Proletariat vs. Bourgeoisie in Karl Marxs The Communist Manifesto Essa

Proletariat vs. Bourgeoisie in Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels attempt to explain the reasons for why there is class struggle and suggest how to prevent class separation. According to Marx there are two different types of social classes: the bourgeoisies and the proletarians. The bourgeoisie are capitalists who own the means of production and the proletarians are the working classes who are employed by the bourgeoisies. Due to their wealth, the bourgeoisies had the power to control pretty much of everything and the proletarians had little or no say in any political issues. According to Marx, the proletarians population would increase and they would eventually rise above the bourgeoisie and hold a revolt against them. The proletarians would base this revolt with the help of 'faith and reason.' With the help from The Communist Manifesto, the proletarians realize the conditions they are in by being overpowered by bourgeoisies. The proletarians now have the reasons to ask qu estions about origin, order, and their purpose of life. Also, they could raise questions about meaning, truth, and value. Through 'faith and reason' the proletarians will be able to overthrow the empowerment of the bourgeoisies.1 Marx expressed many views about the over empowerment of the bourgeoisies in The Communists Manifesto. Marx believed that the working class was not getting paid what they deserved for the quality of work that they were producing. Marx thought that the all workers should be paid the same rather than by social position. For instance, Marx thought that a mineworker should be paid as much as a doctor. Marx states, ?The average price of w... ...ower by the proletariat.2 Marx then tries to eliminate the power of the Bourgeois by eliminating property. Without private property the Bourgeois cannot control business and create capital. Overall, the proletarians had very different and more dreadful lifestyles then the bourgeoisie. The proletarians had very bad working conditions and were paid low wages. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie were the social power and could control mostly everything to keep them at absolute power. Works Cited 1 www.as.udayton.edu/hbase/themes.htm 2 Karl Marx. The Communist Manifesto 3 www.classicnotes.com 4 Dennis Sherman and Joyce Salisbury. The West in the World. 5 Briefs, Goetz A. The proletariat; a challenge to western civilizatoin 6 www.schoolhistory.org.uk/IndustrialRevolution/womenancchildren.htm 7 Sombart, Werner. Bourgeois.

Founding fathers Essay

This paper seeks to explore whether America’s founding fathers were men of character and people who were not driven by personal political ambition. Some of the fathers examined in the study include Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams and James Madison (Ellis, 1- 2). Character can be looked at as the personal traits that are attributed to an individual and which guides his intentions. A man of character is that person who lives by principles and motives that are virtuous and desired by the people he is dealing with. These principles and motives should also be acceptable according to the ethical standards set by the society. Personal ambition is when a person sets and focuses on achieving targets which are aimed at individual satisfaction. One is said to be driven by personal ambition if these targets are the motivating factors behind his actions. In the book Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis, the founding fathers were politicians who pursued great ambitions through various avenues. The political rivalry, pride, jealousy and personal ambition however drove them into doing things that do not qualify all of them to be called men of character (Ellis, 10, 16, 23). Nonetheless, most of their activities yielded personal political gratification as well as contributing in some way to the creating of America as a nation. According to Ellis (75), it is due to selfishness and personal interest that the then former secretary of the treasury Alexander Hamilton and sitting Vice president Aaron Burr ended up in a duel that turned out to be fatal as Burr fired a deadly short that killed Alexander. The two men who were on both sides of the political divide: Democratic Republican vs. Federalists allowed their hatred to take charge of their thoughts. Alexander did not like Burr because the later captured a Senate seat from Philip Schuyler who happened to be Hamilton’s father-in-law (Ellis, 172). A man of character at this point would have accepted defeat and allowed democracy to prevail. In addition, Hamilton comes out as a nepotist who placed personal ambition before the interest of the nation for finding it had to accept that Burr defeated his relative Philip Schuyler. The â€Å"despicable opinion† expressed by Alexander against Burr which triggered the argument ending in the duel depicts him as a man who lacked character (Ellis, 113,140). A man of character uses his words wisely in away that does not harm the feelings of his audience but communicates the needed information. Instead of pushing Aaron Burr further in the New York Gubernatorial election by endorsing a candidate who ended up beating Burr and widening their differences, a man of character would have swallowed pride, buried their differences and offered his support or remained neutral to reconcile their differences ( Ellis, 160). This is because men of character appreciate differences of opinion and not taking things personal. However, Hamilton manifested good character by intentionally wasting his bullet and keeping his pre-duel promise by not shooting Burr. The spirited push for the establishment of permanent national capital along the Potomac River was a great fiscal policy that credits him with fighting for the welfare of the nation and not his personal political ambition. His support for Jefferson against Burr due to the latter’s ill intention shows his concern for the nation. According to Ellis (194) we can say with profound confidence that Aaron Burr was not a man of character based on his murder of Hamilton and treason accusation. He comes out as an arrogant man capable of doing anything to acquire power and retain power. Hunger for power is a vice that is not associated with men of character. Even after loosing his Vice-presidency in an election, he was still driven by personal political ambition to the extent of wanting to betray his own nation. This is evident in his conspiracy to steal Louisiana Purchase lands away from the United States and crown himself a King or Emperor (Ellis, 201) Before his election to presidency, Thomas Jefferson and James Adams forged a relationship that contributed immensely to the American nation. It is this good rapport that prompted Hamilton to prefer his candidacy to that of Burr. In spite of all these, his rebellion and disregard of other leaders for not working his way does not reflect his good character but he comes out as a person who prefers things to work out in his way. This can be illustrated by his opposition to George Washington’s policies which were regarded by many as being in the interest of the nation (Ellis, 240). He was also angered by John Adam’s win for presidency which made him to refuse Adam’s attempt to incorporate him into the cabinet. As a man of good character, he should have accepted the gratitude and acknowledgement extended by his friend to serve in the cabinet. This incident also shows that he allowed his personal political ambition to supersede the interest of the nation by refusing to serve in the cabinet. His acts of character assassination on John Adam reveal his hate and unethical conduct (Ellis, 343). However, Adam’s reaction warrants his consideration as a good man who was just trying to help the nation. From his policies and politics, Washington can be considered as a respectable politician who went beyond his personal political ambition to serve the nation. For instance, through the promotion of national unity and highlighting the danger of partisanship and party politics (Ellis, 256). On the issue of slave trade, all of these leaders stand accused especially Madison as a man who lacked character by promoting this form of oppression to develop their nation except Benjamin Franklin who spoke out against it while championing freedom for all (Ellis, 317) Conclusion. Looking at the early political days of the founding fathers, we can conclude that some of them had their personal political ambition that tarnished their good character while others maintained their ethical standards and respect while serving the nation. For instance, controlled by personal political ambition, Thomas Jefferson engaged in activities that eroded his character as a good man. This trend however changed in old age as he tried to repair his faults including reconciling with John Adams (Ellis, 406). From the above discussions, I can conclude that not all founding fathers were men of character who were not driven by personal political ambition. Work Cited Joseph J. Ellis (2001). Founding Brothers. New York: Wheeler Pub Inc.

