Not Such A Wonderful World

De te fabula narratur! – this story is told about you yourself


Quick Post about UKIP.

This is the UKIP political broadcast for the May 2013 County Council elections.

Now for a few points from their 2010 Election Manifesto

• Non means-tested “basic cash benefit” for low earners and unemployed. Jobseekers allowance and incapacity benefit is scrapped.
Causing a drop in benefits for the unemployed and disabled.
• Child benefit for the first three children only.
Iain Duncan Smith, is that you?
• No benefits for anyone who has not lived in the UK for five years.
This makes the UK exclusive to citizens, I’d verge on calling it xenophobia, and increases levels of poverty in migrants.
• Support coal-fired power and oppose wind farms.
I don’t even know how to respond to something so stupid.
• Stop funding UN’s climate change panel.
Why? Because global warming is happening, whether you believe it or not.
• Ban schools from showing Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth.
Same as above.
• Franchise out key services including hospitals and GP surgeries to companies and charities.
Exactly what the Tory government is doing, despite huge opposition from the NHS and public.
• Create voucher system to allow people to opt out of NHS system entirely.
Nope. Just nope.
• Life sentences mean life.
Prison is about rehabilitation, not just punishment. Would also be incredibly expensive, but that’s not the point
• Deport dangerous imams, terror suspects and wanted criminals more easily by scrapping the Human Rights Act.
Scrap the human rights act? Did I read that correctly?
• Double prison places and create “boot camps” for young offenders
There is no bullshitting here, putting more people in prison will not decrease crime rates in the long term. Boot camps sound ghoulish and immoral.


Again, no ones seems to understand it, so here’s a simple explanation, from a Reddit User whose name I have lost:


For the past few months I’ve been studying and reading Karl Marx’s most important work: Capital (Das Kapital). This thing is enormous. It’s three volumes, containing over 2000 pages. In it Marx attempted to figure out and explain how capitalism ‘works’… What he came up with is fascinating. It is a very detailed and intricate analysis.

While Marx is commonly known for being the “father of communism” the reality is that his major accomplishment is his examination of capitalism. In fact, this may surprise you, Marx never wrote about how communism ‘works,’ which is kind of strange for someone that is considered the father of it.

Unfortunately, there is such a negative stigma attached to Marx that we, as a society, are missing out on a very interesting perspective for understanding capitalism.

In this post, I will lay out the essence of what Marx was trying to tell us about capitalism. His book Capital is much, much, much more intricate and detailed. But the following is the big picture.


Throughout all of human history there is something that happens, no matter what kind of society, no matter when in human history, that we as humans fail to appreciate, consider and integrate into how we understand the world we live in: some people use their brains and their body to transform nature in a useful way, i.e. they do work, and some people do not. The easiest and most simple example is babies. They are not doing work. Often elderly people do not work. Very sick people do not work. Sometimes people who can work, i.e. they are mentally and physically capable of doing work, also do not work.

This raises a question: how is it possible for people who do not work to survive?

In order for it to be possible for some people to not work and also survive, be it a baby or a capable adult, it must be true that those who do work, produce more stuff than they themselves consume. Otherwise, the people who do not work would die.

For each person that works, the produce of their work that goes to maintaining themselves, Marx calls Necessary Labor, and the produce of their work that they do not consume themselves, Marx calls Surplus Labor.

So, Marx asks: how does any given society decide 1) who will work, how will they work, and how much of what they produce will go to them… 2) who will not work, but live off of the surplus labor of those who do work, and how much will they get?

Marx says that how a society decides to deal with this issue shapes the society in various ways: culturally, politically, economically, etc… and if we don’t recognize how this shapes society, we are missing a very important part of understanding how and why our society is the way it is.

Again: who works, who doesn’t, how much of the produce does each group get, and how is that decided.

Marx breaks the history of humans down into 5 types of arrangements based on how the Surplus is distributed to those who do not produce it.

1)) Communism – a community or a group of people work together, and they produce a surplus, maintain it, and themselves distribute it to those that do not work.

For example, if a group of us grow some food, and we have more than we are going to consume, we decide how to distribute the extra.

