Karl Marx and the Theory of Class Struggle - Essay Example

I. Introduction In the theory struggle, Karl Marx declares that due to the fact that society is comprised of an evolving struggle, there is no egalitarianism to establish morals or political alternative. Marx asserted that the course of history was driven by the clash of conflicting forces entrenched in the economic structure and property ownership. Capitalism, eventually, would pave the way for the existence of socialism, just like how capitalism replaced the feudal system. The future class struggle would be fought between the bourgeoisie or the capitalist entrepreneurs, and the proletariats or the workers. The class struggle would reach its end, as predicted by Marx, in the socialist revolution and the emergence of absolute communism. While writing the Manifesto, Karl Marx realized that the communists were not a political party but instead intellectual activists that were capable to ignite the government from external means. This is witnessed in the statement in which he describes them as “a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole” (Ossowski 1963, 73). Marx thinks that these sophisticated bourgeoisies would stage a revolution in Germany that would throw in to the fermenting socialist revolution in France. Through using France as a point of reference, Marx thought that Germany would trail in their steps, ruled by the communists (Swingewood 2000). The progressively more apparent industrial revolution undoubtedly influenced Karl Marx a great deal. Human prospect assumed on a new meaning with power and vigour exemplified in the lower classes which provided the labour that triggered the fateful industrial revolution. Hence, it would appear normal for someone to conclude that these individuals in whom the larger society had turn out to be newly reliant upon for vying in the industrial realm may emerge to take up power. Marx emphasized that “new conditions of oppressions, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” (Porpora 1987, 120). II. Strength and Weakness of the Theory of Class Struggle The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, discusses comprehensively the theory of class struggle. Like the prophets in the Bible, Marx and Engels articulated against the wickedness of the wealthy and powerful and asserted their beliefs in shared aims with the impoverished and the meek. But dissimilar to the prophets of the Bible, they place none of their expectations and aspirations upon any deity, any God, any Supreme Being: the emancipation of the oppressed can only be instigated by the oppressed themselves. More than a century later, what became of the fate of the Communist Manifesto? Throughout the lifetimes of its writers, as they themselves acknowledged in their several preludes for its different editions, particular of its sections and premises had already turn out to be outdated. Other as well has become obsolete adequately during the current century to demand significant re-analysis. But the wide-ranging claim of the manuscript, its heart, its spirit, has not mislaid their novel force and strength. This spirit originates from its attribute of being concurrently decisive and liberating, specifically to say from the unsolvable harmony between examination of capitalism and the appeal for the oust of capitalism, between analysis of the class struggle and the dedication to the oppressed class, between plain but lucid analysis of the conflicts within bourgeois culture and the revolutionary utopia of a civilization defined by egalitarianism and collective solidarity, between rational explanation of the catalysts of capitalist growth and the moral claim to “overturn all the conditions under which the human being is despised, abandoned, diminished, enslaved” (Grimes 1991, 172). We cannot really appreciate or understand the Manifesto without recognizing that the context of its historical account is not a highly developed form of capitalism. The argument is not plainly that the manuscript was created in the middle of the nineteenth century rather at the concluding stages of the twentieth. It is not merely that the authors were discussing about an older form of capitalism that the one we dwell in. The immediate setting of their account is not even the most highly developed capitalism of their own period. They are working literarily against the context of revolutionary turmoil created by social factors and struggles that are more linked to pre-capitalist structures as with social relations in a capitalist system: not merely wage-workers uneven against capitalists, but non-advantaged against advantaged classes, ordinary people, counting in bourgeois, against landed gentry, the country against monarchy, serfs/peasants against landlords, even slaves against masters, and far and wide the starving poor against the affluent (Turner & Beeghley 1981). This is then we conclude that there are some controversial strains in the Manifesto. It is a manuscript of proletarian revolution, upheaval against capitalism, and finally communism. As an appeal to socialist resistance, it has never been overcome in its fervour, its articulacy, its breadth. It is as well an influential and prophetic examination of capitalism, which remains undisputed as a representation