Friday, October 19, 2012
"Haves" and "Have Nots" and the Common Good
In regard to the class division discussed by Marx in his "Estranged Labor" argument, I identify his point of the distinction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat centrally as an identification of "haves" and "have nots". But what about those in the middle? The current presidential election has been lending a lot of attention to the middle class. Marx does not acknowledge the existence of a middle class, and I believe that his idea of two classes can be more realistically observed in the society of today than in years prior in the United States. It is true that the rich are becoming richer and fewer, and that the poor are becoming poorer and more numerous in our country today. Yet, even as the socioeconomic gap widens, a middle class does remain in tact in today's U.S. So, how can Marx's description of capitalism be reconciled with the contemporary example of the U.S.? Marx's four types of alienation are reasonable, in that they ultimately lead to increased competition between individuals. As we know, competition is a staple of our capitalist society. It could be said that as Marx's alienation occurs within a capitalist system, it is the resultant attitude of competition that drives the widening of the class gap between "haves" and "have nots". Those who work hard and compete relentlessly, we can observe within the U.S., are the ones who typically attain the most wealth and the highest social station. Those who do not necessarily earn their "subsistence means" are generally lacking. In the U.S. there are unique socialist programs such as Welfare and Social Security that help people who cannot necessarily compete in the same ways as others, due to physical handicaps, etc. Due to these social programs, our social system can in no way be described as complementary to Communism. Yet, capitalism's intention (even within Communism), generally speaking, is to promote the welfare of the common good (defined as balanced social and economic systems), via a collective will to strive toward progress and a spirit of individual competition. My question is this: If it is capitalism's goal to strive toward the common good of the nation, what should this common good look like? Is Marx's idea of a two-class division promotional of a "balanced" system? Or, does a middle class drive the balance of the common good?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, I agree that the middle class does offer a more balanced system than what Marx imagines. With this middle class, I think there's a much lower chance of there being any type of revolution. If you look at diagrams that display class percentages in America, the lower middle class makes up the bulk of American social class, and the lower class is equal to that of the middle-middle class, and from the middle-middle class and up the number of people get smaller. So, with this in mind, I do think there is an unequal balance of wealth, but that with a little bit of economic reform, we can make the upper class and lower class be equally as large, with the middle-middle class being the largest. I say this because I think that there is no way to have complete economic equality, and that there will always be wealthier and poorer people. However, as long as we make the social class more balanced, with fewer rich and fewer poor, that would be ideal.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1101&bih=637&tbm=isch&tbnid=4JLqnTntdmNEgM:&imgrefurl=http://www.pic2fly.com/Social-Class-in-America.html&docid=v2lxLa-Meh8a1M&imgurl=http://soc201.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/social-class.jpg%253Fw%253D640&w=312&h=313&ei=ZCOEUKy3AvG02AW7zoHgDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=506&vpy=151&dur=514&hovh=146&hovw=133&tx=114&ty=84&sig=115005911665050034139&page=4&tbnh=145&tbnw=131&start=55&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:43,s:20,i:294
I agree with what you said about the middle class, and that makes me question whether we're better off with the make up we have today or the very rich and very poor the way Marx describes. I have to think that we're better off with the way our society is now. Even though we still have the very rich and the very poor, the large middle class we have today gives a voice to a group of people that would have never been there in Marx's conception of society.
ReplyDeleteI believe Marx would argue that the middle class is really just another way of saying the proletariat, because although they are more wealthy then the lower class, they are far from as rich as upper class. In most cases, I think what we consider upper class would not be considered bourgeoisie because they do not have control over the actual means of production. That being said, I agree with you that the middle class does exist and would go further to say that Marx's assertion that we are only truly human when we are laboring is to cheapen human existence. I am not merely my labor. I am everything I do. He stops a couple levels of abstraction early because there is a truly human characteristic that allows us to freely labor and this characteristic would truly be the "most human".
ReplyDeleteI agree with James; Marx would indeed say that the US's middle class falls into the category of the proletariat, fueling his argument about the eventual revolutionary action of the lower class as it becomes larger and larger. Also the idea of the 'common good' really bothers me; how is it possible to define a 'common good' without a larger, more powerful figure dictating to the rest of the populace exactly what that good is? Even if the common good was based off of a basic human moral code, the way the code applies in the real world certainly varies from person to person.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the middle class would be considered the proetariat, and having a middle class would cause a larger chance of revolution. Although they hold a place in society and "have things" they are not as isolated as the upper class and from Marx's definition, want to cause change in society. I do, however, think a 'common good' can be defined by not just one powerful figure, but decided by the population as a whole.
ReplyDelete