The Paradox Of Modernity

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were also discussed. Together, these philosophers outlined the Marxist theory, a theory that involves collectivism as the mechanism to run the economy of a society. Although their efforts were recognized, it did not, however, help bring hegemony to an end, especially due to constant change in technology. The chapter continues with saying that along with the advancement in technology, social domination has become much more complex, ultimately concluding that the difference in

▪ Marxism – fundamentally anchored on the work of Karl Marx, Marxism is a dominant critical theory born in the middle of the 19th century and flourished tremendously throughout the twentieth century. Marxism identifies social and economic factors as crucial denominators of relationship in society. This short story has very strong social problems. The people of the Marxist time are afraid of new technologies

Tocqueville and Marx both argue for an egalitarian modern society, but their idea of equality of modern social order differs, which leads to two distinctive conclusions, democracy for former and communism for latter, which is adopted by different nations in the world. Both social theorists place high importance in analysing the history of society to determine modern social order, but have differing conceptions of history that leads to their contrasting views on the fundamental nature of the capitalist society, and their distinct predictions for the future. This essay will examine Tocqueville’s and Marx’s conceptions of history and through it, understand the nature of capitalist society, and comprehend their predictions for an ideal modern state. Using their analysis, I shall argue that Marx’s prediction of the future is more compelling as compared to Tocqueville.

During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie had definite opinions about the affects of industrialization on society. A greater understanding of their views on history and humanity can be gained by comparing and contrasting two written artifacts: The Communist Manifesto and “Wealth.”

In an effort to understand progress and its goal in humanity, philosophers Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx each present their theories with Kant believing progress is made through the reform brought on by antagonism and social instability in humanity which will ultimately lead to perpetual peace, while Marx argues progress comes in the form of a worker’s revolution and the adoption of true communism that will lead to utopia. These German thinkers seek to define the guiding the force beneath humanity’s constant state of evolution to understand where it is headed and advise towards a goal they find ideal for humanity.

Capitalism is an unnatural perversion of society in Marx and Engel’s The Communist Manifesto. It is constantly consumptive, unable to exist without further expansion. It warps society through its exploitation of labor and the class that provides it. The Communist Manifesto goes beyond just a sociopolitical critique of capitalism, and adds otherworldly, almost Gothic elements. Repeated supernatural, fantastical language reinforces the idea that capitalism is an illegitimate twist of the natural state of human affairs.

For example, it shapes the nature of religion, law, education, the state and so on. According to Marx, capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. For example, by polarising the classes, bringing the proletariat together in ever-increasing numbers, and driving down their wages, capitalism creates the conditions under which the working class can develop a consciousness (or awareness) of its own economic and political interests in opposition to those of its exploiters. As a result, the proletariat moves from merely being a class-in-itself (whose members share the same economic position) to becoming a class-foritself, whose members are class conscious – aware of the need to overthrow capitalism. The means of production would then be put in the hands of the state and run in the interests of everyone, not just of the bourgeoisie. A new type of society – socialism developing into communism – would be created, which would be without exploitation, without classes and without class conflict. Marx’s work has been subjected to a number of criticisms. First, Marx’s predictions have not come true. Far from society becoming polarised and the working class becoming poorer, almost everyone in western societies enjoys a far higher standard of living than ever before. The collapse of so-called ‘communist’ regimes like the former Soviet Union, and growing private ownership and capitalist growth in China, cast some doubt on the viability of the practical implementation

The Communist Manifesto left a tremendous impact on a society that was rapidly becoming industrialized, and its effects can even be seen on the dominating economic system of the twenty-first century. In the later nineteenth century, however, industrial capitalism was on the brink of ruin. “On many occasions during the past century, Marxists have thought that capitalism was down for the count . . . Yet it has always come back with renewed strength.” Industrial capitalism succeeded in the face of communism, despite numerous economic disasters. As the capitalist economists hopefully noted at the time, these economic earthquakes, temporary in character, soon cured themselves and left capitalism unscathed. Karl Marx sought to create

