Karl Marx defined society as being broken up into the base and superstructure. Marx described the base in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy as the means of “production” that “constitutes the economic structure of society”, while the superstructure is the “social, political and intellectual life” that makes up the “social consciousness.” Moreover, in Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto, they elucidate on the development of capitalism and the need for a global revolution. Through this work, as well as the works of other Marxist writers, one can see the ways in which capitalism has become hegemonic, what political theorist Antonio Gramsci termed as “the success of the dominant classes in presenting their definition of reality”
…show more content…
However, Marx and Engels do laud the bourgeoisie’s overthrow of the old feudal system and the progressive aspect of colonialism, writing that “The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange […], gave to commerce, […], an impulse never known before, […] to the revolutionary element in tottering feudal society.” In writing this, Marx and Engels are showing that colonialism was a necessity to overthrow the previous world order of feudalism. Though, the support Marx and Engels have for colonialism and capitalism ends once it no longer was used to have social and political change, but for the interest of the bourgeoisie. This corroborated by Marxist writer MN Roy when he writes that the East is “rich in natural resources and replete with human labor, have furnished the European capitalists, since more than a century ago, a tremendous super-profit in return for the over production at home.” The Europeans had to find extensions to deal with what Marx would call “overproduction”, where production developed so quickly, it needed new markets to alleviate it. This led to exportation of exploitation, where the people of these colonial holdings were made into the tools of production and consumption; thereby creating a system in which the economic forces of Capitalism are …show more content…
However, the coming together of the proletariat under one ideology is difficult with people coming from multiple backgrounds and nationalities. Soviet Leader Vladimir Lenin describes how the British held and exploited other lands “in order to save 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war” and “to provide new market for the goods produced in the factories and mines.” Lenin is demonstrating how an entire nation can become the exploiter of other lands. This represents how the proletariats of Britain come to believe they are part of a higher class than the proletariats of a colonial holding. However, Marx and Engels counter this by writing that the “lower strata of the middle class – the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants – all these sinks gradually into the proletariat […]. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.” This demonstrates that while the middle classes may gain at the expense of colonial holdings, they are also slipping into the proletariat. The bourgeoisie’s gain is much more prolific than that of the middle class; therefore, the economic inequality created by this system will cause the middle class to join with the
However, Marx and Engels do laud the bourgeoisie’s overthrow of the old feudal system and the progressive aspect of colonialism, writing that “The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange […], gave to commerce, […], an impulse never known before, […] to the revolutionary element in tottering feudal society.” In writing this, Marx and Engels are showing that colonialism was a necessity to overthrow the previous world order of feudalism. Though, the support Marx and Engels have for colonialism and capitalism ends once it no longer was used to have social and political change, but for the interest of the bourgeoisie. This corroborated by Marxist writer MN Roy when he writes that the East is “rich in natural resources and replete with human labor, have furnished the European capitalists, since more than a century ago, a tremendous super-profit in return for the over production at home.” The Europeans had to find extensions to deal with what Marx would call “overproduction”, where production developed so quickly, it needed new markets to alleviate it. This led to exportation of exploitation, where the people of these colonial holdings were made into the tools of production and consumption; thereby creating a system in which the economic forces of Capitalism are …show more content…
However, the coming together of the proletariat under one ideology is difficult with people coming from multiple backgrounds and nationalities. Soviet Leader Vladimir Lenin describes how the British held and exploited other lands “in order to save 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war” and “to provide new market for the goods produced in the factories and mines.” Lenin is demonstrating how an entire nation can become the exploiter of other lands. This represents how the proletariats of Britain come to believe they are part of a higher class than the proletariats of a colonial holding. However, Marx and Engels counter this by writing that the “lower strata of the middle class – the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants – all these sinks gradually into the proletariat […]. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.” This demonstrates that while the middle classes may gain at the expense of colonial holdings, they are also slipping into the proletariat. The bourgeoisie’s gain is much more prolific than that of the middle class; therefore, the economic inequality created by this system will cause the middle class to join with the