Karl Marx wrote about classes several decades ago, in 1867 in fact. In this brief chapter he discussed classes, capitalism, production, land ownership etc. Marx believed strongly in capitalism and even said he thought capitalism simplified classes today as oppose to classes in the past.
A point that grabbed my attention while reading this chapter is how Marx states “The owner’s merely of labour power, owner’s of capital and land owner’s whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground rent, in other words wage labourers, capitalists and land owners, constitute the three big classes of modern society based on the capitalist mode of production.” Modern society has come along way however still seems to be a capitalism society. Everything you do, want to do, want in life, etc. depends on the amount of money you make, how much land you own (although not as much as it did back in the day) or even the assets you own that add up your capital. I agree with Marx when he says these are the three bigger classes. The More you have of each of these factors helps place you in what we now use to define classes; the “social class ladder” or the SES.
Marx stated that that he believed England was a modern society that was highly and classically developed in its economic structure. However, he then goes on to say that no stratification of classes is perfect. Everywhere you go you will have people trying to destroy the boundaries of classes.
Marx asks “What constitutes a class?” I thought he had previously answered that, if not then is there a true answer? Or does it depend on where you live? All cultures and societies are different therefore does that create differences when constituting a class? We talked about the feudal system or the caste system in class today; we can use this as evidence that there are differences in society however, is the caste system the same as class? Do they all communicate and socialize among the different “classes?” According the last paragraph in page 130 it talks about physicians and officials having their own class, why is this? These are just some questions I do not understand about class and social structure.
What I have taken from this chapter is that money basically defines what class you are in. How you make the money and whether or not you own anything also plays a large part in what class you belong to. Money in our society today seems to be the most important quality in our lives basically determining what we will do, who we are, who we socialize with etc.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ch. 10 Classes
Karl Marx
First I would like to note that both people writing summaries for this chapter did extremely well in describing the important parts easily and thoroughly, making the chapter more understandable. :)
Brittany explained quite clearly that Marx believes money constitutes which social class one belongs in. “Modern society is indisputably most highly and classically developed in economic structure.” Even today, money makes the person. Think back to elementary and middle school- those with similar economic statuses could be found forming their own groups on opposite sides of the hallway. The same is true in college- those who can afford to live more expensive apartments form friendships and visa versa. One can only assume that this trend will carry well into adulthood.
Marx writes, as Brittany noted, that no one class is perfect. This is true from an outsider’s point of view. However, with the influence of the media and its celebrities it is clear what kind of “class” is considered perfect these days. Can you imagine what it would be like if different types of classes didn’t exist and everyone was equal in social economic status (SES)? Better? Or worse?
Karl Marx is a very interesting person. However, I do agree with things that he talked about. In chapter 10 he talks about classes in which, Brittany summarize very well. When Marx stated that the division of social labour splits labourers, capitalist, and landlords into owners of various occupations it made me think of the qoute "money is the root of all evil." My interpretation of chapter 10 is that having alot of money allows one to advance in society. One cannot change their social status until first they have changed their economic status. However, my question is "how can one change their economic status, if other factors such as environment, biological differences, childhood experinces, etc play an important role in their lives?" For instance, many people with felonies cannot get a good paying job that will take them from the proletariat to the bourgeoisie, even if it is a first offense. As a result, they go back to the only thing that in their eyes was putting food on the table and clothes on their back. I feel that society does not give people an opportunity to advance unless they do what society say: "go to school get a bachlor, then go back and get a master's, oh and don't forget not to have a criminal record." I think it goes back into chapter 6 when Marx talks about how the worker doesn't belong to himself but to the object thus endulging himself in "animal" like things (drinking, procreating) inorder to have the sense of belonging even if their economic status is not that great.
When I first began reading the chapter, it struck me as odd that Marx was talking about wage laborers, capitalists, and landlords as the three main classes, while before in other texts he had focused so much on only wage laborers and capitalists, proclaiming them as the two main groups. Since he had not previously mentioned landowners as a major group, I wonder how he would have viewed them as fitting into his theoretical capitalist system. However, including them certainly seemed relevant, as landowners do hold a large amount of power. It seemed to me that in this passage, instead of focusing on the definition of capitalism and how it works, he was instead focusing on the effects of capitalism. The system certainly does create multiple levels between the haves and the have-nots, as all groups range from between the two extremes. At the end he talked about how “the identity of revenues and sources of revenue” suggested these three classes to him, although this perspective would then also lead to other defined classes, and so forth. I can only speculate the direction that he was going, but it seemed to me that he was trying to explain how classes are connected because of the way that revenue flows to and from so many directions. (Just because they are connected, however, does not mean that they are flexible or that the two main sides of the spectrum are not represented by intense differences.) I have always though of class as something that is difficult to define. Everybody knows what the upper class is, but they only understand that definition relative to others. In this way, class would seem to be defined through cultural perspective. It is built into our system as a direct consequence of the existence of capitalism, which inherently separates people and their ability to control their lives. Mocan1cl wrote about what is perceived as the perfect class. This just reinforces the idea that the ruling class controls not only the capital, but the ideas in a society, which then influences the system to keep going as is and preserve their power. It is almost impossible to rise above the class in which you are born.
Post a Comment