There can be no doubt about the vast influence of Karl Marx's theories on sociology and political thought. His concept of a communism overcoming the socio-economic pitfalls of capitalism was not a theory that came into being in the way he might have hypothesized. Many throughout history have distorted Marx's writings, raising the question of whether pure communism in the original Marxist sense is possible given that humanity appears to have an innate "need." hierarchy and a thirst for power. Capitalism seems to satisfy above all the "need" for power and acquisition, and the proof of this is the growth of global wealth, which certainly does not equate to equal wealth. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen, including inequalities in life chances and participation in society in general. However, the overwhelming evidence does not appear to change or transform capitalism. Marx's concept of economic class struggle therefore remains a controversial issue. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay This essay will explain and explore the concept of capitalism and how Marx believed that the origins and dynamics of capitalism were interwoven into the fabric . class struggles throughout history. In fact, this notion opens the first part of the Communist Manifesto with the now famous quote: “The history of every hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx and Engels, p. 79). Capitalism is essential given that Marx based his work around the concept of historical materialism, originally derived in his development from Feuerbach's "Hegelian inversion". Historical materialism is a concept explaining the vital function of human production for the sole purpose of securing basic subsistence. Without means of subsistence, humanity would fail in all its other activities and functions. Marx rejected Hegel's dialectic based on a movement of human thought and ideas and argued that the dialectic involved contradictions based on an economic system, otherwise known as dialectical materialism. Therefore, the dynamic of change ultimately created by a dialectical process lies in the conflict between two opposing factors (Lee and Newby 2000, pp. 114-119). Marx designed the base and superstructure approach that defines capitalist society. The base concerns everything that is a function of production in society and conversely, the superstructure, which can be said to be derived from the base, concerns the values, culture, ideology and governing bodies of society. The first creates and supports the second through a process of legitimization of economic activities and, in turn, the superstructure ensures the maintenance of the processes. Class domination plays a large role in this organizational process; for example, private education provides better opportunities for advancement and primary socialization into the upper echelons of society. However, a counter-argument claims that the state is just as involved in the tensions and "struggles of civil society" as opposed to being a mere extension of them for the pure benefit of a particular class interest (Held 2001, in Hall and Gieben). 2001, p 113).According to Marx, the act of production and the means of its organization, including the relations between members of opposing classes, are the key to society and social development and this can be supported by the analysis of pre-industrial societies. Feudal societies organized production on the basis of relationships between the ruling class, the nobility and thesubmissive class, the serfs. The monarchy was governed by divine right and a strict system of traditions commanding absolute loyalty and honor. The involvement of the Church supported and emphasized this early form of social organization and any deviation from accepted behavior would amount to blasphemy. Social hierarchies were fixed and generally as immobile as the lands owned by the nobility. Society consisted of small groups living in small farming communities. In the absence of an organized economy and bureaucracy, surplus production was considered by landowners to be theirs by right. Serfs depended on the grace of landowners for their livelihood, which created a relationship of domination and dependence. As such, Marx argued that conflict is inevitable in any class-based society (Bradley 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001, pp. 188-189). the creation of the East India Company (c. 1600) and the British colonization of the Americas at the end of the 16th century. Later, Adam Smith (1723-1790), in his work The Wealth of Nations, created a theory in favor of the free market in direct opposition to mercantilism and the monopoly of land ownership. Unlike “tied” work, free work would benefit all members of society. Smith believed that all individuals "seek profit", but that this creates "harmony" in the interest of society as a whole. A free market and free trade would require a division of labor, which would ultimately mean a more economically efficient mode of production in a competitive market (Brown 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001 pp. 145-149). As such, mercantilism saw the accumulation of capital that gave rise to capitalism. Industrialization was not solely responsible for capitalism but certainly provided the impetus for its