Following the development of capitalism, the 19th century’s industrialization brought a new era to the human society. Factory electrification, mass production and the production line ran to human civilization with their powers. While people were excited about the innovations of capitalism, Herbert Marcuse gave his argument, which capitalism destroyed nature and the human nature. Edward Hopper (1882-1967), a prominent American realist painter and printmaker, also showed his personal perspective about the modern American life under capitalism through his artworks. The painting Nighthawks, which was painted in 1942 by Edward Hopper, reflects Marcuse’s argument that capitalism destroys the human nature through emotions of people and color contrasts.
In “Nature and Revolution”, Marcuse tells us that capitalism destroys external nature and human nature. External nature is our environment. Marcuse mentions, nature is a part of history, “man encounters nature as transformed by society, subjected to a specific rationality which became, to an ever-increasing extent, technological, instrumental rationality, bent to the requirements of capitalism” (260). That is, human beings force nature to become tools for the purpose of the development. The increasing of technology and industrialization transform nature into man-controlled resources. In order to achieve the growth of human society, nature has been transformed from nature into an environment for the human beings. To specify his argument, he writes, “Commercialized nature, polluted nature, militarized nature cut down the life environment of man, not only in an ecological but also in a very existential sense” (260). From this quote, he explains that nature has lost its origins in a visible le...
... middle of paper ...
...ert Marcuse argues that capitalism destroys natural environment and human nature, Edward Hopper’s painting Nighthawks reflects Marcuse’s argument that capitalism destroys nature through color contrasts and the unnatural environment; it also echoes Marcuse’s argument that capitalism destroys the human nature through emotionless people. While the growth of capitalism brings new technology to human society, the dehumanized power starts to destroy nature and human nature. Indeed, civilization brings human society up to a new level. Yet, the way of the growth destroys our natural environment and human nature. We should find a better way of expansion that can keep developing and protecting nature at a same time.
Works Cited
Marcuse, Herbert. "Nature and Revolution." The Continental Aesthetics Reader. Ed. Clive
Cazeaux. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2011. 258-269. Print.
... position is very radical. He thinks civilization has brought disorder and has distance the human beings from nature. It is true that the ambition to dominate the planet has caused some people to destroy natural resources, increase the levels of contamination and lose the respect for our own nature. However, I cannot disregard all the progresses that humans have done through out the years, which have helped improve the quality of our life. The respect for nature has to continue along with the growth of our knowledge.
The dawn of the 20th century was met with an unprecedented catastrophe: an international technological war. Such a horrible conflict perhaps threatened the roots of the American Dream! Yet, most do not realize how pivotal the following years were. Post war prosperity caused a fabulous age for America: the “roaring twenties”. But it also was an era where materialism took the nation by storm, rooting itself into daily life. Wealth became a measure of success and a facade for social status. This “Marxist materialism” threatened the traditional American Dream of self-reliance and individuality far even more than the war a decade before. As it morphed into materialistic visions (owning a beautiful house and car), victims of the change blindly chased the new aspiration; one such victim was Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby. As his self-earned luxury and riches clashed with love, crippling consequences and disasters occur. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby delves into an era of materialism, exploring how capitalism can become the face of social life and ultimately cloud the American Dream.
In American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism, 1865 - 1900, H.W. Brands worked to write a book that illustrates the decades after the Civil War, focusing on Morgan and his fellow capitalists who effected a stunning transformation of American life. Brands focuses on the threat of capitalism in American democracy. The broader implications of focusing on capitalism in American democracy is the book becomes a frame work based on a contest between democracy and capitalism. He explains democracy depends on equality, whereas, capitalism depends on inequality (5). The constant changing of the classes as new technologies and ways of life arise affect the contest between democracy and capitalism. By providing a base argument and the implications of the argument, Brands expresses what the book attempts to portray. Through key pieces of evidence Brands was able to provide pieces of synthesis, logical conclusion, and countless
Capitalism continues to be a revolutionary form of social organization. Modes of production, the ordering of daily activities, and the material practices and processes of social reproduction have undergone numerous changes since capitalism’s inception. Mapping a history of capitalism’s different stages and forms – both social and institutional – would be an arduous task, complicated by the fact that in each of capitalism’s stages, features and characteristics of past and future stages abound. Nevertheless, the current form of capitalism marks a unique departure from previous stages. Euphemisms and catchphrases concerning late 20th century capitalism have become all too common. "Globalization" has become a catchphrase for academics, journalists, and citizens alike. However, many of the claims about a new, distinguishable form of capitalist organization – a "post-Fordist" or "flexible" system of accumulation – are overstated. Despite the dominance of Neoliberalism following the collapse of Fordism, the current epoch does not occasion an economically, environmentally, or socially sustainable regime of accumulation. In this paper I will explain, drawing from the Regulation School, the shift from Fordism to what many have termed "post-Fordism," and use this analysis to suggest future routes for capitalist organization. Indeed, until a socially reproducible compromise to Neo-liberalism is found, aggressive competition and regulatory undercutting will further amplify destructive business cycles, abject poverty, and environmental destruction.
Throughout history, historians have many times characterized the capitalists who constructed post-Civil War industrial America as either admirable “captains of industry” or wasted “robber barons.” Both of the preceding terms had been used equitably during America’s industrial movements in the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries. Nonetheless, the term that is most proper for characterizing these capitalists is “captains of industry”, because although some of them may have gained their wealth and power through ruthless means and also at the expenditure of the poorer, working class of people, they have bettered the life of the American people, more so than is compassed in other countries around the world.