2)) Ancient – the work is not done not by a group of people, but by individuals alone. This would be someone that is self-employed, and produces stuff on his or her own.

For example, if I grow some food, and I have more than I am going to consume, I decide how to distribute the extra.

At this point, Marx makes a distinction. The following three types of arrangement have something in common that is different than the first two, and it is this: the people who do the work that produces the surplus are not in control of the surplus that they produce, and therefore are not in control of distributing it. Marx calls these systems exploitative. The producers of the surplus are exploited, and all this means is that the producers of the surplus do not maintain and distribute the extra.

3)) Slave – if the work is done by a person or a group of people and none of what that person or the group produces belongs to them. What they produce is maintained and distributed by the slave owner.

For example, if a slave produces some food, the slave owner decides how much the slave gets, how much the slave owner gets, and how to distribute the extra.

4)) Feudalism – the work is done by a serfs, and some of the time is spent producing what is for them, and some other amount of time is spent producing what then belongs to the feudal lord. The lord maintains and distributes the surplus.

For example, if a serf produces some food, some of the food belongs to the serf, and the rest belongs to the feudal lord, and the feudal lord decides how to maintain and distribute the extra.

5)) Capitalist – the work is done by wage or salary earners, and they do not control, maintain, or distribute the surplus that they produce. They receive a wage or salary, and all of what they produce belongs to the capitalist/owner.

For example, if some workers grow some food, they are paid a wage or salary equivalent to some of that food, but importantly not all of it, and the capitalist maintains control of and distributes the surplus/extra.

Marx claims, I think correctly, there is only one reason why a capitalist/owner/employer would pay a worker a wage or salary, and that is if he or she is going to get more out of the worker than the value of what worker contributes during his or her working hours.

What’s interesting is this relationship, between the capitalist/employer and the worker/employee, is that it is closest to the slave/slave owner relationship. Hence why sometimes capitalism is referred to as wage-slavery. They are certainly not the same, but strangely they are more similar to each other than the capitalist and the ancient is. (again, ancient refers to self-employed)

Here’s an irony: in our modern day capitalist America, the American Dream for a lot of people is to be self-employed. According to Marx, self-employment is NOT capitalism. It is the “ancient” form of production. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a relationship where someone (a capitalist), pays someone else (a worker), to do work for them, and in this relationship the worker contributes MORE than they receive in the form of a wage or salary. It is precisely in paying workers less than they contribute that the capitalist/owner is able to make a profit.

The common objection to this Marxist perspective is: “But the capitalist/owner is risking his or her own money in the business, so they have to receive a profit, or why else would they invest their money in starting a business.”

Indeed, I don’t think Marx would disagree. That’s how capitalism ‘works’…

This is Marx’s FUNDAMENTAL insight of capitalism: the profits of capitalists/owners come from the exploitation of workers, i.e. paying them less than the value they contribute to the business.

This raises an interesting question: is what’s best for our ‘Job-Creators’ in America (capitalists/owners)… also what’s best for the majority of Americans who live on wages and salaries?

Is it any wonder that Marxism is a taboo subject in America? What if Marxism becomes common knowledge, and workers start thinking to themselves: do we really need the capitalists/owners? Could we collectively run businesses and make decisions as groups, i.e. communally (communist)? If so, wouldn’t we then get the full value of what we contribute in our working hours?

Life Sentences

Tired of people not understanding what a life sentence is, nice little explanation from Reddit User CoreMcLair

Technically it’s a ‘life sentence’ not life imprisonment.

A ‘lifer’ is set a tariff (in your example 10 years, 8 months, but could be 15, 20, 25…). Once the tariff has expired they are eligible for parole. The parole board consists of 3 people – usually a judge, a consultant psychologist and a ‘lay person’ – this could be an academic, retired chief probation officer, etc, not some schmo off the streets.

The lifer goes before the board who cross examine the prisoner. The hearings last as long as they need to – I’ve attended one that lasted 8 hours.

Reports are submitted by the supervising probation officer from the lifer’s home area, the offender supervisor from the prison, psychology and other prison staff such as wing officers, programmes staff, security. A risk management plan is prepared for every eventuality if they decide to release. All the report writers are ordered to attend and are all cross examined by each panel member in turn, and by the lifer’s barrister.

