Karl marx defined classes in terms of their relationship to child

Karl Marx - Wikiquote

At the very best, by means of working class organisation, the state can be See Comments on James Mill and The Communist Manifesto for Marx's analysis of social formations which care for and raise children and provide loving relationships. . Lenin had described imperialism in terms of the concentration of capital in. related topics The term class first came into wide use in the early 19th century, replacing defined mainly in economic terms, either by the ownership of capital or, The theory of class is at the centre of Marx's social theory, for it is the and to procure for their children a superior education and economic. For Marx, classes are defined and structured by (i) who owns or possesses but are not primary in terms of the dynamics of capitalism. a. Bourgeoisie. While the relationship between workers and capitalists, or between labour .. That is, lines of descent passed from mother to children, and women had.

Thus free people came together and made a contract in which they all agreed to arrogate law-making power to the state.

See The Social Contract Hegel also rejected the myth of the social contract, responding to the myth of a voluntary contract with his master-slave narrativein which he showed that the state arose out of slavery and domination, but the through the recognition of citizens in a just constitution, the modern state could represent progress towards freedom in which the state was an expression of the universal will, not a limitation on the freedom of individuals. But the social contract is mythology from beginning to end: At the very best, by means of working class organisation, the state can be transformed into an arena of struggle in which the contending classes in civil society can vie for influence.

Only the kind of immediate, practical measures of democracy which Marx described in the Paris Commune can give legitimacy to any form of rule.

Every society contains classethnic, gender and other differences, from which arise various kinds of conflict. Naturally, some of these conflicts need to be moderated if the society is to survive, and thus in every society, individuals with various differences have to in some way be socialised and integrated into the institutions and fabric of that society.

Marx on Gender and the Family: A Summary

This is as true of a hypothetical post-revolutionary socialist society as it is of capitalism ; to suppose that a society could exist which does not require any process of social control and integration is utopian.

The methods of social control and integration may be: The agents of social control and integration may be: Social control and integration also act in different frames, principally international, national and communal. Methods of Social control and integration Regulation means the application of a particular set of laws or rules, implicitly including punishment for those who violate the rules. See the Evgeny Pashukanis Archive for a Marxist approach to law and regulation.

Alternatively, the market may require an element of regulation to make it work, for example, pollution may be controlled by applying a tax to the sale, production or use of polluting materials. The Greenhouse Gas Coupon system, whereby countries have to pay for the greenhouse gases they produce, or get paid for reductions, is a prime example of this method of social control. Capitalism prefers this to the alternative, for example, of regulating greenhouse gas production, legally mandating companies to reduce production, and jailing the bosses of comapnies which do not comply.

Among the most important tools for using ideology for Social Control are the school system attendance at which is compulsoryreligion, and mass media. See the Marxism and Education subject archive for more on this, and chapter one of Capital for more on bourgeois ideology.

Democratisation means extending the forms of social decision-making so that dissenting or conflicting sections of society are included in the process of decision-making, and either consensus is arrived at, or a minority is reconciled to the decision due to having participated in making the decision. See the entry on Democracy for more on this. Agents of Social control and integration The state is the institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a society. The state also delegates some functions of social control and integration to other agents, such as professional associations, NGOs, charities, and so on.

By the family is meant the spontaneously self-reproducing social formations which care for and raise children and provide loving relationships. The family is the primary institution for social integration, imparting language, ethical disposition and primary social ties, in short, socialising individuals.

Factors such as the pre-existing division of labour, the mobility and strength of men, along with their control of tools and animals, may have allowed this. Men became property owners, and also wished to have a means of passing this prope rty to their children. Given these conditions, the matrilineal form of descent had to end, since men did not have clear heirs. The result of this was that "the matriarchal law of inheritance was thereby overthrown, and the male line of descent and the paternal law of inheritance were substituted for them.

For Engels, the result was "the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children. Engels notes that "within the family he is the bourgeois, and the wife represents the proletariat.

