Political Science: Historical Tendency, Capital Accumulation, And Production Procedure

Identification of the arguments

Discuss about the Political Science for the Historical Tendency.

This study has highlighted the disparities between the two arguments, which show the historical tendency of the capitalist accumulation and the observation of the impact of the production procedure. Karl Marx has criticised the about the capitalist accumulation whereas R Owen discussed the other theory. These two literatures tried to describe two criticisms, which are several from each other. Moreover, this study is helpful to identify and understand the estimation, which is more relevant argument among the two discussed arguments. From the previous literature, it can be observed that Karl Marx has aimed to the capital accumulation in terms of wealth by inequitable factors in one side, which demolish the other personal production and the other alternative was the promotion of the updated modification of the region (Negahban and Smith 2014). On the other hand, as per the R Owen highlighted the poor side of the modification of the production procedure as well as the increase of the capitalism.   

According to Custers (2012), the concept of capital accumulation is mainly subject to the arguments of two controversies. As per the first argument, it can be mentioned that positive side of the increase of the capitalism reflects the individual manufacturing. This reflects the socialism in terms of the individual manufacturing will be beneficial for the development of the society. The reason can be discussed as the collective means of the manufacturing products is seemed to the responses of the difficulties (Drucker 2013). In this context, it can be stated that personal property of employees can be termed as the production of a small sized industry. In addition, these small sized industries are the sufficient criteria for the growth of the social manufacture (Leon 2012). Although this production technique sustain under the circumstances of slavery, nevertheless, it would develop and consider the overall energy and it could be attained in terms of the reliable classical terms. On the other hand, after the decomposition of the older society via its breadth as well as depth, the employees were converted into the amateur. As a result, their labour had also converted into capital. In this connection, Gal and Kligman (2012) opined that the socialisation of employment as well as the revolution of soil or the different terms of manufacture could be developed.  

In case of the second literature, Robert Owen mentioned that the workers who were connected with the trade or productions, could be modified in terms of the knowledge or wealth (Iwaisako and Futagami 2013). However, it can be argued that the foreign trade has been raised in such a massive way that was not acquired in previous. This modification could reflect the mechanical inventions and could generate the cotton trade within the economy. In this connection, He et al. (2012) mentioned the immediate consequence was the massive improvement in wealth, population. Moreover, the manufacturing diffusion within the economy formulates an updated quality among the inhabitants. This manufacturing procedure was depending upon the capitalism, as it was helpful to connect the individual’s manufactures with the help of the collective endeavours. Nonetheless, Custers (2012) criticised that the former control over the production procedure by slavery as well as serfdom, have not changed. Moreover, the updated procedures considered the new method of manufactures, which was not the solution as the method include the poor stage of the former system and consequently ignore the positive stage of the method as stated by (Hills 2013).

How the arguments are diverse from each other, which have proposed by two different authors

After the analysis of both of the literatures, it can be mentioned that both the argument violated to each other. Firstly, Karl Marx pointed to the gathering of wealth, which can hamper the personal manufactures whereas Robert Owen focused to the modification in the production procedure as well as the increase of the overall capital. Karl Marx opined that the continuous profitability power of the individual helps to manufacture goods to acquire higher power of the bargain compared to the capitalist (Hoppe 2013). This would in turn reduce the capitalism. Moreover, as per the concept of expropriation of the resources of the production, would be the lower violent method relative to the unification of the each of the employees’ production resources (Hoppe 2013). This could be supported with the help of the disagreement of the society whereas the society could manufacture the necessary amenities. Furthermore, the advantage, which was considered by the capitalists, would be also changed (Iwaisako and Futagami 2013). Therefore, it could be concluded that the power of control would be modified whereas the total framework and the activities of the society’s would remain equivalent.