Reports may also be submitted by the victim/their family and they can send a representative or attend themselves to argue their case. The Secretary of State may also send a representative (usually in high profile or complex cases).

On consideration of all evidence the panel might – and it’s a slim chance first time out – opt to release. This MUST then also be approved by the secretary of state. Usually for the first couple of times they recommend further work and the next possible release date is set for (usually) 12-18 months later, when the parole process starts again, complete with all reports.

What has surprised me is how risk-averse the board are and how difficult it is to get out of prison on life licence. This difficulty increases tenfold if the person hasn’t been an angel behind bars (despite the fact an obedient prisoner is no guarantee of a harmless citizen).

On release the lifer is subject to licence conditions. There are 7 standard conditions (basically behave yourself and stay in touch as often as we tell you to) and there may be any number of bespoke conditions added on which are relevant to the offence – don’t contact victim’s family, stay out of a certain area, live in a probation hostel until permitted to leave, no contact with children etc etc.

The person is then supervised on licence for the rest of their life. That’s the ‘life’ part. This means that if they break any licence condition ever, they can be recalled to prison, where they will have to prove themselves before the parole board before release is considered.

There are ‘whole life’ sentences of course, reserved for those like Steve Wright who killed the 5 women in Ipswich, but I would hope people can see a distinction between him and other lifers.

And yes, sometimes sentences are too short. I hate the short sentences dished out to sex offenders whilst low ranking drug dealers routinely get longer sentences. Seems all wrong. But a life sentence is no small penalty, and the prisoner is never free of it. Nor should they be.

Source: I supervise several lifers on licence and in prison and attend about 6 parole hearings a year.

Second edit: there have been a couple of calls for an AMA but, though I’m sorely tempted, I’m not sure it’s a good idea. I can answer questions for the interested here, but I feel like putting myself forward for a probation service based AMA would be tantamount to suggesting my opinions represent the service. I’m too political and angry to keep quiet if asked about the government’s plans to let serco or group 4 or whoever, do our jobs. So I’ll just keep this here and if anyone has more questions they can comment here or pm me. Also, apologies to OP for hijacking the thread.

One last thing : save the probation service! Don’t let the government privatise the supervision of offenders!

“I don’t exactly know what I mean by that, but I mean it.”

Among other things, you’ll find that you’re not the first person who was ever confused and frightened and even sickened by human behaviour. You’re by no means alone on that score, you’ll be excited and stimulated to know. Many, many men have been just as troubled morally and spiritually as you are right now. Happily, some of them kept records of their troubles. You’ll learn from them—if you want to. Just as someday, if you have something to offer, someone will learn something from you. It’s a beautiful reciprocal arrangement. And it isn’t education. It’s history. It’s poetry. – JD. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye

When I first read The Catcher in the Rye, I was fifteen. It was part of my English Literature GCSE course; we had to read a book which we could be asked to analyse in our exam. Most people end up studying Of Mice and Men, a book I find deplorable in its lack of actual depth and meaning. Certainly, the book has themes of dreams and loneliness but in my opinion, it is tedious to read, and even more so when attempting to wring in-depth analysis out of it.

But The Catcher in the Rye was different, is different. Our teacher was crying its praises to such a degree before our copies had even arrived, so much so that I took mine home on the day they arrived, and read it cover to cover. A novel of only 192 pages, but a novel of such great importance to me personally that I still read my roughly annotated and highlighted copy on a biannual basis.

The themes of the book resonate so thoroughly whatever page you happen to open it to, whether it is Holden’s initial apathy, or his final moments of tremendous emotional volatility. JD Salinger was said to have written the book in part to express his angst at the world and its misunderstanding of youth, but never have I seen such an accurate representation of youth than The Catcher in the Rye.

Holden spends a substantial portion of the novel expressing his hatred of “phonies” and the “fake” nature of the world he is forced to inhabit. One of the most identifiable themes of the book, Holden wholeheartedly shows his hatred of those who would pretend to be someone that they know themselves to be false. Personally, the theme powerfully links to the existence in today’s society of a norm, an accepted plane of topics, likes and dislikes that those who strive to be accepted in a social context must claim as their own.  It is a sad sight to see the individuality of someone crushed under a wall of pressure from those around them, watching them assimilate into a growing horde of “phonies”.

