Question: How does Marx’s theory of ‘Proletarian Internationalism’ critique the notion of patriotism and nationalism? Hypothesis: Proletarian Internationalism reformulates the idea of a ‘nation’ by founding it upon class antagonisms and relations of production. Of Proletarian Internationalism and Nationalism One of the most significant contributions by the founders of historical materialism — Marx and Engels — was in formulating the theory of ‘proletarian internationalism’. The existence of a modern proletariat which possessed the potential for self-emancipation from bourgeois oppression was the foundation for the establishment of internationalism and world communism. The worldwide spread of capitalism led to powerful movements of resistance and revolution.
Through this paper, we would discuss the says of the Classical and Marxism schools concerning their views on wages, their different opinions about the theory of value, their sides about capital accumulation and finally the different point of view of the schools regarding the diminishing returns. Views on Wages. On his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam smith says: “The produce of labour constitutes the natural recompence or wages of labour.” (Smith). For economists such as David Ricardo or Adam Smith, determinants of wages were structured depending on different factors. These factors would be: the agreeable of the occupation, the costs of getting the skills and knowledge, the regularity of employment, the level of trust, and the probability of success.
Its writers such as Albert Mathiez and Albert Soboul, reflect their political positions within the French Communist Party, and their influence on events such as the Russian Revolution. (1) In Soboul’s writing, using a Marx’s socio-economic foundation argues that the Revolution occurrence was an essential social and economic transformation of French society. This “bourgeois” revolution reflects the middle-class formation of consciousness, and it’s uprising to overthrow the Ancien Regime, the political elite of the time. Soboul asserts that the revolutionist consisted of “capitalist,” that comprised a conscious middle class, and this was the revolutionary push from feudalism to capitalism. (2) The distinction from feudalism to capitalism demonstrates an essential element signifying the importance of the Revolution in Marxist views.
Amongst other notions, such as habitus, field and symbolic violence, Bourdieu developed the theory of capital, which he divided into four forms of capital, cultural, economic, social and symbolic (Wacquant 2007, 268) in order to explain the “realities of social inequality” (Gauntlett 2011). Regarding the notion of cultural capital, which to some extent is based on Karl Marx’s capitalistic approach when describing class struggle, Bourdieu mentions the “scarce symbolic goods, skills and titles” (L. Wacquant 2007, 268) that a part of society possesses. In fact, the elite detains cultural knowledge that they use in order to maintain their status in society, and keep their position above the working-class. Bourdieu also emphasizes how this scheme is reproduced within education, and thereby how social hierarchy not only occurs, but is also conserved (ibid, 262). Indeed, Bourdieu assesses that the educational system replicates the social inequalities that rely within society, which undeniably favors students from upper-class families.
CHAPTER 3 CLASS STRUGGLE Generally class struggle means conflict between the upper class and lower class the idea of Class struggle is long-used mostly by socialists and communists, who define a class by its relationship to the means of production such as factories, land, and machinery. From this point of view, the social control of production and labour is a fight between classes, and the division of these resources basically involves conflict and causes damage. Societies are socially divided based on status, wealth, or control of social production and distribution, and in this division of class conflict arises. It is important to know Karl Marx theory on class struggle; he viewed the structure of society in relation to
Class struggles are a fundamental part of human history: The idea behind this according to Marx is that history is a series of stages, defined by their mode of production and the struggle between classes: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." According to Marx, the current historical stage is the capitalist historical stage. This is the conflict between the bourgeoisie (middle class) and the proletariat (working class). This theory is supported by the historical stages preceding the capitalist historical stage which can easily be defined by their modes of production and class struggle, or lack thereof. For example, before the existence of civil society, there were no class struggles.
It is clear Theodor Adorno gives a better understanding of a contemporary society through his theories along with Marxists Ideologies. He believes all of society’s problems originate from capitalism and its ruling class. Theodor Adorno was a German philosopher who was a part of the Frankfurt School. Their aim was to develop a psychological understanding of problems in which were produced in capitalist’s societies (Held, p. 533). An example of the factors they criticise is mass culture and its results on the public.
Karl Marx first pointed out his ideas about a classless society in the famous pamphlet Communist Manifesto in 1848. Marx believed that the current capitalist society is separated into two classes, the Proletariat society, and Bourgeois society. The Proletarians, as perceived by Marx, are part of the working class that only possess one significant material value, that is the ability to work, or labour power. The Bourgeoise, on the other hand, is the societal class that owns the means of production and hence rule over the Proletarians. As I quote from Marx’s book, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” (Marx and Engels, 1988, p. 473) Marx believes that by having such two classes where one class exerts dominance over the other, it will lead to disastrous outcomes, where income
Comparison of Communism and Socialism Introduction: Communism and Socialism which are regarded as the two different shades of Marxism are often used inter-changeably. Both the systems are opposed to the capitalistic system and share some similarities as well as differences in their approaches. The theory of Communism developed by German philosopher Karl Marx, is both a political and an economic system that is based on the collective ownership of the production of goods. The word Communism has been originated from a Latin word meaning “common”. Communism rejects individual ownership of industry, and promotes the manufacture of goods in order to satisfy the basic needs of the economy and the people.
Writings of Karl Marx had formed the theoretical basis for communism and the continual debate against capitalism. Marx understood capitalism to be a system in which the means of production are privately owned and profit is generated by the sale of the proletariat’s labour. He considered it to be an unfair exploitation of hard work with alienated social interactions and purpose. I agree with Marx that capitalism is indeed unfair and alienating, because it concentrates wealth within a small group of people by exploiting the surplus value of workers’ labour, and creates an alienated workforce. Hence, this essay will first discuss the relevance of Marx’s perception of capitalism as an alienating and unfair system for the contemporary world, before examining the potential of governments to influence the extent of alienation and unfairness that occurs.