Phil 1110 M2 Notes PDF

10/10/24 Nozick’s experience machine Nozick thinks that we wouldn’t plug in ○ Pleasure is not the only thing intrinsically valuable The moral life Singer “famine, affluence, and morality” ○ Absolute or extreme poverty Severe deprivation of food...

10/10/24 Nozick’s experience machine Nozick thinks that we wouldn’t plug in ○ Pleasure is not the only thing intrinsically valuable The moral life Singer “famine, affluence, and morality” ○ Absolute or extreme poverty Severe deprivation of food Lack of safe drinking water Lack of sanitation facilities Lack of healthcare facilities Lack of access to education and information Absolute affluence ○ More than enough income for the necessities of life ○ Access to food, water, shelter, clothing, basic health care, education Singer argues there is a moral problem ○ Namely, discretionary spending on “luxuries” Singer says it's just like not saving the child to save boots Singer’s Argument P1: suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. P2: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought, morally, to do it. P3: it IS within our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance. ○ C: We ought, morally, to do it. Singer’s moderate principle P1: suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. ○ This is an “uncontroversial assumption”: “those who disagree need read no further” (Cahn. pg 153) P2: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought, morally, to do it. ○ Seems just as uncontroversial ○ Can weaken the premise: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it. Implication We have a duty to do much more than we are doing in the face of global and local suffering caused by poverty, climate change, injustice, etc Every time we purchase a luxury item (spending more than is necessary on food, housing, transportation, clothes, etc.) ○ this is morally wrong → blameworthy Irrelevance of proximity, numbers, or responsibility Proximity doesn’t make any moral difference ○ Neither morally or pragmatically Ex. child starving and there is a food stand nearby but you are about to buy expensive shoes The fact that so many other people also not giving doesn’t let us off the hook ○ Makes no moral difference that others are not giving more than they do The fact that we may not have caused the suffering (even indirectly) is, from the moral point of view, irrelevant Duty and charity Singer’s argument undermines the traditional distinction between duty and charity Obligation vs. generosity ○ The charitable person receives praise, but the person who purchases luxuries does not receive blame and typically feels no shame If singer is correct ○ Donating money to relief organizations is not supererogatory (charitable) but morally required ○ Most discretionary spending is not blameless, but morally wrong Objections to singer’s argument “That it requires too drastic a revision of our moral scheme” ○ Singer’s response: the question is not how we do judge, but how we ought to judge “That it is too demanding.” ○ Does it follow that we must be working ceaselessly to relieve suffering ○ Singers’ response: yes “That we have a “right” to our property.” ○ Singer’s response: supposed we do have a right to our property, this does not entail that we shouldn’t give it away (or that you aren’t morally obligated to do so). ○ It only follows that no one has a right to take it away How much  Strong version → original argument ○ We ought to give until we get to that threshold after which, if we gave anymore, we would cause something comparably bad to happen: I should give until, if I gave more, I would cause as much suffering to me and to my family as I would relieve by my donations Ex. If I donate $5 it would feed a child but I wouldn’t be able to feed my own Moderate version → weakened argument ○ We ought to give until we reach that threshold after which, if we gave anymore, we would cause anything morally bad to happen I should give up until, if i gave any more, I would cost myself or my family anything morally significant, including reducing oneself, or one’s family to poverty, but also giving other significant things like education, some enjoyments of life, etc. How much? “... we would have to give away enough to ensure that the consumer society, dependent as it is on people spending on trivia rather than giving to famine relief, would slow down and perhaps disappear entirely What about slowing down the economy? ○ This may matter when working out a social ideal, but it doesn’t matter on the individual level Your donating to oxfam/local food bank won’t tank the economy Conclusion When we have a choice between a luxury item and an inexpensive alternative, purchasing the latter is not a morally significant sacrifice Current infrastructure ensures that donating money can always be a way of preventing something bad from happening 15/10/24 Wolf: “moral saints” Moral saint ○ Someone who is (strives to be in practice) as morally good as possible Moral sainthood ○ Requires one’s life be dominated by a commitment to improving the welfare of all others at all time Moral saints  Moral sainthood ○ Unattractive ideal because it disparages nonmoral goods, skills, interests ○ Moral saints are too good for their own-being Lives are barren and narrow ○ Practical obstacle to good nonmoral pursuits