Seminar Paper / The Outsider (Albert Camus)

HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF JOURNALISM
SEMINAR PAPER
The Outsider by Albert Camus

The Outsider (or The Stranger) is a novel (1942) written by Nobel Prize for Literature (1957) Albert Camus and is often cited as one of the greatest philosophical novels of the 20th century, due to its role in existentialist, nihilist and deterministic propositions.
The plot is based around the crime and incarceration of Meursault an Algerian man that killed an Arab who threatened him with a knife, the story is divided in two parts and is narrated by Meursault himself who describes through his life the days previous to his incarceration and his life after it, with certain pragmatism.
The philosophy behind this novel is nothing short of an existentialism masterpiece with various inclinations towards absurdism. The main themes are characterized by a clear paradox, straight forward in Meursault’s attitude throughout the novel; his carelessness and lack of empathy suggest that he is aware he has no freedom and he shows himself to be indifferent towards the moral appeal that most of our society is accustomed to, for instance: drinking coffee at his mother´s funeral, describing guests rather than his feelings or by establishing a relationship of sexual interest with an ex-employee merely a day after his mother’s death. The paradox is mirrored by the idea that perhaps he is free of a moral condition and therefore can take those decisions in consideration, freely choosing to do what suits him best without any sentimental repercussions.
Camus was a very straight forward nihilist, his points of view personified in Meursault’s actions reflect the existentialist point of view; where some might critique the fact that the main character is not emotionally disabled by the loss of his mother and rather establish instead a sexual bond with a woman, the nihilist subjectivist might see an appropriate opportunity to enjoy one’s desires, the close encounter with death might have shown Meursault his very own mortality and thus he decides to enjoy himself in any shape or form he pleases, freed from a moral conditioning. The point of this novel lies within this very argument; the proposition of a man that does not follow a social contract nor cares about his integration in society, thus the title ‘the outsider’, more personified in the fact that Meursault is Algerian and not French, lives on French colonial soil yet he belongs somewhere else, a more physical example of his conditioning.
This leads to a second theme within the novel which is Colonialism, this latter one seems to be a more superficial topic in the novel, yet important nonetheless. The Arabs have no name, and Meursault kills an Arab who he doesn’t care about nor knows his name, his crime is emphasised by the fact he did not care who he killed and it proposes the idea that the Arabic society was segregated and disregarded for.
My personal interpretation is that Camus chose the right “victim” for Meursault´s crime, as I thought ‘why should a careless man, care for a man who is disregarded by his own society?’
The philosophy within this novel is quite syntagmatic; the first part is surrounded by absurdism, Meursault only follows his life through a physical and experiential sense, and he does not assume responsibility for his actions or the consequences of such, his reasoning for the killing of an Arab man was simply due to the uncomfortable heat he was under whilst walking across the beach, and the murder is contemplated as a mere occurrence, something that “happens”, yet in the second part once he faces trial and becomes aware of the possibility of being executed he then faces an introspective of himself and assumes his mortality and the responsibility of his own life.
Once again we come back to the theme of freedom in which the character only assumes his responsibility once he is forced to, once he doesn’t have the freedom to experience since he is locked up in jail. Camus uses Meursault as an example of the way our irrationality can work, free of conditions pushing one to fulfil our desires yet the moment we face a barrier or a limitation we are forced to analyse our actions and act consequently to that new condition.
The second part of the book is focused more on the philosophy behind the arbitrariness of justice and society, Meursault is asked to repent and pretend he is a Christian in order to be absolved by the judge, yet he denies his self-preservation by maintaining a religious honesty. The proposition behind this dilemma seems uncertain but I believe that Camus wanted to show Meursault’s independence above what seemed ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. At no time there is a slight suggestion of empathy from Meursault to the Arab he killed, or is there anywhere in the novel a reference to his family or what he left behind, simply Meursault’s decision of accepting his responsibility instead of living a ‘free’ life in which he classified himself wrongly, it is merely absurd and selfish proposal yet meaningful to the nihilist perspective. In the end Meursault finds comfort in his death, his reasoning is somewhat uncertain and that shows a perseverance within the character’s true identity, since the argument of existentialism would be a farce if this changed before the contemplation of death. Albert Camus criticises the use of capital punishment as the paradox of a justice system which enforces the very action which once condemned, a slightly cynical approach proposing that perhaps one is free only through living and dying to its convictions instead of a hypocritical change of attitudes to stick to life, an existentialist frame used by similar thinkers such as Nietzsche or Sartre.

