Political Economy

Introduction

The political economy perspective has made a prevalent contribution to our understanding of cultural production. From a political economist perspective, cultural practices in society are the product of economic relations, as emphasized by Marx, The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. They stress that society is characterized by domination and subordination in its relation to the means of production. Those who own the means of material production also have the power to control the production of culture through cultural industries to preserve their own interests, and, while the political economists do not propose that economics is the only factor shaping cultural production, they do stress that it is clearly the most significant.

Discussion

Capitalism has started to be interrogated because of the ongoing disequilibrium in the financial, commodity and developed sectors.1 However, this is the first time since the Second World conflict that such questioning has started to gaze serious. The principle of investment capital is often called 'neo-liberalism', as if there is a logical up to date liberal beliefs involved. In truth, the policy of investment capital has engaged a series of pragmatic measures designed to double-check that its aims are conveyed out. Unsurprisingly, it required as little interference or regulation as possible in order to pursue its goal of maximum profit over the minimum possible time (Marc Allen, pp 45).

The product itself stands over the unit of production and so over the worker. In turn, the cult of the product with its derivative, cash, the universal matching, becomes the all-consuming goal of production. Everyone is compelled inside it. Those who abandon the fetish of the product are marginalised in society. Along with genuine subjection to the commodity moves an ideology of submission to the commodity and so worth and its self-expanding form-capital. Religion performances a subordinate role.

Capitalism, although, calls into being its opposite—and its opposition. Capital at one and the identical time desires to exploit the employee to the full, as a thing committed in production, but yet also desires the worker's humanity in order to double-check the inevitably abilities, with quality of output, and innovation, as well as the continuity of the worker. In other phrases, the abstract labourer contradicts the solid labourer. With the boost in the complexity and deepness of capital, inducement becomes more important. Capital, thus, has to be both inhuman and humane and its dual character shows itself both in one capitalist and in capitalism as a whole. For the employees, the imposition of machine-like controls compels them to find a mode of opposition and resistance. As far as this resistance coincides with the interest of the capitalist class as a entire, as in limiting the number of hours worked, the capitalist class concedes. As far as it threatens profits, it can be intransigent (James, pp 56-123).

In short, product fetishism controls the worker, but the progress of capitalism itself undermines it. It undermines it through both the formation of economic and ...