The revolutionary bourgeoisie
In Marx's words, "The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part." Explain why and in what ways.
In Marx's words, "The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part." Explain why and in what ways.
The changes that rooted in feudalism, when the complex social hierarchy became simply the industrial middle class
and the proletariats, led to a raw truth denying religious and naturalist claims to power, and "left remaining no other
nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". The increasing means of
production and exchange brought about social change, thanks to the exploitative bourgeoisie class, proving as
Marx said, "All that is solid melts into air".
Chrissi
Historically speaking the bourgeois has revolutionized the speed to need. This would not be problematic however; the general process involves global exploitation of humanity. Capitalistic-minded bourgeois is especially infamous for revolutionizing mass consumption of material goods through unapologetically exploiting humanity to serve self-interests. Modern industry, past as well as present, typically parachutes into unsuspecting areas that are naive to the events that shadow world-markets. At glance, industries appear to offer attractive perks to a sinking community. In greater terms, “It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst.” (225)
Capitalists justify exploiting humanity on the premise that weak lands will become nurtured as a result of their economic opportunities. Poor people would now be rescued by new earning powers. The point I’m trying to convey here is that; the bourgeois revolutionized how to brain wash a community into thinking they are going to receive greater economic opportunities. The problem is that, historically speaking, the capitalists (or bourgeois) demand outrageous work expectations from a populations who hold entirely different values and belief systems.
The bourgeois’ belief is that they’re gifting a favor to communities through granting new jobs, opportunities or progressive changes. This sort of hypocrisy feeds to human exploitation because “barbarian countries” already have a system of producing agriculture and social content. Realistically with modern industry brings political centralization which empowers the bourgeois to literally own the working class, the direct origin of exploiting humanity. As industries popularize manufactures unite to monopolize production by robbing small farming communities of their success, further dividing classes and imposing new concepts that generally contradict existing ideologies within the population.
Exploitation of this kind is best described, “…It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adapt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e. become bourgeois themselves.” (225)
The initial intent of the bourgeois may not have been to breed problems within society however; inevitably it does by imposing new rules and restrictions that undermine interests of the community.
In addition, the bourgeois has proved to be historical by revolutionizing political power through the veins of capitalism. Because of their fiscal power, they have the means to buy or even create governmental power. The most common method of seizing power is through their distribution weapons to specific groups of people who have no merit to control a population, but do so under the influences of the bourgeois to secure their property.
“The bourgeois keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands.” (225)
What that statement means to me is that, as power becomes increasingly centralized, the people’s interests become decreasingly significant. On a personal note, it makes me ill is that the bourgeois, also known as our capitalist friends, have completely run out of people to exploit domestically. They’re frantically globe trotting to foreign lands on a man hunt for fresh communities to taint, or rather introduce production and industry. As a result, it’s not uncommon for me to receive phone calls at 4am from India to update me on promotional offers for my VISA card. As a card holder, I have a hard time believing having IT departments in places like Dhaka or Calcutta serve my best interest or the people employed by these companies.
Well put! As you said, "The bourgeois’ belief is that they’re gifting a favor to communities through granting new jobs, opportunities or progressive changes." and if that's the case, if they're so giving, why don't they pay foreign workers even close to what U.S. workers in the same positons would be paid? They say that their wage is comparable in the economy of the countries they exploit, but if even just their secondary aim is to help boost another country's economy wouldn't it help more to pay higher wages? The benevolence arguement is absolutely laughable for many reasons!
China and India: two countries made of proletarians who work for almost all the bourgeoise across the world... If Marx was right, the new world revolution should start there.
“The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.” - Karl Marx
It is surprising to hear Karl Marx address the bourgeoisie as an “oppressed class,” especially since Marx depicts the bourgeoisie as the oppressors of the proletariat, or working class. But I do recognize why Marx has mentioned the bourgeoisie “revolution” in The Communist Manifesto. For hundreds of years the bourgeoisie were oppressed by the ruling class of feudal times; the kings, queens and other nobility of the land. The bourgeoisie’s merchant or professional statuses were clearly not seen worthy enough to govern or own the land and they were unable to acquire a desired higher status. The bourgeoisie were the working class for the nobility and they lived in the market, producing, trading and developing goods for the extremely wealthy ruling class. Then, when the bourgeoisie saw a chance to break away from the absolute monarchies they did so and began their role as the ruling class.
I believe that Marx thought he needed to explain why the bourgeoisie had come to see themselves as a ruling class. Or maybe the bourgeoisie didn’t see themselves as the ruling class. They may have thought of themselves as business men and innovators in a newly thriving capitalistic society. After being oppressed for such a long time I feel that the bourgeoisie didn’t realize, initially, that they were actually oppressing the proletariat. In fact, I think that the bourgeoisie thought that they were bringing jobs to the poor peasants with their new advances.
One of the most interesting statements Marx writes is about how family life begins to change when the bourgeoisie become the ruling class. He writes, “The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.” This excerpt describes how the bourgeoisie continue their historical revolutions, except this time they are not only reforming their own lives, but also the proletariats lives. It is possible that while the bourgeoisie struggled for equality and power among the nobility they were stripped away from their families. So, when the bourgeoisie became the ruling class they had forgotten about family life which may explain Marx’s account on family life. This statement also reminds me of what life appears to be like in modern society. I personally find that family life is no where near as intimate as it was twenty years ago. Has our society become the monopolistic capitalistic society Marx talks about?
I can’t say that I agree with everything that Marx says, but he seems to be describing our very own society when he was alive in 1848. Marx talks about all the “old-established national industries” being destroyed, people constantly wanting new products, and the reliance of large cities and countries on poor nations for cheep labor, and poor countries dependant upon the wealthy countries for means of income. All of these points portray the country we live in. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx states that the natural progression of a monopolistic society is to evolve into a communist society. To me, this is a little scary, but I feel that we all need to wake up and witness what our nation has become and what we can do to change it!
Posted By: Kari J.
*All quotes are taken from Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto (1848)
I did not make page references with the quotes because I was using a different copy of "The Communist Manifesto."
Kari
Money relation. That's atleast half of my family.
The part about the family is a bit troubling. It seems like it could have been included in the paragraph above it on page 224, but Marx cordons this sentence off by itself. Perhaps he felt it would be cheating to slip “family” into that paragraph’s litany of occupations. Priests, poets, and lawyers occupy a space in society that, at least today, we understand as jobs. Whatever else they are, they are also a means to make money. But can families be placed into this same category? I think it would be a bit extreme to contend that family life has been completely reduced to mere money relations, but perhaps there is some truth to this bold claim. For example, at the time Marx was writing, families who used to work together for their sustenance were being ripped apart to work in factories. A more contemporary example is that financial prospects have become an increasingly more important factor in mate selection throughout the twentieth century.
Greg
Families also get tax breaks and married people even get tax incentives that singles don't. Parents claim children and receive breaks for that. I think the family is still partially monetary relationship even if it doesn't appear to be. That doesn't neccessarily mean it must be without the "sentimentality" or love that Marx talks about. I think it all depends on the family. Some families have little more beyond their basic needs and love. Actually, probably most are in that situation, especially if we think beyong the U.S.'s borders. The "sentiment" is still what drives people more than the money side of things though, I'd say. Although it can get really interwined because if you love someone, you want what's best for them financially and otherwise and hopefully they do for you too. That can mean many things in terms of shaping families.
Many of the ideas that Marx posits, although some seem a tad paranoid to me, do have many parallels that are easily seen today. One that I found interesting was his mention of “the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization”(225). To a certain extent that has become true, but with I think less than 25% of the global population having regular access to a phone, and even less having access to the internet, this idea of bringing all societies into “civilization” is somewhat dramatic. The portion where he says, “In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes”(224). I thought this hypothesizing of a consumer consciousness that extended beyond one’s own borders is extremely widespread today, for example our dependence on a plethora of eastern technologies.