The husband, father and patriarch became the master with slaves, and with wife-servant s and children-servants. There were many different forms that this took in different societies, "but in all cases the general relationship is seen to hold that women are subject to men in and out of marriage. With the development of private property and patrilineage, the monogamous family developed, at least monogamy for women. This ensured that the mother of child is known, and that the father is sure which children are his.

The sole purpose of compulsor y monogamy is thus to "serve as a vehicle for the orderly transfer of a father's private property to his children. Engels notes that right up through the middle ages, marriage was not decided by the two partners on the basis of "individual sex love" Sydie, p. Dependence of marriage on economic considerations became the norm, with property being key to under standing family and marriage.

When capitalism emerged, this form of family structure existed, and "this manner of marriage exactly suited it. At the same time, the ideals of freedom and especially freedom of contract had to be met. These rights were fo rmally extended to marriage and the family, but in practice marriage among the propertied class remained dominated by economic considerations. For the bourgeoisie, considerations of maintaining and extending property dominate over considerations related to freedom and love.

In that sense, the family is a more important structure for the bourgeoisie than for the proletariat. Inheritance, female chastity, non-employed wives and the reproduction of legitimate heirs, all became important for the bourgeoisi e.

For the proletariat, there is no property to pass on, and relationships between husbands and wives could be more equal. Engels also noted that proletarian women are often employed outside the home, and proletarian husbands had relatively few legal rig hts. As a result, there was no material basis for husbands oppressing their wives. In addition, by moving production outside the home, capitalism tends to destroy the need for families among ordinary producers.

Given that male oppression of females depends on property rights and inheritance, the solution to ending oppression is to eliminate property rights.

This will create the possibility of true monogamy Sydie, p. There will be much greater freedom in terms of choices that individuals can make Sydie, p.

Some of the statements by Engels are: Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole family back into public industry, and that this in turn demands that the characteristic of the monogamous family as the economic u nit of society will be abolished. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry.

The care and education of the children becomes a public affair ; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. Since the basis on which the oppression of women rests is private property and rights of inheritance, abolishing these would lead to ending oppression of women. Engels argues that this may take a generation or two, but he seems to be optimistic that t his will happen. Another implication of Engels' analysis is that women should enter public industry, and that those people interested in change should concentrate on organizing women in the workplace and dealing with issues in "the intersection between women's exp erience as workers and their position in the family.

Women remain subordinate within the family so long as they have no property and have no basis for relating directly to the material productive forces. In addition, the socialization of housework and child care are important social programs to help achieve this, although issues related to women's sexual and reproductive concerns are secondary. Certainly these efforts should not just be restricted to getting women into management or powerful political positions, as liberal feminists might argue, but should concentrate on working to develop the class consciousness and power of working class women, and the working class as a whole.

Critique and Summary of Origin of the Family i. By emphasizing human labour and production, Marx and Engels point to a feature that has been very important in structuring and chan ging human societies. Private ownership of property and private property in the means of production are important bases for social organization, and also for the oppression of women. Marjorie Cohen's analysis of farm labour in nineteenth century Ontari o shows the importance of inheritance and property rights among agricultural families.

Early liberal writers argued for property rights among men, but argued that these rights should not be extended to women. In terms of these relationships being the root cause of oppression of women though, several questions are not adequately answered by Engels.

First, how did men obtain possession of the instruments of production that formed the basis for private proper ty and inheritance? Second, Engels does not show how matrilineal and matriarchal systems changed into patrilineal and patriarchal ones, except to note that such a change could easily have occurred, given the development of private property and inheritance.

Third, Engels all oppression of women is a result of private property in the means of production, and no other factors are considered. If there are cultural or other factors that originally played a role in this, or continue to exist, then removing priv ate ownership may not eliminate women's oppression.

Engels argues that there was a sexual division of labour before systems of agriculture developed. This sexual division was to make men responsible for obtaining food and doing "productive work" and women were responsible for the household.