The book also grapples with the difficulty faced by youth of coming to deal with grief, and loss. Holden loses someone very important to him, and his personal anguish remains constant throughout the book, clearly affecting him in a significant way. One of the main issues that I think JD Salinger tried to elaborate to the reader is that teenagers, particularly boys, have difficulty expressing themselves in any sizeable way. The same could be, with some adjustment, be applied to teenagers today. Many adults underestimate the potential emotional maturity of teenagers, and their subsequent inability to express this vast build-up of emotion in the correct way. Holden to me spends the book running away from his problems, trying to avoid coming to terms with the truth, an all too common solution to an issue in today’s world.

I have by no means explained what the book means to me. But further explanation would include hideous spoilers of the storyline, and ruin the importance of actually reading the book. I’d recommend it to anyone. The quote at the start of this post rings true, I learn about the world because I want to, because I want to know what other people had to offer, in an attempt to understand. Holden’s words sting with the truth “It’s everybody, I mean. Everything everybody does is so — I don’t know — not wrong, or even mean, or even stupid necessarily. But just so tiny and meaningless and — sad-making. And the worst part is, if you go bohemian or something crazy like that, you’re conforming just as much only in a different way.”

How does an American election actually work?

The way in which presidents are elected in the USA finally irked my interest to the point that I’ve just spent the best part of an hour learning the basics about how the elections every four years work.

Those of you who live in the UK may remember the general election in 2010, in which there was no majority reached in the number of seats awarded to each party. See, in the UK we elect a party by voting for a local MP. The party that gains the most MPs in the House of Commons wins the election. There are 650 possible seats available, and any party that gains a majority of 326 or more prevails, its leader becomes Prime Minister and they form a government.  In 2010, no majority was reached, and the Conservative Party led by David Cameron, which got 306 seats, formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrat led by Nick Clegg, who got 57 seats.

Compared to the US system of electoral procedure, ours is remarkably simple, fair and fast, the new Prime Minister is sworn in very quickly. In American presidential elections, the election takes place on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, but the new president is only sworn in on the 20th of January of the next year. That means there is a substantial gap of what is two whole months between the election result and the president actually being sworn in. The system in which elections takes place is responsible for what in my opinion… is a substantial waste of time that could be spent actively governing the country.

The USA elects presidents based on the Electoral College, a complex system that I’ll attempt to simplify and explain now. There a total of 538 electors, people elected to represent their political party in their state, usually at state conventions or by the central party committee for the state. Electors are usually people who have served a political party for a long time, and are honoured by the party by being chosen as an Elector. As you may have guessed, a party needs a majority of electors in order to win an election, so 270 electors are needed for a successful win in the election.

While that may seem pretty similar to the UK, here is where it differs. The 50 states, apart from Nebraska and Maine, have a “winner takes all” elector system. That means that if a candidate gains a majority of votes in a state, they gain all of the electors for this state. Maine and Nebraska have a proportional representation system in which the winner of the vote overall in their state wins 3 electoral votes, and then each of the districts of the state gains its own elector based on how it voted.

The difference between the UK and the USA is not that there are fewer votes up for grabs, but the fairness of the votes. The allocation of MPs in the UK roughly follows a population level, where by an average number of people are represented by each MP (this is not a perfect system, it’s impossible to evenly distribute to a precise number). However, the US system sees a much higher level of unfairness in the allocation of electoral votes per state. For example, Wyoming has a population of 568,158 and is allocated 3 electoral votes, which means one vote per 189,386 people. California on the other hand, has a population of 37,691,912 and 55 electoral votes, meaning one vote per 685,307 people. The differences between the population to votes ratio in several states has led to the Electoral College system being called undemocratic and unfair to the people of the USA.