No time for music, art, cuisine, etc ○ An ethical obstacle to good nonmoral qualities No wit or sarcasm → go against the moral gain Thus one has a bland, vanilla personality Two kinds of moral saints → not be good or rational to strive to be like ○ Loving saint (sympathetic) Finds her own happiness in that of others ○ Rational saint (acting from duty) Happiness consists in normal (nonmoral) aspirations Dutifully sacrifices or ignores them for the sake of others’ happiness ○ Both kinds of moral saints miss out on much of what makes a life worth living The loving saint seems to undervalue non-moral goods The rational saint seems to masochistically deny non-moral goods The moral saint is “too good for his own good” The moral virtues “crowd out” the nonmoral virtues: “if the moral saint is devoting all of his time to feeding the hungry or healing the sick or raising money for oxfam, then necessarily he is not reading victorian novels, playing the oboe, or improving his backhand” (wolf, 421) Example Someone training for the olympics ○ Ex. competitive swimming Wouldn't this person also have to sacrifice either non-swimming interests, desires, and pursuits Moral saints Wolf argues that moral sacrifice is inherently of a different kind. The sacrifice of non-moral interests for morality will have the character ○ Not merely of a stronger desire, but a higher desire ○ Not of a preference, but an imperative Unlike a person who focuses on the pursuit of aspirations like a concert pianist, olympic swimmer, etc., moral sainthood domaintes, subsumes, suppresses, and removes competing ideals  ○ “The way in which morality, unlike other possible goals, is apt to dominate is particularly disturbing, for it seems to require either the lack or denial of the existence of an identifiable, personal self.” Moral saints and fanaticism Thus the ideal of the moral saint is “fanatical” This fanaticism resembles religious zealotry, radical egoism, and asceticism The nonmoral virtues The moral saint lacks nonmoral virtues ○ Forms of personal excellence/character traits that are valuable and desirable If we advocate the development of the nonmoral virtues, we imply that there are nonmoral reasons for action A personal ideal that gives a substantial role to the interests/values that correspond to these non-moral virtues is good and it is incompatible with that of the moral saint Thus, “if we think it is as good or even better for a person to strive for one of these ideals than it is for him or her to strive for and realize the ideal of the moral saint, we express a conviction that it is good not to be a moral saint” (wolf, 426-7). Conclusion Wolf concludes that the moral saint may be perfectly moral, but it is not an ideal that it would be good or rational for us to strive for “A person can be perfectly wonderful without being perfectly moral” (wolf, 436) Questions of political philosophy What is the source and what are the limits of political authority? What rights and liberties should individuals enjoy? What is a just or unjust distribution of material resources? Why have governments? What kind of government is best? Who has the right to make laws? Who has the authority to punish? Is there a general obligation to obey the law? Is there any unnecessary connection between justice and human flourishing? Normative questions about justice, sometimes summed up as, who makes the rules and why? Or perhaps relatedly, who gets what and why? Political philosophy A normative discipline Descriptive study:  ○ Who has authority? ○ Who has the power to tell us what to do and to punish us if we don’t? What rights and liberties do people enjoy? Who has resources and who doesn’t? We can answer these questions by studying how things are In political philosophy, we ask about the ideal: ○ What is the source of legitimate political authority or who has the right to command? ○ What is a just distribution of resources? ○ What rights and liberties ought people to have? ○ What is freedom and why is it valuable? Questions about justice and morality are normative ○ Investigate how things ought to be 17/10/24 Hobbes's leviathan and the social contract Leviathan ○ Written during english civil wars ○ Forcing questions of power, authority and obedience Rift between royalists and parliamentarians ○ Who gets to make the rules and why Modern liberalism Philosophical views that share in common a commitment to liberal democracy ○ To limited government rooted in the consent of the governed ○ To the recognition and protection of individual rights and liberties ○ To political equality and the equal application of the law to everyone Almost none of this is found in Hobbes and yet he is often considered a forerunner of these ideas Hobbes’ familiar claims The idea that without government we would live in chaos and mutual destruction, such that the purpose of government is peace and security (even if a necessary evil) The idea that government or the state is something artificial that is something we bring about voluntarily and purposefully to serve our ends The idea that political authority is rooted in consent of the people The idea that liberty is “non-interference,” and the sacrifice of liberty even if it means more liberty in the long run, is always a sacrifice of something valuable to us (negative liberty) The idea of