Does Marx's Account of Alienation Condemn Free Market Economies Essay

Does Marxs Account of Alienation Condemn Free Market Economies - Essay pillowcaseBeing a great torch-bearer of justice and egalitarianism, he looks for identical distribution of wealth, resources and opportunities for the individuals belonging to divergent ethno-racial groups, communities and socioeconomic statuses of social establishment. Consequently, he appears to be determined to launch a crusade against the existing injustices for the individual and incorporated wellbeing of humanity with by any discrimination on the foundations of caste, class, community, region, religion and gender. It is therefore his entire work revolves roofy the condemnation of capitalistic (or reposition market) economic system, which maintains unabated perils of exploitation of the proletariat or haves-not at the custody of bourgeoisie or haves in its horrible fold. Marxs famous theory of alienation is viewed to be the enigmatical critique of free market economy, which would not allow the workers a ny share in the surplus survey of the organisation in which they are rendering their services. Since free market economy, Moseley observes, does not admit the very mankind that surplus-value is produced by the surplus labour of workers, thus workers become prey to exploitation in capitalism (2001 2). In addition, Marxism vehemently criticises such a political scheme that looks for projecting and promoting the exploitative economic system (i.e. capitalism) by the statutes of law had been in vogue in major part of his contemporary industrial states of Europe. Marx believes, Zimmerman observes, that laws are the point of intersection of class oppression, which would have to get eliminated or revised as long as communism replaces the free market system ultimately (2009 96). One of the most imperative reasons behind Marxisms repudiation to go along way to free market economy includes its being beneficial for only the rich stratum of society. private-enterprise(prenominal) economic system is exclusively advantageous for the producers, mill owners and elite stratum for it bestows worthwhile privileges upon the elite by letting them take the lions share in the profit of an industrial unit on the basis of the investment they have made. The free market, Sayers notes, operates as an alien system with a life of its own. It is an unmanageable and inherently unstable mechanism. It leads to periodic crises in which huge numbers of people are thrown out of work and useful means of production are wantonly destroyed (20081-2). On the other hand, the workers catch very little amount of money as remuneration against their hard toil they make from cluck to dusk in the industrial units. In other words, free market economy deprives the workers of their even out and share in the surplus profit the organisation has earned. Since the workers are not in a position to grow anything sufficient to keep the wolf from the door, it results into the decline of their interest in wor k and work place as well. As a result, the gulf between the rich and the poor starts expanding, which touches the dangerous end subsequently. The clash of interests between the producers and workers turns out to be challenging for the very peace and harmony of society in general. As a result, conflict arises between different strata of society, during the course of which the workers are in a position to snatch their right from the possession of the upper stratum by establishing socialistic political and economic system in society. The office between classes, Rummel observes, starts widening, and the condition of the exploited worker deteriorates so adversely that entire social structure collapses.