What value does Marxism have in analyzing contemporary inequality?

Essay , 2017 , 10 Pages , Grade: 2:1

Sociology - Social System and Social Structure

(Gramscian) Marxism helps us to uncover the systemic and epistemic conditions that create and reproduce inequalities by critically reflecting on the exploitative mechanisms that govern them and the institutionalized hegemonic power discourses that naturalize exploitation. It is therefore apt to debunk 'trickle-down' as the neoliberal elite narrative that it is and to place the working class individual, and its communal and class self-awareness, at the center of a solution to inequality.

In order to do that, first the exploitative nature of the capitalist mode of production is sketched to attain an economic foundation for a socio-cultural argument and then it is shown that Gramscian cultural hegemony theory offers a more compelling explanation for the persistence of such a capitalist logic premised on exploitation, with no effective resistance by those which are exploited under it.

2

then show that Gramscian cultural hegemony theory offers a more compelling explanation

for the persistence of such a capitalist logic premised on exploitation, with no effective

resistance by those which are exploited under it.

The study of inequality today has emerged in response to the unprecedented extent of

socioeconomic polarization. Thus far, those advocating for the curtailment of inequalities

have had to make their case in stark opposition to pervasively established neoliberal

ideology, which values a free, deregulated global economy and the unrestrained

accumulation of capital. In order to do this, positivist approaches that link common

practices to patterns of disadvantage have highlighted a myriad of processes showing that

inequalities persist and accumulate. However, in this paper I will challenge the notion that

such atomized processes are simply the 'symptoms' of the 'disease' of inequality; rather,

using theories of exploitation as a tool, I argue that inequality is the symptom of a more vast

disease: capitalism, especially in its contemporary financial form. While positivist

approaches are integral to understanding and finding solutions to the most unjust of

inequalities, theories of exploitation allow us to think about the systemic conditions in

which knowledge about inequalities is produced and negotiated, and are thereby able to

uncover a broader, deeper, and more fundamental socio-economic narrative which guides

the actions and even ideologies of each person implicated in its production process. In order

to make these claims, I define a "theory of exploitation" as a general Marxist approach, with

some neo-Marxist considerations, while relying mainly on Gramscian Marxism (hegemony

theory). Assuming that the "analysis of inequality" is mostly intended to alleviate them, I

consider its current state to be multifaceted and vast beyond my personal scope, but

generally positivist and pro-market. Further, I will consider both social and economic

inequalities, as if Marxism and Gramscianism are indeed `valuable', that is useful, additions,

they should offer an increased capacity to alleviate inequalities when incorporated into

mainstream social and economic analytic approaches. For the purpose of this essay, I will

use Wright's definition of exploitation as a relationship of interdependence based on three

notions: the material well-being of exploiters is taken at the expense of the other group,

resulting in material harm of the exploited; in order to do this, the exploited experience

restricted access to productive resources; this exclusion from resources leads to material

---

3

advantage to exploiters as they own the labor effort of the exploited (Wright, 2005, 24).

Although acknowledging sub-complexities, I thereby assume a generally binary class system

for the purposes of this paper, consisting of the elite, business, or capitalist class, and the

working class, or majority.

Economic Exploitation

Marxism claims that that well-being cannot be realized without eradicating the free market,

as it is predicated upon and sustained by a binary system of exploitation of the proletariat

by the bourgeoisie. It further emphasizes the implication of capitalist control over the

means of production, which takes the product of the worker's labor away from himself,

dissociating him from the appreciation of his own creation. This alienates the worker from

himself, the material world, and the capitalist that owns his production. Moreover, the

capitalist takes away the worker's power over the value of his labor, then imbues it with

additional value for sale on the market and keeps all surplus value. In the accumulation of

money, bar government regulation, he is restrained only by competition in the marketplace

and therefore seeks to maximize exploitation-based profit at all costs (Marx, 1845). Marxism

claims that this exploitative process systematically hinders individuals from exercising their

agency, and that it can do so in surreptitious ideological ways which may blind members of

the working class to their exploitee status.

