Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critique of communist manifesto
Critique of communist manifesto
Social class and society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critique of communist manifesto
Society is a broken hierarchy of social order awaiting its impeding destruction. The system in which man has placed itself is nothing more than a waiting game of when the bottom peasants will rise up against the wealthy few and take control of the state. Society is separated into groups such as the mass, the bourgeois, the proletariats, the middle class, and the wealthy upper class. These groups are nothing more than the natural psychodynamic order that man creates within itself. Society is a relentless cycle of class order and revolutions. This cycle is proven through social order theories such as Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Gasset’s Revolt of the Masses.
Society places constraints on itself to create classes. Gasset describes the majority of people as the mass which “come into the world in order to be directed, influenced, represented, organized”; the only purpose of the mass is to be put into a social order and controlled (90). After the mass gains enough momentum they develop the state, which in Gasset’s theory is merely an idea controlled by the mass; however, the state is actually controlled by a wealthy upper class. This idea of a wealthy upper class controlling the state is supported by Marx’s social theory that “the bourgeoisie has at last conquered for itself, the modern representation of the state” (Marx 364). The bourgeoisie has complete control of the nation, the mass, and the state. The state is no longer an idea that is held together by the people of the nation, but it is the force of a wealthy few developing laws and keeping the lower classes below them. The lower classes can be broken down into two different groups, the mass and the proletariats. The mass is a middle class group of people who attem...
... middle of paper ...
...essed they feel as if they are not. The proletariats work for everyone above them and know that they have no say in what happens in the government. The proletariats eventually realize that they have more power in numbers than the bourgeoisie and revolt against them, creating a new order of social structure. Eventually the original proletariats forget the oppression they strived to change and begin to enforce oppression on the original bourgeoisie. This begins the social cycle again and another revolution occurs. Social order is a relentless cycle of revolutions.
Works Cited
Marx, Karl. The Communiest Manifesto. A World of Ideas. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. New York: Bedford St. Martin’s, 2010. 362-383. Print.
Ortega Y Gasset, Jose´. “The Greatest Danger, the State.” A World of Ideas. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. New York: Bedord St. Martin’s, 2010. 90-97. Print.
"Oppression can only survive through silence" said Carmen de Monteflores and history proved this concept most thoroughly. However, the oppressed groups are generally not silent at all. They revolt, get violent, and are repressed again. This is not a rule, just a simple generalization and, of course, there are numerous exceptions. There is always a possibility that these downtrodden factions will get together to form a strong opposing force that will be an equal or almost equal rival to those that oppress. The coercion of the working class continued throughout the eighteenth century. Horrible working conditions, poverty, and hunger were blooming in the world of the industrial proletariat. The fruitless revolts did not change the situation and just when it seemed like the treatment of the waged people could not get any worse, the resolution appeared in all its glory. This historical period (1860-1914) could be best described using the Hegelian philosophy. The constant oppression of the working class will serve as thesis. The antithesis would come with the unification of the proletariats, forming the trading unions. The role of synthesis is given to the emergence of political democracy and mass political parties.
The rapid development of global economy with the opening of new markets worldwide gave way to the development of new means of production and also to the change of ideologies across the world. Alongside with that, the division between different groups or classes within societies became more apparent as some people got richer and other poorer. These two phenomena, the worldwide development of industries and consequent class struggles, have been analyzed by two major thinkers of their times, Karl Marx and Robert Reich. Their essays have been influential and are similar in sense that they analyze existing conditions of societies and give projections on future fates of people, or more specifically, fates of classes. In this paper, the main focus will be on the fate of the wealthiest people; these are the bourgeois for Marx and symbolic analysts for Reich. More specifically, it will be argued that the rich people will be in the worst position according to Marx and this position will cover two aspects: material aspect, which is how well the rich will eventually manage their properties, and the inherent antagonism of classes and its consequences for the wealthy.
