Wage Labor

Wage Labor

 Capitalism has been a concept that has filled the earth from time immemorial. Karl Marx, the famous German economist, philosopher and political theorist, could the most renowned intellect in the field of capitalism. He propounded in his book “the communist manifesto” that, “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large or in the common ruin of the contending classes.” This quote is the few words that explain the relationship between labourers and wealthy capitalists all through the years. In the early 18^th century, the gap between these two classes of people was so vast that labourers seemed to be subhuman. The focus of this paper is to identify the differences between the two stratified classes and draw a clear picture of how capitalism did draw the class stratification line between labourers and the wealthy. The points of reference will be Charlie Chaplin’s “Modern Times” and Rene’ Clair’s “A Nous La Liberte.” These were films created in the early 18^th century. This was a time when capitalism was at its best in the western world.

Firstly: an in-depth look into Charlie Chaplin’s modern times. Charlie Chaplin was a famous actor and producer who was very concerned about the economic and social problems of his age. In 1931, he left Hollywood on a world tour. While in Europe, he was disturbed to see the rise of nationalism and its various social effects. These effects included unemployment, which leads to poverty, depression and automation.

In 1931 he spoke with an interviewer of a newspaper that, “Unemployment is the vital question . . . Machinery should benefit mankind. It should not spell tragedy and throw it out of work”. Soon after this, he extended his research about the economy and produced Modern times. A depiction of what he saw in Europe. The main themes in the movie are unemployment, strikes, poverty, economic inequalities, political instability, narcotics and the replacement of man by machines. Many philosophers suggest that the 1930s were not as different from the twenty-first century as the world is facing the same problems. Charlie takes a unique approach to handle serious matters such as economic inequalities. He makes the film a comedy. This is a brilliant way to bring about social issues because it condemns society, and it gives people the chance to see things that affect people in a humorous manner. Therefore, Charlie acts as his famous character, the little tramp in place of a hilarious factory worker. The setting of the movie is after the 1929 Wall Street bank crisis. As seen in the film, the little tramp finds a red flag and his colleagues assume he is protesting, so they join him. In reality, the people of the United States used to protest because of their poor living standards that their government could not help fix.

The main concept that Charlie Chaplin was putting across was the control the president of the company the little tramp worked for had over his labourer’s time. According to the movie, the more control the president of the company had, the more he could take advantage of the labourers. For instance, this president had surveillance cameras installed everywhere in his company so that he could monitor the work done from the comfort of his office. This was because he had the monitor screens in his office.

These monitors helped him to ensure that his labourers were not idle for any moment. Furthermore, when the little tramp tries to enjoy his break in the restroom, the president appears on a screen behind him and scoffs at him for idling yet he was taking a legitimate break. Hence, the conclusion that this wealthy factory owner did not treat his workers like humans. He treated them like robots who do not need to rest. In addition to all of these, the president tries to use an eating machine for his workers. The eating machine fails. However, its essence was to feed the labourers while they were working to save up on time. This was disgustingly inhuman yet in Charlie Chaplin, and one had to laugh for how funny the scene was. Therefore it is clear that the wealthy were favoured. They did not have to work tirelessly, as did the labourers. Furthermore, the wealthy lived lavishly while their counterparts languished in poverty in slums.

The second film, understudy is Rene Clair’s “A Nous La Liberte.” The direct English translation of the title is freedom for us. Therefore, from the very beginning, Renee Clair wanted to be clear that in the 1930s the freedom for the poor did not exist. The film is about Louis and Emile, two ex-convicts who escaped and tried to make a life for themselves. Louis escaped the first time both prisoners tried to escape. Emile could not. Louis goes out and works into a successful businessperson. He develops a state of the art factory that is run by machines. This was the mechanization era, after all. Companies manufactured machines and factories started to depend on them mainly. This resulted in the loss of jobs by many labourers . The film ends with workers playing cards instead of working. This symbolizes the extent at which the automation had taken root in the industrial world.

By the time Emile escapes, Louis is unrecognizable. However, the two meet and old memories and refreshed. Emile meets Louis and realizes that he was the owner of the grand factory. The setting of the film is when the world was facing the endearing effects of the great depression. Thus, the world was under the inequalities of the capitalist system. The film ends with Louis giving up his factory to his workers after a few ex-convicts try to blackmail him. They threaten to expose him to the police as an escaped prisoner. Louis is not arrested but goes off with Emile as tramps entertaining people by the roadside.  The main idea in the film is that “by only by liberating oneself from the pressures of social and economic oppression can one find true happiness.”

In conclusion, these films as similar and different in their capacities. They were both filmed in the early 1930s by brilliant producers who tried to project economic inequality during the great depression. Both their themes are unemployment, effects of capitalism and poverty. The producers of both films depicted Europe during the great depression. The only contrast between the two is that in modern times the difference between the little tramp, the representative of the labourers and his president, representatives of the wealthy capitalist is quite distinct. The president is rude, bossy and very scary. Louis, the representative of the wealthy capitalist and Emile, the representative of the labourers, are represented as friends, and even if their economic status makes them different, they sort that out and seem as from the same class.