Now, the real revelation that got me interested. When people in the US vote for presidential candidates like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney or Gary Johnson, each respectively representing the Democrats, The Republicans and the Libertarians, they are not actually voting for the candidate. They are voting for the previously selected electors for the state in which they vote who then have to vote on behalf for their state for a candidate at a meeting of the electors in December. While the election may be over at the start of November, the actual honorary election of the President only occurs once the votes have been counted from the electors meeting and read out by the Head of the Senate on the January 6th of the next year.

Alarmingly, electors in 24 states have no legal obligation to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. However, since the creation of the electoral college, over 99% of electors have followed the popular vote, and very often, those who go against it are simply replaced by the party who elected them.

So, that’s American electoral politics 101 for you. I could go into a long winded, verbose post about why I don’t believe in the system, and why it ends up being a fight for a few “swing” states, ignoring the massive majority of the American population, but that’s a story for another time.

Am I really going to uni next year?

Anyone who follows me on Twitter would have seen my frantic tweets about being unable to finish my personal statement, struggling to find inspiration and hating the format of it. A 4000 character audition for the rest of your life.

In the end, I finished the bulk of it in one night, because after talking to one of my subject teachers, I really understand what a personal statement is for. At the beginning of the process, I thought that they were simply an opportunity for people to “blow their own horn” and explain why they are so fabulous and perfect for the course they want to apply to. While of course, this has to be part of your statement (no one wants an unconfident applicant who isn’t sure of their abilities after all), it became apparent that personal statements are a way for someone to show their enthusiasm for a subject, and explain why they want to study it more than a chance to showcase how much of a shining academic talent you are. Your grades do that for you.

I worry about a lot of people at my school who are applying for courses that frankly, they have little or no enthusiasm for. While of course, there are some who are adamant in their choice and whom I wholeheartedly wish well to, the number of people in my year applying to career degrees astounds me. I of course, can’t claim to be completely innocent of this crime, having originally wanted to become a dentist, before deciding to pursue science in its pure form (I never liked teeth anyway). University is one of the key, if not the biggest, decisions in our lives, and picking a degree based on how much you will earn afterwards seems to be a rampant issue. The choice of what to study at university should, in my opinion, be based on what you are most intrigued about, what matters to you, and above all, what you find interesting.

To me, the choice was simple, Biology or Chemistry. The science involved in both of these sciences has fascinated me beyond words, and the more I learned, the more I realised that to an extent, the parts of biology I found stimulating were, in fact… chemistry.

I think I’ll post my personal statement and application information in another post; I don’t particularly want the post to be an essay.

One day…

I suppose I will eventually finish my summary of the Communist Manifesto. However, the last two chapters are substantially more wordy and difficult to outline without writing them out in full, so one day in the near future, I will work to summary then and make a  nice little sub-category for the Manifesto.

In the meantime, I’ll continue to post about whatever I feel like writing about. I’m actually going to leave it at that for now, but another post will be up later.

An interruption.

I know this is halfway through the summary of the Manifesto, but I desperately feel the need to write on another topic. Those of you who keep up to date with occurrences in the world (a shamefully small proportion of us) will have heard of the anti-austerity riots in Spain. What began as a peaceful surrounding of the Parliament by protesters, who refer to themselves as “Indignados” (meaning indignants) , soon descended into violent clashes between police and protesters, leading to 28 arrests and 64 reportedly injured.

The truly infuriating thing about this kind of rampant abuse of power by the police is that the main provocation for their response was “the protesters were not dispersed at the arranged time” . I literally can’t comprehend how they can try and call themselves a democracy when the hours people can protest are limited, as if their right to protest is somewhat under the control of the government. While obviously, no protest group is perfect, the huge majority of the Spanish protesters were perfectly peaceful.

The Spanish protest was organised by a group called Occupy , a global movement which aims to strive for the restoration of social  and economic equality. The ongoing efforts of Occupy to inform the majority of the greed of the few worldwide have been well televised, with the Occupy Wall Street protest being the most well known. The #25S movement, as the protests on the 25th September were called, were in response to the Spanish government’s aim to accept further austerity measures in exchange for a full bailout.

The decision to push the policies through to me expresses the disregard that the Spanish ruling party feels towards the people whom it is supposed to represent. Even more startling is their willingness to accept an austerity policy, when its been decisively proven that austerity is not the way out of recession.

