Society is flawed. There are critical imbalances in it that cause much of humanity to suffer. In, the most interesting work from this past half-semester, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx is reacting to this fact by describing his vision of a perfectly balanced society, a communist society. Simply put, a communist society is one where all property is held in common. No one person has more than the other, but rather everyone shares in the fruits of their labors. Marx is writing of this society because, he believes it to be the best form of society possible.
He states that communism creates the correct balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. And furthermore thinks that sometimes violence is necessary to reach the state of communism. This paper will reflect upon these two topics: the relationship of the individual and society, and the issue of violence, as each is portrayed in the manifesto. Before expounding upon these ideas, it is necessary to establish a baseline from which to view these topics. It is important to realize that we as humans view everything from our own cultural perspective.Order now
Marx speaks of this saying, “Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class. ” With this in mind, some perspective on the society of that time is vital. During this time the industrial revolution is taking place, a massive movement away from small farms, businesses operated out of homes, small shops on the corner, and so on.
Instead, machines are mass-producing products in giant factories, with underpaid workers. No longer do people need to have individual skills. Now, it is only necessary that they can keep the machines going, and do small, repetitive work. The lower working class can no longer live a normal life following their own pursuits, but are lowered to working inhumane hours in these factories. This widens the gap between the upper and lower class-called bourgeois and proletariat-until they are essentially two different worlds.
The bourgeois, a tiny portion of the population, has the majority of the wealth while the proletariat, the huge majority, has nothing. It is with this background that Marx begins. First, the topic of the individual and society will be discussed. This topic in itself can be broken down even further. First, the flaws with the “current” system in respect to the bourgeois and proletariat will be shown, which will reveal the problems in the relationship between individual and society.
Secondly, the way that communism addresses these issues, and the rights of the individual, as seen through the manifesto, will be elaborated on in great detail. Quite clearly, Marx is concerned with the organization of society. He sees that the majority of society, more specifically, the proletariat, are living in sub-human conditions. Marx also sees that the bourgeoisie have a disproportionate amount of property and power, and because of that, they abuse it. He writes of how the current situation with the bourgeoisie and proletariat developed.
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. ” There has always been struggles the between two classes, an upper and lower class. However, Marx speaks of the current order saying, “It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms.
Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. ” The very nature of the bourgeoisie causes it to grow in size and power while the proletariat shrinks, therefore increasing the gap between the two. Marx goes on to describe how this situation came about, with the industrial revolution and other factors. Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, and to communication by land.
This development has, in doing so, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the middle Ages. We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. With these thoughts in mind, a more defined view of the individual classes can be attained.
First, the proletariat: in several places Marx speaks of how the proletariat is oppressed. He speaks of past societies and the current society when he says, “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed” Bourgeoisie and proletariat could quite easily be added to this list of oppressor and oppressed. In every way the proletariat is oppressed, with no hope of improving their place in society. Rather, they are forced to live on hopelessly, knowing that they will not be released from their labors till death.
Marx also writes of the relationship between the proletariat and the machines, which is a result of the split between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. “He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simply, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of himNot only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. ”
Marx draws a picture of how the majority of the population is in an oppressed situation of slavery. The people of the proletariat are not to be envied. From here, Marx moves on to describe the oppressor, the bourgeois. He is quite eloquent in his description of this class: The bourgeois, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment.
It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom-Free Trade. Here Marx is speaking of how the bourgeoisie- controlled society takes every aspect of society and puts them in terms of an exchange value. They reduce all that is noble and admirable about humanity to monetary matters, all in the name of capitalism.
Again, “All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind. ” Marx uses very strong language in these passages, saying that the bourgeois ‘profanes the holy’, and ‘drowns the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor. ‘ The bourgeois removes the humanity from society, creating a system in which anything and everything is measured by its worth in the capitalist structure. Now that the roles of the bourgeoisie and proletariat have been established, it is possible to reconsider the communist ideal.
Clearly, Marx believes that it is wrong for the majority of society, the proletariat, to suffer. He believes that individuals should be equal, not divided into two distinct worlds. Marx describes the current individual in society saying, “In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality. ” He also makes the distinguishing point that it is important for the reader to realize that objections have more than likely arisen from their own bourgeoisie background. You must, therefore, confess that by ‘individual’ you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property.
This person must, indeed be swept out of the way, and made impossible. ” Marx, and also communism, wants to correct society so that all individuals benefit without a particular ruling and enslaved class. Marx speaks for communism saying, “All that we want to do away with, is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.
Marx declares if communism is implemented that “In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. ” With all of this established, clearly Marx thinks it wrong that a small group of people should profit so much from the destruction of so many. Any society that encourages this, or allows this to develop is wrong, and should be changed. He believes that society is incorrect and corrupt to allow so many people to suffer.
