Capitalism and Class Ecdriesbaugh Capitalism

Capitalism and Class Ecdriesbaugh

Capitalism and Class

Marx and Engels stated, "The class, which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so thereby, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it..." (Marx & Engles, 1848, pg. 64). In other words, the class with the most money has the means to strongly influence the economy; therefore, this ruling class has the power to affect the lives of anyone categorized in a class that is deemed lower than the dominating group. But class is not just a group of people with similar socioeconomic characteristics. Class also could be defined as societal mass consciousness in which people believe that certain people are better than others, nobler and more worthy of respect. This phenomenon requires people to presume that the rich deserve wealth and the poor deserve poverty. The upper classes are "educated," "cultured," and more "refined." Likewise, the lower class is perceived to be "crude," "rude," and "uncivilized." Meanwhile, the middle class lives on hope and strives to become members of the elite upper class -- and class struggles continue on and on. Class consciousness is characteristic of the capitalist system.

Capitalism was the driving force behind the Industrial Revolution. The term Industrial Revolution defines a time of momentous changes in trade, production, and technology. The phrase was born in France in 1837 and was introduced into common terms by Arnold Toynbee in his Lectures on the Industrial Revolution. After the first rumblings of industrialization in Britain between 1760 and 1830, the American Industrial Revolution revealed itself roughly between 1790 and 1860 (Ellens, 2007). It was called a revolution because the entire way of life changed in response to it.

Before the Industrial Revolution, commodities essential for daily life were created mostly in homes or small workshops. Hand utensils and simple machines utilized by skilled artisans produced fabrics, clothing, pottery, glass, tools, and furnishings. The owners of these small businesses typically worked next to their apprentices, who often lived in the same residence. Individuals and families using unsophisticated machinery worked agriculture on small farms. The results were generally high prices for somewhat crude, usually handmade, commodities. However, the Industrial Revolution brought key advancements in resources and tools and an enormous rise in productivity (Ellens, 2007).

The two major factors responsible for the increased productivity were the enhanced production of iron and the discovery of steam power. These innovations allowed for the creation of automated textile factories with machines to quickly do the work. Tool manufacturing changed completely with the invention of grinding machines and drill presses. Methods of agriculture also changed with the introduction of new and improved agricultural tools. These modern inventions brought increased production of consumer commodities and lower prices; hence, granting a higher standard of living for whole societies (Ellens, 2007). More goods were produced and thus more were available to buy. The owners of these new industries became very rich indeed.

Many social changes happened as a consequence of industrialization. Factory work was wearisome and employment was unreliable. Laborers toiled long hours for low wages, and working conditions were usually very dangerous. Child labor was widespread, and urbanization often brought crowded and unsanitary living conditions. Workers lived in squalor. The gap between the rich and the poor increased as capitalists engorged themselves with titles of upper and upper middle classes, while the common man, employed as worker for low wages, found it nearly impossible to escape poverty (Ellens, 2007). It is here that we introduce Karl Marx. Marx saw and wrote about the unfairness inherent in the economic system and developed an alternative to capitalism, which later came to be called communism or socialism. His system was meant to counteract and eventually destroy the evils of capitalism and class consciousness.

In an effort to explain the philosophical differences between capitalism and Marxism, it is helpful to ponder how philosophical values and ideas are shaped. According to Kolakowski (2005), the history of philosophy has two opposing viewpoints -- materialism and idealism. Idealists theorize that spirit existed before nature, and materialists theorize that spirit materialized after nature. There have been countless creeds in the history of philosophy that have tried, unsuccessfully, to find a balance between the two main viewpoints. "...Dialectics in the sense of thought which perceives phenomena in their development, their internal contradictions, the interpenetration of opposites, and qualitative differentiation came into being gradually during the ages. Dialectical thinking involves the ability to examine concepts, and this is peculiar to man." (Kolakowski, 2005, p. 318). From this viewpoint one might interpret materialism as the root of capitalism, and idealism as the root of Marxism. The values derived from either standpoint, and the impact they will have on a culture, largely depends upon the collective consciousness of that society.

Marx believed that capitalism disempowered individuals and culture by appraising the worth of the human being in terms of monetary value. Marx viewed capitalism as unjust -- because capitalism fed upon and exploited the working class. In other words, in order for capitalists to make the huge profits they did, they had to pay laborers far less than what their work was worth (Strathern, 2001). Workers, with a need for income to eat and keep a roof over their heads and little power to change their situation, had to take what they could get.