SEMINAR PAPER / The Origins of Totalitarianism

HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF JOURNALISM
SEMINAR PAPER

THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM
BY HANNAH ARENDT.

This seminar paper’s intention is to summarise and analyse Hannah Arendt’s book on Totalitarianism published in 1951. Arendt’s work compiles the elements and origins of totalitarianism, puts them into context and explains their history and methodology thoroughly. Nazism and Stalinism are the two main totalitarian movements which the book is focused on and how throughout the 20^th century it has served as a philosophical analysis of totalitarianism.

Analysis on Chapter 13
Ideology and Terror: A Novel form of Government

Summary

In this chapter, Arendt determines the roots of the ideology and methodology of Totalitarianism. Her interpretation of totalitarianism is the following.

1.      Hannah Arendt determines that Totalitarianism is a different form of oppression, specifying that it does not necessarily mean it’s a dictatorship or a tyranny a government that is totalitarian rather that shares similar values: “total domination is not only more drastic but that totalitarianism differs essentially from other forms of political oppression known to us such as despotism, tyranny and dictatorship.”

2.      It establishes a connection with the masses in which there is a shift of ‘power’ and ‘influence’. The source and true power will always remain in the governing body but nonetheless the feeling of community is trying to be created in order to make the people feel that it is their power that matters. Oppression through absolute mass manipulation: “totalitarian government always transformed classes into masses, supplanted the party system, not by one-party dictatorships, but by a mass movement, shifted the center of power from the army to the police,”

3.      Totalitarianism is but the fusion of certain criteria in oppressed terror channelled towards a population that it’s controlled. This control and this modus operandi have a source and have a ‘natural’ process, which it’s a metamorphosis of several oppressive political factors as well as violent instruments of tyranny and despotism. However there is a concept of collision between both ideas, there can be no blank nature of totalitarianism if its creation implies a fusion of preconceived ideas. “Which borrows its methods of intimidation, its means of organization and its instruments of violence from the well-known political arsenal of tyranny, despotism and dictatorships, and owes its existence only to the deplorable, but perhaps accidental failure of the traditional political forces—liberal or conservative, national or socialist, republican or monarchist, authoritarian or democratic. Or whether, on the contrary, there is such a thing as the nature of totalitarian government, whether it has its own essence and can be compared with and defined like other forms of government such as Western thought has known and recognized since the times of ancient philosophy.”

4.      Totalitarianism is a relatively new concept. “If we apply these findings, whose fundamental idea, despite many variations, did not change in the two and a half thousand years that separate Plato from Kant, we are tempted at once to interpret totalitarianism as some modern form of tyranny, which is a lawless government where power is wielded by one man. Arbitrary power, unrestricted by law, yielded in the interest of the ruler and hostile to the interests of the governed, on one hand, fear as the principle of action, namely fear of the people by the ruler and fear of the ruler by the people, on the other these have been the hallmarks of tyranny throughout our tradition.”

5.      An analysis on the certain violent methods of totalitarianism to destroy the unnecessary and weak.

6.      Rule by fear. Totalitarianism destroying humanitarian morality and redefining or turning into ‘obsolete’ ideas of notions such as empathy. “Guilt and innocence become senseless notions; "guilty" is he who stands in the way of the natural or historical process which has passed judgment over "inferior races", over individuals "unfit to live," over "dying classes and decadent peoples." Terror executes these judgments, and before its court, all concerned are subjectively innocent: the murdered because they did nothing against the system and the murderers because they do not really murder but execute a death sentence pronounced by some higher tribunal.”

7.      Very arbitrary man made law. Emphasis in the control of man over mankind and the masses, the power lies on the men who have decided to abuse it.