Analysis Of Oedipus The King - 933 Words

Oedipus Cursing His Son, Polynices is a great work of art created by Henry Fuseli, in 1786. This painting was created in Fuseli’s homeland, Zurich, Switzerland. This painting has a powerful and dramatic purpose to it, and is very interesting to look at. The media of this painting is oil on canvas, and the paint is used loosely. The loose brushy style of the paint gives off the style of impressionism that brings the painting together. There is great historical and cultural context on this painting that refers to Greek mythology. Henry Fuseli s dramatic painting depicts an ancient Greek tragedy, King Oedipus discovered a horror that he murdered his father and married his mother. Oedipus blinded himself in contrition; Upset at his sons, Oedipus forced them to die in battle by each other s hand. He extends his arms to curse them, while Polynices draws back in shame and what is implied as pain from the curse. As for background information on the artist himself, Fuseli was encouraged by Reynolds in 1768 to become a painter. Fuseli traveled to Italy in 1770 to seek inspiration. Sculpture, Michelangelo, and mannerist art inspired him. Fuseli initiated his reputation when he returned to London in 1780. He dedicated most of his time and effort into paintings of Shakespearean themes, and became the leading mind of a group of inventive and experimental young artists. He was later elected an Associate of the Royal Academy of Arts in 1788, a full Academician in 1790, and Professor ofShow MoreRelatedAnalysis Of Oedipus The King 1127 Words   |  5 Pages For A Life Of Regrets Oedipus the King is a play written by Sophocles. Oedipus is the main figure and legend of Sophocles play. After Oedipus birth into the world, his father King Laius of Thebes heard from a prophet that his own child was destined to kill him. Sophocles play begins from past to present and starts to unravel the journeys Oedipus goes through. Oedipus isn t an evil character as one would think while reading the story. He neverRead MoreAnalysis Of Oedipus Oedipus The King 1152 Words   |  5 Pagesreading Oedipus the King. The number of times the words â€Å"see† or â€Å"blind† are in the play make it make it undeniably obvious that they are significant. The theme is developed throughout the dialogue, through characters such as Tiresias and Oedipus, and also directly in the irony of the play. It is important in a play about the truth because almost every character was â€Å"blind† to the truth. All of the characters, except one, can physically see, bu t mentally cannot see the truth. Oedipus seems toRead MoreCritical Analysis Of Oedipus The King1025 Words   |  5 PagesCritical Analysis: Oedipus the King Oedipus the King is a tragic play showing a shift from the belief of fate to freedom of choice. Therefore, Oedipus the king is a great example of those who run from fate ends up fulfilling their fate After reading this type of tragic play â€Å"Oedipus the King† written by Sophocles you can see that the author did a very outstanding form of presenting a tragedy that has the characteristics of mimesis and a tragic hero. Specifically, the writer written the playRead MoreOedipus the King Character Analysis1321 Words   |  6 PagesLancaster ENG230 11/25/2010 Oedipus the King Character Analysis Oedipus the King had accomplished many great things during his reign of Thebes and in his life time. Oedipus found out during his reign in Thebes that the Gods who loved him also knew his devastating fate. As a young man when Oedipus answered the riddle the Sphinx he soon found his self having everything want and need. He earned his spot as the new King of Thebes, he had a great wife and lovely set of childrenRead MoreAnalysis Essay: Oedipus the King1017 Words   |  4 Pages Casual Analysis Essay: Oedipus the King Sophocles play Oedipus the King has endured for over two thousand years. The plays lasting appeal may be attributed to the fact it encompasses all the classical elements of tragedy as put forth by Aristotle in Poetics nearly a century before it was written. According to Aristotle, tragedy needs to be an imitation of life according to the law of probability or necessity. Tragedy is serious, complete, and has magnitude. It must have a beginning, middleRead MoreOedipus The King Character Analysis1429 Words   |  6 Pages Mrs. Long-Goldberg Honors World Lit/Comp 26 September, 2017 Ignorance Can Lead to Great Agony Plays were of great importance in early Greek culture. Plays were the main source of entertainment, and one of the most prominent examples is Oedipus the King written by Sophocles. The drama is uplifted by the character development and excellent structure Sophocles has put forward. Interactions between characters and each character’s motivations generate brilliant themes throughout the play. SophoclesRead MoreCharacter Analysis Of Oedipus The King1419 Words   |  6 PagesAdhikari Mrs. Long-Goldberg Honors World Lit/Comp 26 September, 2017 Ignorance Can Lead to Great Agony Plays were of great importance in early Greek culture. Plays were the main source of entertainment, and one of the most prominent examples is Oedipus the King written by Sophocles. The drama is uplifted by the character development and excellent structure Sophocles has put forward. Interactions between characters and each character’s motivations generate brilliant themes throughout the play. SophoclesRead MoreOedipus The King Analysis1357 Words   |  6 PagesThe Greek play, Oedipus the King, shows how easy it is for a man to fall apart, while trying to make things right. Sophocles’ tragedy tells the story of Oedipus, a regular man turned king of Thebes. Throughout the tragedy, Oedipus searches for the cause of the chaos and havoc encompassing his land; however, he discovers that he is the one responsible for the hardships plaguing Thebes. As the tragedy continues, Sophocles’ exposes a dark side to power, fame, and ambition. Further, Sophocles’ expose sRead MoreAnalysis Of Oedipus The King 1696 Words   |  7 PagesDaKan Wei Professor Annjeanette Wiese HUMN 1110 1 October 2014 Fatalism in Oedipus the King Tragedy has always been considered the highest form of literature; Oedipus the King is written by Sophocles who is one of the three ancient Greek tragedians, it fully represents the enduring charm of the ancient Greek tragedy, leaving the reader endless thinking. Through Oedipus’ misfortune, Sophocles tries to reveal the cause of their tragedy is ubiquitous and ever-present fate,Read MoreAnalysis Of Oedipus The King1145 Words   |  5 PagesOedipus goes against the Chorus as he strongly defends himself as the people intensify his incrimination of killing the old king. Oedipus could not believe in his wildest dreams that he murdered his own father and was the husband of his mother. As an adopted runaway boy and a newfound king, he had to dig deep in his past to ease his burden. The Chorus’ incrimination of the King has brought the town into a downward spiral due to finding the real truth of the blind prophet. The relevance of Oedipus’