The Social Changes And Political Revolutions

With his co-author Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx produced one of his most famous works, The Communist Manifesto. The authors begin with the famous line, “history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle” (Marx and Engels 1848: 2). It emphasizes that the bourgeoisie is a powerful class, which will stop at nothing and force the adoption of a capitalist means of production upon anyone it meets. Marx describes how this will force society to split into two classes. The Manifesto of the Communist Party also emphasizes the theory of historical materialism. Historical materialism happens when

Through history, there has been revolutions that have affected the world in many different ways. There is two kind of revolutions political revolutions ,that are changes to the government, and non political revolution, that are intellectual, economic or social changes. The non political revolutions are important because they had shaped the way we all think, act and work in the actuality. Some of those non political revolutions are the enlightenment that was a change in the way that everybody thinked; and the Industrial revolution in Europe that changed the way goods were produced.

Initially we shall examine the concept of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels view of Socialism as described by Michael W. Doyle. At the very beginning of the chapter he states that “[Marx and Engels] are perhaps best known for the materialist conception of history in which the conditions of production shape all other areas of society — institutions, laws, ideas and morality” (Doyle 322). Both of

D2.His.1.9-12 Evaluate how historical events and developments were shaped by unique circumstances of time and place as well as broader historical contexts.

Over the course of history different revolutions have come and gone, bringing along promises of social, economic, and political change. However, the price of change isn 't always smooth and effortless. Revolution doesn 't bring change at the blink of an eye, it takes time for the achievements of a revolution to come to full fruition. It is almost inevitable that a revolution will have its failures along the way, but these failures don 't overshadow the success of a revolution. It is not until the common good is met that a revolution is deemed successful. When I talk about the common good, I mean that which benefits society as a whole rather than an individual or a minority. The waves of revolution and presidents in Mexico from 1910 to 1946 aimed at achieving the common good, and some presidents succeeded more than others. This can be anything from social services such as free health care and education, to freedom of speech and free elections. When it comes to quantifying the success of a revolution, one must keep in mind the larger scope, not whether a revolution brings immediate change but rather change felt down the road. The most important outcome of a revolution is identifying whether or not it brings forth change. Did the waves of revolution bring change to Mexico or was this change just a mere illusion?

Engels depicts the Industrial Revolution centralizing capital and people. The people were divided by property owning upper class, the bourgeoisie, and the lower class of working people, the proletariat. The division of these two groups of people grew each day as the Industrial Revolution continued. Engels describes in his Introduction chapter, a barbarous indifference of the working class and capital as the weapon used against them. The bourgeoisie justified social inequality, described by Engels as social murder, as a natural act. Engels wrote, “Population becomes centralized just as

The Industrial Revolution (1750-1850) had brought about significant changes in agriculture, mining, manufacturing, transportation and technology and subsequently established an era of unprecedented economic growth in capitalist economies. It was within this era that Karl Marx had observed the deprivation and inequality experienced by men of the proletariat, the working class, who had laboured excessively for hours under inhumane conditions to earn a minimum wage while the bourgeoisie, the capitalist class, reaped the benefits. For Marx it was this fundamental inequality within the social and economic hierarchy that had enabled capitalist societies to function. While Marx’s theories, in many instances have been falsified and predictions

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

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].

Manifesto deals with "Bourgeois and Proletarians", where he is asserting that bourgeois is constantly trying to maximize its profit by exploiting proletarians and their manual labour. Marx and Engels claim “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle”. At this point it is almost certain, why IR influenced Marx as much as he came up with idea of socialism and yet, of communism. Secondarily, the (FR) in France from 1789 to 1799 was another radical and political event in the worldwide history. Marx and Engels based their analysis of the FR, as a series of class struggle. Both concluded, that in society of material inequality it is impossible to reach an actual freedom, considering the slogans of IR “Liberty, Equality and Fraternality”, if the society is divided into exploiters and exploited, meaning Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. This observation was vital to Marx´s concept.

There is deep substance and many common themes that arose throughout Marx’s career as a philosopher and political thinker. A common expressed notion throughout his and Fredrick Engels work consists of contempt for the industrial capitalist society that was growing around him during the industrial revolution. Capitalism according to Marx is a “social system with inherent exploitation and injustice”. (Pappenheim, p. 81) It is a social system, which intrinsically hinders all of its participants and specifically debilitates the working class. Though some within the capitalist system may benefit with greater monetary gain and general acquisition of wealth, the structure of the system is bound to alienate all its

The specialised critique of capitalism found in the Communist Manifesto (written by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels), provides a basis for the analysis and critique of the capitalist system. Marx and Engels wrote about economical in relation to the means or mode of production, ideology, alienation and most fundamentally, class relations (particularly between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat). Collectively, these two men created the theory of Marxism. There are multiple critiques of Marxism that attack the fundamental tenants of their argument. Several historical events have fueled such criticisms, such as the fall of the Soviet Union, where Marxism was significantly invalidated and condemned. On the flip side, Marxism has been widely supported in times of capitalist hardships. What viewpoint a person will hold towards Marxism is largely dependable on the economical environment in which they live. Further, it is also important to remember that Marx and Engels lived in a very different era than today’s society, and the concept of capitalism may have arguably changed quite a lot over time. Therefore, the principles found in the Manifesto may often have to be refurnished and reapplied to fit different economic environments.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels collaborated to produce The German Ideology, which was one of the classic texts generated by the two. Even though The German Ideology stands our as one of the major texts produced by the two, it was never published during Marx’s lifetime. This was a clear expression of the theory of history by Marx and its associated materialist metaphysics. One of the main reasons this text is a classic text by these philosophers is the fact that it introduces students to the basic tenets of the philosopher’s approach. Notably, Karl Marx produced The German Ideology in 1846 as a critique of George Friedrich Hegel and his followers in Germany. The philosophers sought to differentiate their concept of socialism from existing ones and exhibit how socialism emerges ordinarily from the social conflicts embedded in capitalism.

In the chapter titled Theoretical, Engels lays out the basic conflict between what we know as socialism and capitalism, doing so by first examining what he calls the “Materialist conception of history” (Engels 1939, p. 292). In his materialistic history he claims that the exchange and bartering of products, and their production is the “basis of every social order” (Engels 1939, p. 292). He states that in every society that has ever appeared in history, the

For it is our task — and this is the fundamental conviction underlying this book — to understand the essence of Marx’s method and to apply it correctly. In no sense do we aspire to ‘improve’ on it. If on a number of occasions certain statements of Engels’ are made the object of a polemical attack this has been done, as every perceptive reader will observe, in the spirit of the system as a whole. On these particular points the author believes, rightly or wrongly, that he is defending orthodox Marxism against Engels himself.