8.      An objectivist education without convictions, and aggressive form of interpretation shared by all but enforced and chosen by one.

9.      Alternative to deism, subjective theology that is only based in an ideology of the totalitarian government.

10.  A redefinition and shaping of logic, a pattern of new sense in rationality.

11.  Explanation of Totalitarian rules in which enforced compulsion against man’s thoughts takes place. A philosophical explaination to an aggressive submission based on the countless interactions that disable one’s abilities to introspect and determine whether the information one is receiving is incorrect or if one is simply against it.

12.  Lastly establishing a paradigm between isolation, loneliness and solitude. Different restrictions, physical and emotional that are side effects (in the slightest form) of a totalitarian control, a mass that is isolated, of a lonely education and evoking man’s feeling of solitude within himself, a very deep introspective of emotional side effects of a conditioning form of oppression that seeks to unite man, once separated from himself. “Loneliness is not solitude. Solitude requires being alone whereas loneliness shows itself most sharply in company with others. Apart from a few stray remarks—usually framed in a paradoxical mood like Cato's statement (reported by Cicero, De Re Publico, I, 17): numquam minus solum esse quam cum solus esset, "never was he less alone than when he was alone," or. rather, "never was he less lonely than when he was in solitude"—it seems that Epictetus. the emancipated slave philosopher of Greek origin, was the thirst to distinguish between loneliness and solitude.”

Commentary

This chapter represents a perfect symbiosis between an analysis that dwells with the most superficial of characteristics and yet the deepest of introspective of emotion and ideological response. Hannah Arendt may have not considered herself more than a political theorist but her interpretations and synchronization to both classical and modern forms of philosophy made her an eloquent and outstanding philosopher.

Her definition of Totalitarianism is well addressed, her historical research in the previous chapters gave her the right ideas to establish certain propositions such as Totalitarianism being the collective concentration of several forms of oppression united under a violent methodology of control and aggressive self-centred education, and yet the possibility of having found the ‘nature’ of this despotic form of government that was created upon itself, the development of various decisions to control the masses based on a fundamental criteria of control and tyranny.

Nevertheless, its intentions are clear. The masses have to controlled, but not only controlled through a modus operandi which is self-evidently oppressive but rather subtle through certain forms of manipulation. Manipulation is a key tool in Totalitarianism, and when it comes to assessing Totalitarianism and the power of manipulation as the shaper and crafter of a united governed culture Nazism and Stalinism collided greatly. The intention of the following examples is to fulfil the historical context that the previous chapters of the book were using to assess Totalitarianism; Adolf Hitler was a mastermind of manipulation and so was his right hand Joseph Goebbels. Their use of propaganda, speeches, rallies, unified sentiment of pride and glory with modern technologies and a rightful exploitation of such gave the means for the national-socialist party to manipulate thoroughly a strong spirited but weak and poor German society. Whereas Stalin, though persuasive as he was he did not control Russia so much through his charisma but rather than his furious and intolerant power, his imprisonment methods, his ruthless army and secret police, which leads to the alternative form of Totalitarianism which to a certain degree is the core essence of this form of oppression, Rule by fear:

Totalitarianism has been found to be, according to Hannah Arendt as a new concept of oppression, regardless of its origins as a fusion of many or a new concept, the principal theory is that Totalitarianism is new, however its methods may not all be new such as a the simple fear factor; Ruling by fear has been man’s main initiative of domination against a weaker subjugate, the fear to retaliation and consequent punishment by the subject in power has been and will always be the most efficient source of persuasion, and many civilizations before ours knew this. It is inherent in man-kind to sustain power through fear.

Arendt follows to discuss more specific matters like the destruction of morality, the creation of newer forms of logic, the idealisation of a different cause. All these methods are of an extremely aggressive nature, being aware that education on its own is a passive-aggressive form of interpretation and knowledge shaping, preconceived ideas from other sources being constantly repeated to the masses until they embrace, accept and understand them can be of grievous consequences when the aim is not to proliferate the subjectivism and self-development of one self but rather follow the strict passion and doctrine of one governing body. One objective truth that is spread evenly and unilaterally across a nation, fundamentalism based in the opinions of few who are willing to enforce any type of punishment upon those who decide to reject it.

Totalitarianism defies not only the humanitarian, liberal empathy that it’s also inherent in human kind but also its nature, and the laws of nature. The liberation from the weak, the destruction of the impaired is of the essence; The third Reich was keen and eagerly pleased to get rid of the handicapped community euthanizing thousands of people, expressing the ideas that this was their law of nature, this was the best option for the community, a community that sought productivity beyond any attachment to its own citizens, where anyone weaker than a certain standard was expendable. Stalinism was not far from this concept using their own people in the Second World War having no regard whatsoever to the individual citizens who were seen as shield for bullets designed to kill more Russian people. The defence in Stalingrad was accomplished after several million people were massacred by both German and Russian troops alike; a fearful soldier that ran from his troops was more likely to get killed by his staff sergeant (in communist ranking system) than by a German soldier. Ultimately we are discussing the ideas that individualism was rejected, and that did not exclude any measure that included killing your own citizens. Arendt narrates a nature similar to that of Friedrich Nietzsche’s superhuman theory, a theory so passionately embraced by Adolf Hitler, which she did not mention but I myself see so much resemblance in. Nietzsche’s ideas, and the way Hitler indoctrinated his government upon, reflect that perhaps Arendt’s idea of Totalitarianism having its own nature was correct, the fusion and evolution of different ideas interpreted by different men led to transform a passion for power into Totalitarianism using tools of other propositions by other thinkers.

Arendt’s final contemplation on human loneliness and solitude is remarkable, she escalates through totalitarian repression of emotion and isolation to a Greek tragic, into a question that started long before Totalitarian states, propositions of where does one find his place, where does one abandon solitude? And once this solitude is abandoned does that imply that there shall be no feeling of loneliness? Regardless if this man or men are isolated from another group. The separation of the individual first from his own feelings and sentiments, then from his group, society or culture and this culture being isolated on its own, this classification process is a contemporary form of the Roman-Egyptian Agora, the circles of the ‘self’ beyond one’s self.

Arendt’s conclusion transcends the initial encounter of this chapter from specific introspective political theory into the most relevant and rational philosophical proposition, and it reminds readers that regardless of the oppressive form of government that may rule one’s physical body, one’s education, we shall leave this world the same way in which we have arrived; alone. An excellent analogy using a ‘tragic’ sense of introspection of man’s lonely path of solitude enforced by a contemporary form of emotional dis-attachment.

Seminar Paper

This is the copy of my second seminar paper based on Karl Marx's communist manifesto:

SEMINAR PAPER

KARL MARX’S COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

I -- BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS

Karl Marx explains in the first chapter of his communist manifesto his ideas of social division.
Though he is aware of other social classes he compiles the western population between two main conceptual classes: Bourgeois and Proletarians.

Using these two social distinctions he expresses the following ideas:

1.       Society’s social classes descend from the concept of oppression. There are those who are oppressed and those who oppress others. The Bourgeoisie is the minority that oppresses the majority which is the Proletariat. “The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.”

2.       Industry and those who own the methods of its exploitation are in charge of the oppression of the working class, the proletarians who compete against one another to earn better wages and survive as a middle working class. This is a derivative of the middle ages and its feudal system, where it was once land and property the field of work now transformed into the industrial field. “The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer suffices for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed aside by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop. Meantime, the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturers no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, MODERN INDUSTRY; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.”

3.       This division in society was the result of a revolution in itself. A revolution that brought change to the way man exploits its resources and applies them to benefit and earn capital. Karl Marx is very keen, insisting that the initiation in social change comes from revolution. “We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.” / “The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.”

4.       Marx explains how the only liaison between social classes is money and capital. The relationship between proletarians to bourgeois is almost symbiosis; where one couldn’t exist without the other. The existence of both classes is concepts deriving from the pursuit of capital which vary in quantity and influence. The bourgeoisie does not have the small and short term aspirations of the proletarians, their incentive are wages where the bourgeoisie wants to exploit the free market and have ambitions of expansion and control. A very feudal concept, which will lead them to ‘globalize’ the planet. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.”

5.       Marx talks about the influence of the bourgeoisie and the way their pursuit influences society, to such extent that even family and its status quo finds itself affected. “The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation.”

6.       There are vague, basic steps of globalisation and technological enhancement throughout the globe mentioned in his manifesto, quite remarkably it’s almost as he could foresee the present 21^st century. “The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.”

7.       The economical interpretation in this chapter is clearly noticeable. Marx exposed various ideas of production and the way it affects society. This first chapter is as thorough in the anthropological field as it is in the economical; it was an essential point to mention since the ultimate core of this manifesto is to demonstrate how society circumnavigates around the concept of profit and capital. Marx doesn’t hesitate to express his insecurity about the results that will bring a possibly misguided bourgeoisie. “Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past, the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, is periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of over-production.”

8.       After explaining the root, the source of its ambition, the process it follows to sustain itself and the flaws of its modus operandi Marx follows the same doctrine with the proletariat, explaining their development into middle class, their conditions as working class and their dependency not only on one another but on their oppressors too. However, being the majority of people and given their strength not only in numbers but morally and even physically they find themselves to have the upper hand. The working class has every mean to free themselves from their oppressors. Nevertheless, the constant competition, the fear and confusion that springs from lower wages or unemployment, fermented by rage can lead into riots, the physical expression of a disappointed working class. “But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, makes the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.”

9.       Moreover, as Marx analysis the implications of riots and the moral mobility they propose he acknowledges the fact that this can even move the bourgeoisie itself and aid the working class. Just as it happened in the feudal Middle Ages where a small proportion of Nobility would join the uprising class for a righteous reason. “Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.”

10.   Finally, Marx explains his ideas about the proletariat having the key to the revolution. Even if the bourgeoisie is the result of a or various revolutions the working class is that which will bring the new change, given their conditions, their needs, their numbers and their oppression they become the ones holding the means to revolt. Social revolt. “The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay, more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If, by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests; they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.”

Commentary:

Dividing classes into two main social conditions is a useful and simplistic way of visualizing society. You are either one or the other, and mostly everyone is part of the proletarians. This division favours Marx and his ideas, he is not contempt or satisfied with the bourgeoisie and he harvests a lot of anger against their social quo. However, it is important not to fade away with Marx malice towards the higher class, at least not entirely. The bourgeoisie are just as victims of their time and condition as the proletarians themselves. The higher upper class as Marx well composes descends from the ancestral lineage of a feudal system that never changed its philosophy, only the field and the means in which to achieve their pursuit. Property and capital from profit has been and always will be their condition, it is not a feudal, capitalistic or a social derivative but a condition of man, his ambition and his greed. Marx has every right to say that the proletarians are an oppressed class by the bourgeoisie, nevertheless the oppression is more transcendental than the pseudo-physical oppression from higher to middle and lower class, the true oppressor is man’s greed, ambition or desire. All classes are not mutually corresponding or entirely symbiotic; simply share the same pursuit which is capital, property and profit. The means however, is what Marx clearly sees and accuses of unjust, where if the path to obtain profit was a river the higher class travels on board a huge ship powered by the strength of thousands of slaves who row nonstop. These classes need one another; there will always be a captain on board and dozens of sailors and slaves that will follow his command and that of the first mate. Moreover, Marx has rightly suggested that given the number and strength of those at the bottom of the chain of command found they unhappy have the right to mutiny or coup, and righteously so but where there is contempt, satisfaction or lack of the will to change revolution will not spring. Lastly, it is remarkable and almost impossible to not recognise Marx’s ideas of globalisation triggered by expansion to the free market, there is no doubt that his ideas and his experience understanding man’s revolution with himself led him to foresee conditions that would not change in the slightest. He, who doesn’t learn from history, will always be condemned to repeat it.

II -- PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS

Chapter 2 establishes the link between the Proletarians and the Communists and their mutual pursuit. Marx bonds this socio-political class through the following ideas:

1.       The pursuit and ideas of the proletariat and the communist ideas are the same. They share the same goal and it’s a political party that fuels from the strength of the working class. “The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.”