While there were many observations that seem to be dead on, there was one that I didn’t fully agree with. He states that, “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations”(223). While I agree with the dissolution of the feudal and idyllic relations, I think patriarchal relations were and still are in tact. Another point I disagreed with is when speaking of the growth of urban centers, he says, “It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life”(225). The idiocy of rural life? I don’t pretend to be the most pro-agrarian person around, but I think he’s being somewhat classist in this statement, criticizing a non-urban proletariat in the process of his critiques of the bourgeoisie.
I’m sure some of these impressions might reflect my lack of direct experience with Marxist theory, but despite the occasional contradiction, I think many of his ruminations on the structure of society have been indirectly influential to how I see the world.
Justin S.
"In place of old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and nationals seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations” (Marx 224).
Oh my goodness, how I think this same thought EVERY time I go through the super market, especially the produce section, where most of our produce come from different countries. Not only is this not environmentally sound, it is not as fresh. I think that most often produce is picked up to a week before it is placed in grocery stores and it’s shipped up to 1500 miles (when shipped in the US…longer of course when you get foods from South America or Asia). The shipping alone is energy and fuel deficient and the lack of support of small local farmers is devastating. It concentrates power into few companies because mostly we get our produce from other countries because it is cheaper…and it is cheaper because it is sent in bulk. This bulk produce most often times contains pesticides and GMO-treated organisms because it’s cheapest to produce... Anyway, this quote reminded me of that. Of course it is not just with food, it’s with technology in general. We as US citizens are rarely satisfied with anything—always wanting the biggest of that and the most of those. It’s really quite sad actually.
I really agree with you Kait. Especially in the way marx writes it, it is as if the whole thing could just collapse at any moment due to such high competition and people's greed... Though it is nice to know that this began before america (even if we brought it to this height)....people everywhere just want to win and make the most money! Its easy to get caught up in...
Angela
As the Bourgeois class Marx speaks of in Communist Manifesto do revolutionize economic, political, and social behaviors, they also increase the pace of human interaction and production, diminishing many traditional values held by their countrymen and ancestors. My reaction to the reading was of disappointment in human's need/desire to continue to refine and change from old ways. I know how it feels to experience a society that I've always known to be a certain way, and have values I've spent my whole life with be challenged by a large portion of young, growing, society who are anti-traditional. While I can completely understand many of the Bourgeois idea's for Free Trade because of its financial benefits and socially liberating effects, I see it as demoralizing to a lifestyle of hard work and satisfaction with one's on place in the spectrum of humanity. It reminds me of how kids leave high school and immediately stop going to church, or how rural life is frowned upon or stereotyped negatively, or even new ways of thinking about marriage requirements or citizen taxation. I feel that while challenging traditional views is essential for progression, too many revolutions by those of similar classes/groups as the Bourgeois cause changes too rapidly for anyone to spend a whole lifetime with the same morale...and I believe the spiritual health of most people in modern times is in a poor state.
I think it did happen too fast. It is too bad that people didnt do surveys to find out about the quality of life, of people in all different areas, as we do today.. It seems as though even something as simple as this blog could be the result of this bourgeois movement! And because of this emphasis on 'new and improved' over the last 200 years, I think we have forgotten many traditions and that if the people from 200 years ago saw us now- they'd think we're nuts.(and i dont mean peanuts!)
I agree with both of you. It seems that since the first industrial revolution change has occurred at an extremely fast pace. I come from a rural community and I grew up in a very traditional home. Now that I live in the cities I have gotten a taste of a more fast pace society. I have fallen in love with the cities, but I often find myself longing to being in a small community where everyone knows each other, and life is a little more relaxed.
