In this excerpt of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, the first section is devoted to distinguishing between two classes: the Bourgeois and the Proletarians. Marx defines the Bourgeois as the ruling class while the Proletarians are the working class that carries out the will of the Bourgeois. Throughout his Manifesto, Marx is convinced that the Proletarians will eventually rise up and overthrow the Bourgeois, and he devotes the last section proposing ways in which this can be achieved.
There were two major ideas Marx presented that really got through to me in this excerpt, the first being Marx’s statement that the “work of the proletarians has lost all individual character” and that “He becomes an appendage of the machine.” The idea that people could be reduced to nothing more than a machine is haunting—like something out of a science fiction movie. Surely this is a very pessimistic view of the working class, but what I find most haunting is the fact that I agree with Marx to a degree. I know that there are some jobs in the workforce that require hardly any intelligence, creativity, and are so monotonous that the people could be considered an appendage of the machine with which they are working. Take an assembly line, for example. People working on a line do the same things every day, five days a week (sometimes more) for probably forty-some weeks a year. Their skill level is minimal, and the workers are, in a sense, disposable. There are so many people capable of doing those jobs that if one quits or “breaks,” they are easily replaceable or “fixed,” very similar to a machine. Yet, I would not go as far to call them machines. The workers—no matter how mundane and machine-like they may be—are not machines. These workers breathe, have ambitions (for the most part), and can make their own decisions, unlike a machine. Although their financial situation/need in life may be a strong influence in their decisions, the workers do still have free will—no one is forcing them to do a certain job. All in all, I do find many similarities between Marx’s idea of a proletariat and a modern day assembly line employee.
The other major idea that I agree on with Marx is his notion that the bourgeois “creates a world after its own image.” It has been proven through time that the group in power exerts their power on other groups in order to sway them into change. This dates all the way back to imperialism, when major countries in Europe (i.e. Great Britain, France, and others) traveled to Africa in hopes of making a profit off of their resources. In addition to gaining natural resources, they also pushed their customs and ideals onto the indigenous people. When I read this section, I immediately thought of the war in Iraq and the United State’s attempt at establishing a democracy like ours for those people. In this case, we are the ones in power, and we are trying to reform the Iraqis (or proletariats) into adopting a western style of government/custom. Although the US and Iraq are not exactly the “bourgeois” (then again, it could be argued) and the Iraqis are not exactly “proletariats” in that they are working under slave conditions for us, the parallel is still relevant (whether or not you agree with the situation in Iraq).
Overall, I found Marx’s ideas to be pessimistic, but I did find some major points with which I could agree and relate. It was interesting to think about how some ideas related to contemporary society (bourgeois and mirror imaging). Although I do not believe that Marx’s ideas could ever fully happen, I can definitely see how he would persuade many others to believe it could be done. He speaks with conviction and originality. In retrospect many things seem asinine or unachievable, but Marx uses very persuasive language and seems to have a plan. I can see how the downtrodden or unhappy would gravitate toward this romantic idea of equality. At the very least, Marx’s Manifesto will make one think.
**As a side note, there is a German movie called "Metropolis" directed by Fritz Lang in 1927. Long story short, in the city of Metropolis, the poor working class lives underground and works the machines in order to support the upper class. The poor work like machines and an underlying theme throughout the movie is people turning into machines. Another theme is capitalism versus communism. There are some great parallels between the movie and Marx's Manifesto. It's really a very haunting movie. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_%281927_film%29
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your machine exploration is particularly interesting. I think we talked about the film "Metropolis" but I see it in many other more contemporary art forms as well. The Brittish comedy series "the Office" comes to mind. Or the movie with the "someone's got a case of the Mondays". Every job is replacable, every worker not so important or significant.
Why do workers stay in jobs they may hate or may not be adept at? Health insurance. If a job has it, people will not leave unless forced out -- even if those benefits are deplorable. Ultimately even the worst benefits are better than none at all. Likewise, generally people won't "rock" the boat out of fear of losing those benefits.
The parralell you describe concerning the current war is relevant in the sense that one group tries to place or force their values/ideas on another group of people; however, it may be a little of a stretch. Perhaps a more thorough analysis of the idea of bourgeois using the working classes to make it more money may be more fitting? "Why We Fight" is a documentary that scratches the surface of war profitieering and the big business war has become. There are many, many others.
Consider this article about oil in Iraq and the windfall foriegn companies are due to receive.
Going of the idea of workers becoming a part of a machine, an topic came up in my accounting class today. My accounting professor said that companies have higher productivity and greater profits if the work a worker does is varied. That when the worker does not get bored, they are more likely to be more productive. I have to agree with this. While some form of specilization is good so that the work can be familar with the job, to much specilization may cause a worker to get bored. I know for me personally, that when a math teacher assigns 50 of the same math problems, it takes my a long to finish them. At first I am motivated to get the problems done, but as the assignment goes on, I get less and less enthused by it. I do believe there is danger when the worker just becomes the extension of the machine.
Post a Comment