2.       He establishes a new order of property control and capital. Replacing land earned through the capitalist way of wage labor and given to the middle class as social class land. Capital must be somehow shared among the social classes in a way that it doesn’t make anyone stronger, therefore equal amounts. “When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.”

3.       Marx proposes that the hard worker will find himself compensated by working in the communist way of society, where he was once rewarded in capital the benefit of his work will be the proliferation of his social class and his community. “In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.”

4.       His ideas of property become more thorough and the concept of private property where one exploits in his personal benefit, i.e. with rent or having different types of labour will disappear. There will not be land more or less exploited; there will not be land that takes advantage of rent. As land is controlled by the communist its uses will be the same and their exploitation will be equal. Land will still provide products, their exploitative result will not cease to exist but the way this result is achieved will. “From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.”

5.       There are 10 points almost as a communist constitution explaining different legislations and regulations or (no regulations) in the new communist society. Some of which certain developed countries apply nowadays.

6.       Lastly Marx wishes to express his ideas of social class rivalry disappearing in the communist society; there will be no political or social distinction, therefore competition, and servitude or antagonist status quo. “When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.”

Commentary:

This section shows the initial state of the new communist society and values. Some would argue that they are more idealistic and utopic than Marx would claim but I beg to differ; many of the values such as free education, centralized governments, fixed taxation, balance between agriculture and industry already exist, nevertheless that doesn’t mean that the Marxist methods have been applied, there are certain values that are shared but Marx’s interpretation of a nation state has never existed, regardless of what previous USSR leaders might claim.

The communist party reasonably represents the proletariat; clearly a party must be there to represent the values of a huge majority which is the working class and those below who wish to join it. However, the different capabilities of different people, regardless if they are in the same working conditions make a huge difference to the production they bring within society. Ultimately this is the flaw within communism; a country can treat everyone, pay everyone and share with everyone in the same way but people are not the same they only act or do something in the same patterns but a man is equal in fairness and treatment not in understanding and evolution, not even in strength. Communism cannot defeat that natural law, there will always be a ‘better’ or smarter or more corrupt person, someone that will separate himself from the flock. Nevertheless, it is completely understandable that within the treatment and fairness they receive from the nation state they must be equals regardless of their capabilities, therefore communism must be essentially the equilibrium between human capability and aspirations and proportion of property, human rights and fair treatment.

 

III -- SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST LITERATURE

In this section Karl Marx differentiates various fields in society (through literature) in which communism and socialism is applied. The different ideas he uses to argument socialist and communist literature to his modern fields are the following:

1.       Reactionary Socialism, Conservative Socialism and Critical or Utopic Socialism will be the derivatives from Communist literature and each of them is expressed in a different form showing how they are relevant to the socialist and communist ways of understanding.

2.       Reactionary Socialism: A division between feudal, petty-bourgeois and German or ‘true’ socialism. The Feudal socialism is explained through aristocracy and their decision to concede public control of their lands. The same way the French revolution took what was once from the aristocracy and become owned by the people. The Christian ideas will easily be reflected upon socialism by which the private property shall be released from the control of the bourgeois and provide it to the proletarian.
The petty-bourgeois socialism will tackle the minority of bourgeois that control the vast agriculture and working class, like in France. The private sector cannot be controlled by a small majority that doesn’t even belong to the group who is being exploited. The German, more truthful (according to Marx) socialism has an easier job since the bourgeoisie at the time was less powerful than in other countries. The French revolution was a ‘translation’ into the German philosophy and way of thinking and slowly helped to eradicate an existent 16^th century bourgeois class.

3.       Conservative Socialism is the ideology of those who cannot help the idea of socialism in society, they seem more resilient to change and are willing to try to keep their property, their ideas of sustainability through ideas living off ‘easier’ work and maintaining as much as possible of a more conservative, once achievable capitalist society. Those who will try to remain bourgeois will remain bourgeois but one way or another it will be for the good of the working class. Their ideas of appropriation and expansion will only suffice if they benefit the working class. “It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois -- for the benefit of the working class.”

