Student’s Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
Commodities in Regards to Social Class
Introduction
Karl max argues that the process of production dictates the position of an individual in a particular hierarchy. He asserts that the class position in society dictates the ideological and political perception. People of the same class are said to have similar interests in the economy. They work together so that they can advance their interests. Generally, the wealthy people are the ones who own large tracts of land and other commodities such as factories (Lowith, Karl, p.g 35)
He seeks to explain the relationship between the status of an individual in society and the class. He concludes, in a society, social status and class are determined through the ownership of property rather than income. Individuals in specific class use their properties to protect their social status. Marx explained that the revolution from the capitalist world to social word was inevitable (Lowith, Karl, p.g 43). This was as a result of socialization of people in large scale production of the commodities. He further asserted that with the advent of socialism the status of women in the society had to be upgraded. This could lead to the decline of patriarchal society.
Marx argues that the commodity is deemed to be the initial sight which is noticeable. He says that sometimes commodity is seen as a trivial thing but its analysis may result to something very weird. Commodity is deemed to be important physical and theological requirement. He asserts that commodity is a use-value and there is no wonder about that. It takes properties which are the products of human resource to satisfy human needs. It is depicted that through human activities, man changes natural materials to make them more useful. For instance man uses wood to make various commodities for example, chairs and tables and therefore increasing the usefulness of the wood (Lowith, Karl, p.g 49)
As per Lowith, Karl, p.g 67, by working together, people cold socialize and therefore the human labor seems to be a social form. The character of labor correlates with the type of the commodity. The human labor kind’s equality depicts the outcome. The extent of spending on the human resource and the time duration relates to the value of the outcomes. The relationship between the manufacturers and the social features of their human labor explains the products of labor. The interesting thing about commodity is that it shows the features of human labor as reflected by the quality of the products. The products resulting from mans brain are seen to be independent numbers. These figures are endowed with life by their own which relates to with the human race and with each other. It is asserted that mans hands has resulted into a world full of commodities. The mechanism affects the human labor immediately as the products are being produced and therefore cannot be separated from the production of commodities.
According to Lukács, Gabriella, p.g 35, the usefulness of a commodity constitutes objects which in turn become the commodities. This is because are outcomes of human labor from the private individuals who work separately to each other. The sum of the total number of human labor from all private sectors constitutes the collection human resource in a particular society. The producers only come into contact on during the supply of the products of labor. The distinct social feature is that the private laborers also appear in advent of this exchange. The labor of the private sectors is seen to reveal itself as a constitute of the cumulative labor of the entire society. The producers do not appear directly to people in the process of working but appears relations of materials between individuals and socials relations between commodities. The importance of private labor is revealed in that the commodities as a product of their labor are also useful to other people. In the word of commodities, money breaks down the social trait of private labor in the relation of individuals. It achieves so by making the relations to appear only between the material commodities. Production inequalities are very central in Marx arguments. This is because they trace the main divisions in the society.
The patterns of commodity consumption in the society represent the mode of production. It further explains the relations of the commodity and human labor in the society thus depicting the productivity of the community. By understanding the patterns of consumption, the interests of the society can be easily traced. The mode of income of the members of the society, distribution of wealth and the security patterns of the community, the policies and laws can be formulated easily. The production is correlated to the consumption of the community productivity (Lukács, Gabriella, p.g 43).
Production conditions at the terminals of the commodity in the chain of distribution involve the application of social relations in production. In addition it also puts into account the relationship between private individual labor and their families (Lukács, Gabriella, p.g 55). As a result traces the value of the reproduction to the household. This contributes to social relations involved in production process. They consist of gender relations, class relations and ethnicity. It also consist the social relations within the family setting involving effective use of land and resources.
Conclusion
According to Karl Marx the value of a commodity is determined by the human resource used to produce it. He described those who understood the class struggle as the communist. He has explained on the issue of development by use of social classes. The development structures the perception of the global space. It explains this fact by asserting that the globe is still developing. Marx has emphasized on the importance of production process in development. It is true that production of commodities has resulted in division of the society into social classes and status quo.
Work Cited
Jordan, Z. A. “Georg Lukacs,” History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics”(Book Review).” Canadian Slavonic Papers 16.1 (1974): 106.
Marx, Karl. Capital: A critique of political economy, Volume 1. Arkose Press, 2015.
Postone, Moishe. “Lukács and the dialectical critique of capitalism.” New dialectics and political economy. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2003. 78-100.