1. What do Marx and Engels mean by the term “proletariat”?
“The lower strata of the middle class – the small trades people, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants – all these sink gradually into the proletariat…” (Marx, p.7)
The proletariat according to Marx and Engels are the working classmen in the bourgeois society. They are the group of people that the capitalist exploits to attain their own economic and political ends. The proletariat, even though skilled and able, lacks the economic resources to compete with large industries, are forced to sell their hard labor to provide for their own needs, all without having the advantages and the indulgences that the bourgeoisie has. In a Communist’s perspective, the proletariat is the oppressed class as the bourgeois as their oppressors.
2. What historical stages do the proletariat go through?
From Engels and Marx, the proletariat goes through various stages of development. Lines of battle are drawn since the creation of the economic differences of both social classes. (Marx, p.7)
At first, an individual rise up against oppression until he is joined by another, then another until they have created their own union; at a singular factory at first or a single proletariat community. In time, another, creating a larger group of proletarian movement, will join such union, which will then be joined by a union from another industry, then from another, all with the same goal, freedom, freedom from oppression.
As they grow in number, in greater masses, their strength grows. From time to time they will win battles against the oppressors, like getting a wage hike for all the laborers in a particular community, but victory have never been absolute. Thus, throughout history, since the creation of the difference previously mentioned, constant struggle ensues.
3. What drives the bourgeoisie forward in their revolution?
The driving force for the bourgeoisies in their revolution is the development of their lot their so-called “civilization.” We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. (p.3) Self-centered bourgeois use their capital; exploit the working class, using civilization and development as an excuse, to attain their political advancement in their “ruling class.” To rule the rulers, to be the richest among the rich and be the Primus enter pares, or the first among equal are the reason why the bourgeois continue their revolution in changing the course of history and the whole world.
4. In what ways do the bourgeoisie change the world?
First and foremost, the bourgeois created numbers of freedom, freedom for themselves, most importantly, freedom to oppress the lower classes of society, especially the proletarians.
They created new things in replacement of the old but effective with the new and more beautiful. They created needs and wants that were never needed or wanted before. They changed the means of production that can make a group hardworking of people to be less important than before and a man to be as important as he have never been.
The bourgeoisie paved the way for the destruction of the world.
5. What do they mean by all fixed . . . relations . . . are swept away . . . All that is solid melts into air.”?
From what has been discussed earlier, (question #4) capitalism changed everything. What have been important before became of no importance today and what have been not important became essential, as it has never been. In the statement “… All that is solid melts into the air,” the context of the family and religion, which was before the concrete foundation of society, especially the family, had been broken down to a mere financial relationship.
6. What is Marx’s attitude towards the bourgeoisie?
Marx views the rise of the bourgeoisie in Europe as the result of a couple of factors; firstly, he believes that, the chartered burghers who evolved from the serfs of the medieval ages developed the initial elements of the bourgeoisie. Next, following the great colonization of the 16th and 17th centuries the market expanded, leading to a great need for increased production. This great demand could not be sufficed by the feudal guilds; as such they were replaced with manufacturing. However, the markets and the demand kept increasing and the manufacturing system could no longer keep up, as such, Modern Industry also replaced it. The Industrial Revolution of the late 18th century and the early 19th century which lead to great advances in technology, energy sources, and communication, combined with the ever expanding new markets, allowed for the creation of a powerful bourgeoisie class. The bourgeoisie’s ever increasing wealth was, Marx believed, proportionally followed with increasing political advance. As such Marx believes that the governments of Europe were “but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” (27). The bourgeoisie, Marx claims, destroyed all the relations between men, except for ‘naked self interest’; the bourgeoisie has transformed personal self worth into exchange value. Marx notes that, the exploitation previously veiled by religious and political ‘illusions’ is now direct, brutal and blatant.
7. What is bourgeois freedom?
The bourgeoisie becomes the ruling class – which means it also owns the bulk of the means of production (land, factories, offices, capital, resources) as well as the means of coercion (national armed forces, prison systems, court systems). Ownership of the means of production enables it to employ and exploit the work of a large mass of wage workers (the working class), also known as the industrial middle class, who have no other means of livelihood than to sell their labour to property owners; while control over the means of coercion allows intervention during challenges from below. That means that they have given themselves the freedom and total control over the the other classes.
8. How do the bourgeois deceive themselves?
The bourgeoisie deceive themselves because Marx thought he knew that the fall of the bourgeois is inevitable as the victory of the proletarians. The bourgeoisie is very dynamic with their movement, constantly changing the process of production, constantly changing society and the civilization. But, as said earlier, to Marx, the fall the bourgeoisie is predestined.