Whether this is correct, or why this developed is not clear. Engels may have viewed this as a natural division of labour, because he considers the origin of this division to have originated with the different functions of male and female in the sex act. One problem with the approach of Marx and Engels is that it tends to devalue work and labour that are not productive economically or socially.

In our society, this means all labour that is not performed for a wage — household work, volunteer work, car e for the elderly, child care, etc. The Marxian system is built on the analysis of productive labour, with the assumption that the rest of work or labour that is performed has little or nothing to do with exploitation or class structure.

In this approac h, work and labour become work for a wage, being exploited by an employer, with work performed outside the regular economy not forming part of the analysis.

Further, if the division of labour by sex preceded the development of private property, this division must proceed from something other than property. If that is the case, the abolition of private property may not end this form of inequality, and ther e may be not such a straightforward solution to this inequality. Engels begins the Preface the edition of Origin of the Family by noting "According to the materialistic conception, the determining factor in history is, in the last resort, the production and reproductio n of immediate life.

Here Engels would seem to be according equality to production and reproduction. By the end of the same paragraph though, Engels notes that the development of the productivity of labour, exc hange and private property lead to "a society in which the family system is entirely dominated by the property system, and in which the class antagonisms and class struggles, which make up the content of all hitherto written history, now freel y develop. One major problem with the Marxian analysis of production is that reproduction is taken for granted, it is not analyzed.

The development of the productive forces is certainly important, but Marx and Engels did not spend much t ime analyzing reproductive forces. Even Origin of the Family contains little analysis of this in capitalist society.

This neglect of reproduction creates a number of problems for the Marxian analysis. First, if an argument is made that women are confined to the domestic sphere and are subordinated because of physiologically determined sex roles, then this is natural.

Socialism and communism would not necessarily change this and women would consigned permanently to a secondary role. Second, reproduction takes place in very different ways in different societies. Other than the biological birth process, all other as pects surrounding reproduction can be organized very differently than they are — e. Each of these is an aspect of the material forces, involving human l abour, yet there is little analysis of these forces in Marxian analysis.

This is at the minimum an omission of important material forces, and to the extent that the relations of reproduction interact with the productive forces analyzed within Marxian ana lysis, the latter analysis may be incorrect.

Third, creation of surplus value in the Marxian model of capitalism emerges from a distinction between labour and labour power, and the value of labour power. Yet the theory of how the value of labour power i s determined is either nonexistent or incomplete.

The same can be said concerning the theory of population. Fourth, what are the real roots of the inequality between men and women? Engels seems to say it is private property. But many feminists argue i t is related more to reproductive than productive factors. Some of the radical approaches to feminism argue that sexual inequalities are related to male attempts to control reproduction and women's sexuality, and have little to do with private property and production.

In spite of these problems, Marx and Engels certainly recognized oppression of women and patriarchy as major problems, both historically and in contemporary society. Many other theorists were unwilling to consider the dif ferences a source of inequality and oppression of women. Marx and Engels continually emphasized the exploitative nature of property relationships, and used this to show various ways in which these hurt women.

While they were overly optimistic about the ability to end sexual inequalities, their analysis focusses on a major source of social inequality. Followers of the Marxist approach have often been key in organizing women into trade unions, pushing for equal pay, etc. Both liberalism and Marxism claim to be theoretical approaches with universal application, aiming to change society for the benefit of all.

  • Social class
  • Marxian class theory

Both are concerned with universal human emancipation and the improvement of conditions of everyone, and these a pproaches do not emphasize sectional interests. It might be noted that the approach of Engels was almost exactly opposite to the liberal view that private property rights should be extended to all. Instead of extending them, it argues that they should b e abolished and that property should become common property — belonging to all.

The working class was the key to this, the class that would be able to overcome "particular differences and realize a common identity: Contemporary Marxist Feminism Out of the Marxian and the feminist tradition, there are a number of approaches to the analysis of women and of sex and gender inequalities.

