Marx and Engels's View of the Worker and His Condition - Essay Example

Marx and Engelss View of the Worker and His Condition The study of the worker and his/her condition has been a majorpoint of interest among many theorists and historians. This is so because work is as old as time. Among such theoreticians who developed an interest in the study of the worker and his condition are Marx and Engels. During their study, they had interest in seeing radical change in the modern industrial society along communists and socialist segments. Marx and Engel are the most important theoreticians with regard to labor movements. This paper will explore the views held by Marx and Engels concerning the worker and his condition and how the context of their writing of the industrial revolution in Post-French revolution influences their views. The paper will also discuss whether Marx and Engels view bourgeois revolution either positively or negatively. Marx and Engelss view Marx and Engel’s views with regard to workers and their condition is based the theory of alienation. The theory suggests that “in the modern industrial production under capitalist conditions, workers will inevitably lose control over their lives by losing control over their work”. For this reason, Marx and Engels imply that workers cease to become independent beings in any sense. For instance, they suggest that in a pre-capitalist condition a cobbler or a blacksmith would own his own shop, set his own hours and determine his individual working conditions, determine his product configuration and have a say on how his product is sold in the market (Max, Karl & Engels Friedrich 5). This implies that a workers relationship with people whom he worked and interacted with had very little influence with regard to personal character. The Post-French Revolution Marx, Engels and Gasper (157) uses materialistic concepts of history in an attempt to explain many significant events and developments that occurred in France. They note that after the French revolution, which culminated to the defeat in 1848, Napoleon the chief commander seized power and declared himself emperor Napoleon III. In this, Marx does not see historical revolution of the French bourgeois as a deterministic process (Marx, Engels and Gasper 157). They argue that men who make their own history, do not make it in the manner they please, or under circumstances chosen by them, instead they make their history under certain circumstances inherited or encountered in the past. After the defeat of Napoleon III in 1871, workers ceased power and control of Paris for two months (Marx, Engels and Gasper 165). This point brings into focus alienation as one of the causes of the Post French revolution apart from exploitation and economic crisis. The reason being it permits the full realization of individuals and is closely connected to class struggle and consciousness (Elster 448). This influences Marx and Engels view since the post French revolution gave the workers the right to work as the French government had to establish national workshops for those unemployed. The seizer of power by the workers also forced the government to establish a scheme for the workers labor Union. For instance, Marx and Engels noted that the working class is the only real revolutionary class. For this reason, employees’ position as a class makes them unique to overthrow the capitalist society, as was the case with the overthrowing of Napoleon during the post-French revolution. The workers’ position in this case does not matter since they do not think of themselves as revolutionary (German). He also asserts that the workers position at workplace is the key. This is due to the fact that they have the power to run the society since they are capable of producing the wealth and are put through their working knowledge to organize themselves collectively. Marx and Engels View of Bourgeois Revolution Marx and Engels’ view the bourgeois revolution of 1789 negatively. They explain that during this revolution, “The bourgeois gained the victory ; but the victory of the bourgeois was at that time the victory of a new social order, the victory of bourgeois property over feudal property, of nationality over provincialism, of competition over guild, of the partition of estates over primogeniture… of enlightenment over superstition… of industry over heroic laziness, of civil law over privileges of the medieval origin (Lowy 6)”. This writing seems to suggest that future prospects of the bourgeois revolution would in the future become less certain as the bourgeois became able to attain its agenda through non-revolutionary means. That is revolution from above without the existence of political rupture and popular mobilization (Lowy 5). Marx and Engels also argue on economistic justifications of the inevitable revolution of the bourgeois. In this case, they base their arguments on the social-political perspective that adumbrates an open permanentist conception of revolution (Lowy 6). Here they bring out the bourgeois revolution as a precondition to an extent that by abolishing the monarchy rule and the power of the federal nobility, the political envioronment simplified into the direct contraposition of the bourgeois. For this reason, they suggest that workers understand that their individual struggle against the bourgeois can only materialize with the day when the bourgeois is victorious (Lowy 7). Instead, they can accept the bourgeois revolution only as a precondition for the workers’ revolution. They continue to say that the bourgeois revolution cannot however be taken as an absolute goal (Lowy 7). This shows that Marx and Engels had a lot of doubts concerning the revolution of the bourgeois in shaping the social structure of revolution. According to Marx and Engels, the bourgeois cannot exist without continuously revolutionizing various instruments of production (German). As such, the relationship between production and bourgeois is the whole society. In this regard, Marx and Engels imply that without constant revolution, the French bourgeois could not have come into existence. This is a negative comment with regard to revolutionary change (German). The negative aspect also comes in as Marx and Engels bore the view that revolution is deterministic in nature, a fact that they did not see with the bourgeois revolution (Marx, Engels and Gasper 157). In conclusion, Marx and Engels theories have helped in the understanding of the concept of the worker and his condition. Their view of the worker and his condition is mainly pegged on alienation. In this case, they argue that workers cease to become autonomous in any sense. Their view is also influenced by the post-French revolution under which due to struggle by workers and labor union, the worker took control of the state forcing the government to recognize their right to work. From the discussion, it is also evident that Marx and Engels’s view with regard to bourgeois revolution is negative. This is mainly due to the fact that Marx and Engel believe that revolution is deterministic in nature a fact that they did not see with the bourgeois revolution. They also suggest that the bourgeois revolution cannot be taken as an absolute goal. Work Cited Elster, Jon. Making sense of Max. New York: Cambridge University press.1985 Print. German, Lindsey. Reflection on the Communist Manifestation: Journal of the Socialist Workers Party (Britain). Issue 79, July, 1998 Web. Retrieved on 8 Mach 2012 from: http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj79/german.htm. Max, Karl & Engels Friedrich. The German Ideology. Arthur C. New York: International publishers’ Co. 1998 Print. Marx, Karl, Engels, Friedrich & Gasper, Philip. The communist manifesto: A road map to History’s most important political document. Canada: Haymarket Books. 2005 Print. Lowy, Michael. The Politics of Combined and Uneven Development: The Theory of Permanent Revolution. Chicago: Haymarket Books. 2010 Print. Read More