Sociology

Karl Marx was a great widely read German philosopher, historian, political economist, political theorist, a socialist and a revolutionary whose great ideas are believed to be the foundations of the basic modern communism. However, his ideological epistemology and writings have been summarized in one booklet known as the Communist Manifesto which was published in the year 1848 with support from his colleague Angel (Chronis, 2001).

In his approach Marx conceptualized that the history of the hitherto existing society is characterized by the history of class struggles. The society is thus structured into classes of different dominance (Sara  Howard, 2004). Such as patricians and plebeian, freeman and slave, guild and master, lord and serf oppressor and oppressed who stand out in constant opposition to one another, carry on hidden or open fight, in which its ultimate end is either a revolutionary leading to transformation or reconstruction of the society at large or rather a common ruin of the existing contending social classes.

Marx continues to argue that in almost every epoch of history there exists almost a very complicated categorization of the society into a manifold degradation which depicts various social ranks.  In ancient Roman times we had  the knights and the patricians, while during the middle age period we had the feudal lords, journeymen, guild masters, and apprentices. Almost in all these classes there was consisted support to some kind subordinate gradation which characterized the nature of interaction patterns between and among social groupings (Sara  Howard, 2004). Thus, according to Marx the modern social classes which encompass the bourgeois society are offshoots from the ruins of the then feudal society, which has done very little to wipe away the ranging class antagonism.

Most surprisingly, it has further established yet very new forms of social classes, creating yet new and more refined conditions for oppression and very current forms of struggle replacing the old. Our epoch, which represents the epoch of the modern bourgeoisie has however such distinct and features which have hitherto simplified the nature of class antagonism (Chronis, 2001). Marx further argues that the society is further and further splitting into two distinct hostile camps or rather two significant classes which are directly opposing each other.  That is, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat.

The invention and discovery of America including the rounding Cape created and established a very fresh ground for the growing bourgeoisie. Not to mention, the growing Chinese and East- Indian markets, trade and exchange with colonies, colonization of America, the increased advanced means of exchange of goods and commodities basically established and paved room for commerce, industry and navigation which posed an impulse that had never been experienced there before.

A Feudal kind of a system characterized by industrial production emerged which was monopolized by a set of closed guilds who were no longer conscious of the growing concerns of the new market. However, industrial manufacturing took its position, while the guild- masters were pushed far away to one end of the manufacturing middle class, and consequently divisions of labour which existed among the various corporate guilds vanished at the eve of division of labour among single unitary workshops (Sara  Howard, 2004). In the meantime there was continuous growth of markets with ever increasing demand for more and more open air markets.

Nevertheless, the place for manufacture was replaced by modern giant industries while the position for industrial middle class was ultimately occupied by industrial millionaires who included the, leaders of the entire industrial army and the modern class of bourgeois. In the long run, the modern industry created and established a common world market, though which the discovery and invention of America paved way.

This market, over along period of time has led to immense development in trade and commerce, communication, and navigation. This kind of developments in turn resulted to the rapid extension and expansion of industry, indeed promoting and extending commerce and at the same time promoting the growth of bourgeoisie through increased capital while at the same time suppressing down a class of middle age.

It is from this orderly kind of societal transformation where Marx asserts that, from history we observe how the modern bourgeoisie emerges as a product of a prolonged course of development, through a rather long chain and series of revolutions based on the modes of production (Sara  Howard, 2004). Every single advancement in the development of bourgeoisie is characterized by subsequent political advancement in this particular class.

According to Marx, bourgeoisies have historically spearheaded and led all major forms of revolution. They have a very strong upper hand capable of bringing down all the feudal, idyllic and patriarchal relations. It has mercilessly torn asunder all the major feudal bonds to enhance its natural superiors, drowned and downsized the major heavenly ecstasies of religious rigor and transformed human worth to into exchange value.

Marx asserts that bourgeoisie has  more so stripped naked its own halo  of all the opportunities hitherto honored,  and converted the lawyers, physicians,  poets, and scientists into wage laborers.   Karl Marx therefore asserts that every society is founded and it is based on a class system, characterized by the antagonism, an oppressor and oppressed (Chronis, 2001). However, in order to oppress a class there are a number of preliminary conditions which should be ushered into this system in order to promote and enhance its slavish existence. The modern laborer is subjected to a situation whereby instead of rising up rapidly with the industrial process, he continues to drown and sink more and deeper below the basic conditions of existence of his personal class. The common man therefore becomes a pauper while pauperism continues to develop more rapidly than even wealth and population.

However, at the onset of the twentieth century, the followers of Karl Marx were still concerned about the growing social inequalities with advanced even critical economic crisis, rapid decline of the cultural audhedicity of society and even the prevailing forms of political ideological paralysis occurring within the workers movements (Sara  Howard, 2004). They were still convinced that many of these challenges could be assimilated to the previous strains of the nineteenth century, simply because they were taking a relatively similar mode.

The twentieth century Marxist therefore took an analysis of the global trends which were sweeping across the world especially after the Second World War and begun to draw their conclusions from this board. They assessed the major political divisions which existed by then, the intellectual issues roaming around and the geographical settings of states and analyzed the situation from this base board (Chronis, 2001). In respect to this situation, the 20th century Marxists saw similar events in the recent century as those that had been observed in the late 19th century.

In this case the Marxists were confronted by world in which capitalism was the basic mode of production and the dominant economic system. Struggle or a kind of antagonism existed between two major economic systems that were capitalism and socialism. This kind of reality posed the Marxists with yet another dilemma thus equipping their minds with quite a very different character in regard to the present time.

Each period was seen to be addressing a different set of related although different political and theoretical challenges.  From the 19 century, the Marxists of the day addressed issues regarding the constitutions of the workers (Proletariats) as a social class and their subsequent political party (Sara  Howard, 2004). Additionally, there was the basic critique of the political economy established by the bourgeoisie leading to the formation of a political labour economy (Capitalism).

 In the 20th century we observe yet very different types of questions being addressed by the Marxists of the day. For instance, how was the communist movement going to shift power (State Revolution). In the case of revolution, what kind of reorganizations are we going to have in the economic system How will revolution be in societies which had never been capitalist The suggestions made by the 20th century Marxists depicted the recent times and challenges that the world populations were facing (Sara  Howard, 2004). Industrial revolution had posed yet very difficult circumstances as people had to toil and earn a living in   a very harsh economic climate.

 Mass production of industrial products and the need for more raw materials saw the need for the expansion of the market economies to enhance free market for their products. This idea accelerated the need for finding colonies in Africa and Asia. As a result slave trade emerged and the demand for more laborers increased with increased industrial production (Chronis, 2001). Expansion of market economies and the desire for free market to dispose excess industrial goods and raw materials for their industries saw the need for finding and fighting for colonies in Africa.

 Countries began taking dominance over others due to their power which was based on material wealth and geopolitical advantage. The 20th century Marxists from this approach saw a new approach and a more modern modification of the 19the century Marxism. Instead of class struggle between individual parties, struggle emerged between entities such as states. A set of powerful states emerged as dominant structures exploiting and subjudicating the poor to enhance their own growth and suppress the rest by pulling wealth to one pole.

In this case the issue of class struggle was coined in by the 20th century Marxists to explain the nature of relations which characterize interaction between nations (Sara  Howard, 2004). Thus, instead of the proletariats and the bourgeoisie, state interaction got yet another set of names. The developed and the underdeveloped. What remained of the old Marxism was the idea of the structural categorization of the society into cognitive structures which continue to influence life through out history.

Today in the 21st century we still can decipher the same modes of categorizations as states interact with one another while others remained inclined as dependents of some core structures. Emanuel Wallestien has further subdivided this kind of interaction into three, the core, semi-periphery and the periphery and they both bring a new picture of Marxism.