As a result he writes this manifesto that lays out the problems, and explains why he believes that communism will correct the balance of society and create an existence where every person is valued, and no one can raise himself or herself up by oppressing another. The next obvious question is how society is going to make the transition from the current capitalism to Marx’s communism. Obviously the ruling bourgeois are not going to wake up one day and realize that the whole basis of their society is cruel and corrupt and decide to redistribute their wealth.
However, Marx believes it is inevitable that the proletariat will realize their situation and their power, and overturn the current society. “Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. ” It however, still be necessary for the proletariat to take things into their own hands and correct the current problems. This brings up the topic of violence. As mentioned before, the bourgeois will not be readily willing to give up their position, so stronger measures will be necessary to create the change that is necessary. Marx has two things to say on this subject.
Primarily, violence in and of itself is not a good thing. Second, however, it may at times be necessary to achieve a greater good. First, let’s establish Marx’s position that violence in general should be avoided. Marx speaks of constant upheaval and violence in several places. “oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. ” Constant opposition, or violence results in the destruction of both sides, according to Marx.
Again, he says, “Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. ” Quite clearly, constant terror and violence is not a good thing, but is damaging to both the individual and society. However, in order to achieve communism, which is the greatest good according to Marx, a revolution is necessary. A revolution does not necessarily mean violence. However, in this case violence will be difficult to avoid, and Marx states that violence may be necessary.
Marx wrote several passages regarding this. He declares that, “The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air. ” What is being described here is clearly nothing less than a revolution, a complete reversal in thought and society. Marx then describes the first step in this revolution. “We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise So it is clear that the first step is to raise the proletariat to the ruling class, but how is this done?
Marx writes that “we, traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat. ” He speaks directly of violence when he says that: “If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old condition of production”
If the proletariat is forced to violence, then violence should be used, because it is for the greater good. Marx puts it all together in one final statement. “In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. ” Putting things back into perspective again, it is important to realize that this violence should be short lived, and only continue until the proletariat is in a position to make some changes to society.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measure, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production. ” Marx uses terms like ‘despotic inroads,’ ‘necessitate,’ and ‘unavoidable’ to describe the necessary violence.
Violent acts are terrible things in and of them, but must be used at times for a greater good. However, in his ideal society, once communism has been reached there will be no more violence. After all this, however, it is clear that Marx makes some rather remarkable assumptions regarding human nature. First, he believes that it is inevitable that the proletariat will realize that things are not as they should be, and that something needs to be done about it. Secondly, he believes that people will know the correct amount of violence necessary to achieve their goals, and will not exceed that.
Finally, he assumes that once the state of communism is reached, that there will be no one that will try to take advantage of the situation and raise him or herself up. The rule of Stalin and Lenin are good examples of people taking an opportunity to exploit and oppress. The idea of communism would appear to be just that, an idea, and an ideal. It may not necessarily be bad to try to approach it, but because human nature is necessarily flawed, in all likelihood communism will never be reached in full. However, even with all of this, the idea of communism has done some good.
Clearly it caused some reform in the area of capitalism, toning it down from what it was during the time of Marx. It has helped by acting as a mirror in which it is possible to see where society is making mistakes, and where a new balance must be struck between the needs of the individual, and the needs of society. Even an idea such as communism, which may not be fully applicable can still have, and has had, a profound effect on future society and humankind. Friedrich Nietzsche was on the cutting edge of sociological and philosophical theory when he lived in the latter part of the Nineteenth century.
His ideas and theories about the world around him inspired some of the most recognized schools of thought in the modern world(or post-modern as it is seen). His post-humus work The Will to Power is the culmination of his life’s work and allows for all who read it to understand the genius behind one of the greatest thinkers of all time. In The Will to Power, Nietzsche explains how the will is the controlling device each of us, and that the true will should only be used on oneself and not to take advantage of or injure another.
Nietzsche seeks all who read it to understand how this is the true exercise of will and how the world has been run down by people using their will in the wrong way. In order to understand Nietzsche’s sociological perspectives, it will help to be familiar with his background. Born in 1844 in Germany, he was the son of two generations of Lutheran priests. His father died when he was five, leaving young Friedrich to be raised by a family of women: his mother, sister, grandmother, and two aunts.
At fourteen he was sent to boarding school and began his long academic career. He went to two “graduate schools” and received a teaching post when he finished at his second. He taught from 1869 to 1879, when he became to physically ill to continue teaching there. He managed to recover from his illness and actually produced the bulk of his work over the next decade, but his later years drew him so deeply into his philosophical theory that he lost his sanity. ietzsche’s The Will to Power is really a collection of his personal notes from 1883 to 1888.
They were published in 1901 by his sister only a year after he died. During the period of time from which the notes are taken, Nietzsche wrote the bulk of his work including parts of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, On the Geneology of Morals, The Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, Ecce Homo, and Nietzsche Contra Wagner. Nietzsche’s The Will to Power covers many various arguments, most of which are represented by one of these separate books. he Will to Power is divided into four books; each delving into a different debate.
Individually they attempt to cover specific aspects of Nietzsche’s theory, but as the whole is truly based on his notebooks, many of his ideas cross books and interlace to help demonstrate his main hypothesis of the will to power. The books are: European Nihilism; Critique of the Highest Values Hitherto; Principles of a New Evaluation; and Discipline and Breeding. ietzsche begins the book with his coming to a nihilistic state about his life. Nihilism is the belief that any and all traditional morals, beliefs, and values are baseless.
He then explains the step by step process that the modern world has gone through to reach the state where one comes to a belief in nihilism. He details every stage and the unfoundedness of the beliefs in each. He deftly illustrates the fault with each vehicle of hope that people have attempted to grasp onto. He discounts every movement from spiritual enlightenment to music and the arts to “progress” with incredible validity. ietzsche’s next section is an attack on the morals that the world has adopted, specifically the Christian values.
He begins with a critical analysis of where religion comes from, sighting the need of priests to exercise their will over others and the denial of the self-knowledge of the will by projecting it as “God. ” He continues with an analysis of the coming of Christianity and it’s appeal to the masses. He further points out the major problems with Christianity including the paradoxical views it projects. He discusses the “herd” mentality which religion grasps onto. He deconstructs those specific “moral judgements” that are popularly accepted. He then supplants them with his ideas for what mankind should uphold. My first solution: Dionysian wisdom. Joy in the destruction of the most noble and at the sight of its progressive ruin: in reality joy in what is coming and lies in the future, which triumphs over existing things, however good. “(Nietzsche 224)
Nietzsche aspires to have each person follow their own true instincts. ietzsche attacks the morality the world has adopted on the basis of perspectivism. He firmly states that everything that one has an opinion on is from a specific perspective, and is therefor askew to each person’s own idiosyncracies. An attempt to think about morality without falling under its spell, mistrustful of the seductiveness of its beautiful gestures and glances. A world we can revere, that is adequate to our drive to worship-that continually proves itself–by providing guidance in the particular and the general–: this is the Christian viewpoint in which we have all grown up. ” (Nietzsche 146) With this opinion of rationality, there is therefor no actual “reality,” since noone actually has a clear vision of it. Nietzsche’s “will to power” is the human spirit.
According to Nietzsche, each of us has the same level of will power, but it is how we choose to utilize that makes the difference. The will to power can be used for evil doings to control and injure others but the truly powerful do not need to prove themselves to anyone and are comfortable just being. The next section of the book deals with how the “will to power” will apply to all aspects of life. It covers everything from metaphysics and science to reactions to nature’s rewards. Nietzsche basically states that there is a balance in this coming world where there is a “Basic principle: only individuals feel themselves responsible. Nietzsche goes on to discuss his empirical view that each person is responsible for doing what they can.
This is an empirical view because he discusses how some can do more than others and are therefor of higher ranking. He has very specific opinions of what makes one higher than another and what should be done concerning ranks. He actually states that who can and cannot reproduce should be regulated. Many people find offence with this and believe in equality for all. This is one of the debated faults in the work. There is also a flaw in Nietzsche’s theories when looked at from a sociological point of view.
Nietzsche held up his ideal for the way in which people should behave but he took down all forms of social order in doing so and left an idealistic plan for how to continue a society with his ubermensch. Without some greater form of social construct, the likelihood that mankind would be able to support his principles does not seem likely. His argument would be that no one would fall out of line. However, his argument would be better supported should he have given a plan for social order with his liberated people. Despite it’s shortcomings though, Nietzsche’s theories seem firmly embedded in history.
The concepts that he proposed allowed a number of great movements to follow. His theories on the Dionysian and Apollonian instincts opened up the deep psycho-analysis field to Freud, in addition to inspiring the existentialist movement. Unfortunately, his work was adopted and used to support the Third Reich when it was attempting to take over the world, and for a while no one would give his work any credit. Justly his work has recently been given the credit it is due, as well as all of his theories becoming again highly discussed, debated, and lamented over.
The theory behind The Will to Power is incredibly well supported despite the fact that it is simply a collection of notes from Nietzsche’s later years. It is a wonderful compilation of the premise behind all of his other works and the summary of their individual points. The most amazing aspect of the book and the philosophy is the incredible validity of it even now, over a hundred years after it was written. The social order of his new world needed to be addressed more, but the principles proposed stand sturdily on their own two feet confident in their own will to power.