Notable trends in developing countries undergird the importance of understanding the

principle of exploitation and its effects. After all, wealth tends to accumulate faster than

growth, and there is no feature inherent to capitalism that would stop this accumulation

from continuing (Piketty, 2014). Additionally, monopolistic tendencies have increased,

giving more market power than ever before to the largest of firms; again, this is partly

brought about by the inherent efficiency grounded in free-market capitalism (Taylor, 2016;

Baran and Sweezy, 1966; Stiglitz, 2016b). Declines in unionization have taken place in many

industrialized economies, notably the US and the UK (Economist, 2015). Financial

institutions have not been shown to increase productivity despite an increase in CEOs' share

of national incomes; furthermore, this has happened amidst stagnation of median wages

(Stiglitz, 2016a). This economic polarization of wealthy and majority induces a number of

---

4

social, cultural, and political disadvantages (Hills and Cunliffe, 2016), including increased

class polarization (Savage, 2015). How does all of this relate to exploitation? Firstly, as the

Oxfam report shows, there is massive tax avoidance in the face of increasing wealth, which

leads to decreased social benefits for the majority. Increased monopoly power means,

among other things, higher barriers to market entry for smaller firms and decreased

consumer agency. Disempowered unions signal an imbalance of power in employment

relations. Lastly, lowered productivity while median wages stagnate indicates that the

business class, on average, is working less and earning more while the majority works more

and earns less. Thereby, all of these trends, and their implications, are compatible with

exploitation.

Cultural hegemony

According to Marx, the mode of production determines the character of social, intellectual,

and cultural life. Having just discussed how capitalist patterns affect the majority, let us now

think about the cultural and power relations behind them. Even with economics as the basis

for all other cultural processes (Bourdieu, 1986), contemporary accumulation processes do

not require overt exploitation (Savage, 2015). Furthermore, power relations concern the

ways in which activities are controlled, not simply the distribution of resources. This leads us

to an important and puzzling question: How is this exploitative system tolerated by the

majority who may lose out?

Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony (1971) provides us an indispensable tool with which

to attempt an answer. He views mass culture as an instrument used by the elite class to

maintain political and social control through the production of ideological `false

consciousness.' Mainly through the media (and other institutions that affect reality

perceptions such as schools and organizations), ideological values are disseminated for the

reproduction of elite power domination. Their henceforth ubiquity can partially explain the

naturalization, or inoculation, of values that are in the interest only of capitalists, to the

majority. However, he also ascribes latent power to subaltern groups. If they harness that

power and create their own culture, they can assert their dominance and potentially

become the cultural hegemon. Thus his approach has Marxist underpinnings, as he

---

5

advocated a working-class takeover of the capitalist state, but he takes a less deterministic

approach to a change in power relations. Gramsci rightly emphasizes the importance of

analyzing ideology at the level of the `superstructure,' or the cultural, social, and political

manifestations of the economic base of society, rather than individual, atomized

movements or events, thus looking at the bigger picture of society and the potential for

positive change.

Theoretically, Gramsci's approach offers an open-minded and constructivist outlook, which

when analyzing the structural source of inequalities is an indispensable addition to a largely

positivist field unable to explain the contradiction between contemporary capitalism's

persistence and worker exploitation. By looking more broadly at the social and economic

context in which this contradiction takes place, Gramscianism allows us to analyze its

sources and, by recognizing and encouraging the agency of the majority in balancing

socioeconomic power relations, find novel solutions to it. After all, economic and social

orders are not magical; rather they are of our own creation. Gramscianism urge the majority

to therefore take back their agency within the social structure, rather than being convinced

of 'freedom' by elite ideology.

Practically, this theory helps us to understand contemporary capitalism's persistence ­

partly due to the lack of resistance and even support of the working class -- because it

focuses on the broader structural influence behind the social and economic exchanges that

end up (re)producing inequalities. It is particularly the mass media that reify and

institutionalize that process. Increasing economic inequalities have also polarized the ability

to own and influence media and the ideology contained in its messages; in fact,

concentration of media ownership has continued to accumulate over time; for example, in

1983, 90% of US mass media was controlled by fifty companies; today, 90% is controlled by

just six (Lutz, 2012). Additionally, linkages in the mass media to the general business class

have increased (Chomsky and Herman, 2006). That advertising is the primary income source

of media outlets indicates that cultural dissemination is primarily profit-driven, serving the

interests of those providing the funds, and thereby influencing media prosperity and

survival, rather than the majority of the public (ibid., 266-7). The concentration of media

control has placed the power to disseminate culture and therefore ideology in the hands,

once again, of a privileged few. Furthermore, as Herman and Chomsky say, "in a world of

• College: London School of Economics (International Inequalities Institute)
• Grade: 2:1
• Author: Kaia Smith (Author)
• Publication Year: 2017
• Pages: 10
• Catalog Number: V387310
• ISBN (eBook): 9783668613928
• ISBN (Book): 9783668613935
• Language: English