Essay Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/An-Analysis-And-Critique-Of-The-Communi 👈

1. Term Paper II
An analysis and critique of Marx and Engels' The Communist Manifesto
Samuel S. Cummings
PHIL 220 (T/R, 0930 – 1045)
December 2013

2. Samuel S. Cummings
PHIL 220
E. H. Dority
December 2013
Analysis of Excerpts of Text
The Communist Manifesto is a historically well known paper, originally written in German, by
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels; both political theorists. To provide some background, Engels was a
social and political scientist, theorist and an economist as well as a veteran of the Prussian Army.
Relatively wealthy and financially “well off,” he worked closely with Karl Marx, including funding his
research, to found the political theory and school known commonly as Marxism. Marx was university
educated, holding a doctorate in philosophy (Arthur 465), and has been described as one of the fathers
of modern social sciences (Weber).
The Communist Manifesto itself is a review of theory and policy that opens with the phrase
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Arthur 465). Quite
prophetic to the rest of this piece, Marx and Engels specifically state that past the names of classes, be
they the upper class or loser class, the rich or the poor, or the knight or the serf, the struggle of class is
more and more developing into the ideology of the 'haves' versus the 'have nots.' This is further stated
by making examples of the most recognizable forms of classes in history; for example, the Ancient
Roman patricians and and slaves; in the Middle Ages, there were feudal lords and serfs, specifically
stating “...in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate graduations” (Arthur 465).
Moreover, Marx and Engels state that while modern [at the time] society has evolved
significantly from the days of feudal lords and Roman knights, “the modern bourgeois society that has
sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms” (Arthur 466).
This is evidenced by Marx and Engels by using the examples of the modern industry, calling it “the
feudal system of industry,” and makes references to two social classes of today [again, relatively

3. speaking] of the “bourgeoisie,” that being a capitalist, a wealthy power baron and the “proletariat,” or
the workers employed by the former. Over time, the powerful and the wealthy have gained access and
control to the means and modes of the production in industry, and thus, have control of the world –
which they control for a means to an end: their own wealth – being the bourgeoisie. An interesting
point made by Marx and Engels specifically was “The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo, every
occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the
lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage laborers,” and “has torn away from
the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation” (Arthur
466).
Marx and Engels also make a point that the proletariat are only worth to the bourgeoisie that
which they can produce, and only if that labor serves to increase the profitability of the same; and
seems to find this as a vicious cycle of capitalism. This is evidenced by this statement: “the need of a
constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie all over the whole surface of the
globe It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere” (Arthur 467).
This certainly goes along with the popular capitalist notion of “steady ain't sexy,” speaking to the point
that capitalist business ventures (i.e., those that are for-profit, not non-profit or non-loss) need to
increase profits, seemingly at whatever cost necessary.
Moreover, Marx and Engels say that the bourgeoisie have effectively made and tied the
figurative rope that it will eventually hang itself with. Indeed, “but no only has the bourgeoisie forged
the weapons that will bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield
those weapons – the modern working class – the proletariat” (Arthur 468). This goes back to the point
made previously that the proletariat are essentially making their living and life at the whim of the
bourgeoisie, and that the moment their labor and their work doesn't become profitable for them, they
could very well find themselves looking for new work. This is also evidenced by Marx and Engels
stating on Arthur 468 that “As privates of the industrial army are placed under the command of a

4. perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and
of the bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine,” the machine being the
socio-poltical system that makes up the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. This specifically states that
because the rich and wealthy control the means to run “the machine” (i.e., everything), that the
proletariat are powerless to change it – unless this system were to change.
Enter... communism.
“The communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.”
 Karl Marx & Fredereich Engels
The communist system, according to Marx and Engels, is that which is run by all – and there is
no bourgeoisie or proletariat – they are all the proletariat. All are workers for a commonly owned
business or industry, and all work toward the same goal, and for themselves and for each other. This is
evidenced by Marx stating on Arthur 469, “They [communists] have no interests separate and apart
from those of the proletariat as a whole.” Marx and Engels specifically state that the goal of the
communists to overthrow the rich and wealthy bourgeoisie, and end it's domination of the means and
ability to control, and to bring this control under a unified proletariat; and that this was by no means a
revolutionary idea. Citing the French Revolution, Marx and Engels reference how feudal lands and
property rights in favor of a bourgeois property and ownership system. Making the point that
communism wasn't calling for the abolition of property ownership completely, it iterated that bourgeois
property, as such, be abolished – seemingly to come under control of the now unified proletariat.
Making the point that capital is not only a personal power, but a social power, Marx and Engels
further state that capitalists set the minimum wage as that which the worker is able to maintain a
meager existence and keep that existence as a mere laborer – and not advance any further; and state the
contrast that the communist society's labor is a way to enrich and widen the scope of one's life, as
opposed to suffering and being held back by the upper class bourgeoisie’s rate of the minimum wage.
To paraphrase the final portions of the publishing, Marx and Engels call for an end to private property

5. ownership and rents on which, to be given up to the public, as well as any inheritance to said property,
a heavily rated and progressive income tax to benefit all people, as well as the realignment of
production and factories to allow those who work there the ability to do so without oppression, and in a
commonly owned and controlled environment.
Critique
In 21st
century America, the ever increasing value of power, in one way or another, has gone
through the roof, to coin a cliché. The wealthiest of the wealthy continue to earn more and more
capital and property, and it is arguably becoming easier for them to do so, while those below,
particularly at the lower ends of the income spectrum, find their wages and earnings stagnating, while
prices of goods and valuables continue to rise, which leads to a loss of net worth and a dramatic rise of
a cost of living for those persons. The result is a system where the “haves” continue to get wealthier
and wealthier, and the poor get poorer and poorer – if they do not at least maintain a status-quo. While
there are always exceptions to every model, this seems to hold true. An analysis conducted by the
Economic Policy Institute shows that, since the economic recovery in the United States began post-
recession, the incomes of those in the top 1% of income have “rebounded strongly,” while those below
that level, particularly in the bottom 50% have stagnated, if not fallen (Mishel). Could Marx and
Engels have been prophesized the Great Recession and its effects on modern America? Doubtful.
However, it does speak to the state of affairs between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' in America,
specifically today. Those who feel the system is “set against them” have found voices in such
organizations as the modern Communist and Socialist Parties, the “Occupy Wall Street” and sister
movements, and even to a point in the center/left-leaning Democratic Party. Do Marx and Engels'
theories hold water? Quite possibly, particularly where it discusses the bourgeoisie’s control of capital
and means of production continues to make them richer and wealthier, while continuing a stranglehold
on the proletariat's minimum wage, meager lifestyle to keep them figuratively in line. Further, when
discussing the bourgeoisie’s “weapon” it has fashioned itself being the proletariat, it could be that the

6. proletariat of America's society today is beginning to realize that they outnumber the bourgeoisie of
America today – and can indeed, take measures to change what they perceive is an unfair system.
Could this be the biggest explanation of why we have a black president who ran on a platform of
“change” during hard economic and fiscal times; and why those on the right simply can't “understand”
why this seems to be?
History is replete with changing governments, economies and revolutions – in our lifetime,
we've seen many; and even more if we know where to look. Could Marx and Engels be a blueprint (if
not exact) toward a new social policy in America if the bottom 50% decide to launch a social
revolution?

7. References
Arthur, J., et. al. Morality and Moral Controversies. Readings in Moral, Social and Political
Philosophy, Eighth Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. Pages cited as
necessary.
Mishel, L., et al. Earnings of the top 1.0 percent rebound strongly in the recovery. Economic Policy
Institute. January 23, 2013. http://www.epi.org/publication/ib347-earnings-top-one-percent-
rebound-strongly/
Stanford University. Max Weber. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. July 31, 2012.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weber/