Marx discusses further the division of labor, but with respect to the concepts of town and country. It is precisely through the existing “antagonism” between them that defines human activity and the fact that it precedes and is the basis of human reason or consciousness of any sort. It seems that Marx supposes a relationship between town and country that is inseparable, insofar as there is a transition back and forth between them, and that each knows the other through some type of opposition. The town is equated with landed property, community, and barbarism, which suggests unification amongst the people and labor that is subject to the actual means of production (i.e. the land). The country is merely the opposite; it is characterized by private property, individualism, and civilization, suggesting a separation that on the one hand appreciates and encompasses the implications of the town, and on the other hand transcends that of the town by allowing for a more complex and sophisticated system. The town gradually makes its way through improvement towards industry and ultimately to the phase of country by way of manufacturing and trade. This movement can also be seen as the division of material and mental labor, in which Marx considers exactly the separation of town and country, and to me exactly demonstrates their relationship. I will propose that Marx means mental labor as the rise of intellect or rationality in correspondence to material labor. As material labor is advancing, mental labor is becoming an increasing necessity. Each one serves to mediate the other. Similarly, the town is transforming more into the country. Hence, both parties are striving for agreement.
The idea of the country seems to overpower that of the town, even as the town becomes closer to the ideal of country. The town anew mirrors the country, but remains a part of a larger concept of country. On a very literal sense, I will mention that Marx uses England as an example where trade and manufacture were centralized and created for them a world market (Marx 77), while the town (in some cases, not all) reveres England and attempts to follow their lead. This developing relationship between town and country is, as we move through history, a basic element that is built upon. There is not much, though, to inquire about this aspect of Marx’s account as I have condensed Marx's elaborate relationship between town and country, in which serve to facilitate the manifest of ideas such as property, as well as, in the end revolution.
I wonder if now since, as you said, the town is transforming more into the country, then what happens to the role of the country? Is it now fulfilled by the world? Since World War II, we have a seen continual progress to a more and more global society (the creation of the United Nations, open-border policies throughout Europe, telephones and the internet as a global communication system, free-trade, etc). As hundreds of years ago, people identified with their towns as the personal and most immediately important identity, and their countries as the largest collective of which they needed to be concerned, so too now do people seem to go to the country as their immediate identity in the context the world.
ReplyDeleteI would say that the role of the country is definitely becoming more global and worldly. As Marx says when he refers to England, there is a world market being created—as England is the center of manufacture and trade (Marx 77). Everyone is subject to the world market, and so each the town and country have a part in yielding to the interest of it. They are exactly the means of production and manufacture. The country is representative of everything within it, as you have alluded to. In terms of the division of labor and the gap between mental and material production, the town and the country seem to no longer have such great distinctions, though the country is ultimately the producer of mental production and receiver of material production.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Oscar; what was then considered the country in Marx' theory can now be applied to the world. The world has definitely become more global since Marx was living and much of the economy has been country-less and global; large corporations such as Pepsi, AOL and Nike are often very multinational and very distanced from their nation of origin. Labor is also exported, so both the office and the factory relating to a company can be found in a location half the world away. Outsourcing to India and China to take advantage of laborers is now the norm for interstate agents such as corporations so, unlike in Victorian England, we don't even have to hide slums in the corners of our cities.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you guys that Marx's theory of country can be applied to the global trade of today. Now, everything is globally valued. Not only that all these enterprises are collaborated and they function globally. I think during Marx time, town was transforming to country and now it is transforming to global from country. And due to all these new advanced technology the world is becoming smaller. And everything has become easy to access and facilitate. I think however there main core objective of all these transformation is to manifest for greater goods. I think one way or the other all these concepts of transformation are inter-related; either it is from town to country or country to global.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Marx, each transformation, whether from town to country or country to world, further extends the capitalist mode of production to allow for the further accumulation of capital. I believe the objective here is just a fatter profit margin, not necessarily the greater good. Globalization of capitalism has only extended the inequalities that were once contained in a single country. Accordingly, a select few across countries continue to enjoy the “freaks of fortune.” Meanwhile, as Agatha pointed out, the slums comprise numerous cities and regions.The widening income gap between the top 10 percent and the remainder of the labor force across countries signifies this global concentration of wealth alongside the global expansion of poverty. Marx describes this as a concentration of a capitalist class by stating, “big industry created a class, which in all nations has the same interest and with which nationality is already dead” (p 78). According to Marx, the top 10 percent of wage earners increasingly have a stronger affinity with workers of the same income bracket across countries than they do with the remaining 90 percent of wage earners in their own country.
ReplyDelete