Structure Of Proletarian Unfreedom Summary

Workers may earn more money today than they did in the last century, but so do the capitalists. The wealth and income gaps between the bourgeois and proletariats is greater than ever. The workers relations to their labor, products and capitalists are unchanged from Marx’s day. The only difference between today’s capitalism and Marx’s is because of a more direct involvement of the state in the capitalist economy. Plus Marx theories concentrate on the more advanced industrial capitalist, he never thought that socialism would be achieved in relatively poor, politically underdeveloped countries. Marx’s vision of socialism emerges from his study of capitalism. Socialism is the unseen potential of capitalism. For a more just and democratic society in which everybody can develop their own qualities of being human.

Furthermore, Karl Marx believes the state can be nothing more than the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the wage-earners; for this to take place the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie or the class who owns most of the country’s wealth and means of production. In essence, Karl Marx, believed that there is a chronological order of the development of society from capitalism, which is developing into communism is impossible without a transition period; the state can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the working class. After which, the people are no longer wage slaves and no more classes, then will the state cease to exist and freedom truly comes forth. Nevertheless, Karl Marx believes a capitalistic society conveys a false democracy, a democracy only for the rich; that communism is only capable of providing a full democracy, a democracy for

market protections and economic safety nets provided by socialist policies make for a better quality of life for the average person. Corporate executives and wealthy stockholders, free of limitations and consequences from their actions make economic decisions that act on the lives of millions of people (Democratic Socialists of America 1). Socialist policy can give more control over what is done with resources and money. Democratic socialists believe “social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect” (Democratic Socialists of America 1). Many socialists advocate for concepts such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises that are run by workers and representatives of consumers. “Under socialism, the means of production are not privately owned, and one of socialism's defining features is the role the government plays in controlling the means of production by having a centrally planned economy” (“Preface to ‘What Are Some Concerns About Capitalism’” 1). The power of workplace unions has diminished in recent times and with that workers may not have much control over how they are employed. “The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment” (Democratic Socialists of America

Throughout the Cold War the United States circulated the idea that communism was not just the enemy of capitalism, but would lead to the undermining of American democracy. Under the propaganda communism was written off as a structure that would take the power from the individual and give it to the state allowing for the rise of totalitarian oppression. Communism was made to be a threat to the freedom our government and the free market system provided. Marx’s considered socialism however, as the necessary step to communism, true democracy, equality and freedom in releasing the individual from exploitation at the hands of the bourgeois. In the following paper, I aim to demonstrate that socialism is more compatible with the values of

It is saying everyone gets this which limits creativity but at the same time limits the difference among the population. “Workers earn the same, regardless of their position. There are not very many differences between the highest and lowest wages.” (English-Online) This is what really creates the essence of the “no class society”. Having little differences in wages causes people to mainly spend money the same way, mostly on necessities then the extra on whatever the government offers to them. Having everyone make the same wage causes less differences because people can’t diversify themselves because the products they buy that they think can diversify themselves are actually products that any person in their communist society could buy. A Mathematical perspective on this standpoint is that if there is 10 people, they all get $100 but have to spend $75 on food and water leaving $25 for them to spend on whatever they want, meaning they can all only spend the same amount of money on

Historically, freedom was viewed strictly as political liberty, but this has evolved into the right to live as one chooses, equipped with essential resources (Charmichael 41). Similarly, equality has broadened from the mere idea of equal citizenship rights to the idea that some government interference may be required to ensure the accessibility of rights. For example, all people have the right to legal counsel, but for those who cannot afford a lawyer, legal aid may be required. Though liberals agree that everyone should have equal access to rights, the extent that government should minimize social inequities is debatable (42). In general, liberal democrats prioritize political equality, entailing equal voting rights and representative government (Harder 75; Plattner 131-2), as well as economic freedom, which protects property rights and allows businesses to operate free of government (Kellogg 52; Plattner 128). As such, economic inequalities are typically viewed as a natural consequence of freedom. Nevertheless, some liberals argue that government need not constrain economic freedom if it promotes equal opportunities (Mintz 105-6).

Thereby, the proletariats are defenseless and the bourgeoisies abuses them whichever way they see fit. As it’s been distinguished earlier the bourgeoisies have ties of both political and economic authority, they are prime movers within the capitalist system. If this notable system is hereby eradicated, i.e. exploitation and inequality, Marx bestows a feasible resolution in his book “Communist Manifesto.” Communism is often inferred as a system that construes everyone to be

     Throughout history, there have been many systems developed in order to have a better society. Two of the most analyzed, and debated systems that have tired to change an economy for the best are communism, and capitalism. Communism, and capitalism have been compared on many levels, such as why they will or will not work, and which one works better. Throughout this essay I will concentrate on the differences, and similarities of how each operates, along with the benefits, and problems that each of them produces.

