capitalism

As Klages points out, Marxist theory combines philosophy, history, and
economics, for all are intertwined. Marx is interested in how economic production
changes throughout history and in how economic production shapes how humans
relate and treat one another. The key term that we constantly use but rarely define
is "capitalism." The term capitalism refers to a particular economic system, a
particular way of organizing relationships between people and the tools and
methods of production. According to Marx, capitalism arrived on the scene in the
late middle ages, the time when feudalism began to lose its force (so we are talking
about a broad period around 1400-1800).

Keep in mind that exchanging products at a market is not capitalism, and capitalism
is not giving a percentage of your crops to your King in exchange for land and or
protection. Capitalism depends on the accumulation of "capital," which is a kind of
surplus created by the particular way products are produced. Put another way,
capitalism is based on an unequal relationship between owners and workers. As
Klages explains, "in a factory, for instance, a worker performs labor on raw
materials, and thus transforms those raw materials into an object; in the process,
the laborer adds something to the raw materials so that the object is worth more
than the original raw material. What the laborer adds is "surplus value," in Marxist
theory. While the laborer is paid for work he or she does, the payment is figured in
terms of 'reproduction,' of what a laborer will need in order to come back the next
day and not in terms of what value the laborer added to the raw material." In other
words, the owners give the workers a "minimum wage" (and this is relative
depending on the job skill) while selling the product at the highest price the market
will bear, thus maximizing profits and creating "capital" or "surplus value." Thus, we
see how the rich get richer and the "working class" remains at the same level (the
"middle class" or bourgeoisie is usually associated with the upper class, not
because they own much or have much power, but because they identify with and
serve upper class interests). Susan Willis adds that "Marx demonstrated that in
selling labor power, the worker was separated both from control over production
and from the fruits of labor, the commodities and the profits from the sale." This
separation is called "alienation," for the worker is no longer associated with the
product or the profit. In fact, by selling one's labor, the laborer becomes a
commodity herself, a kind of product that is owned and consumed by the owner.
People are no longer valued as humans but as things, objects, or "human
resources"; humans are, in effect, "commodified." Anything-friendship, knowledge,
people, actions, values, nature-can be commodified once they are understood in
terms of their market value. They have no intrinsic worth, for worth is determined
by the market (just as structuralism notes that nothing has value outside a system).

What's wrong with all of this? Marxists argue that the entire process dehumanizes
humans in the same way slavery dehumanized slaves (and Thomas Jefferson,
problematic and contradictory man that he was, even noted that slavery made
slaver-holders lose their humanity as well). In a capitalist system, laborers have
little choice but to sell their labor to feed and shelter themselves, and anyone who
has ever worked knows how easy it is to distance oneself from the product she is
making. To a small degree we know how it feels to be a commodity when we
dress up for an interview, present our resume, and try to kiss up to a potential
employer; we present ourselves as the best product on the market. But the
"beauty" of capitalist ideology is that we blame ourselves, not the system, when we
fail. We are socialized early on to accept the idea that hierarchies, inequalites, and
occupational loyalty are "natural" and "commonsensical." It's only "human nature"
to strive to gain more than others. If those kids who score low would just study
harder they could go to Harvard!

What's the alternative? For Marxists it's socialism because socialism creates a
situation where there is not private production, and therefore, there is no surplus
value taken off the top; therefore, there is no exploitation. We see evidence of
nascent socialism even now in the form of cooperatives and even credit unions.
These kinds of institutions are essentially communally owned, and the "workers" or
clients share in the surplus-value in the form of dividends (or so we are led to
believe). Officers and executives are often voted on, and workers help determine
company policy. And how would a Marxist reply to the charge, "Don't the
workers have choice? In fact, aren't the employers doing the workers a favor by
giving them a job?" The problem is that the workers don't have a lot of choice.
They either work for the pay offered, starve, or borrow some money so that they
can then exploit someone else. Sure, they may get enough money to eat, buy
boats, and throw birthday parties, but the owner is essentially stealing part of their
labor by not giving back what was earned. It is still exploitation even though people
may be compensated. Owners also maintain an economic and political advantage
over those who can only sell their labor. The other problem is that people are not
compensated based on need, how hard they work, or even expertise. As noted
above, the market decides what is valuable. As a result, people who often work
the hardest, achieve the most worthwhile results, or have the greatest expertise are
not adequately compensated. In sum, capitalism assumes that compensation is
based on merit, but we need to remember that the owners live off the toil of the
workers. Remember that about 10% of the population in America owns 90% of
the wealth, and of that 10%, 5% owns 50% of the wealth. Do we really believe
that that 10% is working harder than the remaining 90%?

One final note... While Marx's brand of socialism is profoundly materialist, it didn't
stop idealists from appropriating and using socialist ideals and goals. There was a
strong movement in English and America around the mid to late 1800s called
"Christian Socialism." F. D. Maurice, a Victorian minister, and George
MacDonald, a Victorian minister and novelist, were the main leaders, and they
believed that class warfare and competition would be replaced by class
reconciliation and cooperation. "The Christian Socialist vision was of a believing,
caring society in which the cruelties of capitalist industry could be eliminated by the
creation of producer co-operatives which would teach men to work together in
cooperation and brotherhood." They believed that "fellowship and cooperation
represented the true order of society whereas competition, selfishness, and rivalry
were the expression of the dividing, destructive principle with anarchy and disorder
as the inevitable companions." The point here is that Marx wasn't the only
"socialist" around, and he wasn't the only one to hate the effects of capitalism. We
should remember as well the proliferation of Christian and non-Christian communal
societies that sprang up in American around the same time. In fact, socialism was a
viable political option in America until the threat of Soviet-style communism
tarnished the rather utopian image of socialism.