The first time I read the extract from The Communist Manifesto I took it in a very literal sense. I did my best to simply read what Marx had to say and understand it as he was saying it without looking for implicit meaning. I didn’t look at his writings as a persuasive piece but rather an informative one. Then we went over it in class and the sarcasm that Marx used became quite evident and unavoidable. Marx takes many jabs at the Bourgeoisie and the capitalistic way of life that can be quite transparent once one starts to look at his works as a piece of literature coming from a bitter and jaded man that seeks revolution. Marx never says he hates the Bourgeoisie or that he favors the Feudal system but it became quite obvious to me, as I looked closer at the excerpt.
Near the end of the fourth paragraph Marx speaks of the “great” classes and “great” hostile camps that capitalism has given birth to. This is the first time that his bitterness shines through but certainly not the last. During feudal times there were many classes but the Bourgeoisie have since “simplified” the antagonisms these classes held to one another. I believe Marx is using a very sarcastic tone here. The simplification of the classes isn’t a good one, at least that is the vibe I get from Marx. The lord/serf relation was one of force and control but also with a sort of benevolence. Lords were to make sure their subordinates were taken care of so that they might, in turn, have a successful reign. Also, while rare, there was a chance of upward mobility in non-capitalist nations. An apprentice could train and learn and soon become a master. The Bourgeoisie and capitalism brought free trade and individual success for the few. There was no longer codependence or even a chance of mobility. Indeed Marx sites that very moment in history when the oligarchy of the modern day Bourgeoisie was born “…the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern Bourgeois.” No longer was being a doctor, a lawyer, priest or a poet of any meaning. These former classes were relegated to the simplicity of the paid wage-laborers. Obviously, this would upset Marx since he himself was a writer therefore merely a Proletariat.
Marx talks about the “idiocy” of rural life with a definite tone of sarcasm. The Bourgeoisie have “rescued” the barbarians from their lives of toil in farms so that they might toil in factories for the faceless Bourgeoisie instead. I believe Marx admires the hard worker of the lower class and feels as thought the forced change that the Bourgeoisie require of all nations is unfair. A nation must bow down to the capitalistic regime or it will be run over. Marx sites that “It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the Bourgeoisie mode of production …”
Finally, Marx speaks about how the Bourgeoisie must expand everywhere in order to survive. The constantly changing market requires that the Bourgeoisie “nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere.” A nation and its people are not given a choice to be a part of the capitalistic system. It is thrust upon them. Those who resist, perish. So, in conclusion, Marx definitely doesn’t like the 2-class system even though he never actually states that he favors or disfavors it over Feudal systems over it.
Dorian Stanasel
Hey Dorian,
This is a really thoughtful entry with nice close reading. I just don't know, though, that Marx exactly "preferred" the feudal era. I think that he thinks it's impossible to go backwards (he is quite scathing about the Reactionists, wouldn't you say? I think you are spot-on about his ironic tone through much of this piece, but that ultimately he would say that the bourgeoisie is indeed revolutionary in that you have to move through capitalism to get to communism, a society where we can use the technology developed under capitalism to free us from toil by sharing everything.
Great work though,
TG
Comments
The bourgeoisie society strikes me like that of the Borg of Star Trek. You had to assimilate to its way of life and production style to survive. Resistence was futile. Barbarian nations were pulled into civilization by the bourgeoisie. In time, the middle class itself (apprentices, guild masters, journey men, lawyers, doctors) became simply labor for the bourgeoisie and old production styles of their respective nations was eliminated.
Dorian
Posted by: dorian stanasel | January 28, 2007 09:07 PM
So, I've never seen Star Trek, but I would definitely agree that conformity was necessary after the bourgeoisie mentality was thrown into the works. The centralization of production created specialization while depleting individuality. The bourgeoisie has forever changed the way that the global economy functions. The anonymous means of production that the bourgeoisie mentality incorporates in the labor industry leaves laborers without any sense of accomplishment.
Allison
Posted by: Allison | January 29, 2007 11:24 PM