In class yesterday we discussed Marx’s three different
reasons for why the ownership of property divides societies into two
classes. His third reason was that under
capitalism the conditions of the workers will only continue to worsen thus
causing the poor to get poorer and grow in size all the while the rich is
getting richer and decreasing in size.
Eventually this ever-growing divide between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat will cause the proletariat to revolt in desire to create some sort
of communist society. We have seen a redistribution
of wealth on smaller scale in many examples overtime in order to hold off the
revolution, but Marx claims that at some point the redistribution of wealth
will not be significant enough to appease the proletariat and at that point the
revolution will come. This revolution
would not be one that would essentially flip-flop the two classes because the
proletariat does not want to directly take what the bourgeoisie has. Rather the proletariat desires to live in a
classless society. It should be noted
though that in creating this society there is no way to avoid the reality that
the proletariat is taking from the bourgeoisie.
Following this
progression we then in class discussed how if the basic needs of humans were
always provided for it would then cause them to lose their drive and become
complacent beings in society. I had not
considered this before when thinking about communism, and this is an aspect
that would really worry me if the United States somehow became a communist
nation. If a person is given all their
basic needs then they do not have to go out into the world everyday and work in
order to survive. The difference in this
situation for a capitalist society is that one is not provided basic needs, and
thus people are competitive and driven to achieve certain levels of wealth in
order to survive. I think capitalism is
a very good system in motivating people to work hard and is fantastic for
innovation and adaptation. But my
problem with capitalism, specifically in the United States is that those people
in the lower class are basically stuck in those positions. Often times people say you get out what you
put in, but I have seen so many hard working kids that have no way of uplifting
themselves out of their current positions in society. They cannot afford to buy books or got to
college, and their parents are not educated enough to help provide them with
any sort of background to help them in school or later on in life. How often do you hear it’s all about who you
know? Well these kids of poor families do not know anyone. The do not have the Rhodes alumni network,
and the public high schools they went to do not have any significant networking
system either. These kids for the most
part are stuck in the positions they are in, and it is not their laziness or
unwillingness to work hard but rather a lack of opportunity because of their
societal positions.
Adam Smith’s “guiding hand” methodology for Capitalism is a powerful realization of the human necessity to be directed in their motivations. Without the guiding hand, economically, our country would be in shambles.
ReplyDeleteI believe this is Capitalism’s inherent flaw, which is that some people’s (proletariat’s) personal freedom and happiness are destroyed for the sake of innovation and economic stability. Is our sacrifice worth the success and happiness of others?
It is difficult to propose the sacrifice of some people for the happiness of others. In my opinion, it is a hard truth to accept but it's how it works. It is not feasible to suggest that everybody can live all hunky dory without being a productive member of society. We must give up personal freedom and time to further the country which gave us the opportunity to become somewhat free from oppression and violence.
This is the irony; we must willingly oppress ourselves so that we are not oppressed by another hand. Under a communist rule, I only see two options for its existence. Either the government forcefully subjects its people to be productive members of society, or there is no regulation of a person’s labor. The former would be the insurance of economic success while the latter would be the insurance of societal freedom.
I don’t think that either option is really independently feasible.
I disagree with Marx’s claims that proletarians want to live in a classless society. I honestly believe that if someone went into a neighborhood full of proletarians and gave them the option to become a bourgeoisie or become equal with everyone else, they would want to be a bourgeoisie and would not think twice about it. I also believe it is impossible to have a classless society. The idea of a classless society would create a box for everyone. Everyone would be limited to the ceiling and floor of the box. The floor of the box would be positive because it would create a level in which no one could fall under. However, the ceiling would be negative because it would create a level in which no one could go exceed. Creating a classless society is complex because putting everyone on the same level would mean limited and bringing down some individuals, while pacifying and lifting other individuals.
ReplyDeleteThis idea of "Hey, proletariat wanna be bourgeoisie" is NOT what Marx is talking about. What Marx is saying is that eventually, there will be a revolution in which the proletariat revolt because their basic needs are not getting met. This revolt will occur, according to Marx, because of the truth of capitalism: the poor will become more common and poorer and the rich will become more sparse and richer. This huge gap between the wealth will be so large, that a change will need to be made.
ReplyDeleteThe question of people staying in the same position because of their family's wealth is a very real problem. Impoverished areas tend to have less reproductive justice and education, both of which cause more hardships. I do not think, personally, that if people had the basic necessities to live, they would simply give up on actually doing anything. Look at each of us as students: we are studying something because (hopefully) we care about it. It is the type of thing that excites us. I for one would not stop trying to be educated just because my needs are met, and I don't (as my needs are in fact met by my parents). Human beings cannot be THAT unmotivated as a whole, or else we would not have the innovations we do. People were inventing, thinking, and learning long before capitalism was so widespread and were it to end, I believe they would continue.