Simmel and Marx both talk about the quantification of human values in terms of money but their approach is slightly different. First considers money as a potent tool to objectify the value of labor whereas later understands the implication of quantifying human values calls it the need of the hour of a modern commerciWhile studying Dukheim, Weber, Marx and Simmel one finds overlapping and coinciding views at some points and diverging at others. Even though they worked in slightly different arenas but a basic unifying theme can be felt while studying their works and this theme looks like a rope of tug of war that at time is forcibly yanked towards individualism and in a few moments pressure increases from the society influencing individualist spheres. Following is a discussion of some of the overlapping and diverging spheres of work. Marx’s estrangement of worker and Durkheim’s anomic division of labor refer to somewhat similar ideas. In a society where capitalism dominates the way it functions, where private ownership of modes of production determines the profit one can earn, and accumulation of wealth in a few hands leads to separation of worker from his work. It can be categorized as the estrangement of worker from the product, his work, his identity as a human being and estrangement from the bourgeois (other members of the society). Worker finds product of his own work as an alien and hostile object, most of the time the price of the product is so high that he cannot even buy it for his own use. His work only means a means of survival for him that means less creativity and personal involvement in the work. Worker finds other members of the society who own means of the production as alien and hostile. He sees them enjoying the ... ... middle of paper ... ...eaning which individuals attribute to their actions” (Mazman 69, Weber, 1968: 29). Durkheim talks about the unfettered wants of the people, and society’s role in controlling these wants. In other words Durkheim is focusing on the society to shape the role of individual; and whatever part an individual plays is not limited to his/her own psychological or biological needs, it also bears the societal effect. Simmel and Marx both talk about the quantification of human values in terms of money but their approach is slightly different. First considers money as a potent tool to objectify the value of labor whereas later understands the implication of quantifying human values calls it the need of the hour of a modern commercial setting. Even though their co-incidence on this point is not explicit but one can infer an implicit similar pattern in their theories al setting.
The final form of estrangement is alienation of man to man. Since the worker’s product is owned by someone else, the worker regards this person, the capitalist, as alien and hostile. The worker feels alienated from and antagonistic toward the entire system of private property through which the capitalist appropriates both the objects of production for his own enrichment at the expense of the worker and the worker’s sense of identity and wholeness as a human being.
Durkheim Emile Durkheim (1858 - 1917), believed individuals are determined by the society they live in because they share a moral reality that we have been socialised to internalise through social facts. Social facts according to Drukhiem are the “manners of acting, thinking and feeling external to the individual which are invested with a coercive power by virtue of which they exercise control over him [or her].” Social facts are external to the individual, they bind societies together because they have an emotional and moral hold on people, and are why we feel shame or guilt when we break societal convention. Durkheim was concerned with maintaining the cohesion of social structures. He was a functionalist, he believed each aspect of society contributes to society's stability and functioning as a whole.
Emile Durkheim main concern was social order, and how individual integrated to maintain it. The Division of Labor was one of Durkheim’s first major works. Society is a system of inter-related and inter-connected of not only individuals but also subgroups interacting with one another. Durkheim is interested on how this division of labor changes the way that individuals feel when they are part of society as a whole. As society advances it becomes more complex, and as it becomes more complex, it gets harder to maintain with the rise of conflict. According to Durkheim, this is why society has its division of labor, and in order to survive, society is broken down to certain specializations where people are more dependent on each other. Durkheim believed that the division of labor begins when the social, economic and political boundaries dividing segments begin to break down and smaller segments come together. Within these segments, Durkheim describes another degree of integration which is broken down into two aspects; Mechanical Solidarity and Organic Solidarity. Within in these social solidarities, he identifies a system of social relations linking individuals to each other and to the society as a whole.
