Analysis Of Bad Math By E. H. Tsaconas

Principles of Marxism are seen in this piece of literature through the portrayal of the Bourgeoisie, the Proletariat and characters of wealth. A negative view of the affluent is demonstrated in the text by the elder

Marxist literary criticism as defined by Peter Barry approaches a literary text through terms introduced in Karl Marx’ and Friedrich Engels’ Communist economic theory. Their jointly written text titled The Communist Manifesto called for a society with “state ownership on industry… rather than private ownership”. The social theory later became known as Marxism. As stated in Barry’s text, “The aim of Marxism is to bring about a classless society, based on the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange” (156). One of the theory’s main aspects looks to the “exploitation of one social class by another. The result leaves one class alienated.” Central to Marxism is a belief in its ability to change the material world, which it theorizes. According to Marxist theorists, only through conflicts between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, can the status quo positively change (157).

No one thinks that they have an impact on the world. But everyone does; everyone is a number in some algorithm. Each one of us is turned into numbers and those stats become data and are used by scientists to either do good or in some cases, bad. The book “Weapons of Math Destruction”, Cathy O’Neil talks about the dangers of turning people into numbers and how people don 't even know that it is happening. A lot can go wrong when people are no longer people and they are turned into the just number. People could be placed in the wrong group because they went through a rough time for a short period, and that could ruin their lives, but computers only see numbers, not the person the number represents. Job interviews that should have happened, didn 't because the computer passed over them because of a certain number, not the actual person. A person could also be called in for a job because they may have seemed perfect, but they were the opposite of what they needed. And being in a certain area could then mean that a person is now associated with that group even though they never were. The scientist turns people into numbers so that they are easier to cataracts and target, even if those categories are unknown to the public and is causing harm.

In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx identifies a dichotomy that is created and bolstered by the capitalist mode of production. In this mode of production, the dichotomy presents itself in a division of labor that forms of two kinds of people: capitalists, the owners of the means of production, and laborers, those who work under the domain of the capitalist. Marx harshly criticizes this mode of production, arguing that it exploits the laborer and estranges him from himself and his fellow man. According to Marx, this large-scale estrangement is achieved through a causal chain of effects that results in multiple types of alienation, each contingent upon the other. First, Marx asserts that under capitalism, the laborer is alienated from his product of labor. Second, because of this alienation from his product, man is also alienated then from the act of production. Third, man, in being alienated both from his product and act of production, is alienated from his species essence, which Marx believes to be the ability to create and build up an objective world. Finally, after this series of alienations, Marx arrives at his grand conclusion that capitalist labor causes man to be alienated from his fellow man. In this paper, I will argue in support of Marx’s chain of alienations, arriving at the conclusion that laborers, under the capitalist mode of production, cannot retain their species essence and thus cannot connect with one another, and exist in a world

This assessment of turning objects and persons into something of value is a fragmented yet archetypical manifestation of Marx’s greater philosophical works. The literary criticism that implements Marx’s theories of socialism and dialectics is the basis on interpreting literary works.

Marx’s conception of society has its grounds in a theory of action: as he put it, human beings make their own history. But Marx goes on to argue that they do this is circumstances which are not of their own choosing, and he develops an analysis of how action is organized by these circumstances as material conditions of production which structure and determine the social relationship that are primarily generated by the particular material forces of production utilized, which include not only raw materials but also the technology which is used to extract and work them into products (Jenks 15).

1 On the other hand, Marx is portrayed by the author as an individual who held no appreciation for the human lives and enduring in light of the fact that he saw people as the reason for their conditions amid those times. Marx does not acknowledge any efforts made by the workingmen in that period, and he holds anger to their loss of culture and their present situations. Both writers started their professions by composing sentimental sonnets before they embraced to expound on the human lives and enduring at that

Karl Marx’s critique of political economy provides a scientific understanding of the history of capitalism. Through Marx’s critique, the history of society is revealed. Capitalism is not just an economic system in Marx’s analysis. It’s a “specific social form of labor” that is strongly related to society. Marx’s critique of capitalism provides us a deep

