Free So Called Primitive Accumulation By Karl Marx Essay Sample

Practically, the capitalist class of people does not hesitate to involve or use force at the time that suits its own interests. In this paper, the analysis covers Marx explanations of primitive accumulation process as compared to the modern class of people. It could be clearly understood that capitalism introduced an obscene and outright slavery which was a direct, as well as counterpart emergence of wage laborers. Through the process, capitalism produced the world market through the exploitation of three colonial continents.
The role of the capitalist state would be to guarantee the capitalist class profits, as explained by Marx. The state, for example, guarantees the laws governing the private property that disproportionately favors the capitalists, owning much more property as compared to the workers. Therefore, the state should intervene in bargaining the wage process. For example, they participate in enforcing the minimum wage to the workers or passing laws related to anti union. In many cases, exploitation of workers is carried out through their contract wages. Marx referred to the process as primitive accumulation which, again, refers to preconditions for capitalist people through production accumulation. This consists, on the one hand, of the piling up of fortunes in the form of money.
Secondly, primitive accumulation can involve the separation of the toilers completely from access to the production means independently. For instance, about peasants, primitive accumulation meant loss of their plots of land to the government. This left the workers with no option but to work hard for their wages, much to the benefit of the capitalist class. The capitalist class had progressively practiced monopoly of the production means.
Analysis shows that the capitalists run the mines, factories, farms as well as offices, which are the main means of survival under capitalism. Those wage employees were initially free. However, unlike Wallachia peasants, they do not need to work for someone specific. For instance, in Romania the peasants were serfs, who were regarded as being as appurtenance of the land as a hedgerow. Their unborn children were also referred within the same light. From Marx’s explanation, the household of the peasant had access to their own field or lands. This could have been assumed, despite the exactions of the landlords, where normal periods the peasant family could feed as well as cloth in modest levels. Through this, they would bar famine, thus making their livelihood secure as compared to that wage worker.
In response to that, modern primitive accumulation would reflect on a more pessimistic way that can be associated with a fall in the rate of profits as compared to the way people enjoyed during the post-World War II. There are usually no options of confronting or discussing the contradictions brought about by the aging capitalist system. However, there have not been sufficient improvements as the production did not seem to be at hand. On the contrary, high productivity was rising, thus taking control of profits. Because of the increase in extraordinary development of the ability to come up with the same commodities while ignoring human and environmental costs, few factories or industries, which employ labor force that is diminished, are usually able to flood the market with infinite supply of the products. Because of this, the market increasingly gets clogged, apart from the monopolistic factories. For instance, recovering of an airline industry, through the virtue of restricting production, thus transfer of parking of their fleets to the desert. Therefore, shortage of flights raised the airlines’ power of marketing, together with fees, whilst services get declined.
Another practical example can be seen in the documentary “Inequality for all” that focuses on the widening income gap as well as shrinking of the middle class in United Sates. It displays a former labor secretary under the Bill Clinton’s leadership as he drives around while in his Mini cooper. He drives meeting people who struggle to live, facing hardship in payment of checks, day care costs, mortgages, rents as well as household budgets. The film brings out the plight of the middle class in United Sates where statistics shows the top 400 rich people possess more wealth than the remaining 150 million citizens. There can be a significant gap left where as the film uses, graphs and pie charts show the plight of the middle class people as compared to the rich people in United Sates of America. The film also comes up with different alternatives of leaving the rich dominate the middle class since they create jobs. Within the documentary, Nick Hanauer, who is a Seattle pillow manufacturer, capitalist venture, as well as early investor in Amazon, argues that it is the ‘middle class who really create the job, but not the rich as suggested by majority of scholars. Therefore, this film had strong argument on the inequality supporting Marx’s argument on capitalism and the gap left between the middle class and the rich. Although much of Marx’s description was on expropriation, it lies on this thesis due to the differences in a class of people.
On the other hand, My Brooklyn film features on issues on how to work on racial wounds that embed in urban development and the way citizen participate in creating the Brooklyn to be a better place. The theme can be clearly seen as Anderson enters Brooklyn in 1988 searching for cheaper living, rent and other household advantages. She would later realize that living in that state is of no advantage since it is faced with electric urban fabric, alternative culture, racial and economic diversity. Anderson would later realize the difference in living in the town; she would later realize it was just as the old America as explained by Karl Marx.
In conclusion, continuity over this case can be found from the "oppositional nature of the capitalist-relation" as Marx calls it, Polanly’s or "double movement." All this introduces Marx’s theory of primitive accumulation that provides people with insights into the important or crucial character of capitalist accumulation. This provides the difference between the means of production and producers. It also explains the limits provided through capitalist accumulation within the society. Therefore, Marx’s theory explains capitalist production mode as the area of conflict in social relations as well as historical period of transition in human history. Basically, it gives an explanation on differences in class and gap left between rich and the middle class and superior versus the inferior in United States.