HW6_MarxEngels(1848)_HorkheimerAdorno(2002[1947])

docx

School

George Washington University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1001

Subject

Sociology

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

4

Uploaded by PrivateMantis4077

Report
Marx and Engels (1848) - Manifesto of the Class Struggle (1) Respond by yourself: - For Marx and Engels, what does society look like, in terms of power relations? How might you draw it? - Marx and Engels perceive society as fundamentally divided into two main classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie, possessing the means of production, wield economic and political power over society. In contrast, the proletariat, lacking ownership of the means of production, must sell their labor to survive, resulting in exploitation by the bourgeoisie. Visually, one can represent this dynamic as two intersecting circles, with the bourgeoisie occupying a larger space, symbolizing their economic dominance and political control. The proletariat, depicted in a smaller circle, represents the working class whose labor fuels the capitalist system. Arrows can illustrate the flow of wealth and power from the proletariat to the bourgeoisie, highlighting the exploitative nature of capitalism. Amidst this diagram, lines symbolize the ongoing struggle between the classes, as the proletariat endeavors to emancipate itself from the oppression and exploitation perpetuated by the bourgeoisie. (2) Talk with your groupmates, then write your own, individual response: - What is the division of labor, as Marx and Engels envision it? - Marx and Engels envision the division of labor as a central feature of capitalist societies, where it serves to perpetuate class distinctions and exploitation. In their analysis, the division of labor entails the specialization of tasks within the production process, leading to the fragmentation of the workforce into distinct roles and occupations. This specialization, however, is not neutral but rather serves the interests of the bourgeoisie by maximizing efficiency and profit. Consequently, workers become alienated from the products of their labor and from one another, as they are reduced to mere appendages of the capitalist production process. Marx and Engels argue that this alienation intensifies class contradictions and reinforces the power imbalance between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, ultimately fueling revolutionary consciousness among the exploited masses. - Who are the bourgeois? Who are the proletariat? What do each depend on for their existence? (see p. 41) - The bourgeoisie, in Marx and Engels' analysis, constitute the capitalist class who own the means of production and control the economy. They rely on the exploitation of the proletariat, the working class, for their existence. The bourgeoisie accumulate wealth by extracting surplus value from the labor of the proletariat, paying them wages that are less than the value they produce. This exploitation allows the bourgeoisie to maintain their privileged status and economic power within society. In contrast, the proletariat comprises the laboring
class who do not own the means of production and must sell their labor power to survive. They depend on wages earned through their labor for their livelihood, but this dependence perpetuates their exploitation by the bourgeoisie. Thus, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are locked in a dialectical relationship where the bourgeoisie's wealth and power are sustained by the labor of the proletariat, while the proletariat's existence is contingent upon selling their labor to the bourgeoisie (Marx & Engels, 1948:5). (3) Ask your groupmates ONE question below, and write down each person's answer, with their name: - What do Marx and Engels mean by saying that the proletariat becomes an appendage of the machine? Zoya: In capitalist societies, technology significantly reduces the work and labor of the Proletarian class. In the passage, Marx and Engel described how the rise of machinery and industrialism would eventually lead to Proletarians becoming appendages to machines. To explain this statement, Marx and Engel illustrated how machinery and divisions of labor cause the charm and character of a Proletarian to be lost to the hands of new technology and appliances Marx, and Engels (1848:5). The authors describe how as new technology and gadgets are invented, the Proletarian workers become increasingly dependent on machinery to accomplish their labor. Therefore, the Proletarians become “appendages” to machines because the work performed by this group merely supplements the labor completed by various types of machinery. The outcomes generated by Proletarian individuals are not actual products of labor but are derived from the aid of technology. Horkheimer and Adorno (2002[1947]) - The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception (Pp. 1-6) (1) Respond by yourself: - Horkheimer and Adorno (2002 [1944]) assert that culture “today” is an inflexible system of "sameness" (p. 41 / PDF p. 1). They think that consumer preferences do not show any real differences between people. Why, in their view, is this the case? - Horkheimer and Adorno's analysis of contemporary culture, embodied in the culture industry, underscores its pervasive uniformity and lack of genuine diversity, a consequence of its integration within capitalist systems. Within this framework, cultural production undergoes industrial processes of standardization and commodification, prioritizing profit-driven motives over artistic innovation. Consequently, cultural products become homogenized commodities designed for mass appeal rather than reflecting authentic expressions of creativity. This commodification is further reinforced by manipulative marketing techniques and the perpetuation of dominant ideologies, which shape consumer preferences and perpetuate conformity. Consequently, the apparent diversity in consumer choices merely masks a deeper sameness rooted in the culture industry's influence. In this
way, the culture industry perpetuates a cycle of standardization and ideological control, hindering genuine differentiation and fostering a culture of passive consumption. (2) Talk with your groupmates, then write your own, individual response: - What makes the role of "sameness" systematic? - The role of "sameness" in the context of the culture industry is systematic due to its pervasive and institutionalized nature within capitalist societies. Horkheimer and Adorno argue that the standardization and homogenization of cultural products are not incidental or sporadic occurrences but rather integral components of the capitalist mode of production. The culture industry operates within a system where profit maximization and efficiency drive decision-making processes, leading to the replication of successful formulas and the suppression of alternative voices. This systemic nature of sameness is reinforced by various mechanisms such as mass production techniques, market research, and advertising strategies, all of which serve to perpetuate conformity and maintain the status quo. Consequently, sameness becomes deeply ingrained in the fabric of society, shaping not only cultural production but also individual preferences, social interactions, and collective consciousness. In this way, the role of sameness in the culture industry is not merely accidental but rather systemic, reflecting the broader structures of power and control within capitalist societies. - Horkheimer and Adorno (2002 [1947]) claim that the automotive industry is no different from the film industry (p. 43). What do they mean by this? - Horkheimer and Adorno argue that the automotive industry shares similarities with the film industry within the context of the culture industry. They suggest that both industries are part of a broader capitalist system characterized by mass production, standardization, and the pursuit of profit. Just as the film industry churns out standardized cultural products designed to appeal to the largest possible audience, the automotive industry produces standardized cars aimed at meeting the perceived needs and desires of consumers. In both cases, the emphasis on mass production and mass consumption results in the creation of commodities that prioritize uniformity and predictability over individuality and innovation. Moreover, both industries rely heavily on marketing and advertising techniques to manipulate consumer preferences and create artificial demand for their products. Thus, Horkheimer and Adorno contend that the automotive industry, like the film industry, operates within the framework of the culture industry, contributing to the standardization and homogenization of contemporary culture. (3) Ask your groupmates ONE question below, and write down each person's answer, with their name: - What do you think is the relationship between cultural production and an economic system (e.g. capitalism)?
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
Zoya: The relationship between cultural production and an economic system like capitalism is deeply intertwined. In many ways, economies have learned methods of capitalizing culture to create capital and profit for themselves, indicating how interconnected these subjects are. Components of capitalism, such as the Culture Industry, demonstrate how capitalism benefits and generates wealth from cultural productions. For example, homogenizing products, such as film, radio, and the automotive industry, to accumulate assets and capital leads to the production of synonymous commodities created to attract the most consumers. By producing synonymous products in these various industries, monopolistic industries are working to create a uniform society characterized by a lack of diversity, actively diminishing individual distinctiveness, and expression. Through this, it is evident that capitalism exploits cultural production, and these processes are significantly connected.