Marx had hoped that a rebellious victory of the working class would give birth to the first classless society. "...It [Capitalism] has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing the Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades. but, it has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his 'natural superiors,' and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment.' It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless incontestable chartered freedoms has set up that single, unscrupulous freedom -- Free Trade..." (cited in Strathern, 2001, p. 32)

It is imperative that one understand Marx's philosophical viewpoints in order to further examine his views on capitalism. Marx believed in a philosophical evolution of consciousness that would take place and change the world. He theorized that initially human beings lived in agreement with nature and that it was only by conflicting with nature that they recognized themselves as human beings. From this struggle human beings realized they had consciousness. Regardless of how far humanity progressed in this evolutionary process, humans could not separate from struggle. According to Marx, this evolution had reached a phase of incurable damnation (cited in Strathern, 2001).

One of the worst evils, according to Marx, that had come as a result of capitalism was the separation of human beings from the products of their work. To increase productivity, economists had adopted the concept of division of labor. Instead of each worker in a factory having the task of completing a whole item, the method was broken up into a number of specific tasks. For example, in the making of a shoe, one worker might cut the leather to shape and size. Another worker might make the sole of the shoe while yet another laborer created the heel. This process made it much efficient to mass produce a product in order to make more profit, but no worker could hold a pair of shoes proudly in this hands and say, "Look, I made these." Marx saw this as damaging to the cognizance, sense of achievement, and self-esteem of everyone concerned. He felt that workers were exploited and confined to an endless reiteration of a single, mind-numbing task, and because of this, they lost any significant relation to the product they were helping to craft.."..Instead of being creative artisans, they became dehumanized drudges" (Strathern, 2001, pg. 50).

From Marx's point-of-view, if the majority of a society is comprised of working class people, how could capitalism not repress an entire culture? Capitalism and mass production destroyed the cohesion of fellow human beings and made self-interest more important than shared values and goals.

To further examine Marx's views on capitalism one must look at his economic philosophy and understand his views on private property ownership. "Private property has made us so stupid and partial that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for us as capital, or when it is directly eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited etc., in short utilized in some way....All the physical and intellectual senses have been replaced by...the sense of having" (cited in Strathern, 2001, p. 52). Furthermore, Marx felt that money had "deprived the whole world, both the human world and nature, of their own proper value. Money is the alienated essence of man's work and existence; this essence dominates him and he worships it..." (Strathern, 2001, p. 52). From Marx's point-of-view, owners or holders of capital were in a position to exploit workers because of their "systematically privileged position within the market" (Pierson, 1995, p. 94). The system was structured in favor of the owners of private property. If private ownership were abolished, the opportunity to exploit workers would disappear. A cornerstone of Marxism, then, was the prevention of large scale capital holdings.

Labor as a Commodity

Marx also thought that labor had become a commodity in and of itself, and that this concept further dehumanized the worker. Capitalists had no feeling for laborers as human beings but saw them merely as something to be bought -- a necessary expense of doing business and making money. This meant that the worker had become an article or object of trade; therefore, he had to sell himself to a market that was ruled by the "minimum cost of maintenance" (Kolakowski, 2005, p. 114). Marx speculated that wages would predictably fall to the lowest point possible that could keep the worker alive and able to bear children. Such was the economic plight of his time, and such is still the economic plight of present day capitalistic America in which Trade Unions have lost much of their clout -- partly due to globalization with capitalists moving into developing countries where they can buy labor more cheaply (including child labor) -- and American workers with little job security are pretty much at the mercy of the corporations they work for.

History of Values and Attitudes

In order to understand this modern affliction, a brief review of the attitudes and values before the Industrial Revolution will help. Before the Industrial Revolution, early America was mostly agricultural comprised of working class people. People sustained themselves on farms, raising their own food, making their own clothes, candles, pottery, etc., with crude but effective handmade tools. Most people lived simply with fewer possessions and worked hard among people they had known all their lives.