In Karl Marx’s Capital he analyses the intricacies of capitalism and its effects on the social relations between people and products. Marx’s chapters “Commodity of Fetishism” and “Working Days” in particular parse through and deconstruct the complex model of a commodity and its crucial role in capitalism. In order to do this, Marx introduces the notion of a use-value as the base foundation of a commodity. Marx then further relates this idea to exchange-value of a commodity. The exchange-value is incredibly important, as it is the driving force behind capitalism. In the first chapter Marx examines how commodities, once in the marketplace seemingly adopt innate value wherein the consumer does not equate the objects value with the human labour expended, but rather that the item
Marx had rather extreme views on the extent to which nature in his time had become humanized as a result of human labor. He commented, “Even the objects of the simplest, “sensuous certainty” are only given to him through social development, industry and commercial intercourse. ”[2] "Throughout their labor, humans shape their own material environment, thereby transforming the very nature of human existence in the process. ”[3] One always seemed to know their role in society.
Durkheim was concerned with studying and observing the ways in which society functioned. His work began with the idea of the collective conscious, which are the general emotions and opinions that are shared by a society and which shape likeminded ideas as to how the society will operate (Desfor Edles and Appelrouth 2010:100-01). Durkheim thus suggested that the collective ideas shared by a community are what keeps injustices from continuing or what allows them to remain.
Marx’s idea of the estrangement of man from the product of his labor described the suffering of countless hours or work by the laborer, contributing to the production of a product that he could not afford with the wages he made. He helped to produce a product that only those wealthier than he could afford. As the society around him became more object-oriented, he became increasingly more alienated. In the lager, one factor that distanced the laborer from his product was that he no longer worked for a wage, but for survival. In a description of his fellow worker, Levi wrote, “He seems to think that his present situation is like outside, where it is honest and logical to work, as well as being of advantage, because according to what everyone says, the more one works the more one earns and eats.” Levi pitied his fellow worker for his naivety, as the Lager was not a place of labor for prosperity, but strictly a place of labor by force. One worked in order to live, focusing more on the uncertainty of their next meal, day, or even breath than the product of their l...
Marx’s theory of alienation describes the separation of things that naturally belong together. For Marx, alienation is experienced in four forms. These include alienation from ones self, alienation from the work process, alienation from the product and alienation from other people. Workers are alienated from themselves because they are forced to sell their labor for a wage. Workers are alienated from the process because they don’t own the means of production. Workers are alienated from the product because the product of labor belongs to the capitalists. Workers do not own what they produce. Workers are alienated from other people because in a capitalist economy workers see each other as competition for jobs. Thus for Marx, labor is simply a means to an end.
Marx explains the condition. of estranged labour as the result of man participating in an institution alien to his nature. It is my interpretation that man is alienated from his labour because he is not the reaper. of what he sows. Because he is never the recipient of his efforts, the labourer lacks identity with what he creates.
In conclusion, Marx states that the worker is alienated from his own life as well as individuality. This level of estrangement from one’s own life can be equated to slavery as he cannot think, make decision or plan for his future life but rather the capitalist is his owner. Labor camps tend to characterize workers as objects which should be act or behave as normal human beings but are required to follow a set routine of activities in the production of products.
Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a more perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, but in which all individuals shared in the benefits of collective labor (Marx #11, p. 262). In order to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship between the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical mode of production, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individual’s relationship to the mode of production (Marx #11, p. 256).
This video can also be used to teach and distinguish among Marx's notions of use-value and exchange-value, as well as his concept of surplus-value, which is the surplus or profit earned by the capitalist, above and beyond the use-value (labour power) required to produce the
Marx’s critique of capitalism was written more than a hundred and fifty years ago; however, its value and insight are still extremely relevant to the twenty-first century. In order for us to maintain mixed-market capitalism, ensuring ethics in businesses and stability in growth, all of us need to read and understand Marx’s critique.
Marx explained how employers can exploit and alienate their workers; this is described in more detail and is known as ‘the labour’. theory of value’. Marx also goes on to explain how in a business. falling rate of profit can lead to an inevitable crisis, revolutions. can emerge and then finally lead to the socialist state.
Given these points, each theorist makes a valid point about division of labor while presenting similarities and difference in their views. Marx believes division of labor would lead to conflict. The conflict between the two classes would result in a revolution and out of the revolution would be a new society. In the same way, Simmel saw conflict as something good for society because individual would be able to make bonds and create new relationship through those bond by their role/task in society. Lastly, Durkheim interprets Division of Labor as individual and society coexisting with each to help understand society roles.