Tag Archives: Karl Marx

How can “The Communist Manifesto” be connected to present day?

Posted on by

Karl Marx, an extremely influential philosopher and revolutionary, was born in 1818 in Germany. He grew up in a middle-class home, and attended the University of Berlin for four years. Marx moved to Paris in 1843, and wrote about his communist views in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, which was not published until after his death. In Paris, Marx developed a friendship with Friedrich Engels. The two moved to Brussels, but frequently visited Engels’ family in London, where they joined the Communist League. The two were then asked to write a declaration of the beliefs of the Communist party, leading to the publishing of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. [1]

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels argue that the bourgeois oppresses the working class. They are interested in getting rid of bourgeois private property. They argue that while the bourgeois are horrified by the thought of getting rid of private property, private property does not exist for nine-tenths of the population. They go on to state, “you must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois.” [2]

The mention of “nine-tenths of the population” leads me to think of current times, and the situation of the 1% of America. While the numbers are not quite the same, the two situations are similar. Many Americans are upset that 1% of the population hold over a quarter of the wealth of the country, while the rest is split up among the other 99% of the population. As Marx and Engels mention, money and wealth can be used as personal or social power.

How else can The Communist Manifesto be applied to current times and problems? Is it too far of a reach to say that The Communist Manifesto can relate to the situation involving the 1% in America?

[1] Steven, Kreis. “Karl Marx, 1818-1883.” The History Guide. January 30, 2008. http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.HTML.

[2] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “The Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in The Communist Manifesto and other Revolutionary Writings, ed. Bob Blaisdell (Mineola, New York: Dover Publicans, 2003), 123-150

Is Capitalism to Blame?

Posted on by

I found it captivating to read The Communist Manifesto Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels shortly after discussing Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Smith advocated for industrialization and capitalism in his work. He believed that as a states’ wealth and productivity grew, class disparities within that state would decrease. Marx and Engels disagreed with this idea. Wealthier, stronger entities dominated over less developed ones for centuries during the time these authors wrote their works. Marx believed that capitalism only extended the potential for this issue. He claims in The Communist Manifesto Party, “Modern bourgeois society, springing from the wreck of feudal society, had no abolished class antagonisms. It has but substituted new classes, new conditions of oppressions, new forms of warfare, for the old.”[1] Rather than restricting class disparities, Marx fully believed that the bourgeois society that rose from capitalism exemplified another dominating, ruthless power.

In my senior seminar for International Studies last semester, we discussed how superior races have dominated over “lesser” peoples since the beginning of time. Whether it was during Christopher Columbus’s reign over the Native Americans beginning towards the end of the fifteenth century or Great Britain’s invasion of India during the eighteenth century, more developed nations have always seen it in their interest to dominate over “lesser” people. Through this domination, these superior nations gained land, territory, and, ultimately, power. Marx would argue that capitalism is completely to blame for this continuous power struggle.

christopher-columbus-631I now pose these questions: Is Marx correct- is capitalism completely to blame for the power struggle that continues to exist today? What are some prominent examples that showcase this divide? How can we combat these struggles? How have First World countries made attempts to understand lesser nations? Or have they only made these issues worse?

Picture from: http://edmethods.com/author/tommaloneup/

[1] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “The Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in The Communist Manifesto and other Revolutionary Writings, ed. Bob Blaisdell (Mineola, New York: Dover Publicans, 2003), 126.

The Victims of Industrialization

Posted on by

The nineteenth century saw an explosion of industrialization which spurred innovation, but had grave consequences for the growing working class. Child labor was rampant and the conditions in factories were detestable. Richard Oastler, a proponent for the ten hour working day, bemoaned the new economic system under which parents had to send their children off to the factory in order to make ends meet. He claimed that children laboring in factories destroyed familial connection as their parents became nothing but a wakeup call and someone to put them to bed after a thirteen hour or longer work day. Child laborers were also subjected to tortures such as vicious whipping for the smallest mistakes. ((Yorkshire Slavery, Richard Oastler)) A medical examiner’s survey of a particular group of textile workers highlighted their deformed appearance and ill health. Their complexions were pale and sickly and they had a notably short stature resulting from long hours standing on the factory floor or stooping to work machines. The tendency for laborers to remain in a sedentary position during their tasks supposedly stunted the development of children, making them shorter with curved spines. ((The Physical Deterioration of Textile Workers))

