Throughout The
Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx depicts the negative impacts of a society
divided by social gradations. He describes the ongoing class conflict throughout
history to have ultimately arrived at the battle between “two great hostile
camps… [the] Bourgeoisie and Proletariat,” (159). In this piece, Marx
explicates the reasons for which the bourgeoisie as a ruling class should be
abolished as it contributes to the reliance on material goods and the
alienation and general discontent of the majority. Marx stands up for the
proletariats who he believes must fight against the unjust system. However,
Marx also suggests that the bourgeoisie itself contributes to its downfall by creating
too much industry and commerce for the allotted conditions, providing the
proletariats with the means to fight against them, and neglecting the existence
of the majority of their society.
Marx
describes the first downfall of the bourgeoisie as the creation of their own
monster- an industry of increasing magnitude. Marx coins this problem as “the
epidemic of over-production,” (163). He suggests that as the market continues
to grow, the fixed conditions cannot adapt to the vast accumulation of wealth
as they are “too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them,” (164). This
rigidity of the bourgeoisie limits the inevitable growth of wealth and
therefore creates chaos and disorder that can only be resolved by the further
expansion of the market. Marx highlights the way in which the expanding wealth
of the bourgeoisie will eventually destroy their fixed lifestyle.
Since the
bourgeoisie relies on the laborers to provide for their lifestyle, they must
respond to conflict with the proletariats by appealing to their working class.
Marx observes this phenomenon and notes the way that this pacification provides
the proletariats capital for liberation. In Marx’s own words, the “supply the
proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress” such as
“political and general education” which become “weapons for fighting the
bourgeoisie,” (167). In this manner, the bourgeoisie’s efforts to resolve the
conflict with the proletariats in fact exacerbates the problem by providing their
enemies with the means to defend themselves.
Finally,
Marx suggests that the bourgeoisie simply do not provide adequate means for
existence for the majority of their population and therefore are not fit to
command society. Since the bourgeoisie are the ruling class of the time period,
they ought to sustain the life of the rest of society, or at least give them
the independence to do so themselves. By alienating the proletariats in poor
and dependent living conditions, the bourgeoisie disallows any possibility of a
functioning society. Marx describes the bourgeoisie as “incompetent to assure
an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting
him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by
him,” (169). As the bourgeoisie has ultimately reduced the proletariats into a
condition unfit for independent living, their only option is to assist them in
order to continue the current status quo. Since this condition of living is not
sustainable, Marx does not believe the bourgeoisie are fit to control society.
For these reasons, Marx blames the inevitable fall of the bourgeoisie entirely
on their own negligence.
Marx suggests that in this way, the
bourgeoisie is ultimately self-destructing that “its fall and the victory of
the proletariat are equally inevitable,” (169). Does this mean that Marx will
cease to take action? What is the
purpose of advocacy in a self-destructive system?
First in response to your questions I would like to draw a parallel between Thomas Paine's "common sense" and the reading for tommorrow. I see this readidng as a sort of subdued "common sense" in that the style of the argument against the ruling class is made and he also solicits a clear thought out alternative. Running with this comparision I think that his advocacy is very important be cause it raises questions about the ruling class that otherwise wouldn't become widespread questions, Paine's writing became the most prolific selling book and arguably helped lay the basis for the revolution, in this sense I think that Marx's advocacy for the proletariats plight is very important.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your actual blog, I think you pointed out a really important facet of the bourgeoisie's relationship which ties into what Prof. Fitzsimmons said in class about walmart; they pay poorly and you end up spending your money in the same store you serve because its all you can afford. It there was a more supportive basis, basically the idea of tickle down economics then it seems that marx may be suggesting that the bourgeoisie/proletariat relationship isn't an economical death trap for the ruling class.
I like Morgan's comparison to Paine's common sense. Throughout most of the selection we read Marx doesn't defend his claims but uses language to rile up his audience, the proletariat. The selection we read is more of a propaganda piece, also intended to lay the basis for a revolution. In more general terms, advocacy always has a purpose (reached with varying success) until the goal is achieved. Marx doesn't believe the system will self destruct the next day, but he knows people will suffer every day until the system falls. Because his focus is interactions and people, this pains him greatly. If writing The Communist Manifesto can bring an end to the oppression and exploitation of the proletariat sooner, than it is worth it for Marx.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joshua's statement that "if writing The Communist Manifesto can bring an end to the oppression and exploitation of the proletariat sooner, then it is worth it for Marx." One other reason I can think of for Marx's desire to take action (even though the bourgeoisie will supposedly crash at some point) is the cyclical nature of social structures. If people sit around and wait for the inevitable fall of the bourgeoisie, then a new group of individuals will rise to power, and the clash of classes will return again. This pattern is reflected in the previous social structures that Marx references, such as feudalism.
ReplyDeleteRather than letting this cycle elapse and waiting for a short-lived period of equality to arrive, Marx suggests actively constructing a system that will bring permanent equality and stability. By establishing communism as the norm, societies can not only quicken the impending fall of the bourgeoisie, but also prevent it from rising up again.
Emily's points upon the cyclical nature of society is very interesting and to answer Ellie's great discussion question about the inevitable self-destruction of the bourgeoisie, which Emily addresses that Marx desires for a reconstruction of the system to eliminate the inevitable cycle. If a class rises to power over the others and then falls again to the rise of a new class, then society has not truly established a equal system.
ReplyDeleteTo the entirety of Ellie's blog, I found her points very interesting. She brings importance to the reasoning of Marx's argument of the bourgeoisie as a problem, but also, the bourgeoisie destroys itself as it destroys others. Marx states, "by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented" (164). In his statement, he describes the bourgeoisie to inevitably develop a way for society to crash as it becomes so advance in the industry. But as it makes it way to producing a crisis, this crisis begins to reduce more to come, which is through this cyclical path that Emily brought up. Marx points out that "the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces" (163). As the society becomes so advance that the systems within are no longer compatible to it, the system of society is restricted, which causes the inevitable self-destruction of this system. With that self-destruction, the beginning of a new system establishes itself in society.
I have to agree with both Josh and Emily in that Marx seems to be speaking to the proletariat in a way "to rile" them up and that the nature of societies is cyclical. It seems to me that Marx notes the cyclical nature of societies and references it with the historical information. Even though Marx states that the bourgoisie demise and the rise of the proletariat is in evitable he is effectively listing how different classes became the new high-powered class, which leads me to believe what Josh was stating about riling up the proletariat. The idea is that the fall of the powerful class should be ineveitable but only if the proletariat get their act together. I think Marx might be trying to spark the revolution of the proletariat in a manner that would introduce his idea which he believes will be the end all solution.
ReplyDelete