Marxism and theories of power
Marx is generally regarded as (amongst other things) a founder of one of the main schools of sociological analysis. This school has a particular take on power; one significant enough to devote some considerable attention to. You'll be reading a couple of texts that give you a more general take on Marx and Marxism, rather than a specific set of readings on power.Marx's understanding of power is best viewed as a subset of his understanding of history. Marx has a particular take on what *matters* in human affairs, and what is a product of the real movement and moment of history. As Poulantzas demonstrates, Marx locates power in class, and he locates class in the relations of production. A few questions to ponder as you think about Marx on power:
Where, according to Marx, does power come from?
How does power shape people's lives?
How can power be confronted and challenged?
Why would Marx be unlikely to describe a particular person as "powerful" in any meaningful sense?
Poulantzas uses the phrase 'objective interests' in his conception of power. What is the signifigance of labelling these interests 'objective'?
Here's my favorite passage from The Communist Manifesto. It's about, amongst other things, the changes brought about by the advent of capitalism in Europe:
All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his, real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
What does this mean? How does the development of a new economic system do all this?
-----
Marx has more than one intellectual legacy. His most (in)famous legacy is as an advocate for communism as a political system. He has also made his mark on the 20th century in other ways; his social scientific methods have been adopted and used by many who don't share all of his politics, or even much of them. We'll try to talk about how this makes sense in class Thursday.
posted by djw @ 4:58 PM
9 Comments:
I would argue that Marx believes power is derived from labor and capital that comes about as a result of the exploitation of the labor force. For Marx, power in the capitalist system resides in the bourgeois class because they are generally the exploiters, but I think he would also support the argument that the working class has the potential for ultimate power since they hold the key to revolution into the disappearance of private property; which for Marx is the ideal system. This is also why Marx would be unlikely to describe any particular individual as powerful. Power in the working class results from the proletariat working together and each working on their own behalf will have the abliity to create little "true" power. In order to gain power, they must work together to revolutionize society and can not complete this task without unified action. And, I think this is also what Marx is getting at in the quote provided. He is referring to the revolution within society that brought capitalism into power in the european political and economic systems. This quote refers to, in the broader sense, the constant revolutions that continue to occur in society and happen throughout history such that no particular system can become firmly established before it is wiped out by a new revolution.
Marx argues that power comes from ownership of the means of production, otherwise referred to as "capital." If you own a source of capital, you are a member of the bourgeoisie class. If you don't own any capital, you are a member of the proletariat. Power shapes people's lives by reducing all relationships to money relationships. Thus, you have power if you are part of the bourgeoisie and are exploited if you are part of the proletariat. Power can only be confronted and challenged through massive revolution by the proletariats, which Marx says is inevitable. Marx asserts that at some point, the standard of living for the proletariat will be so poor that they will essentially have nothing left to lose. However, one of the major critiques of Marx's theory is the notion of why there has no overwhelming revolution thus far. Capitalism is still the dominant economic system worldwide. His theory of history is imperialistic and inflexible, yet what he has predicted has not yet come to pass. I'm not sure how he would explain this. Maybe he would offer the suggestion that the conditions for the proletariat have not become bad enough to where they have nothing left to lose.
Marx would confirm that power is directly related to ownership of capital, putting an individual who owns capital in the bourgeois class. Without the ownership of capital would place an individual in the proletariat class which is generaly exploited by the bourgeois class in the form of labor. However I would also say that the equality trick of capitalism is a means of power for the borgeois class. The only form of power for the proletariat class that Marx gives us is in their ability to revolt, and will take us to the next epocks. Individual power takes no form here because in order to have any power at all the proletariat class must work together as one to overturn the system. In his quote I think that Marx is refering to the revolution that brought about capitalism in europe, however I also think it applies to all revolutions bringing new ideas and meanings to things, especially the last revolution where Marx view of communism in theory take place.
"All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his, real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."
These effects are a result of the commodification of products and people. In creating a capitalist system, the focus becomes on creating new things, and finding ways to further utilize people, not the actual factors of production. The ends are important, not the means. This focus on the new creates new interactions between classes, "ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away." It also prevents the new formed ones from becoming fixed, because fixed ideas and interactions are against the concept of the fetishism of commodities.
The last part of the passage reflects on what happens after the workers are exploited to their ends. They rebel, and form a communist society. The demand for participation becomes too strong, and the workers unite in the face of the realization of their exploitation by the capitalist system. Under Marx, communism is the final evolution of capitalism. The most advanced and rich societies, should turn to communism under his theory. This did not end up being the case. The most backwards and poor societies moved to communism. I believe this is probably Marx's biggest miscalculation.
For Marx, power stems from capital. The more capital a class has, the more power they possess. This creates a system where power is further reinforced through class structures because the "higher" bourgeois class is able exploit the labor of the "lower" proletariat class, which creates a dominant power.
Power shapes people's lives because depending on what class one is in, a person will either spend his life profiting off of another's labor, or a person will spend his life having another person exploit his own labor.
For Marx, power can be confronted and challenged when the perceived and objective interests of the proletariat class line up, which will lead to a revolution.
Marx would be unlikely to describe a particular person as powerful because he does not think power lies in an individual. He thinks individuals are meaningless, and classes are instead what is important. Class are what create power, and this happens because they act as collective agents.
According to Marx, power comes from capital and labor. Capital is the machinery of production. There is a bourgeoisie class which carries the most power and a prolatarian class which does most of the labor. He sees economic and political power as having the same source and being a part of the same story.
Power shapes people's lives depending on the division of labor. If they are being exploitated or if they are the one exploiting.
Power can be confronted and challenged once the prolatarian class gets together to form a revolution.
Poulantzas's use of "objective interests" signifies that there are two different types of interest and that we may not always act in the best interests of ourselves.
For Marx power came from the control of production that the bourgeoisie had over those that provided labor. Marx would not say that a person in particular is powerful but that their class is powerful. Power relations are stripped down to a Dahlian theory of power where A has power over B. The bourgeoisie have exploited the proletariat but that the natural order of history dictates that within such a capitalist society the proletariat will resist the bourgeoisie and create an egalitarian society. Power will be re-distributed throughout society, private property will be unnecessary and everyone will work for the common good.
Marx view power as coming from those who own capital. Hence, the Bourgeoisie are the class of modern Capitalists who are the employer of the proletarians, and the owner of the means of production.
Mode of production is the economic structure of society that defines people's mode of living. It consists of the means of production as well as the relations of production. Means of production include not only the physical instruments of production, such as capitals, but also the methods of working (sills, division of labors, etc) and knowledge that can be applied to production (etc). Therefore, this is how power shape people's live.
Power can be confronted and challenged when the proletarian are clear minded to act out its own interest and have a revolution.
HI ALL OF YOU POLITICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL MINDS OUT THERE. IN MARXS' DESCRIPTION OF THE "ESTRANGED lABOUR", IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT MARX IS FULL OF SHIT AND AND HE IS A REALLY SHITTY ASS FUCK! NOW ALL OF YOU CAN GO AND FUCK YOURSELVES OR YOUR GIRL FRIENDS. TO ALL THE HOMOS OUT THEIR, MARX DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THAT SHIT, SO GET OFF OF THIS SITE
Post a Comment
<< Home