Marxs Use of the Word Parasite to Describe the Movement of Capital - Essay Example

?In The Communist Manifesto Karl Marx s "Capital Is... Not A Personal, But A Social Power". Discuss What Marx Means By This ment. In This Context, Discuss Marx’s Use of the Word "Parasite" To Describe the Movement of Capital Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Discussion on the Statement i.e. "Capital is... Not a Personal, But a Social Power" and Marx’s Use of the Word “Parasite” 3 Conclusion 8 Reference 10 10 10 10 Introduction Karl Marx was one of the famous philosophers who had devoted his entire life to the political activities and studies in political economy. In the book “The Communist Manifesto”, Karl Marx has shown the victory of the disciples of proletarian in the communist society. In the ancient period, all the powers of the old Europe were attracted towards the holy union in order to exercise the communism. The holy union was among the spies of German police and French radicals, Pope and Tsar and the Guizot and Metternich. During this period, it was highly realized by the Europeans that the communists must openly face the entire world and meet the study of communism with the policy of the party itself. Karl Marx had also stated that the capital is not a personal but a social power. A lucid explanation of this statement would be further discussed in the essay on the basis of the bourgeois, proletarians and the communists. Discussion on the Statement i.e. "Capital is... Not a Personal, But a Social Power" and Marx’s Use of the Word “Parasite” It has been a trend that the simple words ‘oppressor’ and ‘oppressed’ have marked several histories of open fights, which ended with a revolution among the different classes of people in the society or destruction of a particular class of people. Likewise, the revolutionary action among the bourgeois and proletarians resulted in the abolition of the capitalists’ society and introduced communism in the society. Bourgeois and proletarians are the two major dimensions of the communists’ society in the ancient times. Bourgeois were the modern capitalists acting as the owner of the production activities and the employer of the labors. On the other hand, proletarians were the group of laborers who did not have their own modes of production and were compelled to sell their labor power to the bourgeois. At that period of time, bourgeois were holding the supreme power in the society as they were the middle class owners of the production activities and the labors. The labors were the proletarians who had no power in the society rather they were treated as the private labor of the bourgeois. The proletarians were compelled to sell their labors to the bourgeois in order to earn their living. The proletarians were suppressed by the bourgeois as they had no rights of property and self-esteem in that society. Nonetheless, it was frequently observed that the communists had represented the interests of the proletarians as a whole in the movement during their fight for the property and rights1. The communists had never opposed the other working class entities of the society. They always formed similar party to that of the working class. They served the similar aims of the party as the proletariat does. The distinction between the communists and the other working parties arrive on the basis of two of the grounds. The first base is that the communists had brought the common interest of the proletarians in light during their national fight in various countries. The other is that the communists were signifying the interests of all the parties in the movement as a whole during the stages of development of the proletarian society. These two characteristics of the communists not only made them different from the other working class parties in the world but they had also made them the most advanced party in the entire world. The communists had the similar aim to that of the proletarians. The aims of both these parties were end of the bourgeois superiority, development of proletariat into a class and invasion of the political power to the proletariats1. During the hundred years of rule by the bourgeois in the societies created enormous productive forces which could suppress the powers of the proletarians. This policy by the bourgeois also raised the market influencing the rise of the demand. The industrial and manufacturing process in the society was taken over by the modern bourgeois. Thus, the development of the bourgeois class started along with the development in trade and commerce, communication and the growth in the number of industries. They had given rise to the modern society and were the introducer of the industry and manufacturing activities. During that period of time, the bourgeois were playing a ground-breaking role as they had desired to subside all the ‘feudal and patriarchal’ relations1. They were completely involved in the self-interest and monetary relations even with their families. They were continuously revolutionizing the modes of the production which in turn compelled the entire relation process in the societies to change. However, at a certain period of time the excessive rise of the production forces became a barrier for the development of the bourgeois’ society. Their properties had become too narrow and could have led to the destruction in their owned property. These cruel behaviors of the bourgeois made them very much different from the other class of people in the societies and compelled the communists to think of overthrowing the bourgeois from the society and let the proletarians to implement their own policies. The tool which the bourgeois had used to suppress the proletarians in turn acted against them and it became a drastic weapon against them. The rise of the production not only became a weapon against them but it gave rise to the modern working class and the actual revolutionary class named as the proletarians. The proletarians were the emerging class of people who could be used as the weapon to fight against the bourgeois. The extensive development of the proletarians into a class and then to a political party was the consequence of the negative activities led by the bourgeois class in the communist society. These classes of people were completely different to that of bourgeois. The proletarians did not have their personal property, their family relations were not based on the monetary terms