The bourgeoisie and proletariet have both similarities and differences intheir emergence and development as a class.
They both emerged out of aseparate society and developed their own. The bourgeoisie grew out of thefeudal society and the need to develop a modern industry. The proletariansgrew out of the bourgeoisie society and their need for change andstability. They both need to have centralized power in order for eachsociety to grow. The bourgeoisie has centralized their means of productionand has concentrated property in a few hands (p. 13).
The proletariet hasformed trade unions in order to gain more power. Both these initiativeshave formed political parties. The differences among these two classes aregreat. The bourgeoisie people are always in need for growth and change.They are constantly revolutionizing their means of production (p.12).
Theyare an independent society. With their development of a modern industrythey have brought many different societies through out the nation to dependon them (p. 13).
The proletarians are on the other hand very dependent onthe bourgeoisie for survival. Without them they could not exist. Theproletarian grew out of the bourgeoisie’s exploitation of the workinglaborer. Without the constant development of modern industry theproletarian would not be able to work and their plight would be no more.With the development of modern industry the proletarian not only increasesin number, it becomes concentrated in greater masses; it’s strength grows(p.
17). The proletarians own no property while the bourgeoisie ownindustries (p. 20). All these struggles described in the CommunistManifesto are still going on today. The modern bourgeoisie are theMicrosoft corporations of the world. The proletarians are the the workingclass unions.
Not much has changed from 1848 till now.The Ideas and thoughts of Karl Marx by: John Rosini The latter part of thenineteenth century was teeming with evolving social and economic ideas.Karl Marx(1818-1893) was a proponent of many of the radical ideascirculating at the time about class structure. The views of the socialstructure of society came about through the development of ideals takenfrom past revolutions and the ongoing clash of individuals and organizedassemblies(Mckay, 1987: 234). As the Industrial Revolution moved forward,it paved the way for growing commerce, but also led to a the widening gapbetween the classes. The persecution of one class by another hashistorically allowed the advancement of mankind to continue. These clashes,whether ending with positive or negative results, allow Man to evolve as aspecies, defining himself within the social structure of nature(Haberman,1987: 69).
Man’s competitive spirit allows for this evolution through theproduction of something which is different, not necessarily productive, butdiffering from the present norm and untried through previous generations.During the time of the Industrial Revolution, mankind was moving forwardvery rapidly, but at the price of the working-class. Wages were givensparsely, and when capital accumulation improved, the money paid for labordid not reflect this prosperity. This, therefore, accelerated the downfallof the proletariat and progressed towards a justifiable revolt against theoppressive bourgeoisie or middle class(Marx, 1848: 1-56). The conclusion ofthis revolt was envisioned to be a classless society, one which would seemto eliminate the existing economic disparities. Again Marx was at theforefront of this philosophy.
Marx believed that the overthrow ofcapitalism would create a socialist society eventually flourishing intocommunism. He was the philosophical analyses who created communism and sawit as an achievable goal. This led him to being banished from both hisnative land of Germany and then France.
Eventually he settled in England.(Compton’s Encyclopedia, Karl Marx: 121) Through dialectical processing,Marx was able to synthesize a theory of a classless society. This societywould be achievable by uniting the proletarians and overthrowing of thegoverning bourgeoisie. For the working-class man does not benefit from thelabor for which he provides. His labor is external to himself and is notactually belonging to his essential being. Therefore in work, theproletarian denies himself and does not validate his worthiness as anindividual.(Haberman,1987: 183) The worker has no existence except to work,which furthers the employer, but degrades the laborer and eventuallyresults in a grasping individual.
Marx did not accept Society’s classdiscrimination. Marx hoped that with the unification of the working-class,they could be able to better themselves and their lives, and in doing so,better society on the whole. This of course, was a purely theoretical idea,but one that Marx felt was attainable. The