We accept

An analysis with the Communist Manifesto

Karl Marx was born in the first 19th century in Germany, where he received his degree in law and philosophy. Shortly after completing university, with his ever growing 'anti-bourgeois sentiment' (Zott, 2006) he found he could no more believe in the German education system. He considered journalism where he developed his radical ideas, in the end he was compelled out of Germany, and he soon enthused onto further producing his studies. Marx satisfied his long life good friend Fredrick Engels who both acquired published significant work that questioned the prevailing Western socio-economic system. Fredrick himself seen firsthand the exploitation of blue training collar employees under the ruling school in factories, as his dad dispatched him to represent their family in its textile business. Upon conference in 1844 both found common surface in one yet others studies, they commenced to develop their intellectual relationship, and they came into being writing 'The Communist Manifesto' in 1848. Karl Marx is generally considered the prime writer, though some would say it is difficult to underpin where Marx work begins and where Engels work ends.

The political manuscript was written at a time of politics upheaval, where they witnessed revolutions, coups and rebellions. Marx was present through the Western revolutions of 1848 which were only available in France. Its 160th anniversary 'The Communist Manifesto' continues to be relevant till this day, Marx and Engels concepts and their ideas of capitalism 'resemble the restless, troubled and competitive world of 20th century global economy' (Cohan, 2000). Economists and political scientists note the way the manifesto 'recognized the unstoppable wealth-creating electric power of capitalism, and expected it would conquer the earth, and warned that this inescapable globalization of nationwide economies and civilizations would have divisive and unpleasant implications' (Zott, 2006) which is indicative of the text's relevance.

Summary of main ideas

The central idea of 'The Communist Manifesto' can be deduced from Marx's famous generalization 'The background of all hitherto existing societies is the annals of class have difficulties' (Marx and Engels, 1848) in which essentially Marx is stating that category is the defining feature of the modern industrial society. While the modern society has 'sprouted from the ruins of feudal culture this has not done away with the clash antagonisms. '(Marx and Engels, 1848) Marx is arguing that in the earlier periods culture was organized into complicated course structures such as in medieval times there have been 'feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices and serfs. ' For Marx, he thought class struggle still exists however in this epoch modern category antagonism is becoming simplified into two classes, the bourgeoisie as the oppressor and proletariat as the oppressed who are in continuous opposition to each other.

The manifesto then continues on to state the characteristics of both classes, which is proclaimed by an exploitative relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletarians. The bourgeoisie will be the product of several revolutions, the owners of the means of production who have gained momentum with age exploration. Marx identifies the proletarians as 'a course of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour rises capital' (Marx and Engels, 1848) proletarians are essentially reduced to becoming a 'commodity'. Marx then proceeds to argue that the division of labour has exploited proletarians where they have been stripped of these identity because of the advancement of 'extensive machinery' and so man 'becomes an appendage of the machine. ' The personnel are powerless to improve their circumstance so that the 'repulsiveness of the task increases, the income decreases. ' This system of oppression is sustained by institutions like the education system (which is area of the superstructure) which reinforces ruling course values. For instance,

the concept of a concealed curriculum (Black's Academy, 2010) in educational organizations, whereby everything is designed to prepare students for future years position as a powerless staff member. The education institution was created to advantage the bourgeoisie and uphold the capitalist system, i. e. the invisible curriculum.

Marx then discusses the way the development of the industry has increased the proletarians strength, 'the growing competition on the list of bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the income of the workers a lot more fluctuating' (Marx and Engels 1848). As there's more of these these are strong enough to unite and tone their battles over reduced wages. By developing trade unions they remain together to demand to keep up the pace of pay. Marx further argues the bigger the union the larger chance of them changing the machine 'staff are victorious'. Although their struggle for equality doesn't lie for a while effect; it is based on the 'ever-expanding union of the workers. ' However, the bourgeoisie make an effort to divide the proletarians so they are not united and cannot revolt, as a revolution is the only way in which their circumstances can be modified. This is substantiated by the actual fact that Marx says 'constantly being annoyed by competition between your staff. ' Marx also represents the process of domination, for the reason that to oppress a school, certain conditions of its 'slavish' existence need to are present, and the 'essential condition for the living, and for the sway of the bourgeois course, is the development and augmentation of capital. ' (Marx and Engels, 1848)


The fall season of the bourgeoisie 'and the triumph of the proletariat are similarly unavoidable' (Marx and Engels, 1848). Despite Marx and Engels rules and ideas that the proletarians will overthrow the bourgeoisie, a hundred years on and yet workers in the united kingdom and other industrial societies have never get rid of and revolted against capitalism. Ralf Dahrendorf's studies explain why the Marxist revolution hasn't come about within the 20th century. In 1959 Dahrendorf pointed out four reasons why.

The first one was 'The fragmentation of the capitalist school' (Dahrendorf: 2005) he recommended that previously the means of productions would typically be held privately by families, now in the 20th century companies and property are greatly owned by stockholders. Second, 'white training collar work and a growing standard of living' (Dahrendorf, 2005) has altered Marx's professional proletariat. 'Workers in Marx's time laboured either on farms or in factories'. That they had blue scruff of the neck or manual occupations; lower standing jobs involving usually physical labour. Today they keep white collar profession, higher-prestige work regarding typically mental activity for example job jobs of such; sales, management, and bureaucratic organisations. However, they still perform monotonous responsibilities like the commercial staff in Marx time, but data indicates that these personnel see their positions greater than those of their grandparents who led blue collars life styles. Finally, a 'more extensive worker organisation' exists where personnel have organisational advantages, which they were lacking in a hundred years ago. They have 'Trade unions' where they get together and make needs guaranteed with intimidation of 'working to rule' and the relationship between labour and management are usually institutionalised and peaceful. Finally, 'more intensive legal protections' have been more supportive to protect workers' protection under the law and has given employees better usage of the courts.

Dahrendorf also says that irrespective of 'prolonged stratification, many societies have smoothed out a few of capitalisms harsh edges-and social turmoil today maybe less intense than it was a hundred years ago'. (Dahrendorf, 2005) Also, he argues that despite Marx having observed the augmentation of the mass press in his time, however he could not have predicted what a major impact media forms could have on us. 'The Expansion of music, mass film, and mediated contemporary society has allowed us to amuse ourselves to loss of life' and become media-saturated with entertainment which includes led visitors to lose their critical border for thinking about the nature of the school positions. ' (Postman, 1986)

Max Weber also criticised some of Marx's ideas. In particular, he considered Marx's style of two sociable classes as too simple. Weber viewed public stratification 'as a far more intricate interplay of three area proportions' (Weber, 2005) the measurements being; class, position and electric power. Marx assumed that social status and power produced from financial position therefore he didn't find any reason to view it as district measurements of cultural inequality. Weber opposed, as he accepted that stratification in commercial societies does have characteristically low position uniformity, individuals may have high get ranking on one dimension of modern culture but a lesser position to another, for example, an bureaucratic official, may have vitality however in another aspect in modern culture have little riches.


In spite of all the criticisms aimed at Marx and his work, the communist manifesto remains an exceptionally influential little bit of literature so that as a groundwork for society. His ideas have lent enthusiasm to revolutions, coups and political systems, but regrettably they have not been suffered, for example the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR was based on a communist system, yet it failed and capitalism moved into the vacuum. (BBC Reports, 2010)

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment