Bourgeoisie Vs Proletariat

Introduction

A renowned philosopher, sociologist, revolutionist, historian, economist, and journalist known as Karl Heinrich Marx was seen as the most influential figure in the 19th century. Marx, born on May 5, 1818, came from a middle-class family background in Trier, Germany, and died in North London on March 14, 1883, leaving a legacy to his name as the greatest socialist thinker as quoted from Friedrich Engels eulogy on March 17, 1883 during Karl Marx’s funeral: “His name will endure through the ages, and so also will his work.” With an inquisitive and idealistic sociological thinking coupled with devotion and commitment to witness a radical social transformation and understanding real humanism in the society, Marx argued that the only

Bourgeoisie, also known as the oppressor or capitalist class, consisted of the minority group but having the most wealth, power and authority in control of the production and labour; whereas the Proletariat, which consisted of the masses lacking in wealth, power and authority are mainly addressed as the working class or the oppressed. As a result, this differences in the classes led to exploitation, unfairness, inequality, and alienation. In Marx’s dialectical materialism perspective, he views class conflict as the catalyst for social development, and society is composed of dynamic processes which could be prominently seen through the technology advancement in historical economic production systems leading to an increase in scale of production and more effective production methods by the usage of complex machinery. Marx went on to explain capitalism as a system of private property and ownership, where it is a free trade society involving the commodification of material goods and human labour, ultimately to gain profits. Marx reinforced his theory of capitalism by the fundamental influence of the superstructure of society, which is religion and the German Ideology. He illustrated with “the religion is the opium of the masses” (A Contribution to

However, he mentioned that the capitalist society disrupted this cooperative process, giving the example of an office setting whereby the workers, in order to survive and sustain their career, are being forced to compete with one another and even resulting to conflicts just to gain additional rewards or to satisfy the capitalist in terms of their working performance. Furthermore, the technological advancement has resulted to isolation and little social interaction among workers in an assembly production industry, whereby the variable of productivity is dependent on the performance of the workers in the use of machinery. This hostility and isolation among workers created the alienation between fellow workers.

Own Human Potential

Lastly, the alienation of workers from own human potential is derived from the notion that workers do not feel themselves during work. With the advancements in technology such as machinery, the individual capability of workers are being compromised, such that they rely heavily on the use of machines, and their human nature are being manipulated, orchestrated and scripted. Therefore, the workers are alienated as they are incapable to demonstrate their individual human qualities in the nature of