Marx_in_Modern_Age

Ryan McGinley Professor Guista English 101 Final Essay The New Generation Proletariat For decades, the United States of America and Iran have participated in a high stakes game of “Red Light, Green Light”. Recently, the tension between the two countries, as well as other western nations, has been brought to the forefront of global conversation. This heightened awareness of the aforementioned tension, is largely due to Iran’s continued efforts to utilize nuclear technology as a way “to meet its civilian requirements in the scientific, medical, environmental and agriculture fields”(Ahmad Edrissian, Cuban Conference). This agenda is of little importance to the U.S., who would argue that the possibility for nuclear weapons manufacturing is far too high to allow Iran to continue with their nuclear program. Where Iran sees an opportunity for national growth, the U.S. sees a potential, global, security threat. Now, it can be debated as to whether or not Iran should be able to continue with their nuclear program, but that is not the topic of this essay. What is more intriguing, and what is the subject of this argumentative paper, is what will become of these two nations as a result of such a volatile situation. In order to fully understand the global interactions between this Western superpower and this Middle Eastern magnate, it is necessary to reflect on the works of some of history’s most enlightened thinkers. By applying the respective ideologies of Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx to the tumultuous circumstance between the United State of America and Iran, it can be argued that, eventually, Iran stands to become the dominant economic power in their relationship. The renowned works of Niccolo Machiavelli are still studied and appreciated by a worldwide audience, today. His noble background and education in economics lent to his unique philosophy on power, human rights, and imperialism. The Prince is a practical approach to what Machiavelli refers to as attaining and holding power, effectively managing a kingdom or country, and minimizing efforts of rebellion. Machiavelli places great emphasis on war saying that, “… it is of such great value that it not only keeps hereditary princes in power, but often raises men of lowly condition to that rank”(Machiavelli, Chapter 14). Although the U.S. has one of the strongest militaries in the world, by examining The Prince carefully, we are able to identify the flaws in the American facade of supremacy. As it pertains to the topic, the U.S. plays the role of “the prince” and Iran, his weaker adversarial. Machiavelli stresses the importance of disallowing other countries to invest any military personnel or financial resources into conquered lands, because then power and influence will be divided and “the prince” will not have the strong dominance he desires. The U.S. has completely disregarded this fact, allowing troops from the European Union, Israel and other nations to be actively militant in countries that neighbor Iran. Also, by allowing countries to invest in the Iranian nuclear program, like Russia does, the U.S. doubly fails to adhere to the above premise. Throughout the years, Iran has been in the media in regards to “secret” nuclear projects being discovered in their cities. Due in part to their fractured relationship, the U.S. hasn’t made any substantial, aggressive, attempts to fix the problems. Machiavelli’s guidelines suggest interrupting the ambitions of a conquered state, so that they are unable to come to fruition. It’s possible that had the U.S. sequestered Iran’s nuclear ambitions from the beginning, instead of allowing them to generate more power and technology, the “could be” nuclear weapons wouldn’t have even been possible. The most remarkable premise, from The Prince, that can be applied to the problematic circumstances between Iran and the U.S. is Machiavelli’s excerpt, “Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present”(Machiavelli, Chapter 17). He claims that love is only temporary and can be taken away at any given moment, even if the constituent respects and honors “the prince”. However, fear is something instilled deeply in a person’s mind and with it comes the reminder of consequences should they overstep. It is obvious that the U.S. hasn’t instilled an adequate amount of fear to dissuade Iran from nuclear progression. In fact, Iran continues to remain defiant and further their endeavors in the manufacturing and processing of nuclear technologies. The country is taking full advantage of its tactical position. Sandwiched between two of America’s biggest concerns, Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran continues to defy the U.S. becoming increasingly bolder. “In spite of Iran’s threats toward Israel, pursuit of a nuclear weapons, and support for terrorist organizations, it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are and identify potential avenues for progress”(Obama Press Briefing, New York Times 2010). In this quote, President Barack Obama wants to encourage negotiation as a means of conflict resolution. Machiavelli’s writings inform “the prince” that he should take charge and aggressively execute the role of the dominant