...ng this simplistic definition of capitalism which means that there will be “winners” and “losers” to this relationship. The focus upon the “bottom line” leaves little to no room for the consideration of social consequences such as unemployment and poverty. The disconnection that capitalism creates enables itself to flourish thus limiting the potential to achieve socio-economic justice. Fundamentally changing the way capitalism operates requires a political shift in power dynamics. Consumers who do play a role in how the economy is structured are needed to be brought back to consciousness by demanding justice.
Human beings have made much of purity and are repelled by blood, pollution, putrefaction (Snyder, 119). Nature is sacred. We are enjoying it and destroying it simultaneously. Sometimes it is easier to see charming things than the decomposition hidden in the “shade”.We only notice the beautiful side of nature, which are benefits that nature brings us: food, fresh air, water, landscapes. But we forget the other side, the rottenness of human destruction. That is how human beings create “the other side of the sacred”. We cut trees for papers, but we fail to recognize that the lack of trees is the lack of fresh air. Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge “the other side of the
Divisions within the social stratum is a characteristic of societies in various cultures and has been present throughout history. During the middle ages, the medieval feudal system prevailed, characterized by kings and queens reigning over the peasantry. Similarly, in today’s society, corporate feudalism, otherwise known as Capitalism, consists of wealthy elites dominating over the working poor. Class divisions became most evident during America’s Gilded Age and Progressive era, a period in time in which the rich became richer via exploitation of the fruits of labor that the poor persistently toiled to earn. As a result, many Americans grew compelled to ask the question on everyone’s mind: what do the rich owe the poor? According to wealthy
The film Citizen Kane, directed by Orson Welles, is a great example of how a man can be corrupted by wealth. Through the characters in the film we can observe how Charles Foster Kane, an idealistic man with principles, can be changed and misguided by wealth and what accompanies wealth. The film takes places during the late 19th century and early 20th century, a time in American history when the world is changing and wealth is a great power to change it with. Through the story telling of Kane’s life we are able to see how wealth changes, not only Kane’s ideals, but his actions and how he perceives the world.
How does Kafka Comment on 20th Century Capitalism Throughout the Novel and what Symbolism does he Use to Depict it
The latter part of the nineteenth century was teeming with evolved social and economical ideas. These views of the social structure of urban society came about through the development of ideals taken from past revolutions and the present clash of individuals and organized assemblies. As the Industrial Revolution steamed ahead paving the way for growing commerce, so did the widening gap between the class structure which so predominantly grasped the populace and their rights within the community. The development of a capitalist society was a very favorable goal in the eyes of the bourgeoisie. Using advancing methods of production within a system of free trade, the ruling middle class were strategically able to earn a substantial surplus of funds and maintain their present class of life. Thus, with the advancement of industry and the bourgeoisie's gain of wealth, a counter-action was undoubtably taking place. The resultant was the degradation of the working-class, of the proletarians whom provided labour to a middle-class only to be exploited in doing so. Exploitation is a quarrel between social groups that has been around since the dawn of mankind itself. The persecution of one class by another has historically allowed the advancement of mankind to continue. These clashes, whether ending with positive or negative results, allow Man to evolve as a species, defining Himself within the social structure of nature. Man's rivalry amongst one another allows for this evolution! through the production of something which is different, not necessarily productive, but differing from the present norm and untried through previous epochs.
The Industrial Revolution of the 19th century brought about profound changes in transportation, technology, and economics. Members of society reaped tremendous benefits from the abundance of innovations that arose during the period. The invention of new machinery paved the way for mass production, and allowed once burdensome tasks to be accomplished quickly. at record speeds. Yet certain individuals became skeptical of the consequences of such rapid development. Numerous artists, writers and philosophers, worried that induexstrialization would destroy the connection of humankind to the natural world. American poets such as Henry David Thoreau, began to praise nature as a source of healthy emotions, ideas and morality. By contrast, they condemned
Bookchin asserts that "deep ecology, [is] formulated largely by privileged male, white academics (Bookchin 243)." Bookchin mentions that some deep ecologists defend seemingly anti-human measures, such as severe population control and the claim regarding the Third World that "the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve". Bookchin's second major criticism is that deep ecology fails to link environmental crises with authoritarianism and hierarchy. Social ecologists like him believe that environmental problems are firmly rooted in the manner of human social interaction, and suggest that deep ecologists fail to recognize the potential for human beings to solve environmental issues through a change of cultural attitudes. According to Bookchin, it is a social reconstruction alone that "can spare the biosphere from virtual destruction (Anarchy Archives)." Though some deep ecologists may reject the argument that ecological behavior is rooted in the social paradigm, others, in fact, embrace this argument, such as the adherents to the deep ecologist movement Deep Green Resistance. Bookchin calls capitalism the disease of society echoing Naess’ complaints that the entire system must be changed for the benefit of people and the planet both. It is not so much the solutions they disagree upon, but how the problem and method of solving it are
Anonymous author (Mar. 1 2007). ‘American Capitalism, A Necessary Evil?’. Retrieved on Mar 23 from:
...e happy. However, Carl argued that now more than ever people are questioning capitalism. It is important to question and critique our current capitalistic system. The current system in place is alienating workers and places too much emphasis on profit and the modes of production. There are extensive problems and repercussions that must be death within a profit-driven society. We should be working towards a system that is driven by what is needed not what is profitable. A profit-driven system can lead to over-accumulation and production of items that are actually not required because of over-production. We need to undergo change in order to construct a form of social and economic life based on production for need, not production for profit. This means that a system must be created that has a focus on democratic planning, worker-self management, and global solidarity.