a natural equality among people and the rejection of natural or metaphysical hierarchies State of nature Central question ○ Why do we need a commonwealth? How do we build it? “State of nature” or the “natural condition” ○ Theoretical device, in order to know purpose governments serve, we ask What would life be like without them? What sort of problems would we find? ○ The idea is that this method serves to illustrate our answer Human beings are bundles of appetites and aversions, we pursue our continued motion, our comfortable survival and we avoid what is painful and destructive (previously argued for) A state of natural equality The supposition of scarcity The supposition that some people will take their acts of conquest Thus in “natural man” there are three principle cases of quarrel: ○ Competition ○ Diffidence ○ glory State of nature = a state of war ○ War consists of actual fighting and the disposition thereto, and in war everyone is for themselves and depends solely on their own strength Your own experience ○ Don’t your own actions imply a general distrust of mankind Hobbes points out that we all lock our doors, our chests, we have pins and passwords, and security systems, we might travel in groups, or in a well-lit area (or armed) “you accuse mankind with your actions” Hobbs is not saying that humans are naturally bad ○ No action or appetite is good or evil, just or unjust itself, where there is no law there is no injustice In this state of war, “force and fraud are cardinal values” ○ You’d better be powerful, and you’d better be clever, using whatever means and cunning is necessary to protect yourself and your situation What can we do, how can we exit this situation  ○ The very same passions that incline men to war (ex. Fear of death and want of commodious living) also incline them to peace ○ Reason suggests convenient articles of peace: “laws of nature”; rational precepts (imperatives) for securing self preservations and prosperity 22/10/24 Natural right Right of nature ○ The liberty to use one’s power to preserve oneself according to one’s own judgment (59) Liberty ○ Absence of external impediments (59) Laws of nature ○ “A precept or general rule, found out by reason by which man is forbidden to do that which is destructive to his life or taketh away the means of doing the same….” (59). First law of nature Every man ought to endeavor peace as far as he has hope of obtaining it, and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war First branch ○ Seek peace and follow it contains the first and fundamental law of nature Second branch ○ By all means we can to defend ourselves ○ we have a natural right to enlist all of our powers to preserve ourselves We have a dilemma ○ On one hand we ought to seek peace when we have hope of success, but we have little hope ○ On the other hand, when we have no hope for peace in the state of nature, we are thus rationally required to “seek and use the helps and advantages of war” Which means using violence, even preemptively Second law of nature “That a man be willing, as far forth for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down his right to all things and be content with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself” (60). ○ Treat others the way you want to be treated Laying down a right To lay down a right ○ When we lay down our rights or renounce them we do not give someone a right to something they did not have before ○ In the state of nature everyone has a right to all things, even to another’s bodies One can harm someone to get what they want Third law of nature “From that law of nature by which we are obliged to transfer to another such rights as, being retained, hinder the peace of mankind, there followeth a third, which is this, that men perform their covenants made, without which covenants are in vain, and but with empty words; and the right of all men to all things remaining, we are still in the condition of war” (66). This law is the original justice and injustice ○ When a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust ○ Injustice is the breaking of a covenant How can we make a covenant Covenant ○ Non-simultaneous transfer or renouncing of a right, where one or both parties to the contract are to perform their part at some later time This depending on trust, or the keeping of a promise ○ How can we make a valid covenant Problem ○ To exit the state of nature, we need to make covenants → to lay down right to all things But covenants in the state of nature are invalid ○ It is never rational to perform first, there will always be some reason for suspicion that another will not perform Assurance problem ○ There cannot be justice or injustice until the fear of non-performance is taken away, “which while men are in the natural condition of war, there can be none ○ We cannot exit the state of nature The leviathan The same question as howe can we make a commonwealth ○  We exit the state of nature by agreeing to lay down all of our natural rights effectively transferring them to a sovereign power with the authority to make the rules and the coercive power to compel obedience What is the crucial feature of the state ○ What is its main purpose What sort of power does it need to perform this purpose Purpose of the state For hobbs the purpose of the state is security and the keeping of covenants We give up our natural right to everything in exchange for security and assurance, but since everyone does this we all end up retaining (getting back what is permitted by law) more liberty than we would have in the state of nature ○ Liberty just means non-interference, fewer obstacles to our comfort and survival The source of political authority ○ The legitimacy of the state’s power to make laws and punish Political obligation ○ Our obligation to obey the law and submit to the state’s authority Both is our own voluntary will ○ The sovereign makes the rules because we agree to it 24/10/24 Theory of justice ○ Develops an egalitarian theory of liberalism and was influential on philosophy of all kinds Ethics, applied ethics, political philosophy Also on public and governmental policy Reinvigorates social contract theory offers an conception of justice as fairness ○ Basic idea: we rationally agree to principles that are fair but what is fair Main idea Society is a cooperative venture for mutual advantage marked by conflict and shared interests (4) We need a set of principles to assign a fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation These principles of justice apply the basic structure of society ○ They establish the fair terms of cooperation and distribute social primary goods  liberty, opportunity, income, wealth, social bases of self respect ○ Social primary goods All purpose means, which are under the influence and control of social institutions Principles of justice ○ Principles that free and rational persons who aim to maximize their self interest would agree to in an initial position of equality They are the objects of rational agreement ○ How do we choose these principles ○ What principles do we choose ○ Why do we choose these principles How do we choose what is fair ○ Answer: from an original position of equality ○ The original position: a hypothetical choice situation where there are symmetrical relations between equal, moral persons Equal bargaining position (no one is in a superior bargaining position) Equal knowledge (no one has more knowledge) No one is advantaged/disadvantaged in the choice of principles by natural/historical/social contingencies Mutually disinterested and (instrumentally) rational beings with their own ends, capable of devising/revising plans to realize them Capable of a sense of justice (reasonableness) Characterized by a veil of ignorance ○ Ignorant of class/social position Natural talents/abilities One’s conception of the good, even one’s particular psychological propensities (religion, values, etc) Because these things are arbitrary (Irrelevant from a moral point of view) ○ They should not affect our choice of principles The original position (the how) Initial status quo (plays the role of the “state of nature”) ○ The principles chosen in the original position are rational and fair (11) Institutions organized in such a way are just ideally so Wide public acceptance: “voluntary scheme” because these are principles that people would choose as free and equal persons in fair circumstances The principles of justice (the what) First (liberty principle) ○ Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others Second (fair opportunity and difference principle) ○ Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both Reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage Attached to positions and offices open to all The principles of justice (the what) Arranged in a serial order with first principle prior to the second ○ No trade offs Ex. can’t trade political liberties for greater economic gains, etc Differentials in income, authority, responsibility (for the benefit of all) Must be consistent with basic liberties and equality of opportunity Justify the principles (the why) How do the parties arrive at the principles of justice In original position there’s no way for one party to get a special advantage ○ First agree to a principle of distribution, such that one is able to pursue one’s goals to the furthest possible extent consistent with a similar ability for others ○ Not reasonable for one to expect more than an equal share and not rational for one to agree to less Efficiency must also be taken into consideration, so it’s rational to agree that if some inequalities are advantageous to all they should be allowed Rawl thinks that people will agree to the most extensive set of equal basic liberties compatible with the same set of liberties for others It would not be rational to agree to less because those with a lesser share could not be said to benefit But inequalities in wealth and income and authority/responsibilities might be useful as long as these will benefit everyone General conception of justice  ○ All social values, liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these values is to everyone’s advantage Injustice ○ Simply inequalities that are not to benefit of all When choosing principles from the original position, we would not reward contingencies based on natural or socal lottery ○ Wouldn't structure society so that inequalities in social primary goods based on contingent social advantages or natural abilities/disabilities ○ Original position teaches us these are “irrelevant from a moral point of view” We can socially make use of differences in natural abilities by introducing some inequalities as long as those are to the benefit of everyone ○ Rawl thinks we can incentivize productivity with differential incomes Objections to rawls theory of justice 29/10/2024 Marx and “marxism” Karl marx ○ Wage labor and capital 1847 Mid-19th century london Industrial revolution ○ Inventions: spinning jenny, cotton gin, power loom, steam engine, steam locomotive, steamships England was largest commercial power and london was the “workshop” Introduction of the modern factory Developments in manufacturing and trade accompanied by social and political shifts London in mid 19th century ○ Migration and concentration of free laborers into city centers Poor working conditions and environmental pollutions Poor laws and workhouses in response to increased pauperization in the cities Child labour, grueling working conditions, low wages Wage labor and capital Nucleus of marx’s economic theory ○ Theory of exploitation and surplus value  Marx explains what he takes to be the core dynamic of (laissez-faire) capitalism and the relationship between wage labor and capital What are wages Wages (marx, pg. 8) ○ Price of labor power for X amount of time Labour power is commodity that the laborer sells ○ Why does the laborer sell their labor power? (marx, pg. 8) Labour power ○ capacity to work for a certain amount of time Commodity ○ something with a use and exchange value But the exercise of labor-power is the laborer's own “life-activity,” he sells it to someone else in order to procure the necessary means of subsistence ○ In order to live Thus his life activity is for him a means to life ○ “He works in order to live….labor is not a part of his life, it is a sacrifice of his life” (p.9). ○ Becomes a means to life instead of a point to life Means to survival ○ marx says the point to life is to be creative free self-serving creatures It’s five o'clock somewhere The worker does not own the product of his labor ○ Hence the product of his activity is not the aim of his activity (p.9) This activity he devotes himself to for the majority of his life, but it is not the purpose of his life. Life begins for him, where the activity ceases, work has no meaning, except as a means to wages Labour power Was not always a commodity ○ Labour was not always wage labor/free labor The slave himself a commodity, not just his labor power (and his labor power is not his commodity) The serf sells part of his labor power. He does not receive a wage for working the land, but pays the owner of the land a tribute from his yield The free laborer The free laborer, on the other hand, sells himself, and sells himself piecemeal How are wages determined? Like any other commodity, by the cost of its production To make another worker ○ The cost of living and reproducing is the cost of production of simple labor power ○ Skilled workers make a little more, unskilled a little less On average the cost of the existence and propagation of the worker ○ This is the minimum wage ○ This holds as an average, for the class of workers, and does not guarantee the existence and propagation of individual laborers What is capital? Raw materials ○ Coal, land, iron, etc Instruments of labor ○ Machines, technology Means of subsistence “of all kinds” which are used to produce more raw materials, instrument of labor, and means of subsistence These commodities also represent social relations ○ Past, congealed, human labor Any bunch of commodities only becomes capital by exchanging them for wage labor (pg. 13) The exchange Worker sells labor power (for a day) for a wage ○ For access to the means of subsistence (which he consumes while working for the capitalist) Capitalist pays a wage and gets labor power for X hours ○ The workers wages are consumed, and he has to start again Labour power is a productive activity ○ Capitalist gets back wages and doubles them – “surplus value” (pg. 14) Exploitation Capitalism requires the existence of a class that has nothing else to sell but their labor power Capitalist buys a definite quantity (duration) of labor power in exchange for wages ○ Wages → cost of the reproduction of the worker (on average) ○ Profit → surplus value Exploitation  ○ Extraction of surplus value (goes back to capital) Capital and wage labor What is the shared interest between capital and wage labor? (pg. 16) Wage labor and capital reciprocally condition each other ○ Wage laborer needs capital → the worker needs access to the means of subsistence in order to live ○ But capital also perishes if it does not freshly exploit wage labor “Trickle-down economics” ○ As conditions of capital are more favorable, workers can fetch a between price for labor power, may experience relative increased in standard of living The indispensable condition for a tolerable situation of the worker is, therefore, the fattest possible growth of productive capital (pg. 16) Antagonism But this is an appearance only, as workers make more, capital makes 4x more, etc The social gulf widens ○ Laborers empower and enlarge the power that is hostile to it The antagonism Universal competition ○ The law of capital requires ever more innovation and labor-saving (cost-saving) technologies, to produce more cheaply Result is economies of scale, the effect is to produce more for less, prices go down Competition yields upheavals and transformations of entire industries Pushes us to be innovative Introduces more competition between workers ○ Technology supplants labor, workers work longer hours and are more productive ○ Skilled labor becomes increasingly obsolete, wages decrease ○ But really the worker competes against himself when he competes against other workers Capitalism discharges its workers ○ But not all of them, that would end capitalism 31/10/24 Historical materialism (dialectical materialism) The view that modes of social thought are the product of particular constellations of social and material relations Particular material conditions give rise to specific set of social relations ○ Productive forces, relations of production, emerging technologies, etc Marx’s insight Different societal arrangements (institutions) are explained by developing material conditions History is explained and should be understood in terms of developing productive forces; the interaction of human beings with each other and the natural world in which they produce their “ means of subsistence” Modes of production (feudalism, capitalism) Composed of base and superstructure ○ Economic base: the forces of production and the relations of the production ○ Superstructure: social, political and legal institutions, and their corresponding ideologies or self-understandings (religion, philosophy and culture) Ex. liberal democracies, liberal equality rights, etc Class struggle History is driven by the antagonisms and contradictions between social classes ○ Class: your relationship to the means of production What is class Determined by your relationship to the means of production ○ Means of production Technology, machines, raw materials, land, labor power Do you own and control the means of production or some portion of them ○ Or is your access to them or to some portion of them mediated by others Feudalism Hierarchical system but not an out and out private control of property, extraction of surplus is political and justified by religion ○ Lord holds land and serfs own their means of production and have use of land to labor Certain rights and obligations ○ Serfs bound to hereditary plot of land, obligated to work the land and provide tribute in exchange for protection  ○ May not be allowed to hunt and forage on the land because it belongs to the lord Capitalism (increasingly two opposing classes) Things have become more simplified ○ “Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie Different in class societies Feudalism ○ Complicated social arrangements ○ Class arrangements (benefits bound up with class structure), but multiple gradations of power Modern bourgeois society has simplified this structure, increasingly giving rise to two opposing classes ○ Bourgeoisie → property-owning ○ Proletariats → property-less The rise of the bourgeoisie How did we get to this particular structure ○ “... the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolution in the modes of production and of exchange “ (pg. 247) Technological and social developments The bourgeoisie have outgrown the constraints of feudalism Technological advances provide them with more things to do in towns ○ Towns end up with different charters and rights ○ “From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.” Burg → town Burger → townie The “discovery” of america paves the way for further developments ○ Primitive accumulation of capital (huge influxes of cash) ○ Plundering of resources ○ Enslavement of nature populations (in americas, africa) gave european enormous boost of “free” labor and material wealth Creation of “free” (wage) labor force (through enclosures and urbanization) Creation of new markets ○ The newly rich need to spend their cash Buy luxuries, reinvest, fund new expeditions, etc  Inflation and debt fuel revolutionary forces Felling feudalism Forces that allowed for world exploration, etc, bring new markets, new needs (conspicuous consumption) In the feudal system production was monopolized by guilds ○ Journeymen were trained to provide specific skill set and often there were contracts with municipalities for the production of specific goods Increase of a manufacturing sector with greater division of labor puts pressure on the guild system, which gives way to modern factory Division of labor between guilds, becomes a division of labor within a single factory Steam and machinery revolutionize production and gives rise to modern industry With modern industry, we get the modern world market, increases in communication, navigation, etc, which each in their turn put new pressures to increase production Ascending bourgeoisie The product of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and exchange Each step in its productive advances is accompanied by political advances culminating in the bourgeoisie revolutions (american and french), in which this class gains exclusive sway over the political state Superstructure Marx and engels see the superstructure as conditioned by the case Different modes of production come on the scene when the productive power of the forces of production becomes hindered by the current relations of production Example: guild vs modern factory production We begin to see theoretical justifications for a mobile labor force ○ Philosophical theories emphasize that human beings are free and equal and each concerned