9. What is Marx’s view of nationalism?
“The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.” (4)
Marx’s description of European society as driven by economics and divided by class lines is correct. However he fails to see the great influence of nationalism and he does not entertain the idea of compromise between the classes, because of this he wrongly predicts the destruction of the capitalist system and the bourgeoisies by the proletariat.
Marx sees the struggle of the proletariats will go beyond one particular country in Europe. The struggle of the proletariat will be the struggle of the whole world just as the bourgeois have revolutionized the world before and today.
10. What are the various kinds of socialism? State the main features of each.
Part III of Manifesto discusses the various forms of socialism, reactionary socialism, bourgeois socialism, and critical utopian socialism.
Reactionary Socialism is the first discussed in the manifesto. Reactionary socialism, according to Marx has three kinds, the feudal, petty bourgeois, and German or “true” socialism. These kinds of socialism are created to maintain their particular class in society, the aristocracy in feudal socialism (p. 18), class bellow the bourgeois but above the proletariat in the petty bourgeois socialism (p. 19) and the liberals of “true” socialism.
Bourgeois socialism arises from bourgeois, but holds up the standard of the proletariat, with whom the bourgeoisie are a shared enemy. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. (p. 22) This is a claim that once the proletariat achieve political power, the eventual result will be a classless society. Abolishing bourgeois modes of production undermines the continued existence of class hostility, and without class hostility, the proletariat will lose their own class character.
Lastly, Critical-Utopian Socialism is “the young state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see it in the best possible plan of the best possible state of society?. Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavor, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.” (p. 24) This kind of Socialism is the kind that chooses neither side. It is more inclined to the betterment of the society as a whole and not only to the success of one and the abolition of the other.
11. Is Marx’s theory of labor movements and social change relevant today?- (¼ to half page in length)
The labor movements, described in the Communist Manifesto still exists today, although the social change that is the goal of communism is hard to obtain, I believe that it is still very relevant. But there are things that I think that Marx’s conclusion about the inevitability of the proletariat victory, and the unsustainability of modern industry overlooks some factors.
Marx predicted the fall and destruction of, the bourgeoisies, capitalism and modern industry. He believed it would happen in a relatively short time following the writing of the Manifesto. The reason for Marx’s premature prediction, and for the fact that it has not yet, or maybe never will happen is primarily that Marx saw society solely in the terms of a class struggle driven by economics, to him everything was black and white. Therefore he did not take into account the possibility of compromise by the state, and the moderation of the revolutionary parties.
Such reformations, the increase in the power of unions and the ability of the workers to vote led to sustainable compromises between the classes, as such no class war took place.
Reflection On Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto
Reflection Essay on Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto
Brief Summary of the Communist Manifesto
The Communist Manifesto was written by the communist Karl Marx in 1848. The manifesto presents the social condition of the class struggle which is prevalent both in the historical events and present societal condition. Upon presenting this condition, Marx analytically studies the problems of capitalism. The communist theorist tried to encourage the proletariats to be more cautious against the bourgeoisies who have the tendency to exploit workers in exchange of productions and wages (Marx, Engels and Hobsbawm, 1998).
Personal Reflections on Communism
Upon reading the Communist Manifesto, one would really understand why it has not only become a declaration of the objectives of the communist organization, but also has transcended into forging a concise explanation of the ideas that form the basis for the two known ideologies: Communism and Socialism. As Marx is a social thinker that traces his understanding through history, it is indeed fitting that he presented his ideas in this perspective. Marx view history as a class struggle, where he argues that members of each of the two main classes have common interests and these common interests, when collectively gathered are in conflict with those of the other class as a whole. This common interest as Marx views it then eventually leads to conflict between the members of the different classes.
In his Communist Manifesto, Marx posited that for every age, there are always two classes of society that will be pitted against each other. At the beginning, he presented that the two classes progressed from masters and slaves but eventually, because of the rise of complexity and the changes in the means of production, these two classes eventually became the ‘bourgeoisie’ (entrepreneurs) and the “proletariats’ (working class) of his time. As Marx consistently argued, one class has always had the leverage to exploit the other as their interests were always common and entirely opposed. The exploitation happens as one class gains control over the means of production (capital), which eventually establishes the power over the other class. One class then becomes the leader, while the other class eventually becomes the follower. This situation exists in history and as Marx argued, “continuous” for as the lower class gains enough power and control over the means of production, a new class would rise again that would sooner or later replace the exiting upper class. Thus, in historical perspective, this explains the kind of dialectical or cyclical process that happened, which created the merchant class and a working class from the clash between the feudalistic period peasants and the nobility.