On the contrary, according to Robert Owen, the resources of the production were depending upon the capitalism, which in turn was beneficial to convert the resources of the manufactures in the accumulated efforts. In this purpose, Leon (2012) suggested this would capable to manufacture higher outcomes. Nevertheless, the overall existing cost structure of the society was massive as the present custom focused to the growth of the society. On the other hand, with the help of the concept of the impact of the manufacturing technique, Robert Owen also mentioned that the extra population reflected to enhance the demand for the labours, which had been manufactured (Gal and Kligman 2012). Therefore, it was required to persist from the present scenario to the foreign trade. Furthermore, the exportable of trade could generate competition with the different regions. In this context, it could be assumed that the benefits would be gradually decreased. In the words of Negahban and Smith (2014), the inhabitants of each of the economy were trained for the environment, which has been created for commerce or trade or for production. As a result, Government of an economy could enjoy the pecuniary gain (Negahban and Smith 2014). However, it can be argued that the impact of this earned profitability were highly lamentable based on the working categories.

Evaluation of the more convincing argument

Robert Owen also opined that the parents of the age level of fourteen years forced to their children to work as labour (Robinson 2013). They were not literate in their book learning, but had the knowledge more than the domestic life. This would be beneficial with their growth and development.

From the argument of Karl Marx, it could be stated the theory of Karl Marx would be considerable if the scenario was utopian, which was referred as the utopianism (Schumpeter 2013). He was supposed to be corrected and appropriated that the society would going to be changed as per the modification of the requirements of the people along with the time as well as along with the transfer of the balance of power (Gal and Kligman 2012). On the other hand, Robert Owen was also seemed to right as the disintegration of the society was remaining unrestrained by the economy and would make the society inefficient that it could not able to experience for them. This would again hamper the natural sources of functions, which could be foreseen by Karl Marx as mentioned by Drucker (2013).

On the other hand, the predictions that Karl Marx discussed could possible. However, whether the growth of human mind as well as their abilities or instincts would be remain in the equivalent and the previous stage since the period, which was estimated (Iwaisako and Futagami 2013). As per the statement of Robert Owen, the disintegration of the society would modify the thinking of the children as well as their self-preferences would be better. Hence, it was important for the involvement, which could assure the growth of the mind in the future upcoming generations and it was not affected (Gal and Kligman 2012).

Therefore, the increase in the self-interest as per the opinion of Robert Owen, he assured that the effective production technique would be continued (Gal and Kligman 2012). On the contrary, Karl Marx supported that the effective approach was likely to obtain remain in the future during the changing of the control. As a result, these two opinions could be represented in the literature, which could further support and provide the recommendations and would be beneficial in the future (Hills 2013).

Conclusion

This essay has been constructed and highlighted the views of two several authors on socialism. It can be observed that both the authors were different from each of them. In addition, it can also be seen that the thinking of Robert Owen and Karl Marx was similar in some cases. The reason can be discussed as the future cannot be predicted and the production procedure would be modified as per the society’s requirement. Nonetheless, in order to identify the society’s requirement, they would be capable to discuss the reason of the underdevelopment of the system. Hence, it can be concluded that the price could complement to each other and could describe the possibilities. Moreover, both of the literatures were based on the production procedure and considered the contemporary process and could be obtained by the capitalism.

References

Custers, P., 2012. Capital accumulation and women's labor in Asian economies. NYU Press.

Drucker, P.F., 2013. The unseen revolution: How pension fund socialism came to America. Elsevier.

Gal, S. and Kligman, G., 2012. The politics of gender after socialism: A comparative-historical essay. Princeton University Press.

He, Y., Liu, B., Zhang, X., Gao, H. and Liu, X., 2012. A modeling method of task-oriented energy consumption for machining manufacturing system.Journal of Cleaner Production, 23(1), pp.167-174.

Hills, J., 2013. Wealth in the UK: distribution, accumulation, and policy. Oxford University Press.

Hoppe, H.H., 2013. A theory of socialism and capitalism: economics, politics, and ethics. Springer Science & Business Media.

Iwaisako, T. and Futagami, K., 2013. Patent protection, capital accumulation, and economic growth. Economic Theory, 52(2), pp.631-668.

Leon, G., 2012. Civil conflict and human capital accumulation the long-term effects of political violence in perú. Journal of Human Resources, 47(4), pp.991-1022.

Negahban, A. and Smith, J.S., 2014. Simulation for manufacturing system design and operation: Literature review and analysis. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 33(2), pp.241-261.

Robinson, J., 2013. The accumulation of capital. Palgrave Macmillan.

Schumpeter, J.A., 2013. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge.

Von Mises, L., 2015. Socialism: An economic and sociological analysis. Lulu Press, Inc.