Having studied economics earlier in my education, the theories of Marx are still relatively present in my mind and knowledge base. It was however really interesting to look at them from the perspective of a sociologist, in relation to conflict theory.
Dividing the population in 'haves', bourgeoisie, and 'have not’s’, proletariat, is at the basis of the Marxist idea of exploitation of the masses while considering them nothing more than a tradable commodity, to use when beneficial and to shed when other means become available that lead to a more profitable outcome. Even though, modern capitalism has developed mechanisms unknown at the age of the Industrial Revolution - like safety rules, retirements, social security, minimum wage etc.- the essential problematic nature of the situation is still the same: few possess what enables them to get more and the getting more leads to an accumulation of power, not only financial, but also political, legislative, through prestige and opinion-forming forces. All these are kinds of power originating from monetary means that put these who possess them in a position to change and shape society to their advantages and further benefits.
One might argue that the formation of unions and the sheer number of those who are on the side of the 'have not’s’ grants them a certain power to defend their interests. However, time after time, it has been shown that even though the threshold of acceptance seemed to be clearly reached (one recent example was the nationwide 'Occupy Wall-street Movement'), the actual power to change things in a fundamental way has turned out to be very limited. It might have corrected some of the symptoms but never addressed the origin of the discontentment and social injustice: as the class that holds the economical power in the US is shrinking in numbers, but increasing in wealth; while the poor masses are increasingly struggling for survival (as we could among other sources attest to in Ehrenreich's experience report.). As Ehrenreich explains, the alienation from the nature of the task, -by making it an endless repetitive routine, done under the pressure of time, against poor pay and supervised by undertrained management, in relationships lacking human respect and consideration-, dehumanizes the people, who ultimately have no other choice but to work in this field, because of their lack of education and other perspectives; a class of people, who have entered the professional stage of their lives in a social make-up that excludes them almost entirely from all opportunities within economic life.
Ethical considerations and restraints on part of the ‘haves’ are obviously not enough considering that the living conditions of many of those who belong to the lower class have become worse. Statistically, Ehrenreich's experience was representative for a considerable number of the workforce who often without a résumé or credentials, left alone other assets than their immediate ability to work, take over low paid jobs as housekeepers or waiters, having to accept wages that are not enabling them to exist on (even though the minimum wage level might be upheld). In the best case scenario, they can make it from month to month, in a more realistic scenario any unforeseen expense - like medical expenses- will cause their lives to collapse, with their housing or shelter going first. These people are trapped in a cycle of hard labor, living on the edge of poverty.
I believe that in the US there is an additional factor in the work relationships that is entirely missing for the kind of jobs Ehrenreich is talking about. While in other capitalistic parts of the world a long time worker is more likely to be considered an asset, -because of their long-dated affiliation with a business that allowed them to develop certain assets like experience and greater perfection, maybe even leadership qualities, while the hierarchical structure of most enterprises is granting the possibility to augment in pay and position over time-, this kind of relationship seems to be rather rare in the US economy where people are considered more easily exchangeable. The reason for this might be found in different more socially inspired laws, but also in a different work ethic and culture.
This leads to the assumption, that the working class is better off the more socialism is injected into a society, however, in an economy with a powerful class of ‘haves’ it often fails to be implemented because it intrinsically controverts the economic interest of the class that disposes of the most monetary and sociopolitical power.
These on the other hand do not realize the wrong in being for generations the class of owners and leaders of the nation. They might in the individual case not even be aware of the power they exert over the rest of their society. They almost automatically employ their monetary means or other assets like popularity or positions to obtain a more powerful stance that serves their interests even more. (as we learned from Mills article). Their upbringing within a certain class, its values and its life style as well as the network of similar families and groups around them, enables the individual from the start to take a certain role inside society using their power in return to establish the institutions that keep and support their positions and the power of their likes. In this context, the example of companies like Blackwater (Xe Services, Academi) employed for the military by members of the military to increase economic gains of some of its privileged members during the Iraq war was extremely unsettling (though being a great case study). I remember that although it caused a great stir in the media at the time, this practice became standard procedure on the ground afterwards. Those who benefitted were most certainly not the half way trained, worried for their life mercenaries sent to areas with the most resistance, left alone in their decision-making, because of lacking structure and guidance. Many consequently either ended up being killed or committing was crimes which did not stain the image of the military in this case while still bringing in substantial financial gains for the business owners and shareholders - a win situation for their bosses on many levels.
I most enjoyed the 'Dollars and Votes" article, as it is of so much actuality for me. Being form Egypt, I had to witness how money and economic privileges were enabling those in power to stay there for decades. After the power of the masses had finally caused the fall of the autocratic regime and was trying to introduce a democratic system, economical strength and financial power enabled the former elite to return to decisive positions in the government, using their monetary power to buy opinions of influential elements in the society, as well as broadcasting massively and repetitively their opinions and views, even though they were often clothed in blatant lies and deceptions for the sole reason to score numbers on their side, needed to justify unjustifiable actions. On the other side, and simultaneously, laws were modified and adapted to their convenience and interest.
Back to the US realities, I found that another really important thought of this excerpt was the fact that corporations often enjoys a particular status, comparable to an individual in society, while they are not driven by the same motivation as a human being. However, corporations are often the thriving force behind the execration of influence in political and legislative decision making. With their soft money gifts and organized in PACs, they are indeed in a powerful position to make their voices heard.
As all these examples demonstrate, what makes Marx a useful source for solutions in sociology is the fact that these economically fueled topics ultimately touch on the social fabric of the societies. It is important for a sociological analysis to consider the political, economical and cultural aspects of conflicts, arising from inequalities within the society, in order to understand what part of the problem makes this problem a social problem. Only when considering all these cited factors, solutions can be found, as society often acts only as an indicator of symptoms while origins and solutions of the problem lie elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment