Assignment Prompt & Instructions
attached
– 2 years ago
**files (1)**
– ## Theminimumlengthforeachofyo.docx
**## Theminimumlengthforeachofyo.docx**
The minimum length for each of your replies to classmates in order to earn any credit is 150 words.
Rachel B:
PART A.
Karl Marx discusses class, social relationships, and the idyllic, communist society moving forward. In Marxism, a capitalistic society was plagued with class inequality (not unlike preceding societies), however, “capitalism is an economic and social system that fetters—chains—human creativity and locks science, technology, and human labour into the narrow prison cell of private profit,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 80). All while also providing the lure of scientific advancement, material abundance, and the possibility of leaving behind traditional inequalities, it never delivers on this due to the gaping level of owners of productions versus workers. The Communist Manifesto spoke deeply about class conflict and how in previous societies, class conflict often led to the complete breakdown of the structure or the lower class taking over, creating a new mode of production and social order. An important aspect of class conflict lies with the bourgeoisie, even stating that “The bourgeoisie has played a most revolutionary role in history,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 85). This important social class, originally deriving from the Middle Ages, is “the capitalist class, the class of owners of capitalist enterprises, seen as a political and cultural as well as an economic force,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 81), and rose along with economic force. The manifesto states that today's bourgeoisie class “has not done away with class antagonism. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 84), but instead created a two-class system. This new system consists of the upper bourgeois and the lower proletarians, who are “a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 88). The newfound and mighty bourgeoisie have accused Marx of taking away the respect or awe of once high roles such as doctors or scientists, only leaving them as a means to be filled by paid wage laborers. Essentially, ripping away any sentimental value a job had before and leaving only the aspect of money to be desired. Knowing this, the bourgeoisie cannot exist without the constant need for a new market, pushing them to move around the world establishing new markets for greed. In the search for new markets and profit, the proletarians are left exploited like a commodity. With the increasing industry, the proletariat workers are rising in numbers and strength, allowing for conditions of life to become more equal within the class. In the same breath, machinery is also developing and extinguishing manual labor, prices are rising and competition is more fierce, reducing wages for the proletarians and making life even more unstable. The “collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 89), pushing the workers to form unions, sometimes resulting in a victorious riot. The bourgeois fear these uprisings and the proletariat fight for stable wages, the cycle and tension continue as a select few of the proletariat section leave to join the revolution.
Marxism also suggests social and cultural interplay resulted in a capitalistic structure. Marx and Engels saw that “Social relationships between people, including economic relationships, construct a society. Our consciousness does not arise out of thin air; ideas reflect the experiences of acting and interaction in the context of these relationships,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 80). Essentially, our thoughts and ideas make our society and with that knowledge, we are free to create a new one. Marxism also suggested that small acts and changes can result in a large crisis and finally, social transformation. This idea, deriving from a dialectical model demonstrated that these tiny changes in behavior, habits, and other aspects of social behavior are “powerful enough to be termed a revolution,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 81). Human relationships (including the structure of professions and family) are organized around the capitalist mindset but can change in the future if we so decide to change it. I thought it was an important connecting idea of how Marxism believes we can arrive at the Communist revolution.
Finally, Marxism outlines the proper way to attain a communist society. First, it’s important to note both writers were reluctant to give a sharp idea of what Communism would look like, hesitant to play into a fantasy that is often associated with a post-capitalist society magically appearing rather than small changes over time. Instead, Marx and Engel pushed the notion that “communism was a type of society that could be achieved only through a long, organized, political struggle that had to confront the realities of capitalist society,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 82). Therefore, allowing this struggle to shape the post-capitalist society where it lies still as a “ stage of socialism, still characterized by a state (a central coercive institution of political power), a division of labour, and a principle of social distribution,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 82) based on needs. Essentially, socialism gives rewards based on talent and not capitalistic ownership allowing class to dissipate but social roles to still exist. Moreover, Communism would seek a need-based distribution of goods rather than what each person brings in value, “the link between work and livelihood would be completely severed, ending the very notion of work itself,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 82). Marx and Engels sought a Communist future of not equality but complete differentiation where individuals are valued for uniqueness and not social roles or labour. Communism (according to the authors) would mean “a complete breakdown of the division of labour. Communism means that the division between mental and manual labour is completely overcome. Communism means that we can do what we would like to do without ever being labeled in terms of social roles or Categories,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 82). All restricting social roles and specializations disappear.
Overall, the authors argue that humanity can drop these predisposed social rules, roles, and capitalistic society, as we are what we perceive ourselves as.
**PART B**
The ever-growing bourgeoisie found a new market in the newly discovered America, allowing for further trade and development to maintain status. As production and market grew, so did the bourgeoisie, “each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pg. 85). Originally an oppressed class during the middle ages, the bourgeoisie became an independent party during medieval times, eventually continuing to grow until today. Now, “the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of modern industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pg. 85). Now with the set up with free trade, the bourgeoisie class has been accused of exploitation of the working class, stripping away the honor of a role such as doctor and creating social/ family dynamics that we know today, that work not for the joy or pleasure but solely as a commodity. Essentially the newfound class dynamic in America’s society today, allows the bourgeoisie (production owners) to control production and market, putting profit over social beings. A history of exploitation, overconsumption, and capitalistic values can be seen today in modern American society. For example, in
**The Excessive Nature of Overconsumption in American Culture,** classism between the bourgeoisie and proletariat is present today, “our society’s culture defines American success as getting promoted to a position high enough that one can make enough money to purchase a big house in the suburbs, add a few cars, and have an annual family vacation,” (Woolums, 2023). Essentially reinstating what Marxism had said about the proletariat those who work to service or for the very basics. In terms of overproduction, social media has had a large role as the proletariat looks for more capitalistic goals to reach and continue the cycle of exploitation working under the bourgeoisie, “nearly everything is capitalized on, giving us a concept initially coined by Herbert A. Simon in the 1960s known as
[the attention economyLinks to an external site.](https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/attention_economy_feb.pdf),” (Woolums, 2023).
Social relationships as defined by Marxism can also bring insight into modern American society today. As defined by Marxism, social relationships such as economics are what build the framework for society. Knowing that, our thoughts and ideas are also capable of creating a new society such as a communist one envisioned by Marx. As we collectively become more self-aware, we see the uprising of the proletariat, “The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pg. 91). The modern uprising is exemplified today in protests for wage increases, benefits or unionized work (as seen recently with Starbucks.) So why haven’t workers united and pushed back against capitalism? Simply put, we remain pitted against each other. “As much as workers under capitalism have common interests, we are all also competitors for jobs. We compete for jobs in a dog-eat-dog marketplace,” (Woods, 2017). As the proletariats remain the working class, fighting amongst themselves, they also remain powerless in terms of politics to bring “much of working-class struggle has moved into the arena of political struggle – fighting for government policies that spend more on peoples’ needs and for taxing the rich,” (Woods, 2017). Overall, social relationships can provide great insight into how to change the system today.
By demonstrating the importance of social roles, labor division, and class inequality, Marx and Engel showcase the importance of a fundamental change to our modern-day system. To understand and apply to our current state we must understand that “capitalism, we must see it in its historical context—things have not always been this way—rather than as a universal condition as Smith assumes. Capitalism is, instead, a specific historical form of social arrangements, not the natural state of affairs,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pg. 98). Marx believed that understanding the structure of Capitalism was the only way to understand the economy not as separate from social relations but growing alongside it. However, it’s important to note as the proletariat continues to rise, social relationships and ideologies are changing in America, “large numbers of Americans, mostly young, displayed a new interest in socialist ideas, values and policy proposals,” (Isserman, 2024). A growing number of Americans are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the current American state of capitalism. The Marxist idea of communism allows those who wish to see change to have an alternative route, albeit a slow one.
CITATIONS
Garner, R. & Hancock, B. H. (2014).
_Social theory a reader: Continuity and confrontation_(3rd ed.). University of Toronto Press.
Isserman, M. (2024, May 16).
_I spent years studying American communism. Here’s what I learned_. The Guardian.
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/16/american-communism-historyLinks to an external site.](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/16/american-communism-history%EE%88%84)
Roberta Woods. (2017.).
_The working class in contemporary capitalism_. CPUSA.
[https://www.cpusa.org/article/the-working-class-in-contemporary-capitalism/Links to an external site.](https://www.cpusa.org/article/the-working-class-in-contemporary-capitalism/)
Woolums, L. (2023, October 24).
_The excessive nature of overconsumption in American culture_. UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog.
[https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2023/10/24/the-excessive-nature-of-overconsumption-in-american-culture/](https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2023/10/24/the-excessive-nature-of-overconsumption-in-american-culture/)
Alan F:
A.
One of the key Karl Marx ideas is the thought that there are clear distinctions between the bourgeoisie (the elite capitalist upper class) and the proletariat (the hard-working lower class) (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p.40). In Marx’s most well known writing, The Communist Manifesto, he describes the bourgeoisie as egotistical, shameless, exploitative, subjugating, greedy, etc. (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 43). On the opposite side of the bourgeoisie is the proletariat, which he describes as “revolutionary class”, a commodity to the bourgeoisie, slaves, “organized like soldiers”, but strong when organized (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 44).
Another one of Marx’s ideas comes from his writing in The German Ideology where he offers clear distinctions between the ruling class and intellectuals (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 46). Marx argues that historians have classified intellectuals as the “creative sector” of the ruling class but this is inaccurate (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 46). Marx expands on this by claiming that intellectuals “create and propagate ideology” but don’t contribute a means of production (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 46). Therefore, Marx is stating that intellectuals only assist in the knowledge and understanding of how things work in German society (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 46).
Lastly, and a third idea of Karl Marx comes from his writing in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts where he highlights the connection between labor and humanity (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 53). Here Marx makes a point to state that humans define their identity through their labor (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 48). Therefore, Marx is proposing that our labor “allows us to develop ourselves” into a defined capitalist commodity that has purpose (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 48). However, Marx goes on by emphasizing that this purpose in labor alienates human beings from a productive social life, relationships, and human nature (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 48).
B.
Karl Marx’s proletariat and bourgeoisie classes still have applicable roles in America capitalism. However, Marx’s unique categorizations weren’t always as clear cut to other intellectuals of his time. For instance, W.E.B. Du Bois’s writings in Black Reconstruction defines two types of proletariats: the black and white (Thompson, 2016, paras 4-5). Du Bois defines the the black proletariat as separate from the white proletariat and that the black proletariat suffers more by the white proletariat than the capitalist bourgeoisie (W.E.B. Du Bois, 1935, p. 375). While competing for labor Du Bois argues that the white proletariat deprives the black proletariat the same resources (such as education), civil rights (voting), and resources (adequate housing) for their labor (W.E.B. Du Bois, 1935, p. 375).
According to Communist Party USA (CPUSA) the ruling class in the United States is “one of the most controlling, entrenched capitalist ruling classes ever.” (Waters, 2022, para. 4). CPUSA claims that the intellectuals still appeal to both classes but the ruling class inhibits the pursuit of higher education opportunities due to “people being impoverished” after getting this higher education (Waters, 2022, para. 36). This prevents “innovation and creativity” because Americans feel compelled to remain in the workforce to pay off student loans (Waters, 2022, para. 36). Therefore, higher education doesn't serve as the "creative sector" that Marx envisioned (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 46).
Karl Marx’s viewed that labor movements had an influence on slavery in the United States. Marx thought that the Civil War would help the working class and chastised the “slavocrats” of the south (Wills, 2017, para. 4). Marx argued that he was a “ardent abolitionist” and that the southern states advocating for state’s rights and tariffs was a tactic employed by the south to bolster chattel slavery (Wills, 2017, para. 4). He felt the end of slavery would also help limit “wage slavery” of the working class after the war’s end (Wills, 2017, para. 6). Overall, Marx did have impressive foresight into the development of the civil war and how it would play out for slaves and working class Americans. This foresight would eventually lead to the civil rights and labor movements of the twenty century and have a profound impact on the United States working class through policies, laws, and labor unions still used today.
References:
Du Bois, W. E. B., (1935). Black Reconstruction : An Essay toward a History of the Part Which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860-1880. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company
Garner, R. & Hancock, B. H. (2014). Social theory a reader: Continuity and confrontation (3rd ed.). University of Toronto Press
Thompson, P. J. (2016). Capitalism, Democracy, and Du Bois’s Two Proletariats. Social Science Research Council.
[https://items.ssrc.org/reading-racial-conflict/capitalism-democracy-and-du-boiss-two-proletariats/Links to an external site.](https://items.ssrc.org/reading-racial-conflict/capitalism-democracy-and-du-boiss-two-proletariats/)
Waters, A. (2022). How the ruling class does it: 7 strategies to stay in power. Communist Party USA.
[https://www.cpusa.org/article/how-the-ruling-class-does-it-7-strategies-to-stay-in-power/Links to an external site.](https://www.cpusa.org/article/how-the-ruling-class-does-it-7-strategies-to-stay-in-power/)
Wills, M. (2017). How the American Civil War Shaped Marxism. JSTOR Daily.
[https://daily.jstor.org/how-the-](https://daily.jstor.org/how-the-american-civil-war-shaped-marxism/)
**## Theminimumlengthforeachofyo.docx**
The minimum length for each of your replies to classmates in order to earn any credit is 150 words.
Rachel B:
PART A.
Karl Marx discusses class, social relationships, and the idyllic, communist society moving forward. In Marxism, a capitalistic society was plagued with class inequality (not unlike preceding societies), however, “capitalism is an economic and social system that fetters—chains—human creativity and locks science, technology, and human labour into the narrow prison cell of private profit,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 80). All while also providing the lure of scientific advancement, material abundance, and the possibility of leaving behind traditional inequalities, it never delivers on this due to the gaping level of owners of productions versus workers. The Communist Manifesto spoke deeply about class conflict and how in previous societies, class conflict often led to the complete breakdown of the structure or the lower class taking over, creating a new mode of production and social order. An important aspect of class conflict lies with the bourgeoisie, even stating that “The bourgeoisie has played a most revolutionary role in history,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 85). This important social class, originally deriving from the Middle Ages, is “the capitalist class, the class of owners of capitalist enterprises, seen as a political and cultural as well as an economic force,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 81), and rose along with economic force. The manifesto states that today's bourgeoisie class “has not done away with class antagonism. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 84), but instead created a two-class system. This new system consists of the upper bourgeois and the lower proletarians, who are “a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 88). The newfound and mighty bourgeoisie have accused Marx of taking away the respect or awe of once high roles such as doctors or scientists, only leaving them as a means to be filled by paid wage laborers. Essentially, ripping away any sentimental value a job had before and leaving only the aspect of money to be desired. Knowing this, the bourgeoisie cannot exist without the constant need for a new market, pushing them to move around the world establishing new markets for greed. In the search for new markets and profit, the proletarians are left exploited like a commodity. With the increasing industry, the proletariat workers are rising in numbers and strength, allowing for conditions of life to become more equal within the class. In the same breath, machinery is also developing and extinguishing manual labor, prices are rising and competition is more fierce, reducing wages for the proletarians and making life even more unstable. The “collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 89), pushing the workers to form unions, sometimes resulting in a victorious riot. The bourgeois fear these uprisings and the proletariat fight for stable wages, the cycle and tension continue as a select few of the proletariat section leave to join the revolution.
Marxism also suggests social and cultural interplay resulted in a capitalistic structure. Marx and Engels saw that “Social relationships between people, including economic relationships, construct a society. Our consciousness does not arise out of thin air; ideas reflect the experiences of acting and interaction in the context of these relationships,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 80). Essentially, our thoughts and ideas make our society and with that knowledge, we are free to create a new one. Marxism also suggested that small acts and changes can result in a large crisis and finally, social transformation. This idea, deriving from a dialectical model demonstrated that these tiny changes in behavior, habits, and other aspects of social behavior are “powerful enough to be termed a revolution,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 81). Human relationships (including the structure of professions and family) are organized around the capitalist mindset but can change in the future if we so decide to change it. I thought it was an important connecting idea of how Marxism believes we can arrive at the Communist revolution.
Finally, Marxism outlines the proper way to attain a communist society. First, it’s important to note both writers were reluctant to give a sharp idea of what Communism would look like, hesitant to play into a fantasy that is often associated with a post-capitalist society magically appearing rather than small changes over time. Instead, Marx and Engel pushed the notion that “communism was a type of society that could be achieved only through a long, organized, political struggle that had to confront the realities of capitalist society,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 82). Therefore, allowing this struggle to shape the post-capitalist society where it lies still as a “ stage of socialism, still characterized by a state (a central coercive institution of political power), a division of labour, and a principle of social distribution,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 82) based on needs. Essentially, socialism gives rewards based on talent and not capitalistic ownership allowing class to dissipate but social roles to still exist. Moreover, Communism would seek a need-based distribution of goods rather than what each person brings in value, “the link between work and livelihood would be completely severed, ending the very notion of work itself,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 82). Marx and Engels sought a Communist future of not equality but complete differentiation where individuals are valued for uniqueness and not social roles or labour. Communism (according to the authors) would mean “a complete breakdown of the division of labour. Communism means that the division between mental and manual labour is completely overcome. Communism means that we can do what we would like to do without ever being labeled in terms of social roles or Categories,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 82). All restricting social roles and specializations disappear.
Overall, the authors argue that humanity can drop these predisposed social rules, roles, and capitalistic society, as we are what we perceive ourselves as.
