When we discussed the Decembrist movement in class on Monday, we agreed that it was different from other revolutions. I believe these differences made the revolution unsuccessful. The biggest problem was that there was not enough support behind it. In this revolution, only the noble men participated; it was not a revolution for the noble to have more power. Instead, it was a revolution to give more power and wealth to the peasants. This was one of the first revolutions in history that was started for unselfish reasons and I believe that it is why they did not have support of all the nobles. Another problem was that they failed to get support from the peasants.
I believe the inflexibility of the Monarchy during the 19th century led to the radical change of the communist revolution. I believe that if some concessions were made in Russia, like in other countries, instead of the never-ending oppression then the communist revolution may have never happened. I believe the people that headed the revolution believed they could not take this oppression anymore, and felt it was the only way. Since they had been oppressed for so long and given no concessions, they took the most extreme anti-monarchy and anti-noble ideas.
I believe this is the reason that no other country had a communist revolution like Russia. All the other countries in Europe ended their serfdom and put in place a capitalist economy. They also somewhat gave into the lower class. I believe that the words of Karl Marx had extra meaning to them due to the fact they were given nothing. As they read his words they were better able to relate to what he was saying over people of other countries.
The way I look at Karl Marx is someone who is an instigator. I feel like if there was a Communist Revolution attempted while he was still alive, he would not take any blame for the occurrences saying that all he did was write a book about what he thought would happen, not what should happen. I believe his “scientific” way of looking at what happened is crap. He just saw one example and applied it to the future saying that it was inevitable. In sciences classes, you learn not to assume things are going to happen. You must first test and then retest; also having your peers test your work before you can say that it is a definite. If you do not retest and have other people test your work, you are made to look like a foul when you are wrong. This is the case with Karl Marx. I feel like Karl Marx enjoyed stirring people up, but would never have taken the leadership role if need be.
Today at the end of class, the question was asked if Karl Marx was wrong then why does nobody in here want to work in a factory. I know people who have worked in factories, and they say it is not that bad, and the pay is good. I know many people today would love to have a factory job. Today, a factory job entails that you will get paid well, no need for a college education, and good benefits. A lot of Michigan’s jobs were factory jobs, and everybody who lost their factory would like it back. I think there is still a bad image of working in a factory, which is not true anymore. For not having a college degree, a factory job is a great option. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, factory jobs were very common. I watch That 70s Show a lot, and when Red (the father of the family) loses his factory job, it takes a long time for him to find another job of close to equal pay. I think factory jobs would be looked at more favorably if they were more common today and the majority had not been sent overseas for cheaper labor.
Yeah, Marx was definitely short-sided in assuming that labor was continually debased in capitalism. In fact, there's been alot of improvement in the conditions of workers since the mid 19th century when Marx was writing. I'll admit, a factory job is not really my dream occupation. But I'm sure at some point in my family history, there were factory workers, and they were able to successively improve their lot over the generations under capitalism. There is room to get ahead in capitalism, it's not a one-way path to alienation and oppression as Marx and Engels theorize.
ReplyDeleteKevin-While I believe in many of the things you mentioned about revolutions and Marxism . I do however want further discuss your statements regarding factory work and manual labor. Firstly, you must remember that America has the golden standard. When Marx and Engels wrote the manifesto they were mostly discussing issues dealing with the working class abroad. That being sad , I think that even though working conditions in factories across America are better today, there are still many deplorable working conditions around the world. I still wouldn't work in a factory however...that IS why I go to college = better standard of living
ReplyDeleteKevin, I agree that Marx had more of a way with words, than a strong argument based in scientific fact. He was going to twist history in any way he had to, in order to make his theory right. So much for that theory. I also agree with you that a factory job isn't necessarily a bad thing, and not just because our economy is in the deep end of the pool. I wish we still had a strong manufacturing base in the United States, with jobs to be filled by skilled workers. Not everybody wants a white collar jobe. Some people enjoy making something, and leaving work at work.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting post. I completely agree that Marx was an instigator but I'm not sure that I agree that he would be unwilling to claim the results of such a revolution. (Although most pure Marxists argue that what happened in Russia was not a true Communist Revolution since Russia had not yet truly industrialized or passed through the bourgeois phase of its revolution.)
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate your defense of factory work in the United States. I would agree that factory work, especially skilled work in the 50s, 60s and 70s represented "good jobs" that paid well, provided job security and benefits, they are also relatively monotonous. In Marx's theory, regardless of how 'desirable' those jobs might appear, they do not change the balance of power between the worker and the bourgeois capitalist nor do they emancipate the worker.