The American Federation of Labor (AFL) did not have interest in working class and focused on the prosperity of the members. On the other hand, the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) was considerate towards the class struggle. They broke away from the AFL to follow a more drastic course but faced failure. During the 1960’s and 1970’s, the radical left became estranged from the unions. In 1970, construction workers beat up demonstrators at New York’s City Hall, who were protesting the war in Vietnam.
This disagreement arose because of a profound difference in their beliefs of the role of the party. The Bolsheviks believed that the revolution should be organised by a small group of dedicated and skilled revolutionaries who should lead the party and make all the decisions. On the contrary, the Mensheviks believed that the Party should be a mass party with as many working class members as possible. They argued it should be run democratically, with the members electing the leaders and deciding on its policies. For Lenin, the party was to be a group prepared to seize power as soon as possible yet on the other hand, for Martov, the main purpose of the party was to spread propaganda and raise the level of consciousness of the proletariat.
Steel. The union took not only over several GM factories in Flint, but held on to those sites despite repeated attempts by the police and National Guard to retake them. Yet there was a problem, middle-class Americans were upset by the sit-down tactic of the CIO which they saw as an attack on private property. The Supreme Court outlawed the sit-down strike and took CIO’s most effective weapon. Moreover, there were also many problems limited the CIO success during the 1930s.
1. That the American spirit is always moving and pushing onward and you should search manifest destiny. 2. None, they kept them dumb enough to do what the government asked and get paid for it 3.Luddites were a major problem during the industrial era. it's the group of people that did not like the change and stood in the way of mills becoming industrialized.
Laborers were all tired from being treated like slaves and work under unbearable conditions. In the end, the only two choices they had were to either live by their factory owner’s rules or to live under their rules. And they answer they choose was to form unions. These men and women were fixed with purpose to receive the rights and privileges they deserved as citizens of United States. But what were the goals of these laborers?
Marx discusses alienation in a relatively restricted context-namely, the lives of wage workers in the early capitalist society. The wage workers are, at least according to Marx, fundamentally different from salaried professionals because they had few skills and their aim of work is just money. While Marx's theory of alienation can be applied to every kind of person in capitalist society, we must focus on the working class first because "a primordial condition explains nothing" and "it merely pushes the question away into a gray nebulous distance" (Marx, 1844). ALIENATION THEORY Inspired by Western Enlightenment humanism and influenced by Hegel's dialectics, Feuerbach's materialism and Darwin's natural selection, Marx redefined human nature and examined carefully the concept of "alienation". He focused on the working class, the poorest and most wretched in the society, and concluded that their alienation came from private property.
As Rebecca Piirto Heath mentions on “The New Working Class”, what was considered this type of social status is nothing compared with what is now. As it is “working class” is a very perplexing theory. Before, the “working class” was defined as the blue collar, hard working, low wage man, who had to go out every day and do some type of tough job in order to survive economically; this working class had no college education whatsoever. The “new” working class has become more ethnically diverse, more female and definitely more educated. Americans don’t believe there is a well marked working class in the United States, unlike Europe counting with the monarchy.
Communists do not stand apart from other workers, but are made up of the most advanced political sections of the working class. Marx says that Communists have been "reproached" for desiring to abolish the "right" of acquiring private property through the fruits of one's labor. However, he points out laborers do not acquire any property through their labor. Marx said " we communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally……..to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.” (374) Marx wanted to abolish all individuality freedom, and independence. Marx argument was against the "infamous" communist proposal of abolishing the family.
Programme: | Sociology of work | Question: | Explain the terms “alienation, bureaucracy and de-skilling” in sociology of work? To what extent are these concepts relevant in explaining how work is structured in contemporary societies? | Marx’s alienation is regarded as a feeling of separation from the work that people do, that is, the act of production, from other workers, from what they are producing and even from their own essential humanity. In Weber’s definition bureaucracy is an organisation with a hierarchy of paid, full-time officials who form a chain of command (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008). Braverman presents an argument against what he regards as the degradation of work and the de-skilling of the labour force which is a result of the inhuman aspects of capitalism (Kanungo, 1982).
Firstly there was lack of mass support since the Frankfurt Parliament was mostly made out of middle class people, with only one peasant and no workers. Therefore this overwhelming majority did not represent the people who were about 70% peasants. According thus to the demographics a revolution would fail because it would lack manpower, and instead of asking help from the peasants, the revolutionaries preferred to ask help from the rulers. Frankfurt Parliament has also been accused of wasting valuable time. Marxists argue that if the Parliamentarians, who were neither extreme nor violent, had taken faster action, Wilhelm IV and the other rulers would be unable to refuse the new state and its constitution.