These are represented by various social and political movements, organizations, and theorists. Inequality Class structures are primary in determining the main social classes, the main forms of struggle within societies, and the life experiences of people in these classes.

But secondary forms of inequality and oppression occur within each class, and these may take the form of racial and ethnic inequalities, or gender inequalities. Marxist feminists argue that "within any class, women are less advantaged than men in their access to material goods, power, status, and possibilities for self-actua lization. The causes of this inequality lie in the organization of capitalism itself. These women "provide emotional, social, and sexual services for the men in their class.

They are well rewarded for this, often are not able to develop an independent source of livelihood or power. Middle class women may be well off, but often lack property or labour force experience, and if divorced, could find themselves in poverty. The position of working class women is likely to be mixed, depending on whether or not she participates in the labour force, and depending on her wage. If the latter is adequate to support her and her children, she may be able to have some independenc e.

More likely though, the working class woman has little income, responsibility for household tasks, and is inferior socially and in terms of power and independence to her husband. This may allow a male wage earner to exercise "personal power, compensa tion for his actual powerlessness in society.

She is in other words, 'the slave of a slave. For women within the labour force, this work is often as alienating as that of men, or perhaps more alienating. Women are often paid less, and tend to be in subordinate positions. There are relatively few cases where women within the work force are m anagers or are in dominant positions within a hierarchy. For women who are not in the work force, alienation occurs in a different form, that of powerlessness, with women being required to serve others.

Based on Code, p. Household and Family Some Marxists view the household as an institution that functions to support capitalism and it permits or even encourages exploitation. That is, by creating and recreating sexual inequalities, and keeping women in the home with responsibility for fami ly subsistence, emotional support and reproduction, the family helps capitalism continue to exploit labour and helps maintains stability within a system of class oppression and inequality.

There are various ways in which the family and sex roles do this. First are the strictly economic features. So long as women have primary responsibility for reproduction physical and socialization and household and family maintenance, women constitute a cheap form of labour, a reserve army of labour. T hey have been a latent reserve over the last forty years, some are a short term reserve over the economic cycle, and women are a labour reserve in a generational sense.

That is, the expectation that women will not be as committed to many jobs as men, wit h time taken off for childbearing, child care, care of elderly parents, etc. The lower status of women within society also allows women to be paid less, since some wages and salaries are structured on status considerations.

A second feature is that these household and family responsibilities of women allow the extraction of surplus value, although in an indirect form. That is, much of the necessary labour of maintaining and reproducing workers is carried out as unpaid labour by women.

Workers come to the labour force at no cost to employers, and if employers had to pay for reproducing workers, the cost would be considerably greater than what wages currently are.

Where wages are family wages, so that the mal e wage is large enough to support the whole family, there is still much unpaid work in the home, and paying for this would result in a considerable redistribution of income from males to females. Third, households and families are good consuming units within modern capitalism.

Each household is a separate consuming units, with separate needs. While these consuming units need not be organized on a family basis, or with sexual ineq ualities, in order to perform this role in society, in fact they are very well adapted to maintaining and expanding purchases.

In social and political terms, this role can also play a conservatizing force with respect to class struggles. Women's lower wages and the difficulty of supporting a family, can be used by employers as a means of undermining trade union struggles.

Si nce the responsibility of women is to maintain the household, this can have a conservatizing effect. Where there is a need for change, women are often isolated by separation into private households, and organizing to create change can be difficult.

Fourth, the unpaid labour performed by women for men can really be regarded as unpaid labour performed for capitalists.

In the classical Marxian framework, such labour is unproductive. Marxist feminists argue that reproductive and househo ld labour is productive of surplus value, and should be compensated in some manner. This has led some Marxists to argue that women should be paid wages for housework. Others have argued that men exploit women in an economic sense, and men extract surplus value from women.

social class | Definition, Theories, & Facts | btcmu.info

Marxists like Zaretsky Tong, pp. What is necessary is more socialization of household work, with women being fully able to participate in the public sphere. Potentially, under communism, the division between public and private would disappear, and this could form the basis for sex and gender equalities. Section 2, paragraph 72 last paragraph.