nation. Based on the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, the U.S. is flawed as a dominant nation and does not possess all of the attributes necessary to reign permanently. This allows us to imply that Iran has the potential to surpass the U.S. and become the dominant nation in the relationship, consequently benefiting Iran economically. The Communist Manifesto is a clear representation of Karl Marx’s philosophical ideals about societal interactions on a national and international stage. Marx begins by dividing society into only two classes. He introduces us to the bourgeoisie, a term used by Marx, to indicate the elite of his era. The Communist Manifesto marks the rise and proposed downfall of the bourgeoisie. Before this elitist class rose to prominence, society was organized according to a feudal order run by aristocratic landlords. With the discovery of America, during the 15th century, came economic expansion on a global scale. As economic markets expanded, a labor force grew and so grew their economic powers. The labor force began to gain political power and eventually they, collectively, dismantled the feudal system that opposed their economic expansion. Industries were able to thrive freely, however, as a necessary consequence of management, the stratification of workers and wealth was created. We are then introduced to the second class of society, the proletariat. This class did not own the industries nor the modes of production, therefore they were paid less and were disallowed the opportunity to work for anyone besides the owners of the aforementioned resources. This, seemingly unavoidable, occurrence created the second generation of the bourgeoisie class. As bourgeois industries expand and increase their own capital, the proletariat class expands in both numbers and skill. There is a steady growth of specialized workers that cannot compete with bourgeois industries. This creates unrest within the less dominant proletariat and, Marx suggests, that they would eventually grow so high in number and skill that they would be able to overcome the oppressive bourgeoisie. Marx would continue to suggest that this same proletariat would repeat the cycle of rise and fall, for as long as capitalism exists these consequences are inevitable. As Marx says, "What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable" (Marx, 94). Today, the global economy is primarily fueled by capitalism and the U.S., as well as Iran, is no exception. The, heavily U.S. influenced, sanctions on Iran restrict and regulate certain imports and exports regarding materials that can be used to aid nuclear power manufacturing. More recent sanctions go as far to restrict and regulate Iran’s oil industry, so as to force the Iranian government into compliance. “The sanctions have had a substantial adverse effect on the Iranian nuclear program by making it harder to acquire specialized materials and equipment needed for the program. The sanctions have also had a strong impact on the Iranian economy, as well as reduced access to products needed for the oil and energy sectors. The sanctions have prompted many oil companies to withdraw from Iran, and have also caused a decline in oil production due to reduced access to technologies needed to improve their efficiency”(Fareed Zakaria, CNN 2010). America’s policy proposals towards Iran can be illustrated through ideals from The Communist Manifesto. The U.S. is similar to the bourgeoisie class in that it is a more powerful, dominant country attempting to suppress Iranian, the proletariat, energy expansion. According to one of the premises Marx authored, Iran’s nuclear market and work force will eventually expand in numbers and skill, as the expansion of the nuclear market grows. Iran has become exceedingly more discontent with the U.S. as it is, for dictating the production of petroleum oil, their most lucrative export, for so long. “Once this tutelage [influence from other countries, corruption] has ceased [by means of expelling foreign companies], Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence. The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners”(Mossadegh, Parliament Speech 1951). Over-regulating and restricting yet another energy source would cause unrest, culminating in a revolution and eventually Iran would overthrow American inflicted oppression to assume the bourgeois role in society. Continuing to use Marx’s theory, this cycle would simply repeat itself so long as capitalism still existed. However, if the intrusive, isolation oriented, policy proposals of the U.S. were to succeed in their objective, much like the proletariat, Iran’s current distaste for the U.S. would evolve into action, resulting in Iranian ownership of the resources as well as the modes of production and the subordination of America in their economic relationship. Works Cited 1. Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. London: 1848. 2. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Florence: 1532. 4. Mossadegh, Mohammad. "Iran's Next Move." June 05, 1951. 5. Edrissian, Ahmad. "Iranian Ambassador’s Address to Cuba ." October 08, 2011. 6. Zakaria, Fareed. "What Iran's Future Holds for America." CNN News Broadcast. Live performance.