Part A:
Boyer’s (1998) article argues that the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx is only relevant within the historical context of the 1840s, and not in any other decade of the 19th century. Boyer (1998) then agues that the primary thesis of this argument is that Marx wrote this document during the “hungry” 1840s, which defines a unique period of economic collapse as a timeframe in which communism was an increasingly common idea in the development of European political ideologies (151). More so, the thesis of Boyer’s (1998) article seeks to defame the Communist Manifesto by showing its relationship to the severe economic events of the 1840s, as well as defining how this type of economic collapse was the only time in European history in which …show more content…
of course, Boyer (1998) is attempting to refute the “observations” of Engels as a contemporary observer of the harsh economic conditions that he experienced through his family’s own cotton firm in Manchester. In this argument, Boyer shows how Engels subjectively defines capitalism through his own personal interactions subjective assumptions about industrial development in England’s urban centers: “ The living conditions in these cities was horrible” (155). More so, Boyer (1998) interjects with data collected by Asa Briggs (1963) that defines the error of Engels’ assumption that Manchester and Lancashire were :”Unique” cities that defied an extreme division of labor and the polarization of the rich and poor: “That Manchester, with its large factories, and “alarming social relationships”, was not a typical British industrial city” 157). This type of commentary defines the historical assumption that contemporary evaluations of these cities found in Edwin Chadwick’s (1842) Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Population of Great Britain” argued a high differential between Manchester and other industrial cities as proof of the rarity of massive exploitation of the working classes in England (Boyer 159). In addition to this contemporary view, Boyer (1998) attempts to show that recent data …show more content…
Also, it is erroneous to say that there was no "revolutionary” opposition to industrial capitalism in England, as there were many worker strikes occurring throughout the 1830s and 1840s in England. Boyer (1998) is attempting to isolate Manchester and Lancashire as unique examples of economic inequality in England, which are simply not true. Of course, Boyer (1998) utilizes the extreme form of proletariat revolution in which a communist state is realized to acknowledge the failure of Marx and Engels’ prediction for revolution, but it was also obvious that England 's parliament learned to embrace socialism as a mediating state authority between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat under the People 's Charter of 1838. I found Boyer’s (1998) not very persuasive, and he ignores labor strike movements, child labor exploitation, the exploitation of young women in textile mills, and other factors that were part of industrial policies throughout England, not simply in the extreme examples defined in Manchester and Lancashire. In some cases, it is true that Engels and Marx rely on personal experiences and political thought to argue for a communist revolution, but Boyer’s (1998) economic data is highly selective, narrow, and subjectively used to argue minutiae, instead of larger
Boyer’s (1998) article argues that the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx is only relevant within the historical context of the 1840s, and not in any other decade of the 19th century. Boyer (1998) then agues that the primary thesis of this argument is that Marx wrote this document during the “hungry” 1840s, which defines a unique period of economic collapse as a timeframe in which communism was an increasingly common idea in the development of European political ideologies (151). More so, the thesis of Boyer’s (1998) article seeks to defame the Communist Manifesto by showing its relationship to the severe economic events of the 1840s, as well as defining how this type of economic collapse was the only time in European history in which …show more content…
of course, Boyer (1998) is attempting to refute the “observations” of Engels as a contemporary observer of the harsh economic conditions that he experienced through his family’s own cotton firm in Manchester. In this argument, Boyer shows how Engels subjectively defines capitalism through his own personal interactions subjective assumptions about industrial development in England’s urban centers: “ The living conditions in these cities was horrible” (155). More so, Boyer (1998) interjects with data collected by Asa Briggs (1963) that defines the error of Engels’ assumption that Manchester and Lancashire were :”Unique” cities that defied an extreme division of labor and the polarization of the rich and poor: “That Manchester, with its large factories, and “alarming social relationships”, was not a typical British industrial city” 157). This type of commentary defines the historical assumption that contemporary evaluations of these cities found in Edwin Chadwick’s (1842) Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Population of Great Britain” argued a high differential between Manchester and other industrial cities as proof of the rarity of massive exploitation of the working classes in England (Boyer 159). In addition to this contemporary view, Boyer (1998) attempts to show that recent data …show more content…
Also, it is erroneous to say that there was no "revolutionary” opposition to industrial capitalism in England, as there were many worker strikes occurring throughout the 1830s and 1840s in England. Boyer (1998) is attempting to isolate Manchester and Lancashire as unique examples of economic inequality in England, which are simply not true. Of course, Boyer (1998) utilizes the extreme form of proletariat revolution in which a communist state is realized to acknowledge the failure of Marx and Engels’ prediction for revolution, but it was also obvious that England 's parliament learned to embrace socialism as a mediating state authority between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat under the People 's Charter of 1838. I found Boyer’s (1998) not very persuasive, and he ignores labor strike movements, child labor exploitation, the exploitation of young women in textile mills, and other factors that were part of industrial policies throughout England, not simply in the extreme examples defined in Manchester and Lancashire. In some cases, it is true that Engels and Marx rely on personal experiences and political thought to argue for a communist revolution, but Boyer’s (1998) economic data is highly selective, narrow, and subjectively used to argue minutiae, instead of larger