Bourgeois and Proletarians

Author(s):  
G. A. Cohen

This chapter explores the question of the nature of the alienation of the bourgeoisie under capitalism. In particular, it considers the distinction made by Karl Marx in The Holy Family between the alienation endured by the worker and the alienation endured by the capitalist in bourgeois society. According to Marx: “The possessing classes and the class of the proletariat present pictures of the same human self-estrangement. But the former class feels at home in and confirmed by this self-estrangement.” The chapter analyzes the meaning of this passage by focusing on a characterization of the human essence in The German Ideology and on the doctrine of alienation articulated in the Paris Manuscripts. It also discusses the worker's alienation in his relation to the machine, and the capitalist's alienation in his relation to money, as well as the latter's relation to his capital. Finally, it restates the contrast between bourgeois and proletarian.

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 215-228

This paper deals with the impact that Karl Marx"s Das Kapital (and especially its fourth volume, the theory of Surplus Value) had on the category of economy in Kazimir Malevich"s output. In a series of texts, Malevich proclaims economy the new criterion of art and the Black Square its embodiment in contemporary painting. While the author was analyzing Marx"s views on labor and human nature, echoes of them turned up in Malevich"s manifestos and philosophical essays where the artist pondered the idea of the liberation of creative exaltation. The article others an interpretation of the creative process itself from the standpoint of economy, which for Malevich provided an opportunity to lay down the foundation for a new kind of art that was consistent with the prevailing ideology. The author points out that while Malevich was in Vitebsk he studied Marx"s works with idea of incorporating economic studies into art: his speculations on the relationships between the ideological superstructure and the practical, economic base were written in the manner of Marxist philosophy and provided the basis for his main essays, The World as Non-Objectivity (1923) and Suprematism: Thee World as Non-Objectivity or Eternal Rest (1923-1924). They defined the new art as an independent ideological superstructure positioned “outside of other contents and ideologies.” Parallel to that, the author examines the correspondence between Malevich"s theory of the surplus element and Marxist doctrines on surplus value. It is also shown that Malevich hoped to prove that, as in dialectical materialism, his new surplus element opens the way to a new artistic structure that is emerging from the womb of the old system in the same way that communism comes about as a kind of heterogeneous body from within the underpinnings of bourgeois society.


2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (114) ◽  
pp. 61-76
Author(s):  
Bertel Nygaard

KARL MARX AND THE UTOPIAN POTENTIALS OF THE PAST | Karl Marx explicitly situated modern emancipation struggles in the present rejecting the power of the past over the presentalong with utopian schemes for the future. But a closer study of his position reveals that his notion of the present was remarkably open towards aspects of the past and potentials for future alternatives, as long as these were conceived from – and as moments within – present struggles. Thus, his rejection ofcertain visions of past and future was mainly a critique of specific ideological configurations characteristic of modern bourgeois society, including reified notions of the past, history and temporality. From this critique we may derive a fruitful, discerning approach to the complex interrelations of utopia, ideology, past, present and future, founded on a critical reconstruction of the category of time as a differentialsocial relation, persistently constructed and reconstructed through conflictual social agency.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 250-258
Author(s):  
Samal Marf Mohammed

      This study deals with the colonial perspectives in Dave Eggers’s A Hologram for The King (2012), according to the postcolonial approach. Although colonialism era is over by now, colonial perspectives remain strong in some literary works. Since its advent in the second half of the twentieth century, postcolonial theory confronts colonial attitudes and experiences as colonialism has been justified in many works of Western writers and scholars who have distorted the real image of non-Europeans and non-Westerners via different means and techniques in masquerade of orientalism. Postcolonial discourse opposes the misrepresentation of non-Europeans and argues that such falsification is driven by political, social, religious and economic motives. In the current study, the researcher aims at explaining the notions of colonialism, otherization and other falsified images of non-Westerners in A Hologram for the King. This paper mainly questions Eggers’s portrayal of the protagonist, Alan Clay, who after bankruptcy and failure at home, flies to Saudi Arabia and capitalizes on the physical and moral assets of the Orientals in this country to convert his story of failure to a success. The characterization of the oriental world and its setting show Eggers’s being biased against the Eastern world and ironically mirror clear hints of colonialism and eurocentrism.


Author(s):  
Joyce Appleby ◽  
Elizabeth Covington ◽  
David Hoyt ◽  
Michael Latham ◽  
Allison Sneider
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 505-519
Author(s):  
Tom Bunyard

Amy Wendling contends in this book that Marx’s concern with alienation is not restricted to his early, more explicitly Hegelian writings, and that it can be seen to evolve throughout his work in tandem with his interest in technology. This evolution, according to Wendling, is marked by his transition between two successive scientific paradigms, both of which pertain to the status of labour and machinery within society. Wendling claims that Marx uses the distinction between them as a means of conducting an immanent critique of capitalist ideology. Consequently, although it is primarily a work of intellectual history, this book offers an interesting contribution to the hermeneutics of Marx’sCapital. In addition, it also bears relation to contemporary discussions concerning real subsumption and the abolition of labour. The book’s general argument raises questions as to the degree to which a conception of alienation must rely upon notions of human essence, and upon an idea of a ‘natural’ and ‘authentic’ humanity. Wendling’s responses to those questions are described as problematic within this review, but they are also acknowledged to be both pertinent and intriguing.