**PART B**
The ever-growing bourgeoisie found a new market in the newly discovered America, allowing for further trade and development to maintain status. As production and market grew, so did the bourgeoisie, “each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pg. 85). Originally an oppressed class during the middle ages, the bourgeoisie became an independent party during medieval times, eventually continuing to grow until today. Now, “the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of modern industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pg. 85). Now with the set up with free trade, the bourgeoisie class has been accused of exploitation of the working class, stripping away the honor of a role such as doctor and creating social/ family dynamics that we know today, that work not for the joy or pleasure but solely as a commodity. Essentially the newfound class dynamic in America’s society today, allows the bourgeoisie (production owners) to control production and market, putting profit over social beings. A history of exploitation, overconsumption, and capitalistic values can be seen today in modern American society. For example, in
**The Excessive Nature of Overconsumption in American Culture,** classism between the bourgeoisie and proletariat is present today, “our society’s culture defines American success as getting promoted to a position high enough that one can make enough money to purchase a big house in the suburbs, add a few cars, and have an annual family vacation,” (Woolums, 2023). Essentially reinstating what Marxism had said about the proletariat those who work to service or for the very basics. In terms of overproduction, social media has had a large role as the proletariat looks for more capitalistic goals to reach and continue the cycle of exploitation working under the bourgeoisie, “nearly everything is capitalized on, giving us a concept initially coined by Herbert A. Simon in the 1960s known as
[the attention economyLinks to an external site.](https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/attention_economy_feb.pdf),” (Woolums, 2023).
Social relationships as defined by Marxism can also bring insight into modern American society today. As defined by Marxism, social relationships such as economics are what build the framework for society. Knowing that, our thoughts and ideas are also capable of creating a new society such as a communist one envisioned by Marx. As we collectively become more self-aware, we see the uprising of the proletariat, “The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pg. 91). The modern uprising is exemplified today in protests for wage increases, benefits or unionized work (as seen recently with Starbucks.) So why haven’t workers united and pushed back against capitalism? Simply put, we remain pitted against each other. “As much as workers under capitalism have common interests, we are all also competitors for jobs. We compete for jobs in a dog-eat-dog marketplace,” (Woods, 2017). As the proletariats remain the working class, fighting amongst themselves, they also remain powerless in terms of politics to bring “much of working-class struggle has moved into the arena of political struggle – fighting for government policies that spend more on peoples’ needs and for taxing the rich,” (Woods, 2017). Overall, social relationships can provide great insight into how to change the system today.
By demonstrating the importance of social roles, labor division, and class inequality, Marx and Engel showcase the importance of a fundamental change to our modern-day system. To understand and apply to our current state we must understand that “capitalism, we must see it in its historical context—things have not always been this way—rather than as a universal condition as Smith assumes. Capitalism is, instead, a specific historical form of social arrangements, not the natural state of affairs,” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pg. 98). Marx believed that understanding the structure of Capitalism was the only way to understand the economy not as separate from social relations but growing alongside it. However, it’s important to note as the proletariat continues to rise, social relationships and ideologies are changing in America, “large numbers of Americans, mostly young, displayed a new interest in socialist ideas, values and policy proposals,” (Isserman, 2024). A growing number of Americans are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the current American state of capitalism. The Marxist idea of communism allows those who wish to see change to have an alternative route, albeit a slow one.
CITATIONS
Garner, R. & Hancock, B. H. (2014).
_Social theory a reader: Continuity and confrontation_(3rd ed.). University of Toronto Press.
Isserman, M. (2024, May 16).
_I spent years studying American communism. Here’s what I learned_. The Guardian.
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/16/american-communism-historyLinks to an external site.](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/16/american-communism-history%EE%88%84)
Roberta Woods. (2017.).
_The working class in contemporary capitalism_. CPUSA.
[https://www.cpusa.org/article/the-working-class-in-contemporary-capitalism/Links to an external site.](https://www.cpusa.org/article/the-working-class-in-contemporary-capitalism/)
Woolums, L. (2023, October 24).
_The excessive nature of overconsumption in American culture_. UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog.
[https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2023/10/24/the-excessive-nature-of-overconsumption-in-american-culture/](https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2023/10/24/the-excessive-nature-of-overconsumption-in-american-culture/)
Alan F:
A.