There is no doubt that capitalism has generated unprecedented economic gains and increased human prosperity by orders of magnitude. However, socialists argue that capitalism comes with significant tradeoffs, namely that laborers sacrifice their freedom for efficiency. G.A. Cohen says that capitalism is not only morally unacceptable but that socialism, as an economic system, is preferable for reasons of liberty. Capitalist theories of distributive justice misinterpret what it means for a person to be truly free. Cohen presents two primary arguments to advance his dramatic conclusion: that we are coerced into selling our labor in order to survive; and that we are unfree if we do not have the means (i.e. money) to pursue our own conception of

In this regard, a good number of these socialist alternatives have in one way or another misrepresented the original meaning of socialism. Incidentally, some of these alternatives exercise double standards by exercising socialism on one hand and strict communism or even capitalism on the other. Likewise, other similar systems have partially sidetracked from socialism by implementing and promoting individualistic socialism which endorses augmentation of social classes and which in reality is indifferent from capitalism. On the other hand, some of these alternatives are predominantly based on self-centered governance which represses freedom and unalienation among its citizens. Lastly, the underlying principle of the unalienated man escapes virtually all these socialist replacements as they fail to acknowledge the value of freedom and non-competitive production which allows man to bring the whole process of societal growth and individual fulfillment under his

In exchange for a socialist government that regulates the economy ineffectively, the people must sacrifice all or many of their property rights to the state (pg. 407); whereas, in capitalism, private property ownership is maintained by individuals (pg. 406). This is the outstanding ideological difference between capitalism and socialism.

Capitalism, as Karl Marx describes it, is an economic system, but economics itself is simply a perpetual condition of the current standard for production in any given period of time. Therefore, capitalism is simply the people’s response to an ever-changing world; the evolution of economic systems, such as capitalism, follow man’s discovery and the emergence of a market society, changes in technology, the Industrial Revolution, and changes in political institutions. This concept doesn’t only apply to the flow of money and resources in society; it also governs the mindsets of those contributing to it. Capitalism is best explained using its three most significant perks: the right to private property, a fully-functional market system, and genuine economic freedom. While all three of these ideologies seem to be rooted in commerce, they really can all be combined into one concept; capitalism, in a free market, is nothing more than the promotion of competition and self-interest in society.

Socialism presents a more democratic way of handling the economy, with the people allowed to share much of the same economic freedom that capitalism offers. Depending on the form of socialism, people may be able to sell and buy the goods they want, establish companies, and do as they would like in the economy. However, a key concept in socialism, which will exist in any socialist country, is the government’s lingering hand in the economy. For example, in Sweden, which practices a more capitalistic socialism, the government cuts 50-60% out of the everyday worker’s paycheck while allowing a mostly free market system. However, Sweden provides every citizen free healthcare and education all the way through college. In spite of Sweden’s successful “socialism”, however, there still stands examples of failed attempts at socialism. A modern one, for example, is Venezuela. Today, the country is in shambles with the vast majority of their people resorting to

Contrary to the frequent moral justification of capitalism as being altruistically for the “common good”, in Ayn Rand’s essay, What is Capitalism (1965) and novel Atlas Shrugged, she defines the moral justification of capitalism as the objective justice for all in society, independent of society as a whole and entirely separate for each individual. Although it may result in benefits for the entirety of the people, these benefits are a mere secondary consequence of each participant utilizing their “individual rights” as recognized and protected solely by Capitalistic systems.

After mapping out the analogous chains between an affable camping trip and socialism, Cohen asks us to consider whether the diffusion of such trip principles across wide society would be desirable and feasible, two questions that he declares to be independent. I assess them separately as he did but believe them to be intricately linked. Cohen acknowledges the possibility of man’s insufficiently generous nature as a barrier to feasibility without addressing it further. However, I think it’s a mistake to de-emphasize the self-seeking nature of humans. More specifically, we will find Cohen’s conception of socialism undesirable once we honestly confront our limited capacity to uphold principles such as communal reciprocity. The feasibility of socialism as an implementable system is also compromised due to our propensity for championing our own interests. If we give proper weight to the human condition in its actual form, we will understand socialism to be undesirable and appreciate our self-seeking nature as a serious threat to the feasibility of socialism.