Marx and Modernity SII Lecture 7

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

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

The Feudal Manor

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)

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

Image of the Capitalist Social Structure

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

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

Hence increasing differentials in social stratification

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.’

Why don’t Workers of the World Unite?

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)

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