child-labor

Barefoot children working in a mill

Abhorrent working conditions with little to no regulation pushed many workers to the brink of uprising. H. Heine’s poem “The Silesian Weavers,” about a protest by workers of the same name, claimed the weavers were producing Germany’s funeral shroud as they “[sat] at the spinning wheel, snarling cheerless.” ((The Silesian Weavers, H. Heine)) The Weavers’ protest pushed the King of Prussia to give his people a constitution. To many, such an uprising would be seen as a success, but the economist Karl Marx would consider it an incomplete revolution because the workers remained in their debased position in the aftermath. Marx viewed increased regulation and improved working conditions as nothing more than appeasement which made workers complacent slaves to the capitalist system. The enlightened idea of progress was dominant in many thinkers’ rationales, but what progress looked like often differed. In regard to Marx’s view of progress and the necessary worker revolution, do regulatory policies such as shortened work days and minimum wage significantly improve workers’ lives, or simply keep them in a perpetual state of oppression?

Picture from: https://geopolicraticus.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/child-labor.jpg

Treat Everyone Like a Valentine

Posted on by

Marx, Saint-Simon, and Owen both address the inherent issues of capitalism. In his writing of “Estranged Labour”, Marx suggests that the worker will never be satisfied because of labor’s “alienation.” As workers produce more, the owners and employers take in the product and become wealthier—the workers gain little. Individuals work for survival purposes; they do not partake in labor because of any passion or interest. Because the worker gains nothing except for the ability to survive, the worker becomes alien to not only himself, but society. The worker is merely a “product” of nature ((Karl Marx, Estranged Labour)). Saint-Simon argues that hard work and honesty do not always lead to success. Because of the “struggle to the death,” ((Comte de Saint-Simon, The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry)) only a small number of individuals will succeed and all the rest will fall. This, in turn, leads to some individuals who do not succeed to partake in immoral acts such as lying and stealing in order to gain an advantage and acquire more wealth. While these two authors write about the struggles capitalism creates, Robert Owen suggests in his short chapter that workers should not accept the injustice they face in capitalistic society. Owen argues that workers should unionize and protest their injustices, while at the same time calling for the wealthy and the intelligent to change society because they have the ability to do so. ((Robert Owen, The Legacy of Robert Owen to the Population of the World))

Today (you knew that was coming), the top 1% of society take in the majority of the wealth. As a result, millions of Americans, and citizens abroad, suffer from poverty. While many individuals engage in unionization and protests, their actions do not carry enough weight to change capitalistic society. But their voices have volume. Millions of people around the world, including public officials and administrators, are listening. The unfortunate thing is, though, only the wealthy have the means to actually enact new laws and new ways of life. Yes, I’m going to mentioned Bernie Sanders. Sanders’ idea of democratic socialism appeals to millions of Americans because of its capacity for opportunity and equality. Sanders, Marx, and Saint-Simon all have similar visions of an equally successful society. I thought that Owen’s writing best illuminates the state of our society today. In his invigorating, passionate tone, he called for the wealthy to come together and give everyone a chance. Today, millions of individuals including Sanders are urging the wealthy to change their money grubbing ways in order to create opportunity for all citizens. Overall, the issues of capitalism plague our society, and individuals such as Sanders are doing their best job to do something about it.

Is capitalism the most ideal system, or is it bound to fail?

Are we afraid to change are capitalistic society?

Where are we going? Will things change?

A Consequence of Capitalism

Posted on by

Comte de Saint-Simon disparaged laissez-faire industry in “The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry”, saying that capitalists are not concerned with the well being of society and are solely individuals looking to profit. This leads to men emphasizing their cunning and shrewdness and leading them to be “lost to humanity”. ((Comte de Saint-Simon, The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry)) Marx took an equally negative stance on capitalism in “Estranged Labor” although he chose to focus on the worker and not the capitalist. Marx argued that every step of the production process estranges the worker from the product they are creating, as the more the worker produces, the less he is able to possess. The worker is also estranged from the process of production, as Marx writes, “labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation”. ((Karl Marx, Estranged Labor 1844. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm)) Workers are estranged through the process of production as they are not affirmed by their work and they do not enjoy it. Marx wrote that as men are alienated from their work their labor becomes forced labor, therefore workers only feel completely free when performing animal functions, such as eating, drinking and procreating.

Marx and Saint-Simon highlight similar issues with how capitalism impacts interpersonal relationships. Saint-Simon points out that men are inherently competitive and that this leads them to enter a potentially lucrative industry, creating a few successful men and many who are completely ruined. In a similar vein, Marx discusses the estrangement between men as those who produce are under the dominion of those who own the means of production. This creates a dichotomy between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in terms of who wields the most influence in society and has the most opportunity.

Marx and Saint-Simon were both writing near the nineteenth century when the Industrial Revolution was impacting many different areas. Many of the problems they identified with capitalism are still present in society today, is there any way to correct for these issues or reduce their impact? Is today’s society reducing the divisions between workers and owners or are the divisions growing?

Marx in Soho

Posted on by

Marx came stomping in through stage left as “Money” by Pink Floyd played, demanding why we must always declare him dead. The answer is simple: by declaring him dead, we declare his ideas dead along with him. Yet “Marx in Soho” clearly shows how Marx’s ideology is very much still alive by relating his work back to the present day. By stating the flaws of today, he clarified just how in need of revolution society is. His many examples of contemporary problems revealed the necessity for something such as communism. Relating his ideas to problems not previously discussed in his work made the concept of communism all the more astounding and necessary. But then he would take moments to discuss his family, reminding his audience of his humanity. He made a joke about how Jesus was not coming back, and instead he did. Yet this is exactly what this performance was. Marx came back to clear his name, and to bring clarity to the people who had the potential to make a change. The way he weaved his personal story in with his explanation of communism was meant to constantly remind the viewers of his humanity; Marx may have been ahead of everyone else in his ideas but he was still a flawed human being. The actor, Bob Weick, made himself vulnerable, which in turn made his argument even more tangible. His critique on today’s capitalist society was spot on, and how he demonstrated that Walmart and its treatment of its workers was not dissimilar to the factories in London during his time really put into perspective how little the world has changed. The performance in and of itself was profound, and because the message was so precise, Marx’s ideas are going to be given much more consideration.

Marx’s Manifesto

Posted on by

Author: Karl Marx was a German socialist whose theories about society laid the foundation for Communism. Marx believed that countries progress from a class divided society into a communist one through revolutions.

Context: Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, at which point the Industrial Revolution had exploded. Great Britain’s economy was booming, and other countries were starting to see similar advancements. However, the time period was mired by poor working conditions, and a lack of humanitarian care.

Language: Marx used simple language in this section of the Communist Manifesto. Other parts of the document employ more complicated language, but the sections that describe Marx’s core ideas are easily read.

Audience: Marx targeted industrial workers with this section. Other sections of the document targeted more educated members of industrial societies, but because the goal of this one was to insight labor revolutions, it targeted the laborers.

Intent: Marx saw communism as the best form of society, and wanted to spread communism throughout Europe. Communism is based off the working class, so he wanted to inspire industrial workers to follow his ideas.

Message: The class division between factory workers and factory owners is the most recent instance of a never ending class struggle. The workers must rise up against the owners and establish a new, classless, communist society. This new society will be healthier, more stable, and completely egalitarian.

Why: Like other communists, Marx feared the impending capitalist domination of Europe. He acknowledged that the Industrial Revolution was spreading from country to country like wildfire, and saw that communism would be stamped out if it did not  have a more prominent voice in Europe. So, in order to spread Communism, and keep the movement alive, he wrote the Communist Manifesto.

He also saw the terrible conditions most people were living in during the Industrial Revolution. Marx thought communism was the way to fix those problems, and prevent them from happening again.

The Communist Manifesto

Posted on by

Author: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles.  Marx was a German philosopher, economist, and a revolutionist. Marx published many widely known articles, but some of the most famous include Das Capital, Estranged Labor, and The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Marx worked on a radical newspaper as well, and his ideas remain influential and relevant today. Friedrich Engles assisted with the writing of The Communist Manifesto, and he was a social scientist, philosopher, and political theorist. He was good friends with Marx, and worked with Marx in other writings, such as Das Capital. 

Context: The industrial revolution had rapidly changed the structure of the European economy, and the working class lived in squalor conditions, owning next to nothing. The poor living conditions created feelings of discontent, and the socialist and communist movement was quickly gaining momentum.

Language: The Communist Manifesto is a political pamphlet, and is written as such. It was created to appeal to the common people, and was written in language to appeal to the masses.

Audience: The Communist Manifesto was written to the people of Europe, and it was published in English, French, German, Italian, Flemish, and Danish.

Intent: The intention of the document is to incite a rebellion against the capitalist system, while unifying the Communist movement at the same time.

