The Revolution Of The Middle Of A Revolution

     Marx describes the problem in great detail in the first chapter. He feels there is a problem between the bourgeoisie and the proletarians. The bourgeoisie were the oppressed class before the French Revolution and he argues that they are now the oppressors. The proletarians are the new working class, which works in the large factory and industries. He says that through mass industry they have sacrificed everything from the old way of religion, employment, to a man’s self worth and replaced it with monetary value. He is mad that the people of ole that use to be upper class such as skills man, trades people, & shopkeepers, are now slipping into the proletarians or working class. He

The British had the idea of mercantilism where a the economys wealth was judged by how much gold and silver it had, the colonies supplied the mother land with materials and then the mother country produced products to sell back to the colonies

Marx begins his analysis of social order with the historical development of materialism that results in the industrial capitalist society. For him, the history of society depends on the understanding of “real process of

Marx viewed society as a conflict between two classes in competition for material goods. He looked at the history of class conflicts and determined that the coming of the industrial age was what strengthened the capitalist revolution. Marx called the dominant class in the capitalist society the bourgeoisie and the laborers the proletariat. The bourgeoisie owned or controlled the means of production, exploited laborers, and controlled the goods produced for its own needs. He believed that the oppressed class of laborers was in a position to organize itself against the dominating class. He felt that it was the course of nature, that is, it is the way that society evolves and that the communist society would be free of class conflict, "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Marx & Engels 1948, 37)

The nineteenth century was a time of wide-spread changes across Europe and America. Two great seminal thinkers, Karl Marx and Abraham Kuyper, examined the issue of poverty during this time through their books The Communist Manifesto and The Problem of Poverty respectively. Both philosophers exposed economic, political, and social problems of this period. The ideas and reforms of Marx and Kuyper proved to be so tectonic that they resulted in the greatest political upheaval of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. While Marx wrote his book to rally society against capitalism for a socioeconomic change, Kuyper viewed poverty through a Christian lens and weighed the effect of society in regards to this issue.

The Industrial Age brought much hunger, poverty, and despair with its many technological innovations aimed to make man’s life better. Although Kuyper and Marx agreed that social conditions in the Industrial Age were not acceptable, they differed on the cause and solution to the poverty and despair in the modern world. Kuyper’s approach to the problem of poverty is like minimally invasive surgery, less damaging but more time-intensive. Marx’s approach, however, is like amputation with no cauterization, quick but with little chance of recovery. Marx seeks to heal a wound by creating another; Kuyper seeks to heal through correcting the heart of his age.

Marx believes a totalitarian state is a necessity in the beginning stages until a classless society is achieved; he is indifferent to limitations on the power of the government because he knows society will not willingly change their ways for the greater good (Marx and Engels, 1969). Marx recognizes the desire for society to change and his structure for the future is clearly outlined in his works. A socialist system will teach people to be selfless and lead to destruction of class distinctions. The main goal is to reduce the unequal distribution of wealth achieved through exploitation of the workers by the bourgeois class. Marx viewed capitalism as a flawed system which teaches human nature to pursue selfishness. For example, people are less willing to produce and sell their commodities if it bears no monetary generation. There is an overwhelming want by people to make money and it hinders the development of technology.

As we know from Karl Marx, in “Communist Manifesto”, felt that society was divided into two, the haves (capitalist) and the haves-not. Marx felt that this was unfair and it would not work because there would be a constant struggle over resources between the two different groups. Karl Marx felt that this created a division between the two and essentially leads to the unfair and imbalanced distributions over wealth within a society that could stem and create many problems. Marx felt that there were many evils in the capitalist society some of which led to exploitation. One these evils were a surplus of labor. He felt that the bourgeoisie would acquire labor for less than their worth from individuals, which created an imbalance of worth. He felt

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

Marx's ideas on labor value are very much alive for many organizations working for social change. In addition, it is apparent that the gap between the rich and poor is widening on a consistent basis. According to Marx, the course of human history takes a very specific form which is class struggle. The engine of change in history is class opposition. Historical epochs are defined by the relationship between different classes at different points in time. It is this model that Marx fleshes out in his account of feudalism's passing in favor of bourgeois capitalism and his prognostication of bourgeois capitalism's passing in favor of proletarian rule. These changes are not the reliant results of random social, economic, and political events; each follows the other in predictable succession. Marx responds to a lot of criticism from an imagined bourgeois interlocutor. He considers the charge that by wishing to abolish private property, the communist is destroying the "ground work of all personal freedom, activity, and independence". Marx responds by saying that wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism. Having linked private property to class hostility, Marx

