Karl Marx And The Communist Manifesto Essay

Karl Marx was born in Prussia in 1818. Later in his life he became a newspaper editor and his writings ended up getting him expelled by the Prussian authorities for its radicalism and atheism (Perry 195). He then met Fredrich Engels and together they produced The Communist Manifesto in 1848, for the Communist League. This piece of writing basically laid out Marx’s theory of history in short form (Coffin 623). The Communist Manifesto is mainly revolved around how society was split up into two sides, the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. I do believe that the ideas of the Communist Manifesto did indeed look educated on paper but due to the lessons of history communism is doomed to fail in the past, present, and future. Communism did not prevail in many different countries, two of them being Berlin and the Soviet Union.

     Marx describes the problem in great detail in the first chapter. He feels there is a problem between the bourgeoisie and the proletarians. The bourgeoisie were the oppressed class before the French Revolution and he argues that they are now the oppressors. The proletarians are the new working class, which works in the large factory and industries. He says that through mass industry they have sacrificed everything from the old way of religion, employment, to a man’s self worth and replaced it with monetary value. He is mad that the people of ole that use to be upper class such as skills man, trades people, & shopkeepers, are now slipping into the proletarians or working class. He

Philosophy has shaped the world in almost everything we have done. Philosophy causes everyone to at least question the norms of society and situations. This makes a healthy pattern for society. If we never were to question anything we would just be blind sheep who follow whatever they are told. Many philosophers challenge the norms in a hope to make things better. Karl Marx and Buddha were very influential people in the world of Philosophy and are some of the pioneers of challenging the routine and normal perception of things and ideas. They had their own ideas that helped shaped the practices and things that people do today. They both can be very different in how they would answer basic questions regarding philosophy. Even though, they

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was one of the most influential thinkers and writers of modern times. Although it was only until after his death when his doctrine became world know and was titled Marxism. Marx is best known for his publication, The Communist Manifesto that he wrote with Engels; it became a very influential for future ideologies. A German political philosopher and revolutionary, Karl Marx was widely known for his radical concepts of society. This paper give an analysis of “The Manifesto” which is a series of writings to advocate Marx ‘s theory of struggles between classes. I will be writing on The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, which lays down his theories on socialism and Communism.

In “Marx: Anthropologist,” Thomas C. Patterson provides archival research and contemporary analysis to defend the assertion that Karl Marx was one of the first urban anthropologists and a progenitor of emic ethnography in western culture. Patterson also aims to correct prior misinterpretations of Marx’s work in a polemic manner, addressing deficiencies in early analyses through careful argumentation and relevant evidence to contrary inferences. Patterson’s stated purpose is to answer the question “What would Marx’s anthropology look like today?” and does so by explaining the correlation between critical-dialectical methodology and the manner in which Marx went about social analysis. Chapters are organized according to each subject’s relevance to the construction of Marx’s anthropology. Chapter one focuses on the greater political state of Europe and university culture in which Marx received his education, providing historical and pedagogical explanations for the manifestation of his ideas. Chapter two explains the facets of Marx’s “philosophical” anthropology, explaining how Marx viewed the moral and social characteristics of humans. Chapter three highlights Marx’s ideas and works that explain his “empirical” anthropology, or the how he viewed the natural and biological determinants of human existence. Chapter four aims to explain the importance of modes of production and social relations to Marx’s theory of cultural change. In chapters five and six, Patterson incorporates

In Capital, Karl Marx reveals the ugly truth that capitalism lays on the foundation of class exploitation. Without such exploitation, there is no profit to be made and capitalism will cease to exist. Capitalism, which relies on the reproduction of capital, creates and concentrates wealth to a small portion of society’s population while reproducing poverty and widening the size of inequality.

According to the humanities based themes, autonomy and responsibility are defined as “the individual person has the ability to make choices; with those choices comes a responsibility for the consequences of those choices.” [i] This can be related to the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx in the 1800’s. Even deeper though, it correlates the class struggles that were apparent in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Marx knew there was a division of classes; the bourgeoisie was the wealthy upper class and they proletariats were the lower working classes of Europe. This is where the theme of autonomy and responsibility steps in and