Message: There are numerous themes in The Communist Manifesto, but one of the most important is the development and overthrowing of previous economic and social structures. The feudal aristocracy was a system built upon a hierarchy, although the feudal system was eventually unable to support the needs of the growing population. Therefore, the growing middle class, the bourgeoisie, eventually overthrew the feudal system. However, the system of class hierarchy did not disappear, as it simply created new classes. For a time, the bourgeoisie was able to support the population, although power and money became concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few. Due to this wealth gap, the vast majority of the population lived in terrible conditions, and because of the terrible conditions, the bourgeoisie lost their right to remain the dominant class. An interesting point made by Marx, however, is that the dominant economic system much reach its fullest potential before it can be overthrown. The guilds, for instance, at their maximum production, were unable to supply the population with their growing needs, so the guild system was replaced by manufacturing. According to this logic, the capitalist system would have needed to reach its fullest capacity in order to be overthrown by the communists.  Do you think Marx would be opposed government regulation of industry if it could make way for a worker’s rebellion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels

Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto (1848)

Posted on by

Author(s): Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels

  • Karl Marx (1818- 1883) was a prominent German philosopher whose ideas on economics, labor, and classism have and continue to influence nations worldwide.
  • Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) was also an important German philosopher who shared views and co-authored with Marx.

Context: 

  • laid out the aims and ideals of the Communist party
  • this manifesto was written after much of Europe had recognized communism as a threat to current powers
  • Communists from several nations worked together to draft the manifesto to replace “the spectre of communism” with a clear representation of the party’s views.

Language:

  • Although originally written in German, the Manifesto of the Communist Party was published in many languages in order to reach a broad European audience
    • English, French, German, Italian, Flemish, and Danish
  • Marx writes in a compassionate, but clearly phrased and organized manner. It is clear that this piece was written to address the masses in a language that they could easily understand and rally behind.

Audience: 

  • the manifesto is addressed to self-identified communists throughout Europe in order to unify them with a concrete definition of what it means to be in the Communist party

Intent: 

  • to combat against hostile views of communism common throughout Europe at the time
  • to refute false claims made about the communist party
  • to answer to certain objections made about the communist party (ie. there will be no incentive to work in a communist society)
  • to distinguish and define communism apart from other political views and past revolutions

Message: 

  • the course of human history to this point has been defined as the struggle between classes. There has always been at least one class dominant over another class(es).
  • Communism will end this struggle because it seeks not necessarily to overthrow the bourgeois, but to put an end to all class-based society and instead create a classless society.

Question: How is this concept of Communism initially received, and what factors contribute to this reaction of the public?

Manifesto of the Communist Party

Posted on by

Of the many thought provoking and avant-garde ideas contained in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ Manifesto of the Communist Party, the core concept is explicitly stated in the opening line of the document where they wrote, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.” (126) This concept of class antagonisms is alluded to throughout several portions of the text. They believed that the proletariat would ultimately rise up and unify, dissolving all class distinctions to create a society conducted by a tier-less working class. In the process of developing their argument, Marx and Engels described the implications of the bourgeoisie’s rise to power. In this post I seek to expand on this notion.

Marx and Engels wrote that the bourgeoisie had, “replaced an exploitation veiled by religious and political illusions by exploitation open, unashamed, direct, and brutal.”(127) These statements were in reference to how the industrial revolution had created a system of exploitation in which the owners of capital, the bourgeoisie, exploited the wage-laborers, the proletariat, by enacting exploitative labor practices. They believed that the division of labor created a situation where, “He (the worker) becomes a mere appendage of the machine, of whom only the simplest, most monotonous operations are required,” ultimately creating a situation where “the price of a commodity, and therefore of labor, is equal to the cost of its production.”(131) While it is true that the division of labor drastically improves production, Marx and Engels objected to this practice because it marginalizes the worker to the extent where his labor becomes so simplified and monotonous that they lose all bargaining power and leverage against the firm. Adam Smith, in his work An Inquiry into the Nature and Case of the Wealth of Nations, emphatically promoted this division of labor. He did not recognize the inherent pitfalls that inevitably arise with this boost of productive efficiency. Marx and Engels countered this stance by claiming that the increases in production were nullified by the working class’ horrific existence.

Marx and Engels argued that such an exploitative system could only remain in place for a limited time because “the bourgeoisie has not only forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also produced the men who will wield these weapons – the modern workers, the PROLETARIATS.” (130) It appears as though these “weapons” which they allude to are products of the very industrial system that has subjugated the working class: new technologies. Marx and Engels wrote, “the union, which took centuries for the burghers of the Middle Ages with their wretched highways, to establish, the modern proletariat achieves by means of railways in a few years.” (133) Once the proletariat rises up against its oppressors it is capable of commandeering the new technologies that they created with their own labor, such as the railroads, to help disperse their new ideas and help the revolution materialize at a previously unfathomable pace.

Question:

In addition to railroads, what other newly developed technologies and structures created by constantly expanding markets would prove to be valuable for the dispersion of communist ideals?