The world is finally waking up the cries of the many, and I for one am looking forward to see how this all pans out.  ( you’ll have to translate to get the captions but these are some pretty good pictures)

Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei (Part 2)

Chapter two , titled “Proletarians and Communists”  discusses the relationship between the proletariat class and the communist movement. Marx first establishes that communists have no intention to form a movement opposed that of other working-class parties, and they have no interests apart from that of the proletariats as a whole. In my opinion, Marx does this in order to alleviate possible tensions between the new communist movement and existing working-class parties in several countries.

A statement which really stuck out to me in this chapter is “In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality”. It speaks volumes that Marx did not, as so many political scholar’s have done in the past, argue to the support of a particular nation’s struggle. His aim was to inform the proletariats of any nation, regardless of his own affiliation towards them.

The chapter focuses on the main aims of communism in the proletariat movement. Primarily, the overthrow of a bourgeois society of exploitation is needed in order to restore equality to the people. The true driving point of communism is not, as so many people assume it to be, the abolition of all forms of property, simply the abolition of bourgeois property, or private property. The households occupied and owned by proletariats ( It’s a good idea to remember that house ownership by the middle and lower classes is a relatively new concept, the big push for house ownership in the UK only happened in the 1980′s due to the Right to Buy scheme). During the time of the Manifesto’s publishing ( 1848) a vast majority of proletariats lived in houses rented from  the bourgeois landlord. While the bourgeois had come to power in the toppling of a feudal land system, their treatment of the lower classes still remained essentially the same when it comes to the ownership of property.

Marx’s critique of the capitalist system in the chapter is scathing,  with lines like “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.” and “That culture, the loss of which he laments is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.”

Marx also addresses some of the criticisms of Communism, but  says ” The charges against Communism made from a religious, philosophical, and generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.” To the charge that communism hopes to abolish the family, Marx angrily retorts that the bourgeois idea of family is one whose primary aim is private gain of capital. “Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.”

Marx sums up with his legandary ten point’s “vital to the transfer from capitalism to communism”. While some are still applicable, others may seem foreign and obscure ( personally I find the second half of the last point very irrelevant)

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants [those leaving the country] and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.


Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei (Part 1)

Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto of 1848 (which, unbeknownst to most people, wasn’t written just by Marx, but also by Friedrich Engels) has most likely changed the way I view the world forever. Before reading the text, I was already rather left leaning, having been enlightened to the shambles that is right wing politics. For those who don’t know, Left wing politics promotes equality, and an abolishment of so called “traditional” inequalities between different sectors of society. Right wing politics does not support the idea of an equal, or egalitarian society, and generally supports a social hierarchy where discrimination and inequality is either “natural, inevitable or desirable”. As you might be able to tell, I have an antipathy towards the right wing, and anyone associated with it.

The manifesto is separated into 4 chapters, each covering a different area. The first chapter, Bourgeois and Proletarians, discusses the rise of the bourgeois society, and subsequent exploitation of the proletarian class. Once again, an explanation is needed. The bourgeois are at the time (1848) the landowners, the rich, the upper classes,those whose actions are dominated by materialistic pursuits. The proletarians are the those who have no property, and who must use their own manual labour as a way of finding employment and surviving. At the time, the proletarian majority had no unifying force, no political representation, and very little right to vote ( even in Britain, only 1/7 of men could vote in 1848, the Reform Act of 1832  was still very much steered toward the rich).

Conditions for the proletarians had never been great, but under Bourgeois society, the proletarians really saw their quality of life drop like a stone. The proletarians were the “salt of the earth”, working in factories and manufacturing plants to produce goods. However,under the Industrial Revolution and Free Trade of the bourgeois, proletarians saw inequality soar as machinery replaced man. In a simple quote, Marx sums up the treatment of proletarians under bourgeois rule with “In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religion and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation”.

However, the chapter ends on a rather more positive argument, with the suggestion that the rise of industrialisation inevitably ensures the fall of the bourgeois, as the isolation of each group of proletarians becomes less, by association, the proletariat movement will band together and become revolutionary. In conclusion to this chapter, Marx says “What the bourgeois, therefore, produces, above all, is it own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.