In the last class, I had trouble understanding what made the proletariat and the bourgeoisie different. I was thinking that any individual would agree with the claims of either side depending on their social standing. Someone who is a member of the proletariat might get lucky with something and make a lot of money and become a part of the bourgeoisie, thus his interests would go from those of the proletariat to those of the bourgeoisie, and this could happen vice-versa as well. The reason I bring this up is because it seems that none of these claims are universal, while Marx says the claims of the proletariat are universal. The only way I was able to justify Marx’s claim was that the proletariat will always have the bigger population, therefore they are the majority, which is similar, but not the same, as the universal.
So I let these ideas mull over in my mind for the past week and I think I’ve sort of figured out what Marx could mean, but I might still be wrong. Maybe what Marx is suggesting is that what the proletariat claims is what all people claim. The proletariat wants to claim for itself what all individuals need to survive. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, only wants to claim for itself extra superfluous things that are in addition to the necessities; commodities that are not needed but are sought after and valued higher than humans and their work.
I guess I could try to put this into everyday terms. The proletariat struggles to obtain the necessities such as food, shelter, water, and so on. While the proletariat struggles to obtain these things, the bourgeoisie already have these things, and in abundance. Since the bourgeoisie does not need to claim these things, they claim extra things, things they don’t need. The bourgeoisie claims material objects that they value over the individuals who make them. These individuals are the proletariat who have been alienated from their work. This is what Marx describes as the increased value of things and the decreased value of workers.
So basically the proletariat’s claims are universal because they try to claim the necessities of human life. The bourgeoisie’s claims are not universal because what they try to claim are material possessions that are hardly necessary. While the proletariat claims the universal, the alienation of labor forces them to work in factories on something which is hardly universal that only the bourgeoisie will enjoy. The bourgeoisie already claims those things the proletariat is trying to claim, so they see these things as granted or unimportant because they are presupposed for their condition. I could be wrong though.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you have an interesting point, and your interpretation of this issue may not be mutually exclusive. The way in which I interpreted this issue is as follows: the proletariat class is essentially defined as the class which is oppressed, the bourgeoisie class is that class which essentially oppresses, thus when someone suffers, from any class, their claim of being wronged is voiced by the proletariat class, and in this manner the claims of the proletariat class are universal.
ReplyDeleteI, too, had/have an issue understanding this concept. While the proletariat class does make claims that apply to all humans (the need of food, fair treatment, shelter - things that you mentioned, Kip), I don't necessarily see how these claims are universal. Perhaps we are looking at the issue a little to literally - maybe instead of the proletariat's claims being universally accepted and recognized, maybe they are just universal truths that lie deeper within a human being's consciousness that need not be recognized by wealthier classes, as long as they are essentially true.
ReplyDeleteI'm also confused, but am inclined to agree with Kip. I think that Marx's distinction between the universal claim of the proletariat and the, I guess, contingent claim of the bourgeoisie is based on some definition of man. While the proletariat is making claims that deal with our essence (whatever this essence is), the bourgeoisie's claims have been perverted by their position. They are no longer the timeless claims of mankind, but rather they're claims that exist only because of a certain condition—for instance, the current economic position of the bourgeoisie. If the situation was different, and that economic position changed, then the claims would also change.
ReplyDeleteKip, I have also been trying to define exactly what Marx was referring to when he suggest that the proletariat make "universal" claims. I think you have a good interpretation that the universal claims are the necessary claims for human life. The bourgeoisie then make superfluous claims that are beyond their basic needs. Paul has a good interpretation as well, but I feel that it would be hard to define the line of oppression. To some extent, everyone feels oppressed by something and it would create a proletariat class that does not fully represent the distinction between social status's that Marx wanted to represent.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the differentiation that you have decided upon. The bourgeoisie already has a base of universal needs that they have already claimed thus they do not ask or make a claim for such things. The proletariat however lack this base and hence have to ask for the universal needs that are necessities for human [comfortable] life. I think this is a very fair reading of Marx distinction between the two groups.
ReplyDelete