As human beings, one of the most fundamental aspects of our existence, according to philosopher Karl Marx, is the act of work. More specifically, it is the idea that work fulfills human being’s essence. Work, for Marx, is a great source of joy, but only when the worker can see themselves in the work they do, and when said worker wants to partake in the work they are performing. In the capitalist identity, workers are “a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital” (Marx and Engel, 1946, pg. 116). Labourers were simply described as “a commodity” (Marx and Engel, 1946, pg. 117) by the ruling class; they are but pieces of a large, intricate gear system, all for the profit of those above them. In this, the worker loses touch with their essence. This concept is referred to, more or less, as alienation. Alienation is a form of separation of how one sees themselves, and how one sees themselves in what they do. Alienation, in many ways, relates to the idea of false consciousness. False consciousness, for Marx, revolves around the idea of misleading society; It is an ideological way of thinking in which no true perception of the world can be achieved. Both alienation and false consciousness delve into the notion of what constitutes true reality. Alienation describes how those that are controlled by the ruling class are subject to a form of disconnect, and false consciousness is a hierarchal idea in

The philosophy of Karl Marx begins with the belief that humans are inherently cooperative with common characteristics and shared ends. To human beings, life is considered an object and therefore, humans make their “life-activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness” (Tucker 76). In other words, humans are able to think, imagine, and “produce even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom” (p. 76). It exemplifies that idea that humans not only have the capability to create things for survival but express themselves in what they produce, within the standards of the human race or universally. When capitalist wage-labor enters the picture, it forces these shared ends and the freedom of expression in human production to cease, causing a rise of competitiveness among

This essay argues that the propositions put forth by Karl Marx in his political essay “Estranged Labour” presents a nuanced and logically sounder theory behind his concept of human nature than Hobbes does in his essay “The natural condition of Mankind”. Marx’s perception was that man’s labour is intrinsically a part of his human nature, and the alienation of this labour drastically negates what it means to be man. Whereas Thomas Hobbes presents that man’s natural state is one of conflict, and that this conflict can only be overcome through rules set forth by the sovereign, only then can men live in peace with each other.

ABSTRACT: In contemporary philosophy and social theory, Harbermas's theory of communicative action stands indisputably for a modernity enlightened about itself and its potential. Yet, however much he professes his commitment to universalist ideals of inclusiveness and equality, his influential theory is also marked by disquieting statements on matters of gender. I argue that the problem of gender in Habermas's theory can be traced to his attempt to rework the Marxian tradition of historical materialism. I do so by (a) discussing Habermas's proposal for reconstructing this tradition, and (b) examining the system/lifeworld distinction on which the theory of communicative action

In this essay, I will reconstruct the main points of argumentation applied by both Karl Marx and Georg Lukacs in two of their well-known works, Estranged Labor and History and Class Consciousness. I will compare the two with one another in order to develop a comprehensive overview of the difficult and complex relationship between alienation, production, the commodity structure, the ideological applications of the capitalist system and the way in which they are extended into every facet of real life processes through the processes of reification and objectification. Though a majority of this essay will be dedicated to exploring the thinkers’ explication of the role and function of political economy in their texts, it will also investigate the focus of Marxist style critique on the concept of value rather than on the concept of right.

According to Karl Marx, the capitalist system ensured a stimulant to the improvement of the productive forces, but systematically weakened the masses. As a result of this, it caused a class of exploited industrial employee to emerge, the working class, who would finally demolish capitalism and liberate society. Marx’s theory recommends that the capitalist system was advantageous to those who held power in the society, the bourgeoisie, at the exploitation of the working class. With the deeper analysis, and a thought of the naturalist style, I am going to examine Zola’s Germinal and argue that while it does not support the values of a bourgeois class, it however denies the Marxist theory of indispensable victory for the proletariat.

We adhere to Marx’s doctrines, then, without making any attempt to diverge from them, to improve or correct them. The goal of these arguments is an interpretation, an exposition of Marx’s theory as Marx understood it. But this ‘orthodoxy’ does not in the least strive to preserve what Mr. von Struve calls the ‘aesthetic integrity’ of