2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (124) ◽  
pp. 237
Author(s):  
Pedro Rocha de Oliveira

Buscando os aspectos da crítica da cultura de Siegfried Kracauer que apontam para uma crítica radical da sociedade, o presente texto analisa a caracterização feita por aquele autor da arte industrializada do início do século XX nas obras O ornamento da massa: ensaios, de 1963 e De Caligari a Hitler: uma história psicológica do cinema alemão, de 1947. Atenta-se para a maneira como tal caracterização mapeia a determinação das formas dessa arte pelo ideário e contexto político-econômicos da sociedade onde ela emerge, especialmente no que tange às relações entre avanço técnico e projeto de modernização social na sociedade burguesa.Abstract: The present work analyses Siegfried Kracauer’s characterization of the early 20th century industrialized art, by seeking in the author’sThe mass ornament (1963) and From Caligari to Hitler: a psychological history of the German film (1947), aspects of his cultural criticism that point towards a radical critique of society. This paper will highlight the way in which such a characterization explores how the forms of that art are determined by the ideology and the political-economic context in which it has emerged, focusing on the relationships between technical advancement and social modernization in the bourgeois society.


Author(s):  
Fabian Freyenhagen

Critical Theory is an umbrella term to denote those theorists who take up the task described by Karl Marx as the self-clarification of the age struggles and wishes of the age. As such, two elements are crucial: (a) a connection to social and political struggles of emancipation, and (b) self-reflexivity. Critical Theorists differ—sometimes quite fundamentally—about what these two elements require (and how they relate). For example, some such theorists (such as Max Horkheimer or Michel Foucault) take the normative orientations of struggles for emancipation as something that does not require grounding at the level of theorizing, while others (such as Jürgen Habermas) think such grounding is the main task of Critical Theory, securing moral validity for the struggles. These substantive differences also mean that there are no accepted methods on which all Critical Theorists would agree. To stay with the example, those Critical Theorists who reject discursive grounding of its normative standards tend to engage in genealogy and other disclosing forms of social critique; while those who seek discursive grounding employ reconstructive and/or constructivist methods. The existence of fundamental substantive and methodological differences among proponents of Critical Theory means that it is difficult, or perhaps even impossible, to give a uniform characterization of it. Sometimes, Critical Theory is defined institutionally. Then it is denoting a succession of theorists (often classed into different generations) who are connected to the Institute of Social Research and/or the Philosophy Department in Frankfurt am Main, Germany—the so-called “Frankfurt School.” However, this institutional definition has only limited use. The disagreements among thinkers within the Frankfurt School tradition can run deep—sometimes deeper than they run with theorists, like Foucault, who are not connected institutionally to it. And it is an open and contested question whether everyone institutionally connected to the Frankfurt School is engaged in Critical Theory. Thinking systematically about the task of self-reflexively connecting to struggles of emancipation requires a different approach. It is helpful to understand Critical Theory as a broad and varied tradition, with core cases (such as Horkheimer’s 1937 text “Traditional and Critical Theory”), but no sharp boundaries. Understood that way, there cannot be a fully comprehensive treatment of Critical Theory, but it is possible to think of this tradition as involving multiple morphing sequences, whereby approaches are amended in various ways over time and thereby change into something else. One important dividing line is how historical or transcendental one takes Marx’s task to be—some proponents of Critical Theory are, in effect, historical contextualists, while others seek to establish the conditions of possibility of human interaction as such.


Author(s):  
Deirdre Coleman

This chapter explores the twinned emergence in the British novel of a critique of plantation slavery and commercial imperialism with a proto-feminist questioning of the ‘commerce of the sexes’. The discourses of racial and sexual oppression resonate with one another, helping to establish connections between inequalities at home and the sufferings of distant others. It has been argued that novelistic representations of violence and suffering are central to an ‘imagined empathy’ which in turn assisted the development in the eighteenth century of humanitarian sentiment. While it might be charged that the mid-eighteenth-century novel failed to grant full humanity to the enslaved and that it was somewhat instrumentalist in its handling of slavery reform, it can be demonstrated that the versatility of the figure of slavery enabled fuller characterization of the colonized and enslaved, as well as the more explicit imagining of colonial violence.


Author(s):  
Shlomo Avineri

Hess was a socialist philosopher, closely connected with the Young Hegelians, who influenced the initial philosophical development of Karl Marx, and later articulated, in the context of a critique of European bourgeois society, one of the first calls for the re-establishment of a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine.


1959 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Royden Harrison

Beesly was not only friendly with Marx, but was well acquainted with his circle. He knew Lafargue, he got to know Engels, and there were mutual acquaintances, such as Eugene Oswald. Among workmen, he was not only the friend of Odger, Applegarth and Lucraft, but was on close terms with such working-class confidants of Marx as Jung and Eccarius, and to a lesser extent with Dupont. In the sixties he was a familiar figure, not only in the offices of the Carpenters and Joiners, the London Trades Council or the Bee-Hive, but was also at home in the “Golden Ball” where the most radical of London's workmen talked with continental revolutionaries over a clay pipe and a pot of beer. Here one could get the flavour of European proletarian politics: that other “World of Labour” in whose ideals Beesly was as deeply interested as he was in those of English trades unionism. Indeed, for many years he expressed his desire for the amalgamation of trade unionism – with its implicit recognition of the priority of social questions—, and proletarian republicanism – with its generous enthusiasm and its larger view.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document