such as the bourgeois and thus they had transformed to the modern labor subjected towards the exercise of capital. The communists had suggested them that with the adoption of the modern modes of appropriation, the proletarians can become the successor of the modern society. The earlier historical movements say that the movement of the proletarians was fully self-aware and a movement carried out in the common interests of the major population2 . In the movement carried out by the proletarians for the acquisition of their rights were much supported by the communists. The communists had made up their mind to abolish the bourgeois property rather than engaging in the abolition of the property in general. For instance, the French Revolution was executed with an intention of abolishing the feudal bourgeois property. This feudal property refers to the right of procuring personal property gained through the labor of others. In that scenario, property was completely based on the wage and capital labor. Being capitalists does not entirely mean a personal status but it signifies a social status as well in the production process. These two bases of the capital will help to understand why Karl Marx had stated that capital is not a personal but a social power. He had also said that capital is a combined product developed with the collaborated effort of all the members in the society. Unlike the bourgeois, if the capital is transformed into the property of all members in general, it is automatically converted into a social property. The social feature of the property is being changed which gives meaning to the statement “capital is therefore not only personal but a social power”3. The revolutionary action of the proletarians against the bourgeois and the aim of abolition of the personal property of the bourgeois by the communists gave rise to the saying that capital is a social power. The transformation of the property right of bourgeois into the right of all the members also depicted the revolutionary role of the proletarians in the society. Otherwise, in the ancient Rome, proletarians were the poor and landless group of people selling their labor to the bourgeois in order to earn living and they were also denoted as the parasite to the economy. They were often despised by the bourgeois for their performed work and were regarded as merely commodities to exploit for their own benefits. The crucial role played by the proletarians was often negated. Nevertheless, at a certain period of time, the proletarians were the sole fighter for their independent rights and contributor of the movement of capital. The communists had the aim of abolishing the capitalism and implementing communism in the society which would provide social ownership of the properties among all the members in the society. The social ownership would not create supremacy of one particular group rather the interim power would be handed to the specified group of people in the society. It has been observed in the ancient society of Europe, the power lying on the hands of a particular group would lead the society towards a revolution. There were many other reasons which made the communists to aim at overthrowing the superiority of the bourgeois from the society. In the bourgeois society, capital has got the independence but the living person does not have independence. This system was fully integrated by the bourgeois themselves. According to the bourgeois, independence of the people was allowed only in the production activities and free trade. Communism strictly opposes these behaviors of the bourgeois and so does the proletarians in their revolution. Communism does not support the revolution of the proletarians to reduce the productivity of the bourgeois but it strives to free the proletarians from the superiority of the bourgeois and also prevent the bourgeois from extracting the labor of the proletarian for their personal property. The communism not only focuses on these matters but it also promotes the existence of uniform classes or groups of people in the society along with replacing the profit oriented economy and personal property with communalism and public possession. Karl Marx’s contribution to the movement of capital along with providing rights to the proletarians made a new revolution in the world. It provided liberalization to the proletarians and the introduction of public ownership of the property. The movements carried out by the communists in abolishing the private ownership of the property as capital is deemed to be a social power rather than being personal issue. Conclusion From the above study about the bourgeois and proletarians in the ancient society and by correlating their perspectives with the communist’s prerogative, the meaning of the statement “capital is not a personal but a social power” has been ascertained. Moreover, the context in which Karl Marx had stated this perspective has been determined. This statement was stated after the revolution of the proletarians against bourgeois. Bourgeois being the superior in the society used to allow independence to the proletarians in terms of giving free trade and labor. At one moment of time, the proletarians were highly suppressed by the bourgeois. However, the communism was strictly against this system and thus strived to abolish the system of private ownership of the property as the bourgeois did. It introduced the system of public ownership and provided the proletarians with their full rights. The communists believed that the capital is the collaborated effort of all the members of the society and thus it was transformed into the common property of all the members. The social features of the property were transformed and for this reason Karl Marx had stated that capital is not only personal but a social power. Karl Marx had also denoted the proletarians as the parasite of the ancient national economy. They were the poor and landless people in the society selling their labor to the bourgeois in order to earn their living along with merely contributing something to the economy. This in turn facilitated in the movement of capital on a wider level. Karl Marx had accurately explained capital as the social power because the individual property is not being altered into social property but only the social features are transformed. Reference Marx, Karl., and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. London: Verso, 1998. Read More