The Bourgeois Society and Marxism

The Bourgeois had much influence during the French Revolution, which is only one example of a class struggle. They are similar to the difficulties between freemen and slaves, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, and guildmaster and journeyman, as said so in The Communist Manifesto. The book also talks of modern industry, and the role the Bourgeois play in a modern and industrial society. The book claims that the Bourgeois were the most revolutionary class during the time, and this was obviously a give-away to the book's marxist view. Also, because it was written by Karl Marx, the book contains many of these undertones. As the book progresses, it starts to dictate that the Bourgeois were becoming a highly financial class, and it was their "constant revolutionizing of the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production..." (62-63). Basically saying that the Bourgeois were the ones that drew nations in civilization.

I am not in favor of the entire Marxist view, however, I do agree that it was the Bourgeois that had brought nations into civilization. A lower class of society, for example the peasants and commoners of the French Revolution, were absolutely incapable of bringing modernization of industry to it, as they could barely afford to feed themselves, let alone revolutionize modern industry. However, the Bourgeois were more than capable, as they were wealthy factory owners and had enough revenue to constantly revolutionize many technological advances in their factories. Another example was James Watt, during the Industrial Revolution. He was not necessarily a part of the Bourgeois of the time, but he was educated, and also had wealth, as his father was a shipwright, and his mother came from a distinguished family and was well-educated.

I do disagree with the point of view of the book, though, as i believe, as an example, the French Revolution could have easily been avoided if the people, meaning the Bourgeoisie and the nobility, had been a little more sensible. Political reform could have been possible without social upheaval, as they were the top classes, they should have been more civilized. I'm sure they were more than capable of reaching an agreement or sorting their issues out themselves. This revolution was merely showing a rebellious aspect of human nature and its intolerance. Instead of their first instinct to sort it out peacefully and properly, they revolted first and then thought about it later.

"Self Help"

"Self Help" was a collection of essays written by Samuel Smiles during the Industrial Revolution. The main philosophy of the essay was that in order to succeed in life, you must continuously work hard and go beyond your limits, if you want success. He also says that the poor are not wealthy, because they do not work hard, and are just lazy. Smiles was born in Scotland, and was one of their 11 surviving children. He left school at 14 and was able to have an apprenticeship along with a doctor. He was raised with the belief that "The Lord will provide." This is quite controversial, as it goes against his initial theory that it is the individual who must look after themselves, and it is not their God that will look after themselves. He does not disprove religion and holy thinking, but he says that it cannot be relied on. Why didn't he just disprove religion? Why didn't he question God's reliability?
Smiles did have a trace of religious philosophy that came from his mother, and how she was raising nine children without a husband, and lived off of the philosophy that God will provide. He saw how hard his mother had worked and used her psychology to write the essay. However, i believe that he realized that one needs a motivation or positive force to fuel their self confidence to succeed, and in his mother's case, it was God.