In the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Karl Marx recounted the historical development of the capitalist driven political-economy. Through his critical analysis of European labor politics, Marx explored Germany’s contentious transition from a feudal system into a robust, industrialist enterprise. First, he traced the emergence of the bourgeoisie class. During this time, they controlled the modes of labor production. Economic forces, such as the division of labor, expanded the scope and impact of wage-labor in Europe (Marx 160). Marx’s discussion of the bourgeoisie class focused solely on the influence of the materialist basis. However, he failed to account for the latent psychological forces that also motivated them. Power, imperialist
…show more content…
In turn, a more pronounced conflict among the two classes arose. While the international labor market merged into a unified financial network, certain industries within each respective country urged its wage-laborers to specialize trade. This directly encouraged markets to adopt the division of labor practice. “It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeoisie mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves” (477). Throughout the world, mechanization forced menial laborers to increase their productivity, which directly affected labor output rates and economic profits; workers spent less time and expended fewer resources completing a task. As a result, this commodification of labor impacted the value of capital (303). England, Germany, and France used the profits from their exported goods to ensure economic subsistence for their citizens. However, Marx did not discuss the psychological effects and the moral implications of these practices. In pursuit of greed, the ruling bourgeoisie class did not consider the harsh and unjust labor conditions it subjected their workers. Economic profits, not labor union policy protections, stood at the forefront of their concern. In sum, “these laborers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article …show more content…
Marx’s discussion about class-conflict in the Communist Manifesto can shape one’s understanding of the modern-day working-class American. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx provided a 19th-century historical understanding of the same economic development in Germany. He asserted that “in a place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations” (476). Both 19th-century and 21st-century wage-laborers share a similar ethos of economic frustration and discontent with pervasive elitism. The decline of the auto, steel, and coal industries during the late-20th century negatively impacted their cultural relevance and lucrativeness. Several of the auto companies were outsourced to Germany and Japan. As a result, the worth of the American dollar fell drastically due to increased competition in the international labor market. In turn, these displaced American working-class outwardly distrusted the international banking system (today’s bourgeoisie), abhorred labor outsourcing, and expressed nativist sentiment towards low-wage immigrant
In turn, a more pronounced conflict among the two classes arose. While the international labor market merged into a unified financial network, certain industries within each respective country urged its wage-laborers to specialize trade. This directly encouraged markets to adopt the division of labor practice. “It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeoisie mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves” (477). Throughout the world, mechanization forced menial laborers to increase their productivity, which directly affected labor output rates and economic profits; workers spent less time and expended fewer resources completing a task. As a result, this commodification of labor impacted the value of capital (303). England, Germany, and France used the profits from their exported goods to ensure economic subsistence for their citizens. However, Marx did not discuss the psychological effects and the moral implications of these practices. In pursuit of greed, the ruling bourgeoisie class did not consider the harsh and unjust labor conditions it subjected their workers. Economic profits, not labor union policy protections, stood at the forefront of their concern. In sum, “these laborers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article …show more content…
Marx’s discussion about class-conflict in the Communist Manifesto can shape one’s understanding of the modern-day working-class American. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx provided a 19th-century historical understanding of the same economic development in Germany. He asserted that “in a place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations” (476). Both 19th-century and 21st-century wage-laborers share a similar ethos of economic frustration and discontent with pervasive elitism. The decline of the auto, steel, and coal industries during the late-20th century negatively impacted their cultural relevance and lucrativeness. Several of the auto companies were outsourced to Germany and Japan. As a result, the worth of the American dollar fell drastically due to increased competition in the international labor market. In turn, these displaced American working-class outwardly distrusted the international banking system (today’s bourgeoisie), abhorred labor outsourcing, and expressed nativist sentiment towards low-wage immigrant