Friday, November 7, 2014
2nd description of Captialism
As we were discussing Marx on class in Wednesday, we learned about some of his basic descriptions of capitalism. The first was that capitalism reduces the class struggle to only two classes (basically the haves vs. the have not's), and often the wealthier class pits the poorer class against each other so they don't rise up and revolt. The second says that capitalism operates according to the principle that the distribution of products is inversely proportionate to the contribution of products (basically saying that the poor contribute much and receive little while the "rich" contribute little much yet receive much). The third said that capitalism is an economic system that depends on the exploitation of labor. The idea that I want to focus on is the second claim - that the distribution of products is inversely proportionate to the contribution of products. Having worked in the retail industry for a few years, I would say that I have some experience in this. As a worker, I contributed a lot of my time, energy, patience, etc. to deal with keeping up the store's appearance, helping customers, conducting transfers and doing inventory. However, it didn't matter how hard I worked it seemed that it was never enough to be able to afford the really cute outfit that I put together on the mannequin (even with the employee discount), and also be able to get gas and pay the bills for that week. I'm sure though that Mr. Creek or Mr. A&F could walk into the store and buy it out without any issue yet they contributed nothing. I'm not saying that building a successful business is nothing, but when a person is not involved in the day to day aspects of running said business it is easy to say that they have contributed nothing to the success of the their business, they just sit around and collect the paycheck that is the result of proletariat workers - like myself - hard work. It does not seem fair that those that work the most receive the lease while those that work the least receive the most. I suppose the only way for a proletariat is to be happy is to become that which he despises - a bourgeoisie. Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have a very similar experience to yours except I was working in the food industry. The bourgeoisie of that company was the most inconsiderate and hatefully person I had ever met in my life, who could care less how much his workers did just to survive. I think that it's a very small possibility for a proletariat to become a bourgeoisie because of the lack of opportunities. Instead, I think that capitalism should just be done away with because the rich just keep getting richer while the poor are growing more numerous, getting poorer, and even dying because of the work they have to do just to survive. Where I worked, an older friend of mine worked two jobs. He worked as a plumber in the morning and a delivery driver at the pizza place I worked for in the evenings. After I quit, I found out that while he was delivering he had a heart attack and died. His family was not wealthy, and now they're most likely suffering financially because of his death because thats two less, measly, pay checks to feed the family.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism just isn't working, and the possibility of a proletariat becoming a bourgeoisie is just nearly impossible, to be completely honest. I feel that something else should be done to solve this issue.