An analysis of The Communist Manifesto

An analysis of The Communist ManifestoKarl Marx was born in the early 19th hundred in Germany, where he received his degree in law and philosophy. shortly after completing university, with his constantly growing anti-bourgeois displaceiment (Zott, 2006) he make he could no longer believe in the German teaching system. He turned to journalism where he developed his radical ideas, lastly he was forced start of Germany, and he soon enthused onto further develop his studies. Marx met his long life friend Fredrick Engels who both had published significant encounter that questioned the existing European socio-economic system. Fredrick himself observed firsthand the exploitation of dismal neckband executeers under the ruling pattern in concomitantories, as his father sent him to re enclose their family in its textile business. Upon meeting in 1844 both fix common ground in one and others studies, they began to develop their intellectual partnership, and they came near writin g 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 political upheaval, where they witnessed revolutions, coups and rebellions. Marx was present during the European revolutions of 1848 which started in France. Its 160th anniversary The Communist Manifesto is unperturbed relevant till this day, Marx and Engels principles and their ideas of outstandingism resemble the restless, anxious and competitive military personnel of twentieth cytosine global economy (Cohan, 2000). Economists and political scientists none how the pronunciamento recognized the unstoppable wealth-creating power of capitalism, and predicted it would conquer the world, and warned that this inevitable globalization of guinea pig economies and cultures would tolerate divisive and painful consequences (Zott, 2006) which is indica tive of the texts relevance.Summary of main ideasThe telephone exchange premise of The Communist Manifesto can be deduced from Marxs famous inductive reasoning The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class clamber (Marx and Engels,1848) in which essentially Marx is stating that class is the defining feature of the modern industrial union. While the modern society has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society this has not done away with the clash antagonisms.(Marx and Engels, 1848) Marx is arguing that in the earlier periods society was arranged into complicated class structures such as in chivalric times there were feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices and serfs. For Marx, he believed class fence remedy exists but in this epoch modern class antagonism has beat simplified into two classes, the bourgeoisie as the oppressor and proletariat as the laden who be in constant opposition to each other.The manifesto therefore goes on to state the characteristics of both classes, which is marked by an exploitative descent between the bourgeoisie and the proletarians. The bourgeoisie ar the product of several revolutions, the owners of the agent of production who induct gained momentum with the age of exploration. Marx describes the proletarians as a class of labourers, who live only so long as they limit work, and who key out work only so long as their labour increases capital (Marx and Engels,1848) proletarians are essentially reduced to becoming a commodity. Marx then emergence to argue that the division of labour has exploited proletarians where they yield been stripped of their identicalness due to the advent of extensive machinery and so man becomes an appendage of the machine. The proles are powerless to change their circumstance and as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the mesh decreases. This system of oppression is sustained by institutions such as the precept system (which is part of the superstructure) which reinforces ruling class values. For example,the concept of a secluded curriculum (Blacks Academy, 2010) in educational establishments, whereby everything is designed to prepare students for the future spot as a powerless worker. The education institution is designed to gain ground the bourgeoisie and uphold the capitalist system, i.e. the hidden curriculum.Marx then discusses how the development of the labor has increased the proletarians strength, the growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more(prenominal) fluctuating (Marx and Engels 1848). As theres more of them they are strong generous to unite and voice their struggles over reduced wages. By forming trade unions they flap together to demand to keep up the rate of wages. Marx further argues the larger the union the bigger chance of them changing the system workers are victorious. Although their struggle for equality doesn t lie in the short term effect it lies in the ever-expanding union of the workers. However, the bourgeoisie try to split the proletarians so they are not united and cannot revolt, as a revolution is the only way in which their circumstances can be changed. This can be substantiated by the fact that Marx says continually being upset by competition between the workers. Marx to a fault describes the process of domination, in that to oppress a class, certain conditions of its slavish humans need to exist, and the essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital. (Marx and Engels, 1848)CriticismsThe take back of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable (Marx and Engels, 1848). despite Marx and Engels principles and ideas that the proletarians will overthrow the bourgeoisie, a century on and yet workers in the UK and other industrial societies have not eradicate and revolted aga inst capitalism. Ralf Dahrendorfs studies point out why the Marxist revolution hasnt come about over the 20th century. In 1959 Dahrendorf pointed out four reasons why.The first one was The fragmentation of the capitalist class (Dahrendorf 2005) he suggested that previously the means of productions would typically be owned privately by families, now in the 20th century companies and spot are greatly owned by stockholders. Secondly, white collar work and a rising standard of living (Dahrendorf, 2005) has transformed Marxs industrial proletariat. Workers in Marxs time laboured either on farms or in factories. They had blue collar or manual occupations lower standing jobs involving mostly physiologic labour. Today they hold white collar occupation, higher-prestige work involving mostly moral activity for instance job roles of such sales, management, and bureaucratic organisations. However, they still do monotonous tasks like the industrial workers in Marx time, but evidence indicat es that these workers collect their positions higher than those of their grandparents who led blue collars lifestyles. Thirdly, a more extensive worker organisation exists in which workers have organisational strengths, which they were deficient in a century ago. They have Trade unions where they come together and make demands backed with disincentive of working to rule and the relationship between labour and management are usually institutionalised and peaceful. Finally, more extensive legal protections have been more supportive to protect workers rights and has given workers better access to the courts.Dahrendorf also states that careless(predicate) of persistent stratification, many societies have smoothed out some of capitalisms jolting edges-and companionable conflict today maybe less intense than it was a century ago. (Dahrendorf, 2005) Whats more, he argues that despite Marx having witnessed the augmentation of the mass press in his time, unless he could hardly have pre dicted what a major impact media forms would have on us. The Growth of music, mass film, and mediated society has allowed us to lark about ourselves to death and become media-saturated with entertainment which has led people to lose their overcritical edge for thinking about the nature of their class positions. (Postman, 1986)Max weber also criticised some of Marxs ideas. In particular, he considered Marxs model of two sociable classes as too simple. weber viewed social stratification as a more complex interplay of three district dimensions (Weber, 2005) the dimensions being class, status and power. Marx believed that social status and power derived from economic position therefore he didnt find any reason to see it as district dimensions of social inequality. Weber opposed, as he recognised that stratification in industrial societies does have characteristically low status uniformity, individuals may have high sheer(a) on one dimension of society but a lesser position to another , for example, an bureaucratic official, may have power but in another dimension in society have little wealth. digestIn spite of all the criticisms aimed at Marx and his work, the communist manifesto cadaver an extremely influential piece of literature and as a instauration for society. His ideas have lent inspiration to revolutions, coups and political systems, but sadly they have not been sustained, for example the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR was ground on a communist system, yet it failed and capitalism moved into the vacuum. (BBC News, 2010)