, for its production ( p.129 ) . This means that the value of a trade good consists of natural stuff, machinery, working clip, and labour power. Suppose that capitalist invests 4 dollars to keep the instrument of production and to transform natural stuff to trade good. Conversely, the 4 dollars account for labour power that possessed by the worker. It means the trade good that is traveling to be produced is 8 dollars. Yet, this trade good is sold in the market for 10 dollars because capitalist wants to acquire net income from it. In this sense, capitalist feats 2 dollars from the worker. Therefore, It means the trade good has more value than labour power that worker possesses. This shows that the worker merely earns rewards for his or her attempts, and does non profit in any manner from the added value of his/her labor attempt. That is why workers work really hard ; they are traveling to acquire the same sum of money whereas capitalist ever make net income from selling trade good that includes excess value. Thus, selling trade good that has to be used by labour power to bring forth makes excess value, and it makes it possible for capitalist have net income.

In add-on, capitalist make net income from division of labor. As Marx points out, “The really same businessperson outlook which extols the fabricating division of labor, the life-long appropriation of the worker to a partial operation, and the unconditioned subordination of the item worker to capital, extols them as an administration of labor which increases productivity” ( 13 ) . Nowadays, it is easy to happen division of labour every working topographic point. Many companies, mills, and eating houses adapt division of labour for net income and efficiency. When workers are divided harmonizing to their responsibilities, they can truly concentrate on what they are making. Yet, there is one inquiry. How capitalist makes net income from division of labour. In capitalist economy system, to carry through the mass production, there is demand to hold great division of labour. This greater division of labour could increase competition between workers who have to sell their labour power in order to populate this universe. Harmonizing to Karl Marx, “The greater division of labor enables one worker to make the work of five, 10 or 20 ; it therefore multiplies competition among the workers fivefold, tenfold and twentyfold” ( p.214 ) . It means everyone can finish the responsibility that capitalist wants them to carry through because this division of labour does non necessitate a skilled worker. Rather, a capitalist can engage anyone who wants to gain a pay easy. Conversely, many workers need the rewards. That is why competition with each other exists. In add-on, many workers compete with each other by selling their labour power to capitalists stingily because they can non afford to populate by themselves. They need capitalists who are traveling to purchase their labour power. If they can non happen capitalist, they all are traveling to be isolated. In this sense, in a capitalistic society, the division of labour makes worker competes against each other by selling their labour power cheaply to capitalists. Therefore, one may reason that the more the division of labour, the more the rewards of the worker cut down. The labor has no control over the production procedure since it involves division of labor in which insistent undertakings give them no chance to exert their creativeness. This is one of the many ways which the middle class revolutionise the procedure of production to accommodate their ain demands. Therefore, the division of labour aids capitalist to hold more net income from purchasing labour power cheaply.

Karl Marx points that bourgeoisie uses a new instrument of production to do net incomes. In the modern capitalist economy society, we can purchase many trade goods. We can acquire anything that we want if we have the money. It is wholly different signifier early industrial society. At that clip, it was impossible to bring forth trade good every bit many as in modern society. For illustration, many skilled workers were limited in productive measure because they were non every bit efficient as the present machines. It means that it was impossible to purchase whatever and whenever we wanted to purchase. Yet, mass production is the normal productive method because the machine can bring forth trade goods expeditiously and invariably. Therefore, capitalists ever introduce new and advanced ways to increase productive power. Harmonizing to Karl Marx, “as he must sell possibly a 1000 times every bit much as earlier in order to outweigh the lower merchandising monetary value by the greater sum of the merchandise sold, because a more extended sale is now necessary, non merely in order to do more net income but in order to replace the cost of production” . This machine makes it possible to bring forth many trade goods with same sums of workers. In capitalistic system, capitalists aim to do net incomes. They introduce the machine for mass production, for inexpensive trade good, and for suppressing market. These all could do capitalists get net incomes because the merchandises from mass production that they are distributed in immense markets and sold to many costumiers stingily. This makes capitalists outweigh the inexpensive monetary value merchandising. Therefore, the more machinery introduced by capitalist the more net incomes that capitalist makes.

In add-on, cooperation makes net incomes. For the labor to bask economic additions, they had to collaborate with the middle class. The middle class and the labor have a common dependance on each other. This is because the middle class owns the agency of production, while the labor provides labour. This implies that both categories cooperate with each other to accomplish their single ends. However, this cooperation merely benefits the middle class since they benefit by working the labor. This development consequences in the middle class paying the labor rewards that are much less that the value of their production. These development consequences in category struggles, and harmonizing to the statements by Marx, the labor will one twenty-four hours lift up against the middle class, ensuing in a classless society.

Capitalism consequences in overrun. It is apparent that capitalists purpose to do produce goods every bit promptly as possible and therefore do them cheaper. These consequences in effectual usage of the machines involved, and therefore consequences in higher net incomes. However, when the machines become efficient plenty, this consequences in excess merchandises. The capitalist economy therefore ends up working new markets and maximising ingestion in old markets.

In decision, it is apparent that the capitalist society comprises of the middle class and labor. Whereas the middle class owns the agency of production, the labor merely works for rewards. Marx points out that these two categories depend on each other. Since the middle class needs net income, he must depend on the labor to supply the agencies of labor, which produce goods. The middle class sells these goods and therefore makes net income. On the other manus, the labor needs the middle class to supply work and income in order to last. However, Marx argues that the middle class exploits the labor by paying them ill and over working them. Therefore, the middle class has to revolutionise invariably the agencies of production if he is to go on working the labor and therefore avoid struggles. In a capitalist system, the middle class decides which goods will be sold and determines the monetary values. Conversely, the labor has no other option but to accept the conditions and non anticipate any net incomes from the added value of the goods they have produced.

Plants Cited

Marx, Karl. Capital, Vol 1

Tucker, Robert C. The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: W.W Norton, 1978.