by an array of transnational actors and processes. Zygmunt Bauman highlights what he sees as the diminishing role of the nation state and of its protective function toward its citizens and their well‐being. Anthony Giddens discusses the disembeddedness of time and space and its consequences for individual selves and social processes. Ulrich Beck elaborates on the globalization of risk society and highlights its encompassing nature. Additionally, he and Edgar Grande highlight the variations in modernity and suggest the need for a cosmopolitanism that would more fully recognize the mutuality of all peoples and societies across the world. Focusing primarily on the post‐secular West, and the political and cultural divisions between moderate religious and secular impulses, Jürgen Habermas articulates how we might go about crafting more respectful and enriching discourses with those whose beliefs, ideas and experiences are different to ours.
REFERENCES
1 Comte, Auguste. 1891/1973. The Catechism of Positive Religion. 3rd ed. Trans. Richard Congreve. Clifton, NJ: Augustus M. Kelley.
2 Hoecker‐Drysdale, Susan. 1992. Harriet Martineau: First Woman Sociologist. Oxford: Berg.
3 Lareau, Annette, 1987. “Social Class Differences in Family–School Relationships: The Importance of Cultural Capital.” Sociology of Education 60: 73–85.
4 Martineau, Harriet. 1838. How to Observe Morals and Manners. London: Charles Knight.
CHAPTER ONE KARL MARX
CHAPTER MENU
1A Wage Labour and Capital (Karl Marx)
1B Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels)
Profit of Capital Capital The Profit of Capital
1C The German Ideology(Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels)
Karl Marx who was born in Germany in 1818 and died in London, England, in 1883, remains the foremost theorist in explaining the deep structural inequalities within capitalism. Despite the rapid pace of ongoing social change today – just think of the use and impact of the iPhone alone – and the many transformative changes in society since Marx’s lifetime, which was the epoch of expanding industrialization, factory production, and urbanization – his understanding of how capitalism works, and why it expands and endures, exposes the economic, political, and cultural logics that enable capitalism to thrive despite the many personal and societal ills it simultaneously causes. In the popular imagination – among those who have not studied Marx – Marx is frequently thought of as someone who is opposed to work and for this reason postulated The Communist Manifesto (not included) as a vision of a world in which work would not be necessary. This, however, is a gross mischaracterization and misunderstanding of Marx and his theorizing. Yes, Marx envisioned the revolutionary downfall of capitalism as part of a long historical process and its replacement with a society built on a utopian equality in which, with each person working or contributing based on their particular skills and talents, the individual and collective needs of the community would be satisfied. Clearly this vision has not been realized, and in fact capitalism has grown exponentially such that today we live in a truly global capitalist society, with capitalist processes and consequences apparent in every country in the world (including those that are nominally communist, such as Cuba and North Korea). However, the explanatory power of much of Marx’s theorizing (notwithstanding its frequent polemical tone and some erroneous assumptions and predictions) is such that it sharply illuminates why and how capitalism has so successfully endured.
It’s not that Marx was opposed to work or to labor. Rather, what he critiqued was the empirical fact that across history – from slavery through feudal times and in capitalist society – work and inequality were two sides of the same coin. He emphasizes a materialist conception of history wherein the way in which wealth is produced and distributed is based on a system of unequal social classes (Engels1878/1978: 700–1). Workers – the producers or makers of things or of ideas – do not get to fully own or fully enjoy the fruits of their labor. Rather, their creative work and its products are extracted from them by others for their own advancement. The ancient slave‐master, the feudal lord, and the capitalist, though occupying quite distinct positions in historical formation, share in common the fact that their material and social well‐being relies on the labor of others. Focusing on capitalism in particular, Marx, along with his frequent coauthor Friedrich Engels (1820–95), drew attention to and analyzed the inherent inequality structured into the relation between capitalists or the bourgeois class and wage‐workers or the proletariat, and how such inequality is structured into and is sustained within capitalism. Moreover, in Marx’s analysis, the economic logic of capitalism (anchored in the capitalist motive to make profit and accumulate economic capital), extends beyond the purely economic sector and economic relationships to underlie and motivate all social, political, and cultural activity. The excerpts I include here illuminate the lived material processes involved in the production and maintenance of capitalist inequalities, and also convey a far more searing analysis of capitalism – and of how it is talked about and understood – than is typically found in the discourse of economists or indeed in the everyday conversations of ordinary people. Thus Marx compels us to critique the principles, processes, and vocabulary of our everyday existence in what is today a global capitalist society.
For example, wages for Marx (see excerpt 1a Wage Labour and Capital) are not merely a worker’s take‐home pay or salary determined by a formula that pays attention to a worker’s skills and education, the cost of living, and the scarcity of particular kinds of workers. Rather, as he elaborates, wages are a function of the exploitation of workers by the owners of capital (whether corporations or landowners) and result from the system of commodity production that is distinctive to capitalism and which in essence requires that workers, too, be considered as, and used and exploited, in ways similar to other commodities. As Marx also elaborates, profit, that motivating engine of capital accumulation (and of capitalist greed) cannot be seen simply as the reward to capitalists for their entrepreneurialism and hard work. To the contrary, profit for Marx is only possible because the capital and investments required to maintain the capitalist production system are inherently tied to the work produced by workers on a daily basis and whose wages (whether they are relatively low or impressively high) are always going to be less than the actual amount of products or value they produce for their employers (whether factory owners or the owners of a sports team franchise or a hospital). The difference between the cost of maintaining a worker (the costs of wages, raw materials, infrastructure, etc.) and the value the worker produces is the surplus the employer receives and takes as profit. And this profit is assured by the structured organization of the production process (which includes the specialized division of labor) and the fact that profit can never be sacrificed for the betterment of workers. Moreover, it is the whole class of workers which is exploited and alienated within capitalism; a worker is free to leave any given employer and go work for another; but is never free to not work – because in capitalism, workers are reliant on the class of employers for the wages (the livelihood) that allows them to live. In capitalist society, if a worker can’t earn a wage (a wage that is invariably less than capitalist profit), they can’t have much of a life; hence for Marx, the relationship between workers and capitalists/employers is inherently antagonistic and this is necessarily and objectively the case owing to the structural