The transition into an industrialized society was difficult, but the promise was more money and a better life with a higher standard of living. Pollard (1963) states, "The worker who left the background of his domestic workshop or peasant holding for the factory, entered a new culture as well as a new sense of direction. It was not only that 'the new economic order needed part humans: soulless, depersonalized, disembodied, who could become members or little wheels rather, of a complex mechanism'. It was also that men who were non-accumulative, non-acquisitive, accustomed to work for subsistence, not for maximization of income, had to be made obedient to the cash stimulus, and obedient in such a way as to react precisely to the stimuli provided..." (p.254). One could say it was rather like going from being a competent human being to a robot, from having a place of belonging in a small community among people that knew and cared about you, to alienation and loss of individual identity. Instead of being seen as an individual, workers were placed into categories as soon as they were hired.

Industrialists, compelled by rapid expansion, looked either for white migrants from the countryside or European immigrants. Industrial managers hired according to a "theory of race," one that improperly presumed that each race had particular abilities. African-Americans were virtually omitted from the selection. Steel managers read in the Iron Trade, "Negro character made for poor industrial workers. Blacks were 'lazy,' 'unreliable,' 'slow,'" they couldn't be trusted to handle machinery, they wouldn't show up for work on time, or, as the New Republic put it, 'the Negro gets a chance to work only when there is no one else...'" (Grossman, 2002, p. 9).

In large cities, employers began to ponder about the aptitudes of white women. Beliefs about gender were in many ways even more prevalent than prejudices about race, and women could be hired much more cheaply than men. So industrialists thought a lot about what work was suitable for which man; eventually, it became increasingly evident that black workers were the only available alternative in the heaviest industries. This type of work required the largest numbers of unskilled and semiskilled male labor. Thus, the factory gates opened, black men walked in and would work for cheap "like slaves," many of them after a long train ride north in an attempt to escape poverty and racism in the South (Grossman, 2002).

Many of these people landed in Pittsburgh during the Industrial Revolution. The introduction of the Industrial Revolution in the early 1800s to Pittsburgh was dramatic. The iron industry was beginning to take shape due to the low cost of iron and coke and the wealth of coal in Western Pennsylvania. In 1812, the first rolling mill for iron powered by the steam engine was established, many steam mills were built, and this made Pittsburgh the largest urban area west of the Allegheny Mountains by 1815. "In addition to its iron mills, the city soon boasted four glass factories, three breweries, two potteries, a grist mill, a steam engine factory, a nail mill, cotton and woolen factories, and four printing offices..." (Westmoreland, 1999, p. 1).

Pittsburgh's three rivers were crowded with steamboats transporting every type of iron manufactured by 1830. Needless to say, people came by the thousands in search of work. Pittsburgh became a major American center of the Industrial Revolution, with its wealth of raw materials, river channels for transportation, and an abundance of cheap labor.

The city grew exponentially but was not a pretty sight. American values were so focused on wealth and capitalism that they had no regard for environmental waste and poor living conditions. The streets were filthy and inadequately lit. Buildings (and people, including their lungs) were covered in black soot from the smokestacks. The arrival of large numbers of immigrants and people relocating from rural areas in the South and from the east led to overcrowding. "Pittsburgh's population tripled between 1810 and 1830. By 1860, there were more than 50,000 people residing in the city, and another 100,000 living in the suburbs of Allegheny County..." (Westmoreland, 1999, p. 2) the poverty stricken, unsanitary living conditions caused rampant spread of cholera. Fires were lit in the streets in an effort to kill the organisms causing the disease. These fires along with the smoke and waste from the industry resulted in a filthy, soot-covered atmosphere for the people living there. Well into the first half of the twentieth century, Pittsburgh was labeled the "smoky city."

This state of affairs did not end the steady arrival of immigrants, however, and it did not hinder the continual growth of the steel industry. "The black community of Pittsburgh, while not large, was one of the wealthiest in the nation during the 1920's thanks to jobs in the steel industry. However underpaid they were by white standards, and despite hiring practices that kept African-Americans in the most menial and dangerous work, steel industry employment (like the auto industry in Detroit) paid higher wages than were common in other cities..." (Gregory, 2005, p. 128).

During the Great Migration period, cultures and subcultures were most affected by rapid population growth. "Negroes of culture, education, and some financial means, 'resented the generally uneducated and untrained' newcomers and blamed them for upsetting what the old settlers remembered as equitable relations with the whites..." p. 129)

In other words, the middle class harbored some resentments towards (what would have been considered) the lower class "invaders." All new immigrants were automatically categorized as lower class, but as long as they were white, they were never quite as low down as blacks.