One of the key Karl Marx ideas is the thought that there are clear distinctions between the bourgeoisie (the elite capitalist upper class) and the proletariat (the hard-working lower class) (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p.40). In Marx’s most well known writing, The Communist Manifesto, he describes the bourgeoisie as egotistical, shameless, exploitative, subjugating, greedy, etc. (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 43). On the opposite side of the bourgeoisie is the proletariat, which he describes as “revolutionary class”, a commodity to the bourgeoisie, slaves, “organized like soldiers”, but strong when organized (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 44).
Another one of Marx’s ideas comes from his writing in The German Ideology where he offers clear distinctions between the ruling class and intellectuals (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 46). Marx argues that historians have classified intellectuals as the “creative sector” of the ruling class but this is inaccurate (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 46). Marx expands on this by claiming that intellectuals “create and propagate ideology” but don’t contribute a means of production (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 46). Therefore, Marx is stating that intellectuals only assist in the knowledge and understanding of how things work in German society (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 46).
Lastly, and a third idea of Karl Marx comes from his writing in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts where he highlights the connection between labor and humanity (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 53). Here Marx makes a point to state that humans define their identity through their labor (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 48). Therefore, Marx is proposing that our labor “allows us to develop ourselves” into a defined capitalist commodity that has purpose (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 48). However, Marx goes on by emphasizing that this purpose in labor alienates human beings from a productive social life, relationships, and human nature (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 48).
B.
Karl Marx’s proletariat and bourgeoisie classes still have applicable roles in America capitalism. However, Marx’s unique categorizations weren’t always as clear cut to other intellectuals of his time. For instance, W.E.B. Du Bois’s writings in Black Reconstruction defines two types of proletariats: the black and white (Thompson, 2016, paras 4-5). Du Bois defines the the black proletariat as separate from the white proletariat and that the black proletariat suffers more by the white proletariat than the capitalist bourgeoisie (W.E.B. Du Bois, 1935, p. 375). While competing for labor Du Bois argues that the white proletariat deprives the black proletariat the same resources (such as education), civil rights (voting), and resources (adequate housing) for their labor (W.E.B. Du Bois, 1935, p. 375).
According to Communist Party USA (CPUSA) the ruling class in the United States is “one of the most controlling, entrenched capitalist ruling classes ever.” (Waters, 2022, para. 4). CPUSA claims that the intellectuals still appeal to both classes but the ruling class inhibits the pursuit of higher education opportunities due to “people being impoverished” after getting this higher education (Waters, 2022, para. 36). This prevents “innovation and creativity” because Americans feel compelled to remain in the workforce to pay off student loans (Waters, 2022, para. 36). Therefore, higher education doesn't serve as the "creative sector" that Marx envisioned (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 46).
Karl Marx’s viewed that labor movements had an influence on slavery in the United States. Marx thought that the Civil War would help the working class and chastised the “slavocrats” of the south (Wills, 2017, para. 4). Marx argued that he was a “ardent abolitionist” and that the southern states advocating for state’s rights and tariffs was a tactic employed by the south to bolster chattel slavery (Wills, 2017, para. 4). He felt the end of slavery would also help limit “wage slavery” of the working class after the war’s end (Wills, 2017, para. 6). Overall, Marx did have impressive foresight into the development of the civil war and how it would play out for slaves and working class Americans. This foresight would eventually lead to the civil rights and labor movements of the twenty century and have a profound impact on the United States working class through policies, laws, and labor unions still used today.
References:
Du Bois, W. E. B., (1935). Black Reconstruction : An Essay toward a History of the Part Which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860-1880. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company
Garner, R. & Hancock, B. H. (2014). Social theory a reader: Continuity and confrontation (3rd ed.). University of Toronto Press
Thompson, P. J. (2016). Capitalism, Democracy, and Du Bois’s Two Proletariats. Social Science Research Council.
[https://items.ssrc.org/reading-racial-conflict/capitalism-democracy-and-du-boiss-two-proletariats/Links to an external site.](https://items.ssrc.org/reading-racial-conflict/capitalism-democracy-and-du-boiss-two-proletariats/)
Waters, A. (2022). How the ruling class does it: 7 strategies to stay in power. Communist Party USA.
[https://www.cpusa.org/article/how-the-ruling-class-does-it-7-strategies-to-stay-in-power/Links to an external site.](https://www.cpusa.org/article/how-the-ruling-class-does-it-7-strategies-to-stay-in-power/)
Wills, M. (2017). How the American Civil War Shaped Marxism. JSTOR Daily.
[https://daily.jstor.org/how-the-](https://daily.jstor.org/how-the-american-civil-war-shaped-marxism/)