The way society can attain this outcome is by identifying the powers in Nature and truly grasping how they function (Engels 305). Engels declares that if society does not learn to become aware of these forces within Nature, the capitalists will undeniably take advantage of the proletarians, controlling the means of production and persisting to operate against the majority (Engels 305). Should the proletarians understand Nature, they can reconstruct their once triumphant masters into fellow servants, taming the anarchy that was once present and replacing it with social regulation (Engels 306). The continuous conversion of the population into majority proletarians will overthrow the capitalists and acquaint power to the proletarians (Engels 306). Initially, society will seize social production and put an end to commodity manufacturing, men will have a strong dominance and full consciousness of the modes of production and exchange (Engels
Karl Marx 's writing of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ in 1848 has been documented by a vast number of academics as one of the most influential pieces of political texts written in the modern era. Its ideologically driven ideas formed the solid foundation of the Communist movement throughout the 20th century, offering a greater alternative for those who were rapidly becoming disillusioned and frustrated with the growing wealth and social divisions created by capitalism. A feeling not just felt in by a couple of individuals in one society, but a feeling that was spreading throughout various societies worldwide. As Toma highlights in his work, Marx felt that ‘capitalism would produce a crisis-ridden, polarized society destined to be taken over by
Clark and Lipset (1991) explain that looking at class theories that has been a lot of change in class and it has altered the concept of class toward the fragmentation of stratification. Clark and Lipset (1991) further explains that changes have occurred since Marx and Weber write their view on social stratification and it went into high gear since 1970s. Clark and Lipset (1991) acknowledge a change for the theories of stratification is that traditional hierarchies is declining and economic and family hierarchies is less than generation or two ago. Clark and Lipset (1991) explains that class conflict declines, there would be less conflict or organized lines, for instance gender. However, not all hierarchies are generating counter-reactions and there is an acceptance of democratic process to allow the opposition to surface. According Clark and Lipset (1991), “the key trends could be described as one of fragmentation of stratification: the weakening of class stratification, especially as shown in distinct class-differentiated lifestyle, the decline of economic determinism, and the increased importance of social and cultural factors, politics is less organized by class and more by other loyalties, the slimming of the family and social mobility is less family-determined, more ability and education
This infamous final stage of political evolution is the abolition of classes and antagonism between the classes. With abolishing antagonism, it also would abolish oppression between the classes. Along with overpowering the bourgeoisie, measures of rules that are generally applicable for most advanced countries would be established. Rules such as, “Expropriation of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes and a heavy progressive tax,” (Karl Marx), which these rules are not solely just these two. Once countries have established these rules, through the process of it, if classes lose its distinctions, and all production has been assigned solely to an associated individual, the public would lose its political power, the political power that lets a class oppress the
Social orders have existed for many years and have been passed down from one generation to another. In history class we have discovered that “social order” was a product of “civilized” societies. Social order was the structure of a civilized society created by human and it determines where one is placed and their duty. The way social order was justified was through philosophical and religious beliefs and morals. The wealthy and the people who reinforce these justifications are the ones who benefit from a social order. I’ll be supporting my paper on social order through information from Vedic India and China.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. "The Communist Manifesto." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York: Norton, 2001. 769-773.
Social class has existed in our society since its foundation. Working class, middle class, upper middle class, or upper class, whatever your standing, social class can affect your place in society. Social class can be defined by where you live, who you talk to, where you get an education, even by the clothes you wear. These may not be definite determinants of social class, but categorization of people becomes easier when looking at these factors. In previous papers, I have claimed that social class is a result of capitalism. Though, I still believe this to be true, there are many factors that can affect social class and vice versa. Theorists have looked at different aspects of how these can affect social class. In my paper I am going to explore capitalism, stratification, racism, segregation, and education and their relationship with social class and how this can cause social conflict; I will have a primary focus of how Weber, DuBois, and Marx views this relationship.
In his Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx created a radical theory revolving not around the man made institution of government itself, but around the ever present guiding vice of man that is materialism and the economic classes that stemmed from it. By unfolding the relat...
Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Robert C. Tucker. The Marx-Engels reader . 2d ed. New York: Norton, 1978. Print.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ The Communist Manifesto explores class struggles and their resulting revolutions. They first present their theory of class struggle by explaining that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx 14), meaning that history is a repeated class struggle that only ends with a revolution. Marx and Engels’ message in The Communist Manifesto is that it is inevitable for class struggles to result in revolutions, ultimately these revolutions will result in society’s transition to communism.
Bender, Frederic L. Karl Marx: The Communist Manifesto. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. ed. 1988.
Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Robert C. Tucker. The Marx-Engels reader. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 1978. Print.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. New York: International, 1948. Marxist Internet Archive. 2000. Web.