Marxism is often cited as being irrelevant within contemporary society due to the fact that Marx had critiqued an almost incomparable society. McDonald & Brownlee (2001) argue

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

Karl Marx was a communist researcher and coordinator, a key character in the historical locale of economic and hypothetical idea, and an awesome societal prophet. But it is as a sociological theorist that he commands our interest. Society, according to Marx, involved a moving equalization of contradictory powers that create social change by their strain and battle. Marx's vision depended on a transformative purpose of flight. For him, battle instead of quiet development was the motor of advance; strife was the father of all things, and social conflict the principal of historic process. This reasoning was in opposition with the greater part of the teachings of his eighteenth century antecedents, however tweaked in to much nineteenth century thought. To Marx the propelling power in history was the way in which men classify each other in their consistent battle to seize their work from nature. "The first historical act is . . . the production of material life itself. This is indeed a historical act, a fundamental condition of all history" (Bancroft and Rogers, 2010). A communist state would have the laborers possess the methods for generation and all would share the benefits similarly. The laborers would be working for themselves, not for the advantage of the business people. All types of government would gradually vanish, as the laborers comprehended the advantage of working for the benefit of each other. When this model situation happened, his optimal society that he called

According to Lasch we have become a society of consumers rather than producers. Marx (1844) saw humanity as creative, purposive labourers or producers, where only the private ownership of the means of production prevented humanity from producing for need rather than for the profit of the capitalist, This modus operandi means that late capitalism has actually robbed us of the purpose of humanity as a species. However, Lasch identified that because production of many of the goods enjoyed by western society are now produced overseas, people conceive of themselves far more as consumers rather than as producers. By taking away our capacity to produce the goods that we consume, capitalism has removed the essence of human life for Marx and left us with nothing but an ache to constantly and remorselessly consume. This only leaves us with a distinct sense of dissatisfaction and a fear of not leaving any worthy evidence of our existence (Lasch). The fear of ‘no exist’ as Lasch puts it, is a deep void that the narcissist constantly and unsuccessfully tries to fill.

In their materialist reading of history, Marx and Engels proclaim that with the necessity for survival driving history/ and man to the development of social interaction and thus the establishment of the economy, staged progressions will come forth as a result. To Marx the economy will ultimately be responsible for all aspects of society. It will be from the development, and circumstance stemming forth from such development of the economy, that the stages of history will progress. And as such to Marx and Engels Capitalism will be a stopping point upon this staged progression route of history. In this way it is concluded that Capitalism is a mode of production stemming from the economy [means and relations of production], which in itself is a result of the history of materialism [the innate struggle for survival and the social relations built upon this struggle].

And, so, by an inevitable historical process, "the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange."(57) And each of these has been "accompanied by a corresponding

Karl Marx is the first in a series of 19th and 20th century theorists who started the call for an empirical approach to social science. Theorizing about the rise of modernity accompanied by the decline in traditional societies and advocating for a change in the means of production in order to enable social justice. Marx’s theories on modernity reveals his beliefs of modern society as being influenced by the advancement of productive forces of modern industry and the relationships of production between the capitalist and the wage laborers. The concept of modernity refers to a post-feudal historical period that is characterized by the move away from feudalism and toward capitalism. Modernity focuses on the affects that the rise of capitalism has had on social relations, and notes Karl Marx and Max Weber as influential theorists commenting on this. The quick advancement of major innovations after the Enlightenment period known as modernity stood in stark contrast to the incremental development of even the most complex pre-modern societies, which saw productive forces developing at a much slower pace, over hundreds or thousands of years as compared to modern times, with swift growth and change. This alarming contrast fascinated Marx who traced the spawning of modern capitalism in the Communist Manifesto, citing this record speed as the heat which generated the creation of the global division of labor and a greater variety of productive forces than anytime before. Ultimately,