Only a couple of northern black communities (most notably Pittsburgh) were structured in ways where a selected few could rise economically. Native (white) settlers were sometimes so statistically overwhelmed and outnumbered, that whatever their personal anxieties or resentments, there was little or nothing they could do about them. In circumstances where the need for labor was greatest, community leaders were dedicated to the migration of blacks into their communities in theory and practice. This happened in Philadelphia and in Pittsburgh where the largest African-American communities before World War I developed (Gregory, 2005).

With all of capitalism's defacement, corruption, and greed, one decent shift in social consciousness arose from it: The Industrial Revolution brought about changes in philanthropy. The needs were greater, and rich private citizens now had a greater means for attending to the disadvantaged. Poverty did not end, of course. "Private fortunes were few and wealth neither widely enough distributed nor sufficiently fluid to permit large-scale or sustained private giving" (Ellens, 2007, p. 2). The Industrial Revolution did create wealth for more people, though, and offered better distribution of help through improved communication and transportation. The establishment of substantial charitable trusts was a trendy response amongst the well-to-do to societal needs in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Many of those trusts still endure today. "Modern philanthropy took shape in the years between about 1885 and 1915 as multimillionaires sought practical, socially useful ways of disposing of surplus wealth..." (Ellens, 2007, p. 2).

Strengths and Weaknesses in Marxism

One modern theoretical cure for both the ills of capitalism and the weakness of traditional communism is the concept of market socialism. According to Pierson (1995), Marx viewed the market and socialism as incompatible. Marx advocated that the State regulate national production with common, systematic planning. The assumption was that when capitalism was abolished, the market would be abolished as well. This was a basic error in thinking, because to abolish the market you would have to abolish the social structures that underlie the market (such as social division of labor), which cannot be done in a complex society (Pierson, 1995).

In market socialism, manufacturing would be market driven but with some basic structural differences from capitalism. For example, a significant number of market socialists are in favor of work self-management in which enterprises would be collectively owned and democratically governed by the people who work in them. One of the goals of market socialism is to free workers from competing with each other for wages (Lawler, 1995). In this system market production and the sale of goods and services is not ended, but the market of human labor would be gradually abolished. According to Weisskopt (1993) market socialism could meet socialist's goals for more equitable distribution of wealth and at the same time improve economic efficiency in the use of resources by taking advantage of a market-based economy.

Lawler (1998) argues that Marx and Engle approved of and foresaw market socialism. Lawler recommends a new perspective when reading Marx -- not through the "prism" of 20th century socialist economies but through fresh eyes. Lawler reinterprets Marx and finds evidence that socialism was meant to be a gradual process with state interventions necessary only in the beginning. Once power was in the hands of the workers, decisions would not be based on politics but on economic criteria. The transformation would not be sweeping, not a revolution, but instead a step-by-step response to economic logic. In Lawler's interpretation, Marx believed market-driven socialism would combine elements of capitalism and socialism with "dynamic prominence given to the socialist dimension" (p.25).

Most market socialists see a mixed economy in the future, one that includes a small capitalist sector. This is not merely a concession but a matter of civil liberties. They don't want the state to be involved anymore in preventing small-scale capitalist ventures (Pierson, 1995). They see a truly positive role for capitalist entrepreneurs under market socialism, one that fosters innovation. When private companies reach a certain size (say, ten employees), however, they then become subject to social ownership and are required to adopt democratic self-management (Weisskopf, 1993).

Failures of Marxism

According to Kamenka (1962), Marxism failed because of Marx's predictions. It seems that the failure originated in Marx's miscalculation of the importance of private property ownership. Marx failed to see how capitalism could help the working class people by dismissing what they could gain from it. He viewed the laborer's separation from property as "...a divorce from all enterprise, control, and political power" (Kamenka, 1962, p. 6). Kamenka argues that Marx failed to see the development of centralized power of the State because he could not genuinely envision a political, property-less institution, obtaining or keeping any meaningful power in a society he viewed as property dominated. According to Kamenka, Marx also totally underestimated the social significance of "nationalism" because he viewed the conflict between those who owned property and those who didn't as the only important conflict. Strathern suggests that what was needed to help the working class was government mediation rather than the uncompromising alternative that Marx recommended in which the State owned practically everything.