4.       Lastly, the Communist more utopian ideal of society and its critic. Citing different authors who Marx identifies to take part in the more idealistic communism, that which will create a nation state of epic proportions, a ‘New Jerusalem’ a promised land that will not be part of reality but always a dream. He mentions ideas of revolution trough peace, something quite idealistic and little it has to do with a realistic approach to the proletariat.

Ultimately, Marx explains that one cannot create a ‘fantastical’ nation state when the proletarians are so undeveloped.

“Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position, correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society.”

Commentary:

Marx is wise by defining different situations of contemporary understanding towards communism. Society’s approach has never been that of a communist ideal therefore flawlessness is as utopic as it could ever be, meaning that there will be huge discrepancies and problems that occur from the new concept. Socialism will not be embraced with the same fervour or passion and it will not be interpreted in the same way.

Marx was able to recognise that there are so that are still attached to the conservative feudal systems and those who give up their noble titles in order to achieve a greater cause or simply adapt to a new ‘epoch’ of different capital understandings.

Some of his divisions though as a title they make a lot of sense and allow one to create sub-categories of the same branch they still become slightly confusing. We are not part of Marx’s time, we belong to a different revolution almost two centuries later therefore our understanding of Marxism, pure Marxism is highly interpretational.

Karl Marx was able to understand that even if socialism is the solution to social conflict, from socialism will derive more social conflict. In essence to extinguish a hazardous fire another fire must be set ablaze which will eventually calm, fade out and leave a rewarding remainder which is the free and equalitarian society Marx wishes to achieve.

Very politically correct he reassures he doesn’t speak of utopian communism, he doesn’t want to convince anybody that what he wishes to accomplish comes from his fantasy but rather his ethical logic. He wants to tackle problems of an undeveloped proletariat which cannot aspire even to think of an utopian society so far, not even of a more just one therefore it is required from him to create a division, between the communism he wishes to make, the one which is possibly to install and that which is lost in fantasy and vagueness and he managed so.

 

IV -- POSITION OF THE COMMUNISTS IN RELATION TO

THE VARIOUS EXISTING OPPOSITION PARTIES

The last section of his manifesto, (excluding the prefaces to the different editions). Through the following ideas Karl Marx situates communism in relation to the various existing opposition parties:

1.       This section is exclusively of political affairs. Marx relates himself to other parties of the world that sustain the same ideals or possible ideals with communism such as “Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.”

2.       The political approach is thorough, there are various groups of political parties that could represent the ideals of socialism and Marx targets them across Europe.

3.       Marx explains how Germany is going through their own bourgeois revolution and how soon they’ll expand their control soon spreading their influence across Europe.

4.       Inspiring Proletarians of all countries to unite, Marx announces his ideas that all communist around the globe share the same ideas, they are equal no matter where. “Proletarians of all countries unite!”

Commentary:

Briefly the last chapter but not less significant is this section a summoning of political awareness to the entire communist in Eurasia and possibly the rest of the world. A humble call of action to the proletariat in general, Marx assembles the working class of Germany, France, England, Switzerland and America under a banner of socialism with confidence. He speaks of their affiliations to other parties that represent the bourgeoisie and recognizes that merging with those who don’t want to change will not bring any type of revolution to the system. Those who wish to maintain their power only seek to create coalitions with emerging powers to keep a closer control and surveillance. The proletariat have an insurgency of their own, a goal of their own and their merging enthusiasm is only their inability to proclaim their own sovereignty, I am sure that Marx was aware of that. He encouraged them to seek strength and asylum among one another, among the other proletariat insurgents all over the world, the working class is universal. Marx inspires an idea of globalization that perhaps we are only just witnessing for the first time with Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain and Libya’s revolt where the proletariat, not singlehandedly without the bourgeoisie are proclaiming their authority, requesting a government that doesn’t rule through fear but through the consent of those governed a request very approximate to Marx’s socialist understanding. There is no doubt that his ideas have been transformed into something he wasn’t intending to preach, thus he himself claimed not to be a Marxist. The last chapter of this manifesto summons the proletariat to become the initiators of the revolution that will set them free, of interest and rent at least.

