This week in class, we discussed Karl Marx and his criticisms of capitalism. While I acknowledge that every system has its faults, I disagree with Marx, in that I believe that capitalism is the best option for running a society (as opposed to communism).

First, to address Marx’s proposition that distribution is inversely proportional to contribution: yes, there is a glaring uneven distribution of wealth in this country—but it will always be an economic reality that the skills of some outweigh the skills of others in terms of value. For instance, take a heart surgeon versus a fast food worker. There are a very few number of individuals that can perform what a heart surgeon can (as it takes countless years of education and hard work to get to that position), as opposed to a fast food worker (where most people can probably do the job). Therefore, the heart specialist will earn more, as their skills are in higher demand. Yes, the fast food worker may work equally as hard, but because more people can do this job, they will be paid less.  It is a harsh reality, but for progress to be made in a society, things must work this way. If not, there would be no incentive for productivity.

Secondly, the argument that the rich get richer and poor get poorer is true to some extent, but it is far worse in countries that adopt a more socialist economic policy. Take a look at Cuba, Russia, or North Korea for examples of this failed system. 

Marx Demonstrated Three Things...

This week in class, we have talked about what Karl Marx has thought about people and things in labor. He demonstrated three things in labor(which he explained as what separates us humans from the animals). The first one he demonstrated was the existence of classes is bound up with particular historical epochs. The second one he demonstrated was the class struggle necessary leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The last one he demonstrated was the dictatorship of the proletariat is only a transitional state to a class-less society. What I believe he meant by these is that the different things we do is something that the animals don't do. They let us know that we're workers and different from the rich because we do labor which is also known as a free, conscious activity. He used factors of production and relations of production to differentiate is from the animals in labor. He said that factors of production is raw materials, tools, skills, and human labor that it takes to produce things that are needed to survive. I believe that animals relate to us in this way except human labor. They use skills and tools to survive by fighting off other animals, knowing where to stay in the safe zone, and using techniques to find food. He said that relations of production is the specific way we relate to one another that are use to mold the production of our age. What I believe he meant by this is that we can only do something that we know by the level of learning. That is what I learned this week.

Start a revolution

Capitalism is still for some reason seen as a plausible way of governing a country. This fact just astounds me, yes it makes sense that people may work more efficient, but humans are living beings that have needs and deserve to be respected and the fact that people have to work to live and live to work doesn't seem like a form of respect towards us as humans. At some point, like discussed in class today, a group of proletariats will decide to rise up and go against the bourgeoisie. Once the proletariat figure out that they are the majority, and that they outnumber the bourgeoisie a revolution can begin to form. After being in capitalism for a long time, people begin to turn back into animals. This is shown in Marxs third point of the alienation of workers when the worker is alienated from his/her species being. A worker starts to feel less like a human when they work because they are being forced to work and it becomes involuntary and becomes a part of life that has to be done and is no longer enjoyed. Then the activities that make a proletariat feel more like a human are those of an animal, and have a lower pleasure but are done just because they have nothing else to do that is pleasurable. A rise up of the proletariat would be easy and well deserved due to the fact they have been abused and worked hard, and gotten little in return for what they have done, and deserve. They work harder than the bourgeoisie, while the bourgeoisie reap all of the rewards that the workers make. I see this whole thing as an unfair treatment towards the hard working lower class of people in these countries, and a revolution would be a great way to fix these problems.

Why Is the United States Considered Capitalist?

Many people in our country say that we uphold capitalist values and that we as whole are a capitalist nation. However, the United States isn’t a capitalist nation – not fully anyway. Here are some reasons why the United States could be considered capitalist, as stated by Karl Marx.

1.  The United States does operate under a fundamental contradiction. Like stated in the reasons why the class struggle becomes violent under capitalism, the United States has a system where the proletariat contributes the most but gets the least. The United States relies on the proletariat of our country. The proletariat is large; it includes the large middle and lower classes. One could even consider some of the high class as being a proletariat – the workers of our country.

2. Again under the reasons why the class struggle becomes particularly violent under capitalism, the United States has started to become a society where the poor are getting poorer and the richer are getting richer. This one is pretty self-explanatory.

These two reasons give many people a belief that we run under a capitalist economy. However, we have a mixed economy. Capitalism means that industry and trade are controlled by private owners with no regulation by the government. However, our federal and state governments control trade and have regulations about what owners can and cannot do – like monopolize companies.

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?

The Eternal Hourglass

In Nietzsche's section there is a paragraph titled The heaviest weight. This paragraph goes to explain the story of a demon telling a person that the life he/she lives will be repeated countless times. The demon explains how every moment will be relived exactly as it occurred. Nietzsche then pokes fun at how people would react to such a scenario: some will curse the demon for such bad news, and others will take the word of the demon as one would take the words of God.

            My question now is “How would you let the words of this demon affect you?” “How would you manipulate the situation to best suit you?” “Would you continue to live as you are now or change things drastically?”

I for one would continue to live my life as I have thus far. I say this simply because I see a situation like this as something I cannot let deter the path of life I have already chosen. I cannot live life in fear of something occurring again that I did not like the first time around. One thing that I can do is choose my decisions wisely. I would think about my actions beforehand, however, I will not make every single moment of my life dreary by adding the melancholy feeling of “What If”. Another thing is that I believe that we only have one life to live. Anything afterwards is unknown, so how can we possibly be worried about something we know nothing about.

It is obvious from his other short paragraphs that Nietzsche does not have a belief in a higher power. However, for those of us that do; we have been taught that living a good life now will ensure a good afterlife. So, maybe the eternal hourglass won’t be so bad for those of us that have lived a good life that wouldn’t be so bad to experience again.

 

God

A couple of days ago Dr. Johnson said that God was dead. I personally would say that God is not dead but he is definitely dying. In the world people have begun to adapt this idea that one should do whatever one feels. The world has become a very selfish place. People claim that "I'm just looking out for number one" but the problem with the world is that everyone is JUST looking out for number one. There are different beliefs and forms of monotheism but I would say that most hold that stealing, murdering, and  basically anything that harms others is wrong. The idea of do what make you happy has been growing and is being interpreted the wrong way.
God might be dying however there are many out there that still hold onto faith and have not let God go and as long as there are people out there to spread the word and teach the next generation, God will never die.