Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Philosophy
classes, which now are in as they oppress or are oppressed by each other. As history
"marches" on, the situation is not eternal rather it is progressing, sooner or later the
means of production ends to be well-matched with the class structure as-is. Instead, the
structure starts to hinder the development of productive forces. The current structure
must be demolished at this time which results to the explanation of the appearance of
the bourgeoisie and its ensuing demolition out of feudalism. Marx has a belief that all of
history should be understood in this way--as the process in which classes readjust
themselves in agreement with changing means of production.
I guess that the most important feature of this theory of history is what it
doesnt deem important. History is formed by economic relations only based from
Marxs Theory. Culture, ideology, religion and every individual are elements that play a
very brief part. But, impersonal forces move history, and its overall direction is
unavoidable. Marx has a belief that this kind of history isnt forever, however. The
Manifesto will far along argue that the modern class dilemma is the final class conflict;
the end of this conflict will mark the end of all class relations. I grasped that this section
begins to suggest why this might be, signifying the ways in which the modern era is
exceptional. The first way is class antagonisms have been abridged with this two
contrasting classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, developed. Then, while unequal
relations were formerly concealed behind things like ideology, today the veil has been
raised and everything is realized in terms of self- interest. Thirdly, for the bourgeoisie to
because it lacks out on a main key component of Communist theory. The Reactionaries
fail to perceived that the predictability of the bourgeoisie's rise, and of their final fall at
the hands of the proletariat. The Conservative Socialists also fail to see the inevitability
of class antagonism, and of the obliteration of the bourgeoisie. This Critical-Utopian
Socialists fail to understand and comprehend that social change must happen in
revolutions, and not by just merely pure dreaming or words not going to act out.
For a current reader like myself, Marx's argument of the second subgroup
perhaps merits the most consideration. The Conservative Socialism that Marx convicts
is exactly the attitude incorporated by countries like the United States to the dilemma of
workers. Welfare, Social Security and a minimum wage are all actions that Marx would
dismiss as efforts to preserve the capitalist system by the creation of the situation of the
proletariat tolerable. It is worth seeing, then, whether Marx's analysis is undoubted.
Essentially, Marx appears to claim that these "reforms" are really done in the benefits
and interests of the bourgeois to pacify the proletariat and to make them receive or
accept their underlying social role. Marx has a belief that this form of Socialism is
mistaken; he resists that the only method to really address the complaints of the
proletariat is through a rearrangement of economic and social relations. This is a
revolutionary act; the optional reforms of Conservative Socialists are just soothing. This
lead me to questions. How does Karl Marx's analysis or critique hold up to states such
as the U.S. or Western European nations which have introduced such "Conservative
Socialist" programs? Is Marx is really right in uttering that these reforms aid the benefits
and interests of the ruling capitalists, and not the workforces?
Last of all, the final section discloses the political agenda of the Communists.
The communists final goal is continually a proletariat revolution and the elimination of
private property and class antagonism. Because they really be certain of that history
must go over a set of stages, however, this may mean occasionally supporting the
bourgeoisie, in order to finally make a hands' revolution possible. While this
Communists have a strong theoretical foundation, integrating comments and forecasts,
theyre also advocating those predictions, and trying to hasten their realization.
Therefore, they do not just state that workforces shall one day unite. Somewhat, they
call on labors to unite which they promise them to have freedom and a better world to
live in. How divisible are the political and theoretical messages of the Communists? Is
the theory of history by the communist is a vital part of its revolutionary memorandum?