Marx's ideas on labor value are very much alive for many organizations working for social change. In addition, it is apparent that the gap between the rich and poor is widening on a consistent basis. According to Marx, the course of human history takes a very specific form which is class struggle. The engine of change in history is class opposition. Historical epochs are defined by the relationship between different classes at different points in time. It is this model that Marx fleshes out in his account of feudalism's passing in favor of bourgeois capitalism and his prognostication of bourgeois capitalism's passing in favor of proletarian rule. These changes are not the reliant results of random social, economic, and political events; each follows the other in predictable succession. Marx responds to a lot of criticism from an imagined bourgeois interlocutor. He considers the charge that by wishing to abolish private property, the communist is destroying the "ground work of all personal freedom, activity, and independence". Marx responds by saying that wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism. Having linked private property to class hostility, Marx

Some may think Marxism and Leninism go hand and hand but they are from similar to one another. It is the contrast between these two political theories that sever the bridge between theory and practice. Vladimir Lenin’s view upon Communism far differed from that of the theorist Karl Marx which leaves us to question as to how could one deem the two interchangeable? How could Lenin proclaim to be a Communist with that completely alter what Marx and Engels provicized to be their view of Communism within the “Communist Manifesto”? Why would people confuse a seemingly democratic view with State Capitalism? The answer to these questions is a simple one for it is all based about lack of one’s interpretation which in turn led to such a conflict of ideals. The misinterpretation in this theory and practice hones it on the misinterpreting of the duties of the Central Government. Misinterpretation is an issue that has troubled the world for centuries upon centuries because interpretations of theories and even other forms of writing has always been based upon the instilled by the interpreter not the creator which seemingly cause conflict.

Because the first printing of the Communist Manifesto was limited and the circulation restricted, the Manifesto did not have much impact on society after it was written in 1848. This meant that there were not many people who had access to the document. It wasn’t until 1871, when the Paris Commune occurred, that the Communist Manifesto began to have a huge impact on the working class all over the world.[i]

As the bourgeois advanced financially, they also gained political influence. They progressed from a once oppressed class to an independent urban republic. As their political influence increased, certain changes became clear. The bourgeois had “torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation (Marx).” This force eventually grew to the point that it was able to force other nations to conform to its values and methods or suffer extinction. As the bourgeois became richer, the proletarians began to suffer more. The balance of property began to shift even more rapidly than before leaving property “concentrated…in a few hands (Marx).” Eventually, the super-efficient production of the manufacturing economy began to take its toll on the bourgeois as well as the proletarians. More goods were produced due to the cheaper costs and ease of manufacture leading to an over-production of goods (Marxism). Over-production became a serious problem, resulting with widespread unemployment of the proletarians, and threats of a revolution on the horizons.

Individuals have been classified on the basis of prestige acquired mainly through economic success and the accumulation of their wealth throughout history. The Communist Manifesto begins with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels discussing the differences of the Bourgeois from the Proletarians. The proletariats are exploited and seen as capital, rather than equals by the oppressed bourgeoisie. With the bourgeoisie being a dominant force in the population, they eventually came to power. Slowly, they became the leaders while all of the other classes were left behind. The modern bourgeois created a manufacturing system that took control over the feudal system when it was no longer able to meet demands and supply goods. The world market that we live in today is the result of our “Modern Industry”. This free market society forced societies to fend for themselves, leaving behind their patriarchal ways, while the bourgeoisie continued to thrive.

The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels formulates the basic concepts of Communism. Faith and reason can be used to explain parts of this document. The Communist Manifesto has definite views dealing with faith, and along with this, religion. In the Manifesto, Marx states that religion is not needed in Communism because a society under Communism is classless. Marx uses reason to explain what will happen to society due to the materialism of the Industrial Revolution. Marx reasons how society will become classless under the rule of communism. The proletariat, defined as the lower working class, will take over the bourgeoisie, defined as the upper class, because of the

Karl Marx was an idealist. He observed the cruelties and injustices that the poor working class endured during the period of industrial revolution, and was inspired to write of a society in which no oppression existed for any class of people. Marx believed in a revolution that would end socialism and capitalism, and focus on communist principles. The Manifesto of the Communist Party, written by Karl Marx and edited by Frederick Engels, describes the goals of the communist party for ending exploitation of the working class and creating a society in which there is equality in society without social classes.1

Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto states, “The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy” (1888:32). Marx predicted that once proletariats had seized power, the state would abolish capitalism through collective ownership, taking economic control away from the free market and subsequently liberating society from alienation and oppression. This would give rise to a socialist society of equality, ultimately leading to communism. This essay discusses the strengths and limitations of democratic socialism in achieving Marxist socialism. In the UK democratic socialism has bought about