The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

The Communist Manifesto is the crowning achievement of Karl Marx.  The groundwork for the economic and social aspects of communism.  Marx, a German philosopher and economist was extremely discontent with the results of the industrial advancements made with capitalism.  As a reaction to the rise in capitalism, Marx created The Communist Manifesto.  The bourgeois continued to separate themselves from the working class economically due to the lack of attention paid to worker’s conditions, as well as extremely low wages. Marx saw the economic elite become too powerful.  Marx uses a unique mixture of analytic commentary, as well as romantic diction to convey his message.  Beginning with the distinction of the proletariat (the working class) and the bourgeois (the economically wealthy) and how the bourgeois use and exploit the hard labor the proletariat put into their work, as well as the holding of a hugely disproportionate amount of wealth.  Marx eventually calls the “workers of the world” to unite as one, as reclaim what is rightfully theirs, most likely by force.

The most vital passage within The Communist Manifesto is the ten measures in which all communism can be based upon.  These pillars of Communism are Marx’s integral points.  Starting with the “Abolition of property in land and confiscation of ground rents to the State”, Marx’s points are each a unique response to the problems that Marx’s exposes in the beginning of the manifesto.  Marx concludes that if these points are followed, the proletariat and bourgeois class distinctions will cease to exist, thus the public will lose political character.  This is vital to the existence of the society, as there would no longer be any conflict among individuals on a political scale.

Do you agree with Marx’s ten points?  Would you add or remove any while still maintaining the core of communism?  Do you think this type of society would ever be possible?

One thought on “The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

  1. The ten points mentioned certainly outline a classless society where opportunity is managed by the state so that all have equal access. The only point that I think deserves more clarity would be the “combination of agricultural and industrial labour, in order to remove the distinction between town and country.” Understanding that this would ensure that the economic benefits of each would be provided to all, this seems like an impractical idea and I’m not quite sure how production for either would benefit. This certainly would redistribute the population so that equality of land was present, but in terms of practicality of occupations I’m not entirely sure what this entails.

Comments are closed.