Seminar Paper

Seminar paper: David Hume –
An enquiry concerning human understanding
Different ideas:
1st Section:
Different parts of philosophy

• The division between two different types of philosophy or philosophical points of view: 1) Studies the experience and analyses various objects, taking in consideration its structure, colour and the light which is presented under and try to interpret them in a way that is different to the usual and common understanding. 2) The second type of philosophy deals with the behaviour and the reasoning of man, whereas the 1st group look at the actions of man and try to reason upon them, the 2nd group questions the behaviour and reasoning that will lead to the action. They look at ‘the foundation of morals’
• David Hume seems to be more inclined to belong to the 2nd group and hopes to achieve an appeal to the wise and the knowledgeable alike.
• He speaks of hidden truth, a possible interpretation of an experience that has not yet been approached.
• He describes one type of philosophy being able to bring man into perfection, (supposedly a man of unbreakable moral values and philosophically aware) and there are other philosophers that are affected by their emotions becoming an obstacle to their understanding.
• David Hume believes in mistakes being able to become lessons so long as we are able to understand it. He is intrigued by popular contradiction and feels the need to investigate an alternative point of view to the ‘common’ ideas.
• He distinguishes two aspects of man, where one is reasonable and can become aware of science and help him grow intellectually but also he can be distracted and kept busy by the common lifestyle, occupied by social life and labour. This can be solved when science becomes your passion, if science becomes your social life and your labour you can become a man of balance.
• He doesn’t entirely reject metaphysics and believes there can be reasonable ideas deriving from it.
• Metaphysics is easy and not explanatory enough so it can never be used as an exact science or way of knowing.
• David Hume believes that Metaphysics cannot serve a good purpose to science due to its ambiguity, abstractness and shapeless form therefore it serves a greater purpose in art.
• The true pleasures of life can only be felt through science and education. David Hume strongly believes in being able to enjoy life through science.
• Metaphysics is a dangerous belief because it can lead to things that are unreal and one can become curious by these false creations of the mind. Metaphysics is ‘deceitful philosophy.’
• David Hume understands the complexity and power of the mind, as he gives little of explanation to his interpretation of the mind and its power one can acknowledge that he does not speak of things he is not 100% aware of.

General Concepts from this section:
• Division between different ways of philosophy
• Mistakes leading to reasonable conclusion
• Different aspects of man and the equilibrium between mankind through science
• Not entirely rejecting metaphysics but understanding there is no reason within.
• Mind as a complex matter that is yet not fully understood.

2nd section:
Origin of Ideas

• Hume recognises the difference between mind in a moment, and the moment we recall. Memory can never recreate experience.
• He acknowledges what someone may tell you because he recognises the terminology you use aka ‘I’m in love’ but one cannot experience what you do by merely explaining what this experience is.
• Hume divides thoughts and ideas from the way they are expressed. This is a relevant division since often wisdom and information is lost not through the interpretation of mind but through the interpretation which is language.
• He distinguishes the power of mind at the moment of first interpretation.
• What hasn’t been experience simply doesn’t exist. If there was no sense perception involved, it is impossible to corroborate the fact.
• Sense perception leads to the creation of ideas.

General concepts from this section:

• Memory cannot recreate experience only recall a microcosm of it.
• Understanding the terminology implied does not mean being able to experience what’s mentioned.
• First interpretation is the most pure.
• What has not been perceived by any sense simply cannot exist.
• No idea is created without the interpretation of senses.

Seminar questions:

1. To what extent is useful to create a division in the way one understands philosophy? E.g.: Hume’s ideas of philosophy understanding the action of objects and the ideas of understanding behaviour that leads to those actions.
2. Based on our understanding of Hume’s ideas what can be identified as ‘hidden truth’?
3. Does philosophical awareness lead a man to ‘perfection’?
4. To what extent is Hume’s idea of mistakes still allowing us to achieve truth possible?
5. If mind cannot recreate through memory the exact experience then how ‘truthful’ is memory?
6. Can language deteriorate information from the moment it is perceived to the moment it is being spoken about or interpreted?
7. To what extent does the idea of ‘what hasn’t been perceived simply cannot be proven to exist’ logical?