The play R.U.R. was written, by Karel Capěk, as a cynical and critical view of the Communist Manifesto drafted by Freidrich Engels and Karl Marx. Capěk is known for his strong disdain for communism and Marxism, specifically detailing this in his essay “Why I Am Not A Communist”. In his play, Capěk depicts a proletariat class of robots fabricated for the sole purpose of being workers. These workers would later gain intelligent thought and emotional capacities that made them essentially human. With these newly gained abilities they overthrow their superiors or rulers, the humans, who can be compared to the bourgeoisie due to their higher social status. The whole goal of this revolution and their conquest over the human race is to create a utopic society in which the robots rule. As such, while not directly stated by the author, based on it’s similarities to the text of Engels and Marx I infer that they would attempt to follow the guidelines of communism, as …show more content…
He writes, “The final word of Communism is to rule, not to save” (Para.2 Why I am not…) showing it to be more about chaos than order and equality. This applies directly to R.U.R., as when the robot revolution occurs, their orders were “to kill all mankind. Spare no men. Spare no women.”(II. P.61) The goal of the robots during act II is not to achieve this idea of utopia but to eliminate the humans, who are perceived to be the equivalent of the bourgeoisie. When putting it into perspective, this revolution by the robots demonstrates the overall brutality and issues, which were never raised or considered by Marx and Engels. Overall, we can see how the “gigantic slogan [of Communism] is power (moc), not help (pomoc).”(Para.2 Why I am not…) Is incorporated into the robot’s conquest of the humans, as that was their sole objective and power was the motivating factor for
Mao Zedong was a very influential man in history. He forever changed the face of Chinese politics and life as a whole. His communist views and efforts to modernize China still resonate in the country today. Jonathan Spence’s book titled Mao Zedong is a biography of the great Chinese leader. Spence aims to show how Mao evolved from a poor child in a small rural village, to the leader of a communist nation. The biography is an amazing story of a person’s self determination and the predictability of human nature. The book depicts how a persuasive voice can shape the minds of millions and of people. It also shows the power and strength that a movement in history can make. This biography tells an important part of world history-the communist takeover of China.
Marx’s ideals of communism were drawn from the realization that the cycle of revolutions caused by the class struggles throughout history lead society nowhere. Society as a whole was more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes that were directly facing each other—bourgeoisie and proletariat. According to Marx, in order for society to further itself a mass proletarian revolution would have to occur. The bourgeois, who were the employers and owners of the means of production, composed the majority of the modern capitalists. It was these individuals that controlled the capitalist society by exploiting the labor provided by the proletariats. For example, the bourgeoisie make property into a right because they are the ones with the property. However, without their power force of labor behind them, the bourgeoisie class would crumple. To accomplish a revolution, the workers (proletariats) would need to rise up against the bourgeoisie and take back the factors of production. Marx believed that after the inevitable revolution of the proletariats against the oppressive force of the bourgeoisie, a communistic form of government would take hold.
Somewhat like Mill, Marx’s idea of communism states that women and children will be relieved of their lives as “simple articles of commerce…[and] mere instruments of production” (Marx 173), and be given more freedoms under his political ideology. Despite these few similarities, the principles of Marx and Mill could not be any more different. As part of The Communist Manifesto,
In chapter 5, Freud tangentially discusses communism, and why he thinks that it wouldn’t solve the problem of misery. Freud states that, “The communists believe … man is wholly good and is well disposed to his neighbor; but the institution of private property has corrupted his nature… If private property were abolished, ill-will and hostility would disappear among men” (Freud 96-97). He counters the communist ideas by stating that, “In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression one of its instruments…but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature” (97). To Freud, there isn 't an easy fix for human misery, and suggestions such as communism just serve to direct the problem elsewhere. It seems that Freud lacks a solution and, with World War II on the horizon, concludes with the suggestion that either Eros or Thanatos will need to assert itself, but none can foresee the
Karl Marx 's writing of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ in 1848 has been documented by a vast number of academics as one of the most influential pieces of political texts written in the modern era. Its ideologically driven ideas formed the solid foundation of the Communist movement throughout the 20th century, offering a greater alternative for those who were rapidly becoming disillusioned and frustrated with the growing wealth and social divisions created by capitalism. A feeling not just felt in by a couple of individuals in one society, but a feeling that was spreading throughout various societies worldwide. As Toma highlights in his work, Marx felt that ‘capitalism would produce a crisis-ridden, polarized society destined to be taken over by
From the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century major historical events such as the Industrial revolution had occurred. During this period of time Europe was switching into an economy that is focused mostly in the industrial field. From this emerged two social-economic classes, the rich bourgeoisie and the poor proletariats. Furthermore tension brewed from the two groups since the bourgeoisie source of wealth was from the exploitation of the proletariats. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ book The Communist Manifesto responded to the situation and created a vision of an equal communist society. The Communist Manifesto was defined by the abolishment of the bourgeois sovereign rule that followed to a revolution against capitalism
...his tragic ending becomes a clear symbol of the clashing perspectives of communism and individual values: even an individual who had managed to find success in the Marxist system of communism could not maintain happiness for long before losing everything, including the reasons for living.
