The film Metropolis ends with the Foreman and Joh Fredersen shaking hands and making peace, after a clash between capitalists and workers. However, that ending doesn't lead us to a clear conclusion and leaves many questions unanswered. This paper seeks to analyze if this peace is a rational one and if the end of the movie is a moment of totalitarianism. Metropolis is an indicative film of class and social issues. It is based on Marx’s class analysis, with the bourgeoisies at the top of the economic hierarchy, managers in the middle and workers at the bottom of the financial scale. As in Marx’s analysis of capitalist society, in the film we can clearly see how the bourgeois classes maintain their lifestyle by exploiting and mistreating the workers. The workers cannot be distinguished, they don't have an identity and a individuality, they are identified only by numbers. The capitalists live in luxurious spaces above ground, while the workers live beneath the surface of the ground, in miserable houses. Those factors point out the dissimilarities of the two classes, which bring us to the conclusion that there will always be an inevitable conflict between them. In …show more content…
Grot, the Foreman of the Heart Machine, and Joh Fredersen, the head of Metropolis, shake their hands and make peace. The handshake could mean that the two classes forget class struggle. However, we cannot be sure if the end of this conflict brought an ideal system, satisfactory for both classes. The ending of the film leaves many questions unanswered. For example, will the relationship between the two classes be improved? What will Joh Fredersen’s attitude to the workers be after he has nearly lost his son in the underground catastrophe? Will Freder take over his father’s role as master capitalist or will he join the workers, sharing with them the same living conditions? Therefore, the end of the movie does not guarantee
In the late 1920s, a culmination of factors, both foreign and domestic, led many American families into unemployment and poverty. The Great Depression was a time of widespread poverty and forced migration, as it was common for young children to beg for money and search trash cans for food. Accordingly, different geographical regions were impacted more than others, which divided Americans. The economy experienced a greater wealth imbalance than ever before, as a small portion of Americans controlled an disproportionate percentage of the nation’s wealth. Additionally, the unemployment rate reached an all time high, with a quarter of Americans unable to find employment, further establishing socioeconomic divide.
Karl Marx who was an economist, during 19th century established an idea between wealthy and rich. According to “Three Great Economists”, Karl Marx believes that “the class struggle itself, expressed as the contest over wages and profits, would be the main force for changing capitalism and eventually undoing it” (33). Here Marx shows that there will always be difference between classes in capitalism and the only technique can be use to change this concept is to ruin a capitalism. This shows that income inequality is something we cannot fight with in capitalism, because no matter what we do we always will have this problem. People will always want more, and some will achieve it and other won’t.
Marx lived through the Industrial Revolution in Europe and analyzed society as he saw it and history. (Henslin, pgs. 17-18) Based on this theory, Marx developed class conflict, with one group being the authority, known as bourgeoisies and the other in a lower class, known as proletariats. (Henslin, pg. 18) Also discussed during class lecture, conflict theory can lead to positive change. Relating to both the movie and real life, Jackie Robinson was the first black player to play in the Major Leagues.
The film American History X is a film about crime fueled by racism. The crime was committed by a man named Derek Vinyard, a white supremacist. He murdered two black gang members after they attempted to steal his truck. If we look closely at the case of Derek Vinyard, we can see that the crime he committed weren’t just a spur-of-the moment thought of killing someone. His actions were rooted deep into his past, wherein his experiences have shaped him into the person that he was today.
In the book The Outsiders, written by S.E. Hinton, a young “greaser” named Ponyboy learns, through brutal clashes with the Socs, the harsh reality of violence. The book focuses on Ponyboy and his gang’s battle with the richer class Socs, and the various effects. Many of these run-ins lead to horrific consequences, such as bad injuries and even death. The three topics addressed in the thought-provoking novel are the fight between rich and poor, what it means to be a hero, and the power of friendship.
Karl Marx talks about the role of communism and his conjecture of underlying this type of revolution. He speaks of two different class struggles, the "Bourgeoisie and Proletarians". Bourgeoisie are the people with authority, the ones who own production and are bosses of wage labor while the proletariat are the individuals with no authority, no ownership and are giving up their own power to the Bourgeoisie in order to survive. Societies began to separate and became hostile and aggressive classes. It all became about social ranking because of the increase and need of production.
The movie Casablanca is characterized by a lot of sociological concepts, analyzing issues concerning, social class, race, sacrifice, and many others. Casablanca is indeed the kind of movie which makes us meditate and rethink about the world around us. The overall plot of the film is straightforward nevertheless the movie is hardly one-dimensional, partly because of its irresolvable fundamental conflict and to some extent because it works as both a rational and a political allegory. The 1st sociological concept demonstrated in the movie is that of the difficulty of impartiality and neutrality.
When labor cuts occurred, Marx noticed, conditions became worse and wages decrease, too. Thus, it was apparent that while the profits for the owners grew, the well-being of the workers declined rapidly, further dividing the two
The proletariats are the wage earners or the labour class, in a capitalist society the proletarians don’t have much wealth, and their main asset is their labour power. The bourgeoisie is the class that owns the means of production, their class interest lies in the value of property and the preservation of capital, and this ensures their perpetual economic supremacy in society. According to Marx, in the capitalist mode of production, a worker slowly loses the power to decide upon his or her life and destiny, they lose their Gattungswesen (“species-essence”), and this is a consequence of living in a socially stratified society, where human beings become a mechanistic part of a social class. Even though human beings are self-conscious and autonomous, in a capitalist society they are nothing but an economic entity whose acts are dictated by the bourgeoisie, with the aim
It is argued that social inequality occurs because of the conflict between the upper-class and the working-class, or as Marx defines it, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. Based on the Manifesto of the Communist Party (Marx and Engels, 1848), the divergence emerges because the aim of the Bourgeoisie is to obtain a surplus-value that is produced by the work of the Proletariat. On the other side, the Bourgeoisie provides the Proletariat with the minimum required, such as a place to live and a minimum wage, in order to keep the society under control and avoid a rebellion. However, Marx did predict a revolt of the working-class that would eventually lead to a communist regime. When it comes to applying this theoretical approach to reality, it is evident to notice that no global revolt in regards to capitalism has occurred.
He argues that with all the pressures of class conflict and the imbalance of capitalism there is no way that this pattern can continue without a major revolution. Marx compares capitalism to anarchy, in the sense that there is no organization within which only causes chaos. The common pattern of capitalism is a boom followed by a bust, and that bust leads to recession and social unrest. This sort of fickle economy, Marx believes, will furthermore contribute to the downfall of capitalism. This socialist revolution would, “abolish private ownership of key elements of economy and change nature of relationships from ones based on marriage and property.”
His ambition for universal equality, collective justice, and classless society transfixed me. I never thought that a classless society could be possible; however, my understanding of his work leads me to envisage the possibilities of a classless society. Marx’ work demonstrates a man who genuinely wants societal change. “The goal of sociology would not simply be to scientifically analyze or objectively describe society, but to use a rigorous scientific analysis as a basis to change it” (Little & McGivern, 2013,
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 conflict, Marx believed, was what encouraged the evolution of society. To quote Marx himself, The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one
In the Communist manifesto, a well known quote of Marx, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” This is introductory to the first part of the pamphlet and a conclusion to Marx’s theory about class struggle. Marx’s highly structured on how the class struggle emerges and affects the development of a society. The development of a society from the old and from the new is the result of the conflict of classes in the society.