to maximize their happiness or self-interest (a wage laborer is a free laborer) ○ This is an abstract and negative conception of freedom, appropriate to the atomized individuals of a mobile workforce We also get the rise of a state and institutions thats secure uniform laws and the protection of private property ○ The state plays umpire over the market Constant revolutionizing of production “Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions ○ Capitalism requires constant revolutionizing of production, competition Why is revolutionizing production so crucial to the bourgeois epoch Contemporary example The sharing economy ○ Uber, lyft Efficient, cheaper, highly competitive Ride hailing or ride sharing apps put enormous squeeze on taxi companies/services Changes the face of the industry ○ Uber eats, skip the dishes Globalization What economic factors lend the bourgeoisie this world-shaping power Massive expansion in production/innovation The result is the rapid development in the productive forces of humankind ○ “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarcely one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together” (p. 249) The sorcerer’s apprentice The proletariat Marx and engels’ view is that bourgeois production has created the very conditions that will lead to its end Most notably in the form of productive power of capitalism and the proletarian class Who are the proletariat Pauperization of the working class Ultimately, bourgeois society ○ Ex. industrial capitalism, makes itself untenable because of the poverty it causes The revolutionary class Industrial production brings about a condition of association Workers realize themselves as a class with common interests as a class Crisis of overproduction ○ Lots of stuff, lots of poor and hungry people who can’t buy it, decreased sales, layoffs, forced destruction of commodities  Marx and engels think the productive forces have outgrown the relations of production Modern forces of production Increased automation, not only in production/distribution, but in knowledge based industries and profession fields as well ○ Ex. software that can diagnose in medicine, legal software, real estate As we automate industries, workers have to refrain, find other employment or become unemployed During recessions/depressions, these people perish (without assistance) ○ Increased productivity, proliferation of commodities, but decreased powers of consumption Workers of the world unite According to marx and angels, a proletarian revolution will abolish the conditions of class society in general Why do marx and engels think that the proletarian revolution will abolish the conditions of class society Abolishing class society There is no one left to exploit ○ No reason left to exploit them Capitalism produces within it the conditions for our emancipation from class struggle It propels us towards realizing them because it is inherently crisis-ridden The interest of the proletariat, the universal class, is thus universal ○ It is mankind’s emancipation from unnecessary and oppressive work Because capital will otherwise perish, as we introduce more productive technology, capitalists have to squeeze out a profit ○ Ex. increase in automated self checkouts → lay off workers If workers seize the means of production and work for themselves then there is no need to grow capital The economy can be rationally and democratically controlled to work for workers ○ Ex. increase in automated self-checkouts = shorter shifts or more time off for workers Inevitable Marx and engels thought that this development was inevitable  ○ In the same way that capitalism grew out of feudalism, they think communism or socialism will grow out of capitalism While they point of that capitalism is condition by and necessitates fundamental material inequality and unfreedom, they do not appeal to our sense of justice in arguing for its replacement Rather, this is something they think is necessitated by the productive forces and our survival ○ Capitalism can’t ensure the existence of its workers What happened Marx and engels analyze a perfectly free market ○ Cycles of crises 05/11/24 Marx’s insight Different societal arrangements (institutions) are explained by developing material conditions History is explained and should be understood in terms of developing productive forces, the interaction of human beings with each other and the natural world in which they produce their “means of subsistence” Massive expansion in production/innovation The result of capitalist production is the rapid development in the productive forces of humankind: ○ Productive forces Labour Land machines ○ “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarcely one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together” (pg. 249). Felling feudalism The proletariat Marx and engels’ view is that bourgeois production has created the very conditions that will lead to its end, most notably in the form of productive power of capitalism and the proletarian class Pauperization of the working class  Commodified labor power is uniform, workers fungible, expendable Unemployment is a powerful mechanism to keep wages low Increased productivity increases accumulation of capital, concentrates property in fewer hands, and intensifies the conditions of their exploitation