In political practice, therefore, they join in all coercive measures against the working class; and in ordinary life, despite the high-falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples, and to barter truth, love, and honour for traffic in wool, beet-root sugar, and potato spirits. Section 3, paragraph 9. The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.

They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. Section 4, paragraph 11 last paragraph Variant translation: Workers of the world, unite! The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte [ edit ] Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice.

He forgot to add: Der 18te Brumaire des Louis Napoleon — Full text online. Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. This has been compared to Horace Walpole 's statement: Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice.

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.

Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paulthe Revolution of draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of knew nothing better to do than to parody, nownow the revolutionary tradition of In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.

When we think about this conjuring up of the dead of world history, a salient difference reveals itself. Camille DesmoulinsDantonRobespierreSt. JustNapoleonthe heroes as well as the parties and the masses of the old French Revolution, performed the task of their time — that of unchaining and establishing modern bourgeois society — in Roman costumes and with Roman phrases.

The most developed machinery thus forces the worker to work longer than the savage does, or than he himself did with the simplest, crudest tools. The industrial peak of a people when its main concern is not yet gain, but rather to gain. Consumption is also immediately production, just as in nature the consumption of the elements and chemical substances is the production of the plant. No production without a need. But consumption reproduces the need.

The object of art — like every other product — creates a public which is sensitive to art and enjoys beauty. The individual produces an object and, by consuming it, returns to himself, but returns as a productive and self reproducing individual.

Consumption thus appears as a moment of production. But there is a devil of a difference between barbarians who are fit by nature to be used for anything, and civilized people who apply them selves to everything. All mythology overcomes and dominates and shapes the forces of nature in the imagination and by the imagination; it therefore vanishes with the advent of real mastery over them. Or the Iliad with the printing pressnot to mention the printing machine?

Do not the song and saga of the muse necessarily come to an end with the printer's bar, hence do not the necessary conditions of epic poetry vanish? A man cannot become a child again, or he becomes childish. What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. Supply and demand constantly determine the prices of commodities; never balance, or only coincidentally; but the cost of production, for its part, determines the oscillations of supply and demand.

Notebook I, The Chapter on Money, p. The unity is brought about by force. Each pursues his private interest and only his private interest; and thereby serves the private interests of all, the general interest, without willing it or knowing it. The real point is not that each individual's pursuit of his private interest promotes the totality of private interests, the general interest.

One could just as well deduce from this abstract phrase that each individual reciprocally blocks the assertion of the others' interests, so that, instead of a general affirmation, this war of all against all produces a general negation.

Ideas do not exist separately from language. Money does not arise by convention, any more than the state does. It arises out of exchange, and arises naturally out of exchange; it is a product of the same. Money appears as measure in Homer, e. But it cannot be its own or its own standard of comparison. The circulation of commodities is the original precondition of the circulation of money. Since labour is motion, time is its natural measure.

Exchange value forms the substance of money, and exchange value is wealth. Money is therefore not only the object but also the fountainhead of greed. In fact of course, this 'productive' worker cares as much about the crappy shit he has to make as does the capitalist himself who employs him, and who also couldn't give a damn for the junk.

Surplus value is exactly equal to surplus labour ; the increase of the one [is] exactly measured by the diminution of necessary labour. Capitals accumulate faster than the population; thus wages ; thus population; thus grain prices; thus the difficulty of production and hence the exchange values. The devil take this wrong arithmetic.

An increase in the productivity of labour means nothing more than that the same capital creates the same value with less labour, or that less labour creates the same product with more capital. Luxury is the opposite of the naturally necessary. Notebook V, The Chapter on Capital, p. Although usury is itself a form of credit in its bourgeoisified form, the form adapted to capital, in its pre-bourgeois form it is rather the expression of the lack of credit.

The circulation of capital realizes value, while living labour creates value.