Marx and Modernity SII Lecture 7

1. Marx and ModernitySII Lecture 7

2. Marx’s Basic Concepts • ‘Mode of production’ = HOW people interact with nature and with one another to subsist • Different ‘modes of production’, e.g. food gathering/hunting; feudal agriculture; mercantile trade; manufacturing, these determine social relationships within the respective societies • For Modernity, the key change was from Feudal to Capitalist production

3. To Marx Modernity meant Capitalism Change from Feudalism to Capitalism represented a new ‘mode of production’ of Modernity, in that: • Feudal society was not basically an exchange economy: what was produced were not ‘commodities’ for exchange • Because products (food, handicrafts) retained their ‘use’ value • And ‘use value’ controlled how much was produced • Much of the ‘means of production’ remained in the hands of the serfs (producers) – land, common grazing, animals, tools – providing means of subsistence

4. The Feudal Manor

5. Each ‘Mode of Production has two features • The ‘forces of production’ = the labour power of workers + their form of co-operation (division of labour) + ‘means of production’ (tools, machinery, technology) • The ‘relations of production’ = the organization of productive activities, especially property relations. E.g. Master-Slave (Antiquity); Lord-Serf (Feudalism); Owner-Worker (Capitalism)

6. Capitalism and Class • Production for ‘exchange’ value not ‘use’ value • Class domination: was based on ‘relations of production’ that enabled surplus production (beyond bare subsistence) to be expropriate by a minority – owners of the ‘means of production’ • Class is about ‘relations of production’ NOT earnings • Hence the 3 great classes of early Capitalism: landowners, entrepreneurs, property-less workers

7. Image of the CapitalistSocialStructure

8. Capitalism and Class become simplified • Expropriation of workers from land left them with only their ‘labour-power’ to sell • Made market relations central to productive activity, without any other relations generating solidarity (unlike Durkheim’s view) • Polarization of the class structure as: - Repeal of Corn Laws (1846) subordinated agriculture to industry - Capital concentration meant small shop-keepers etc. swallowed into proletariat • The ‘marginals’ (Lumpenproletariat) were used as a ‘reserve army of the unemployed’ to drive wages down

9. Capitalism and Commodification • The worker also becomes a commodity, exchanging ‘labour power’, valued at the price of subsistence. • But workers produce more than the costs of their subsistence - the remainder is ‘surplus value’ = profit after subtracting costs (raw materials, machinery etc. known as ‘constant capital’) • Capitalists are in competition with one another and hence the tendency for profits to fall • Offset by (a) cheaper raw materials → imperialism, (b) lengthening working day → more surplus value, (c) bring in the ‘reserve army of the unemployed’ • Thus, wages are never far above subsistence level

10. Hence increasing differentials in social stratification

11. Capitalism and Alienation:its 4 different forms • From workers’ products, which they cannot afford at ‘exchange value’ (coal or cars) • From fellow workers as they are set in competition with each other (piece-work) • From the (creative) act of production by de-skilling (unlike the craftsman) • From their ‘species-being’ i.e. human creativity, as capitalist conditions of production ‘alienate him from the spiritual potentialities of the labour-process.’

12. Why don’t Workers of the World Unite?

13. Capitalism and Ideology Conflict is seen as intrinsic to capitalism in Modernity, but it need not become revolutionary because of • Ideologies legitimating the status quo in the interests of the Ruling Class, who can spread their ideas (through State, education & Law) • This prevents ‘class consciousness’ from transforming an (objective) ‘class in itself’ into a ‘class for itself’ (objectively & subjectively)

14. Comparison with Durkheim and Weber Like Durkheim, Marx sees social stratification as economically based. They differ about: • The number of classes; decreasing in M but increasing in D. • Fairness; class is exploitative and alienating to M, but acceptable to D if based on ‘natural inequalities’ • Class conflict is endemic (though not always overt) to M in Modernity, but re-integration can be engineered in D’s view Weber sees class in terms of ‘market opportunities’, but differs from M in regarding ‘status’ and ‘power’ as two other (potentially cross-cutting) sources of stratification All agree that Modernity is inherently STRATIFIED