| This question <102|102> overall <51|53> KALISPEL: <20|57>. |
| Question 75: Discuss the implications of the fact that an increase in material wealth in the form of commodities may be accompanied by a decrease in the total amount of their value. How does this contradiction manifest itself in developed capitalism? |
| [52] KALISPEL: More wealth leads to more exploitation I like this question because, to me, it refers to the nature of the rigid capitalistic system in place controlling the workers. |
| In capitalism there is this rush to produce more, more, more. American standards of living have continually increased. This has been possible due to longer work hours, increases in technology, etc. Essentially, one worker produces more of a commodity in the average work day than ever before. |
| This has made it possible for the goods produced to cost less and for there to be “more for everyone”. Thus, in answer to the question, the rush for material wealth has decreased the value of the commodities. |
| How does this decrease in value affect the working class? What happens is it is cheaper for the subsistence level needs to be met. As farming is more productive and textile industries innovate you can clothe and feed people much more cheaply. This makes it possible for the capitalist to keep wages down. Why? If you do not eat very well and are not healthy and likewise if you do not have adequate work clothing your productivity goes down greatly. The capitalist knows he must pay you at least this much. The contradiction here is that as society innovates and brings about more material wealth it only puts a firmer grip into the capitalist's hands. It is more possible to keep wages low and have more surplus left over for the those at the top of the economic system. |
| It is interesting to note that after some time additional goods will be introduced into the average working class family lifestyle. For example, a car is considered a necessity for most people in modern day society (America). This was not the case 70 years ago. What's ironic is that Americans are at the point where, more than ever, they could opt for leisure time. Some economists have argued this is because of the desire for class and status. We all want to have “x” amount of goods. Keep up with the Jones's. This is true for a large extent, in my opinion. What I believe, although, is that we do not really need all that we think we need. Somehow society has been convinced that they really do need “x” amount of goods. Being convinced that we need “x” amount of goods has some interesting effects. |
| It makes us work more and more to get these goods. It also gets us to buy what the capitalist produces. It is part of the established parameters around the capitalist system. If man was happy with food, shelter, clothing, and a few intrinsic interests there would be a decline in the rich capitalist. Capitalism must grow, innovate, and produce a desire to exchange in the market place for goods. All of this is fueled by the capitalist desire for growth because growth=profits. Thus, in my opinion, you should be careful what you believe in. Capitalists are there to convince us of the things that they want. If they had our best interests in mind they would not exploit us. They would not let the unproductive stand on the street corner with a sign will work for food. |
| Simply stated: 1 -- The drive is for material wealth and/or profits 2 -- This drive reduces the value of goods 3 -- this keeps the capitalist system firmer in place 4 -- be careful of what you believe about capitalist dogma. Capitalists do not have your best interests at heart 5 -- It will get worse before it gets better. |
| Please note: I read this in the Salt Lake Tribune. In several of the industrialized nations the average work week has been reduced to 32 hours with the same 40 hour a week pay. Interestingly, productivity has gone up as a result! |
| Hans: Please do not rest on your laurels now after this grade. This class requires not only a sense of the overall connections, which you showed you have, but also some quite tedious analysis of the details. |
|
|
|||||