In the first section of The Communist Manifesto, Marx describes the development of the
relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie from its feudalist
beginning to their current relationship. In order to differentiate between the bourgeoisie
and past oppressors, Marx dehumanizes members of the bourgeoisie by discussing
the entire class as though it is a singular, cognizant being. This makes the
modern bourgeoisie appear to be a greater threat to the welfare of the proletariat
than the previous oppressors.
The collectivity of the bourgeoisie is first implied by
the pronoun “it”, which is used to refer to the bourgeoisie throughout this
section. Thus, members of the bourgeoisie are not individuals, but rather part
of a larger entity. The unity of the bourgeoisie
is further implied through Marx’s comparison of them to a sorcerer “who is no
longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by
his spells” (163). This comparison creates the impression that the bourgeoisie intentionally
brought about the current economic state with self-serving intent. The image of
the singular bourgeoisie fosters an image of power, which becomes threatening
through Marx’s further characterizations.
The dehumanization of the bourgeoisie also occurs
frequently through Marx’s choice of verbs, which cause them to appear more
threatening. Marx describes the
bourgeoisie as “drown[ing] the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of
chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of
egotistical calculation” and “reduc[ing] the family relation to a mere money
relation” (161). These descriptions imply that the bourgeoisie intentionally destroys
the human aspects of life such as family, religion, and sentimentalism in favor
of monetary gain. The active verbs directly connect actions of the bourgeoisie
and the destruction of these socially valuable constructs and emphasize the
intentionality of the destruction. This creates a separation between the
perception of the bourgeoisie and previous oppressors, who have maintained “idyllic
relations” that include these social constructs (161).
Through Marx descriptions, the
bourgeoisie becomes an inhuman being that is a greater threat to the
proletariat because of the disregard for valuable social contructs.
Discussion
Question: How do Marx’s descriptions of the bourgeoisie compare to his
descriptions of the proletariat? How does this further our understanding of
their relationship? 
Very interesting! In attempt to answer your question, I think by dehumanizing and crafting the bourgeoisie as one being, Marx makes it easier for the reader to incriminate and blame the entity than a possible friend or a friend's uncle for his or her discontent as you say. In regards to furthering our understanding of their relationship, Marx often describes the effects of the bourgeoisie's system of labor as direct and intentional actions of the inhuman object on the very human proletarians. Thus, Marx describes the relationship like an emotionless and parasitic robot feeding upon the poor proletarians without regard.
ReplyDeleteKyra, I think that you are pointing out something that is very interesting and relevant in the text—how the bourgeoisie is referred to and used as this sort of singular entity by Marx. Marx is a persuasive writer and he does a good job at keeping the bourgeoisie seen as the "evil" and proletariat as the "good" or as overcoming this evil. When talking about the proletariat Marx says, "With its [the proletariat's] birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie" (165). This is emphasizing the fact that the proletariat are up against a oppressor. By using struggle it is less harsh than if Marx would have said "attack" or "fight". Then when talking about the side of the bourgeoisie Marx says, "The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil" (161). Here Marx is using strong words against the bourgeoisie. When he could have used something like "removed" he instead picks the words that are more harsh. In this way Marx creates different feeling towards the bourgeoisie versus the proletariat.
ReplyDeleteGreat points Kyra. I think Marx's language is fascinating. It surprises me that Marx, after criticizing the "earlier epochs of history" and the "manifold gradation of social rank" (159) found in said history, accuses the bourgeoisie of having "put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations" (161). Suddenly the class system of feudal society looks "idyllic" to Marx next to the exploitative bourgeoisie. I think this shift adds to the dehumanization Kyra discusses.
ReplyDeleteAnd now that I have looked at Emily's blog, she pointed out the same.
DeleteKyra makes some very interesting points upon the descriptions Marx places upon the bourgeoisie. Marx states "the bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption to every country" (162). With the points made on the bourgeoisie is discussed as a whole entity, I find this quote from Marx to be interesting. In his statement, he points out that the entire class develops a multicultural character, as if the class spreads as far as possible to consume as many to believe in the structure of their market. Marx relates that the bourgeoisie spreads its ideas and development upon all nations, and it furthers its power as it expands and exploits the world market. As this class becomes so powerful, it loses the individuality and focuses upon the entirety of its being, which relates back to Kyra's excellent point of the dehumanization of this class.
ReplyDeleteTo the discussion questions, Kyra notes in her post that Marx argues that the result of dehumanization comes from the bourgeoisie. Marx describes the proletariats as "slaves of the bourgeois class" (165). The relationship could be that since the bourgeoisie is dehumanized as it looks upon its entirety, while ignoring its individuality of its members, they generate the enslavement of the proletariats, which inevitably causes the loss of their individuality as well. The relationship of the two from Marx's descriptions might be that the bourgeoisie, as it is in control, influences and oppresses the proletariats to be the same as it enslaves their class in the industry.
In response to your discussion question, I think that Marx intentionally places the proletariat and the bourgeoisie on opposite ends of the spectrum. In each of his paragraphs charging the bourgeoisie with an injustice against the proletariat, Marx begins with, "the bourgeoisie," which with repeated use becomes an incredibly accusatory statement. In contrast, the "slaves of the bourgeois class" remain victimized (165). I find that the choice to create lasting and differing impressions of the two social classes seeks to further his argument that the capitalist nature of the bourgeoisie has enslaved the proletariat, and effectively made them a nameless commodity.
ReplyDeleteBy creating a relationship of that of the oppressive bourgeoisie and the oppressed Proletariates, Marx makes the proletariates a group that people can sympathize with, and overall it makes his argument more appealing to the reader. Like Lauren says, "the bourgeoisie" becomes stigmatized and are made to look evil, especially greedy, and guilty of "exploitation of children by their parents" (173). By making this to be the present situation, Marx makes Communism seem like a very appealing change for the proletariat majority.
ReplyDelete