Karl Marx’ theory of the relations of production can be used as an important platform in locating the origins of class and gender inequity to the early stages of capitalism. In his theory ‘the relations of production’ he explained that private ownership of…
During the Industrial Revolution, factory workers received little pay, worked long hours, and never saw improvement in their living and working conditions. In the mean time, the middle class was emerging. They were rich because of the enormous amounts of money created in the country because of the Industrial Revolution. Marx thought that the capitalist system would eventually fail. He described communism as “a form of complete socialism in which the means of production--all land, mines, factories, railroads, and businesses—would be owned by the people” (649). He also thought all goods and services should be shared equally.…
“The poor people…the poor operatives” were being crushed down; they faced challenges and obstacles unlike any other (O’Donnell 33). The workers of the late 1800s and early 1900s were up against terrible conditions, in both their working environments and their everyday lives. Day after day they were paid little to nothing, most families living on less than “$150 a year”, and with no other means of income (O’Donnell 30). Men, fathers, worked everyday they could, but with strikes making work even less available, many were forced to work about “half the time” they had in previous years (O’Donnell 29). Making work even more difficult was the situation of “back boys” – boys “capable enough to work in a mill, to earn $.30 or $.40 a day” – which caused the discharge of men without capable boys, and the employment of men with them (O’Donnell 29). The “back boys” caused unneeded competition between the working class men; “the man who [had] a boy with him [stood] the best chance”, without a working boy, work was slim (O’Donnell 33). Despite the men’s working troubles, they still had families to take care of; “children” to cloth, “wood and coal” to find for their homes, and food to bring home to their families (O’Donnell 31 and 32). Most families lacked even the bare essentials, let alone the money to build a better future. With such little pay, there was no foreseeable way to get ahead; they “never saw over a $20 bill” how could anyone make a better life with that (O’Donnell 31)?…
Another hardship during this time was the use of child labor for work in many factories and mines. Dickens’ novel personified the industrial revolution in a story with characters. This novel suggests two questions; what were people’s views of society during the revolution and what can be done about it?…
When one considers the effect that the Industrial Revolutions of the 19th and early 20th century, the workers whose backs bore it are seldom reflected upon. It becomes ponderous whether the revolution was a boon or a malediction upon the working class and if they were truly aided by the great rise in standard of living that hallmarked this time. Those who would defend the period would cite pre-Industrialization scenarios, toiling under feudal lords with no future beyond death and an unmarked grave. An opponent of this idea, such as the renowned Karl Marx, would state, 'The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, and new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.…
This created a disparity between the rich and the working poor. This stage in society separation, known as socialism and marked by unequal pay for the work performed, is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism, according to German philosopher and revolutionary socialist Karl Marx’s theory “The Communist Manifest”. (“Karl Marx” 2011) Marx described Communism “as a society in which each person should contribute according to their ability and receive according to their need”. (“Karl Marx” 2011)…
For centuries, many philosophers have discussed the issue of class struggle. Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie both developed theories of the unequal distribution of wealth a long time ago; however the only Carnegie’s ideology could apply to American society today. In “The Communist Manifesto”, Marx first introduces the two main social classes: bourgeois (the upper class) and proletarians (the lower class or working class). He points out the revolution of industrialism has made changes of Capitalism to Communism. He suggests that the rich should redistribute property evenly because the proletarians have put a lot effort contributing in the revolution. In contrast, Carnegie analyzes in “The Gospel of Wealth”, the unequal distribution of wealth is a natural consequence of civilization. Both Marx and Carnegie present the problem within society because they want to contribute their own experiences from various views to resolve the tension between the rich and poor efficiently.…
Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto to hopefully give some kind of guidance to his fellow workers or proletarians. It was to offer education as to their exploitation as a worker in a capitalistic society and the means to change it. When this was written it shook the social and economic worlds. It did so probably because their was some truth in what he wrote and dared to bring to light.…
Could you imagine working for as long as 18 hours a day, six days a week? How about in 80 degree weather, doing tedious and often dangerous work? To make matters worse, what would it be like to be constantly hungry and tired, knowing that you would face harsh and hurtful punishments if you didn't meet the demands? During much of the Industrial revolution, this scenario was the norm for men, women, and children of the working class. The pay was barely enough to live on, and the workers returned home to crowded and unsanitary apartments, overflowing with disease. Although various government reform programs later made work and life a little bit nicer for the people, it still wasn't paradise. In A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens wrote, "it…
During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie had definite opinions about the affects of industrialization on society. A greater understanding of their views on history and humanity can be gained by comparing and contrasting two written artifacts: The Communist Manifesto and “Wealth.”…
In 1800s Britain, the Industrial Revolution resulted in the development of a new class society. Change in the definition of societal classes is often credited to class feeling, defining society based on a common source of income (Perkin, 176). In the relevance of socialism, it is important to understand the most crucial class in economic and political change: the working class.…
The Industrial Revolution was a time of drastic change in the economic and social structures of the developed world. Factories and cities began to crop up all over to keep up with the rapid expansion pace of the time, and the living conditions of the middle and lower class quickly degraded with the increase of urban living. Society was soon divided into two classes: employers and laborers. The employers rapidly accumulated wealth and lived luxurious lifestyles while the laborers lived in complete filth and poverty. In Harding Davis’ Life in the Iron-Mills, the reader can clearly see the dehumanizing effects that the industrialization had on working individuals, and Marx’s idea of alienated labor coincides with Davis’ depiction of the daily…
Karl Marx and Max Weber offer two very different but valid approaches to social class in modern capitalist society. In a capitalist society the private ownership of the means of production is the dominant form of providing the things needed to survive. What distinguishes capitalism from other types of society is the emphasis on the rights of property and the individual owner’s right to employ capital, as she or he thinks fit.…
During the Victorian Era in England, people were divided into three social classes: The Aristocracy, or the Upper class, the Middle class, and the Working class. Ninety-five out of a hundred people were in either the “middle” or “working” social class. The Aristocracy was essentially made up of the politicians, company owners, and nobility. Unlike the Middle class or the Working class, these people did not work for a living. Their wealth came from ancestors’ land or money inheritances. The Middle class was made up of all the men of profession, such as merchants, doctors, engineers, bankers, etc. The Working class was the lowest rank of people in England. This was the peasants, paupers, the poor and sick, servants, and very low-income families.…
Marx, K. (1959) ‘Classes’, Capital (Volume 3), Moscow: Progress Publishers, pp. 885-886. Reading 4 handbook, p 16, p 18); Study Guide SGY14 (2006/1) Social Sciences in Australia, School of Arts, Media and Culture Faculty of Arts, Griffith University, Brisbane.…