Although Marx views historical events as dialectic, he also felt that this dialectical process has an end to it, and that there will come a time that the class struggle between the two classes will definitely cease. He argues that at some point in time, the working class would rise up and eventually overthrow the remaining classes; which has now become the basis for what we now know the “Proletarian revolution”. Marx, believing in idealism, argues that if only one class exists, there would no longer be a class struggle and that the dialectical process would end. The end result would be a world that no longer needs money, nation-states and governments as everything exists on communal living. Being a believer of this quasi-Hegelian view of history, its influence on Marx in writing the entire Communist Manifesto is apparent as one would read the whole article. It is this idea that gave history the air of inevitability.
The Pitfall of Communist Manifesto
Centuries have passed and reflecting on this Communist Manifesto amidst the development of not only our nation but also other nation-states, it is clear that the article’s declaration of the future scenario of history were proved to be unfilled since many of the predictions that is has presented has not actually taken place in actual history. Many have analyzed and presented various arguments on the reasons of these failures and upon reading most of them; I agree that the pitfall of this article is mainly on its inability to analyze the possible developments on the interactions of the two classes. Some argue that the theory on the labor value, wherein the “value” of a good or service that could be exchanged, or tend to be, or can be considered or measured as, is equal or proportional to the labor amount required to produce it, were mistaken. Such that as work has become specialized and advancements in producing various goods, the amount of specialization and expertise has affected the initially argued theory of labor.
Moreover, one real problem with the ideas presented in the Communist Manifesto is that Marx misinterpreted which among his classes would eventually embrace all the others. He believed, due the current events in his time, that the working class must in due course take over the means of production and find a way to bring down the capitalist system of production. What was misinterpreted is that he was not able to predict that the means of production may eventually become less and less expensive as time passes by, and as production becomes more efficient and effective in its development. Workers would then eventually become the “entrepreneurs” where they are protected and not exploited in societies that are managed by democratic and republican governments. More so, the creation of computers and other inexpensive access to various tools and implements of a service industry also aided in making small business a dominant and driving force. Various small industries are perfect examples of this wherein one only needs to buy only one or two means of producing a certain good and then be able to start-up a small business.
Networking has also dominated the airwaves wherein hundred of channels proliferate to aid the production process. The advent of the internet has also opened journal publishing up to any person who has a few dollars to rent a server, this eventually trimmed down the working class that Marx argued and converted them into the self-employed or entrepreneurs. Added to this development, the cost for entering into many, though not all, markets has become comparatively cheap other than before. One only needs creativity and a bit of hard work to start one business.
In essence, Marx was mistaken because there was really a class struggle or conflict. There was indeed class struggle throughout most of history; however, he was mistaken because he was not able to understand that the dialectic process would eventually work in its own advantage to elevate and elevate the working class to the entrepreneur class while not pulling all of society down to the oblivion wherein there are no government, nation-states and there is only one ruling class. In the end, we are still the actors in his process. As we have seen, the freedom allowed in a capitalist society has eventually brought about efficiency, specialization and development that have provided a high standard of living for the majority of societies in the world.
Reference
Marx, K., Engels, F., & Hobsbawm, E. J. (1998). The Communist manifesto: A modern edition. London: Verso.
An Analysis Of Karl Marx’s Economic Determinism
The Prussian philosopher Karl Marx (1818-1883) is considered one of the most influential thinkers of the 19th century (History Guide, n. pag.). In the mid-19th century, Marx and German philosopher Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) founded Marxism, a body of thought that emphasizes the important role of class struggle in understanding society’s development from capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society (Answers, n. pag.). Some Marxists argue that economic determinism is one of Marxism’s key tenets; this theory posits that economic factors determine non-economic spheres such as politics, religion, and ideology (Stillman, n. pag.).
Economic determinism, according to Marx, argues that the supreme instinct in man is self-preservation (Spiritus-Temporis, n. pag.). Therefore, human behavior is entirely influenced by the basic laws of survival (Spiritus-Temporis, n. pag.). Man’s inclination towards survival is so intense that history itself has become a timeline for which man has shown increasing tenacity to exercise this instinct (Spiritus-Temporis, n. pag.). In the context of Marxism, this translates to the bourgeoisie creating capitalism as a new social and economic order to protect their property-owning interests. However, the oppressed proletariat will rise up and overthrow capitalism and replace it with a supposedly classless society.
