I apologize for this being late, my
computer was broken and I practice
until 6 then had to fix the computer.
During class this week, we discussed
Marx's theory of politics and human nature. According to Marx, human
nature is the product of labor, and labor
is the foundation of human nature. Marx believes that if a man
becomes lazy and ceases to produce labor, then he will inevitably
become less of a man. The communistic society is reliant upon the
productions of labor and the exploitation of labor. I believe that
Marx was very contradicting in his theories because while it has been
stated that labor in the foundation of human nature, in class we
discussed that due to labor many people in society become alienated
from nature, themselves, what it means to be a human being, and from
other human beings. Marx's view of the people in his idealistic
society is very material, and he does not view them as equal beings,
he views the people of the working (Proletariat) class as mere
animals that are used to contribute the necessities of life. In turn,
Marx could argue that he views human nature and nature as a whole and
that their relationship is interconnected as one. Marx, once again,
contradicts himself on the idea that he does not view labor as
strictly a means for survival. I believe that not only is this
represented in his works, but it goes much further than. Without
labor, the Proletariats could not attain property and the Bourgeoisie
would not have any benefits as an upper class considering they rely
on the labor of the lower class. Considering in a communistic
society, the upper class relies on the theory of separation and if
labor were not used a means for survival by the lower class then the
system of classes would become completely askew. Over time, could a
society based around Marx's theory inevitably fail? Humans will begin
to rebel against such oppression and discover his independence and
desire for greater connection with the world rather than abiding by
such restrictions of labor. On Wednesday in class, we finished out
the period by stating that there will always be something to follow
communism, what system could reasonably follow Marx's strict societal
system?
1. You've definitely got Communism and Capitalism confused.
ReplyDelete2. Proletariats are the majority and Bourgeoisie is the minority.
3. What we read for class was Marx's response to another paper.
Both Capitalism and Communism require labor, yes, but it is Capitalism that thrives on the direct exploitation of labor (in that the Proletariats work and don't receive what all they need and the Bourgeoisie don't work as much and get most of the proceeds). Marx more or less tries to convince the reader about what a better system Communism is ("to each his need") vs. Capitalism, the system in which the ones who need more don't get more.
And proletariats don't get land in Capitalism, the Bourgeoisie has it all! How did you get that confused? That's Marx foundational argument. Today we have our 1% v. 99% in the occupy movement, same thing.
Marx is a Materialistic Historian, so yeah, his conversation is going to be around material "stuff," but his philosophy goes beyond "who has what" and determines why they have what they've got as well as the social context therein.
Marx is *criticizing* the idea that people are "mere animals" and that they are worth more than their labour. But yes, humans have the natural impulse to labor (whether that labour be coal mining or knitting a sweater, we ALL have our pasttimes).
In class, we talked about the evolution of economics, or Marx's "Epochs of History" and they are as follows:
-Primitive/Communal Stage
-Slave Stage
-Feudalism
-Capitalism
-Communism
It would be an interesting thought exercise to wonder what comes after Communism, but it's NOT Capitalism as you've suggested. Which brings out your "people will rebel against the oppressive society" argument. It's the strict social separations of *Capitalism* that the Proletariats will rebel against. Why would they rebel in a system in which they are provided for like Communism? This is Marx's argument.
You are totally confused.