Karl Marx is living in a world he is not happy with, and seems to think that he has the perfect solution. I am a strong believer in his ideas. We are living in a time period with a huge class struggle. The Bourgroise exploits and the proletariat are being exploited. Marx did not like the way this society was and searched for a solution. Marx looked for “universal laws of human behavior that would explain and predict the future course of events" (36). He saw an unavoidable growth and change in society, coming not from the difference in opinions, but in the huge difference of opposing classes. He speaks of his ideal society and how he is going to bring about this utopia in his book The Communist Manifesto. I am going to share with you more on his ideas of this “world-wide revolution” (36) that would put an end to social classes and allow people to live with equal sharing which would result in a harmonious and much peaceful world.
...roposal for the world and Communism was too far-fetched and would not work. Every time there has been a push towards Communism, it has always failed. There have been several unsuccessful attempts, all ending in a problematic dictatorship. While he did realize freedom was a major issue, he lacked in knowledge that family life was also significant.
In The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the two German philosophers saw history as the struggle between the working class and the Bourgeois, or middle class (textbook 708). The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, during the peak of the Industrial Revolution, a time when the Bourgeois made huge profits in manufacturing at the expense of the working class. According to Marx and Engels, the fruits of the Industrial Revolution created a new class of the oppressed modern working class, the Proletariat, which had never before existed because it was neither like serfdom or slave hood in that it was dependent on the Bourgeois to hire them for wage labor. This was the class the two philosophers envisioned would set off a revolution that would overthrow capitalism to end the perpetual class struggle and create a fair society known as Communism.
Though the rewards are pleasing to the ear, the path to obtaining the benefits of communism is a violent one. This strict governing idea was derived from Communist Manifesto, a book written by two German economists, Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, who declare that many problems in society are caused by the unequal distribution of wealth. These two believe that “Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations.” To achieve the goal of happiness and prosperity for all, the lines that distinguish the differences between the rich and poor must be erased. Obviously, the rich will never voluntarily give up their goods or status; therefore the figureheads must force equality among the citizens. Communism places their citizens, whether they be the wealthy or the laborers, into working classes that specify their contribution to the government. With such balanced placement of the people, individuality is impossible for any single person to achieve.
Marx and Engels had a specific vision for what they wanted their communist government to be. If communism had remained unchanged in its original form, the corruption of the party may not have occurred, and the rest of the world could have learned valuable lessons from the communists. If communism had continued to be what Marx and Engels intended it to be, then communist governments may have been successful. Unfortunately, what they neglected to take into consideration was the greediness that would overcome society. When people become hungry for power, they can easily take advantage of a communist government and corrupt it, transforming it into a totalitarian government. In theory, communism works out well. But as shown in East Germany’s history, communism’s promise of full equality is unlikely, unless government corruption can be prevented.
According to most historians, “history is told by the victors”, which would explain why most people equate communism with Vladimir Lenin. He was the backbone of Russia’s communist revolution, and the first leader of history’s largest communist government. It is not known, or discussed by most, that Lenin made many reforms to the original ideals possessed by many communists during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He revised Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles’ theories to fit the so-called ‘backwardness’ of the Russian Empire. Lenin’s reforms were necessary to carry out a socialist revolution in Russia, and the contributions he made drastically changed the course of history. It can be assumed that, the Soviet Union would not have been as powerful if it was not for Lenin’s initial advocacy of violence and tight organization.
He answers criticisms with only one possible route of action and one possible outcome. In his mind, a communist society would easily become a utopia. However, a look at the countries in the world today who attempted communism will shows failures across the board. Those among the proletariat who rose up to lead the rest against the bourgeoisie became the leaders of the countries and enjoy the same decadence and superiority that they sought to abolish. Soviet Russia under Joseph Stalin was a bloodbath. Mao’s Red China was a hotbed of human rights violations. Cuba under Castro was a system of corruption. All were absolute dictatorships in which the proletariat had no say, the same as
He saw communism as a way for all people to be truly free and equal. There would be no more class discrimination and everyone would have resourced based on what is needed. He exclaimed that communism would give individuals the freedoms that the bourgeoisie denied them. While this is what Karl Marx predicted and believed would be successful, the reality over time has taken a much different path proving that Marx’s ideas cannot be accurately applied