widespread spread (Lee and Newby 2000, pp. 79-80). The industrial revolution saw the emergence of a new ruling class, the bourgeoisie, and, following the hierarchical traditions built by previous societies, the proletariat found its place at the bottom of the social ladder. For Marx, the idea of ​​class struggle is based on the antagonisms present in the differences between classes and he saw the emergence of the new ruling class, with its "new conditions of oppression", as the catalyst for a greater social division than it had before. previously (Marx and Engels, p. 80). The industrial revolution changed the reasons for work and the meaning of the act of work, which required the sale of personal time and effort in exchange for wages, otherwise known as the commodification of labor power. Unlike the feudal era, which existed on a form of agricultural "economy", the conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat was based on the intensity of production for profit, which ultimately led to the exploitation of workers. Production moved from feudal ownership of private land to private industrial ownership of capital. Given the exclusion of the proletariat from ownership of the means of production, they had no choice but to sell their ability to produce in exchange for tightly controlled wage labor, in order to survive. The conflict created by such an antagonistic system could only be resolved through the transformation brought about by revolution. The conflict must also be understood in the context of social relations, which are now based on a dichotomy between wages and work. In the Victorian era, the term "class" created social realities that ensured that members of society "knew their place" based on their healtheconomic. For Marx, the term “class” defined individuals and groups on the basis of objective principles. Marx believed that consciousness, rather than being a determinant of social being, was actually determined by social being. “The mode of production of material life conditions the processes of social, political and intellectual life” (Marx 1975 in Lee and Newby 2000, p.115). According to Marx, a revolution to transform capitalism into socialism could only take place when class consciousness replaced false consciousness. Class consciousness is defined as the understanding and awareness of the true situation of inequality caused by exploitation, which ultimately leads to the solidarity of the proletariat. Another view, based on consensus rather than conflict, would argue that a collective conscience derived from shared moral and ethical values ​​is necessary to achieve solidarity. Durkheim's (1858–1917) functionalist perspective asserts that different levels of society acting on behalf of shared interests can meet the needs of the social system (Giddens 1971). However, poverty does not contribute to functional unity due to the existence of inequalities. This is most certainly evident in contemporary society, even when considering the buffer put in place by the welfare state; the poor are far from being integrated into the rest of society. The bourgeoisie, in the name of profit, demanded a high intensity of production, made possible thanks to the division of labor. This in turn created tedious and repetitive work, which amounted to oppression and exploitation of workers. The working class was “free” to sell their labor to the highest bidder, but the ruling class benefited through its economic supremacy. It would have been impossible for the working class to transcend its lowly position on the economic and social ladder as long as the ruling class owned the modes of production. Unlike Adam Smith's idea that competition and profit would benefit society as a whole, the capitalist dream is to hold a monopoly, which would lead to ever-increasing profit and personal wealth. Workers become totally dependent on an unfair and reduced “share” through wages that do not reward the reality of their efforts. Furthermore, Marx pointed out that rather than being "free" to sell their labor, workers are a "commodity exposed to the vicissitudes of competition and, as such, to the expected ups and downs of an economic market » (Marx and Engels, p. 87). ). However, Max Weber (1864-1920) conceived another dimension of the ruthless accumulation of wealth, which he called “rationalization”. Rationalization was the basis of the spirit of capitalism. Weber theorized that greed and profit were intimately linked to a deep sense of "the disciplined obligation of work as duty." This “irrational” duty is the objective of the rational organization of capitalist activity. It should be noted that Weber described this dimension as one of many possible components that contributed to capitalism in industrial Europe (Giddens 1971, pp. 125-127). Surplus value, the result of surplus labor, leads to “surplus” “demand” products, particularly in terms of the basic need for subsistence. The high intensity of production leads to the inevitable alienation of the worker. Alienation can be defined as a state of detachment which concerns two areas of production. The first is the alienation of the worker from the actual product created through his labor. The second refers to the distance from the very task of production; a complex division of labor creates processes. 85 - 86 ).