of the capitalist dimension in which we inhabit at present, even on the threshold of the new century. However, the immediate political motivation of the Manifesto fits in to a different dimension, extremely dissimilar to the capitalist world it so intensely depicts. Marx’s predictions of the future of capitalism are exceptional enough even with respect to the most developed capitalism at present. Yet if Britain was the framework for his investigation of the capitalist structure, it was not the motivation for the narrative of the Manifesto of the bourgeoisie as a radical political power, a power that would, consequently, commence the vocation of the working class as a revolutionary class (Grimes 1991). III. The Future of Class Struggle Capital’s requirement for the state establishes the state once again as an essential and concerted emphasis for class struggle. And the reality that the state is evidently caught up in class exploitation has implications for class structure and consciousness. It may facilitate to surpass the segmentation of the proletariats and form a new union against a common adversary. It may as well facilitate to transform class struggle into the form of a political struggle (Porpora 1987). Whatever comes to pass, the critique of capitalism by the Manifesto and its image of socialism will hang about very much lively as long as capitalism is thriving. Sections of the political agenda of the Manifesto have been enforced within capitalist society. Exploitation of child labour in factories has in general been eradicated in developed capitalist societies, though it is still present on a significant scale, for example, in the agricultural sector of the United States, and it is definitely prevalent in developing economies, frequently exploited by internationals founded in Western capitalist societies. Increasing income tax is the common norm, although it is subjected under mounting attack from the rightist groups. In developed capitalist societies there is affordable and even free education for everybody, up to a certain point, even though this is as well being worn down in several ways (Grimes 1991). A number of mediums of communication and transportation, and also other ventures, are, or perhaps have been, in public possession in capitalist countries, and a number of capitalist societies have state banks. Each of this has taken place without tearing down the capitalist system. Actually, capitalism has been rescued from its own vicious propensities through public services, social clauses, and the so-called ‘safety nets’ that proletarian movements before have wrestled extensively and difficult to attain (Grimes 1991). This form of public ownership that we are familiar today has, to be certain, negligible in similarity with ventures managed under direct democratic administration, through free associations of workers. In this respect, even public ventures themselves, not only the mediums of communication and transportation, but as well education and health care services, can be under the rationale of the capitalist economy (Haralambos & Holborn 2008). Here, at this point then, is another inconsistency: present capitalism, in its attempts to maintain its competitive nature, is obliterating the core services and traditions that have frequently saved it from destroying itself. Capitalism will as well always limit the range of democracy. It can by no means allow a genuinely democratic civilization where the oppressed and oppressing classes are nonexistent; where amassed labour is but a way to broaden, to enlarge, to endorse the presence of the labourer and not merely to boost capitalist gains; where child bearing, child rearing, and relations between genders are not distorted by capitalist necessities; where no country exploits or oppresses another; where culture is liberated from deformation by the market; and others. As long as we dwell in a society ruled by capitalism, we will inhabit a society where the requirements and decisions of inequitable and inexplicable capitalist ventures, both by the open wielding of class power and through the economy, influence our social and natural context and establish the circumstances of life for every human being that stumbles upon their global path. Now, in particular, it should be evident, as it was extremely clear to Marx and Engels, that a social order motivated by the necessities of capital accretion has to pave the way to a more benevolent and democratic civilization. For such a radical change to happen, the primary driving mechanism remains to be class struggle. References Grimes, Michael D. Class in Twentieth Century American Sociology: An Analysis of Theories and Measurement Strategies. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991. Haralambos, Michael & Holborn, Martin. Sociology Themes and Perspectives. UK: Harper Collins Publisher, 2008. Ossowski, Stanislaw. Class Structure in the Social Consciousness. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963. Porpora, Douglas V. The Concepts of Social Structure. New York: Greenwood Press, 1987. Swingewood, Alan. A Short History of Sociological Thought. New York: St. Martins Press, 2000. Turner, Jonathan H. & Beeghley, Leonard. The Emergence of Sociological Theory. Homewood, Ill: Dorsey Press, 1981. Read More