Understanding the worldviews of Karl Marx and Abraham Kuyper are imperative to understanding the reasoning that they have behind their respective books and how they respond to the poverty that they see around them. Kuyper addresses poverty as a part of our sinful world and Marx sees it as a direct result of the greed of capitalism and the rich upper class or bourgeoisie. It is important to note that these two authors, although different in their fundamental beliefs, both wanted to solve the problem of poverty and both knew that greed played a part in creating that poverty. Examining Communist Manifesto and The Problem with Poverty shows how these two men believed poverty should be dealt with and the vision that they wanted to see.

Throughout the course of world history there has been various attempts to have a political revolution to form a society built through democracy. In some cases, like the United States, the challenge to build a functioning society through democracy has been successful. Yet, in the case of the French Revolution for democracy, the result was near disastrous. So what separated these two nations in their conquest for a successful political revolution? The answer lies within the structures and institutions established by the United States founding fathers. Both The Federalist Paper by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton and Democracy In America by Alexis de Tocqueville analyze how establishing these different structures will lead to a successful American government founded on democracy. In The Federalist Papers the authors use two different articles, Federalist Paper 10 and Federalist Paper 51, to demonstrate how the systems set in place would lead to set up a structure for a successful democracy. Federalist 10 focused on how the United States’ government needed to large in order to control factions while not completely destroying them. Federalist 51 focuses on separation of powers and checks and balances as a way to prevent a branch of government from becoming too powerful and infringing the rights of the citizens. In the case of De Tocqueville, he portrays how the people who settled the United States and the use of associations to combat the issue of individualism

This essay intends to discuss the following statement from Marx’s ‘The Communist Manifesto’ “what the bourgeoisie… produces… is its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (Marx and Engels, 1965). The essay will begin by introducing the history of the feudal system and the rise of the capitalist system, it will then explain the components of capitalism created by the bourgeoisie which Marx believes will lead to its fall including mass mechanisation, the creation of a labour market, globalization and the increasing divide between rich and poor. How Marx believed the revolution would take place will then be discussed and then why this revolution did not take place and instead capitalism reformed and what this reform entailed will be examined.

The idea that Marx has that he believes will fix society is communism. Marx talks about the “bourgeoisie” and the class system as one of the main thing that needs to be fixed in order to get rid of all problems in the society that is being lived in (Marx, 1). In order to take care of this he proposes that everyone in the society has the same economic stand and everyone has the same belongings in order to eliminate the need for people to want more than they have or feel envy. This is important because it gets rid of inequality in a society giving people the chance to be happy with their lives and how they are allowed to live. This was ultimately Marx’s goal, he wants to make a society where everything belongs to the people and there are no capitalist or overall government to take control over the people and control them.

The 1960s were a decade of era-defining significance, the start of a counter-culture revolution, and a time when young people stood up and made their voices heard. The exhibition You Say You Want a Revolution portrays this through five years of influential music, art and design, film, fashion and politics. The late 1960s saw young people rebelling and using their voice to say there is more to life than money, work and war. They created an underground movement and rebellion, challenging outdated norms and expectations, that has in turn shaped the way we live today. The aim of the exhibition as described by the V&A, was for visitors to consider how the way we live today and how we see the future, has been influenced by the “finished and unfinished revolution of the time” (V&A web). Having said this, it is not clear what they are suggesting by the “unfinished revolution”. Could it be that because it is still recent history and many of the artifacts are still commonly found, such as the album covers, that the ideologies of that time are still prevalent today? Furthermore, the exhibition glamorises the sixties, and puts an upbeat spin on most of the exhibits. It is only the last room, where there was a display of law and order, and the displays of the Vietnam war and Paris rebellion, that hints that the world was not as free and liberal. This shows another side of the 1960s where the establishment angered the youth. Similarly, the viewer is left asking, how much revolution and