Journal damn_registrars's Journal: [TCM] Manifesto reading part 2 10
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, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other â" Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.
From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.
Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune(4): here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable âoethird estateâ of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
This section establishes Marx's claim against the Bourgeoisie as being the cultivators of society's ills. He describes them as something of an evolution of the history of class conflict over time; notice how he explicitly describes the industrial revolution without demonizing it - he does however describe how it has been used to perpetuate class conflict. Marx is ultimately trying to build an argument for a different kind of economy here, he believes that capitalism is inherently immoral based on its tendency to benefit from class conflict and oppression, he is describing the Bourgeoisie as being particularly inclined to exploit the proletariat.
No doubt about it (Score:1)
You are the bourgeois, more comfortable with one man's lies over the other's (I'll assume you will be voting for business as usual). But it's okay. You (and Mr. Smith) really can't help it. Recombining DNA is tricky business.
Re: (Score:1)
Recombining DNA is tricky business.
Correction, it's not really "tricky" per se, and it most definitely is a lot more fun outside the lab, then again, the thrill of getting caught might be a turn on. What I meant was recombining one's own DNA is not so easy, and certainly not cheap.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know about baking the DNA itself...
Just stick it in the oven... and set the timer for 40 weeks.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
98.6 degrees is not very hot... I though you would have understood what I was saying. Then again, that would have been a first for you :-)
Re: (Score:1)
God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly, and the default meaning of words is the obvious one. Occam razed!
Re: (Score:1)
I guess you never heard the phrase... "a bun one in the oven". I've been trying to tell you, "meaning" is flexible. With the one track mind you exhibited in that other post a while back, I thought you would have picked up on this one.
Re: (Score:1)
Still lukewarm (Score:1)
I'm not clear what fundamental changes to human nature have occurred (to echo fustakrackich's comment). What I do know has changed is technology.
Technology has had a catalytic effect on the amount and rate of evil an individual can undertake, and Marx was merely reacting to the Industrial Revolution, not the Information Age.
". .
I don't really understand what credi