The belief in economic determinism among the proletariat, particularly the worker, as a social messiah,” has led to the interpretation that Marxism is an “atheized version of chiliastic eschatology” (Patton, n. pag.). Some historians argue that “both Marx and Engels were strongly influenced by British millenarianism of the 1840s” (Patton, n. pag.). Millenarianism refers to the idea of a thousand-year reign of peace and prosperity that will be established upon the return of the Messiah (Patton, n. pag.). In Marxist ideology, however, this “Messiah” would be a group of Communists who will save the world by overthrowing capitalism (Palton, n. pag.). Therefore, communism can be seen as “the final age of history” (Palton, n. pag.).
In his article Karl Marx: Communist as Religious Eschatologist” (1990), Murray Rothbard wrote that communism was based on a concept known as “reabsorption theology” (Rothbard, 127). This term emphasizes the idea that the inevitable endpoint of human history is a return to its supposed starting point – a pre-creation union with God (Rothbard, 127). According to reabsorption theology, God created the human race and will ultimately be reunited with it on the Final Judgement (Rothbard, 129).
Marxism, on the other hand, posits that humanity began with primitive communalism and will eventually evolve into a classless society espoused by communism (Rothbard, 129).
According to reabsorption theology, God created the universe out of a sense of loneliness or dissatisfaction, or to develop His undeveloped faculties (Rothbard, 128). However, over time He became dissatisfied with the universe because it promoted diversity, individuality and separateness (Rothbard, 128). As a result of this dissatisfaction, man was alienated from God, his fellow man and even nature itself (Rothbard, 128).
The concept of alienation in Marxism is derived from the idea of alienation in reabsorption theology (Rothbard, 128). According to Marx, work not only enables a person to earn a living but also greatly affects their consciousness (Gaardner, 329). Under capitalism, where the worker works for someone else, their capacity to produce ends up as something that does not belong to them (Gaardner, 330). As a result, the worker becomes alienated from their work and at the same time from themselves (Gaardner, 330).
Nevertheless, the reabsorption theory believes that history allowed both God and man to develop their talents and hone their skills (Rothbard, 129). This runs parallel to Marxism’s economic determinism, which argues that economic activity shapes history. Lastly, reabsorption theology affirms the reunion of God and man (hence the term reabsorption”) on the End of Days (Rothbard, 129). However, this reconciliation between God and man occurs on a higher level (Rothbard, 129). As Rothbard puts it: “The painful state of creation is now over; alienation is at last ended; and man returns Home to be on a higher post-creation level. History and the world have come to an end” (Rothbard, 129).
Meanwhile, Marxism’s ultimate goal is Communism – a classless society” in which the proletariat owns the means of production (Gaardner, 333). Additionally, the policy regarding production will shift “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” (Gaardner, 333). Therefore, the worker’s alienation from their labor will cease (Gaardner, 333).
It is true that Marxism was created in response to the social ills of the 19th century. However, it must be noted that everything man touches becomes a mixture of good and evil” (Gaardner, 333). Although the intentions of Marxism were noble, Marx was not able to foresee how people would interpret and implement Marxism after his death. Therefore, it is no longer surprising if the majority of the world’s so-called socialist governments were both formed and collapsed in the 20th century.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as a perfect society, a promised land, or an ideal system. The human race will always face new challenges that cannot be resolved by any single ideology or belief system. Ultimately, it is the people themselves – not some all-encompassing philosophy – who possess the power to shape society for better or for worse.
Works Cited
- Dictionary: Marxism.” (2008). Answers.com. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://www.answers.com/topic/marxism.
- “Economic Determinism.” (2005). Spiritus-Temporis.com. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/economic-determinism/.
- Gaardner, Jostein. (2002). Sophie’s World. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux Inc.
- Kreis, Steven. (2008). “Karl Marx, 1818-1883.” The History Guide. Retrieved March 19, 2008 from http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html.
- Marx, Karl. “The Communist Manifesto.” In Emile Burns (Ed.), The Marxist Reader (pp.21-59). New York: Avenel Books;1982.
- Patton Jude. (1990). “Is Communism Dead?” M1-Garand.com.Retrieved March19 ,2008 from http://www.m1-garand.com/InfoPages/World_War_II_infopage33.htm
- Rothbard Murray N.(1990).”Karl Marx: Communist as Religious Eschatologist”.The Review of Austrian Economics4(123-179).
- Stillman Peter G.(April ,2005).”The Myth of Marx’s Economic Determinism”.Marx Myths and Legends.RetrievedMarch19 ,2008from.