The Communist Manifesto: A Worker's Call To Arms

The Communist Manifesto: A Worker's Call to Arms

Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto to hopefully give some kind of guidance to his fellow workers or proletarians. It was to offer education as to their exploitation as a worker in a capitalistic society and the means to change it. When this was written it shook the social and economic worlds. It did so probably because their was some truth in what he wrote and dared to bring to light.

Communism was the end result of Marx's beliefs. That you were a Marxist if you agreed with what he said and communism was what you all worked to achieve. He believed in the uniting of the working class or proletariat as a whole and that their immediate goals were "formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat." (Marx 66) to achieve these goals Marx laid out a set of loose guidelines in which to follow. One was to abolish private property. Not to forever do away with private property but rather the "abolition of bourgeois property." (Marx 67) He argued that private property was not really private if it was used to further exploit the proletariat. He made a case that property was synonymous with capital, and that capital should be converted into common property. Thereby losing its characteristics of classes in which it was previously used to exploit. If the proletariats were truly given the chance to own property and to have capital, they would not continue to fall deeper into the hole that the bourgeois are creating for them.

It is important to point out that Marx believed, "The history of existing society is the history of class struggle." (Marx 50) All conflicts are created because the bourgeois exploit the proletariat to get ahead in society. The few bourgeois control most of the wealth or capital in the current society while the many proletariat are exploited and driven into further poverty by those few in the upper class. Marx said to further advance communism and rectify this problem you must do away with minimum wage, or the "quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer." (Marx 68) If there is always minimum wage, it offers no real chance for the proletariat to get out of his poverty. Also, he will continually be manipulated by the bourgeois for the advancement of themselves. It is argued by the bourgeois that doing this will do away with individuality and freedom, but when they use the terms "individuality and freedom," they mean "bourgeois freedom and individuality." Marx agrees that to achieve real freedom you must do away with these existing principles.

Marx's other means to achieve communism included the abolition of family. When said, it sounds like a dreadful thing, but to Marx it is meant to abolish the definitions the bourgeois use for family, capital, and so on. This definition of family by the bourgeois is one that is based "on capital, on private gain." (Marx 71) Bourgeois families are not really families and need to be redefined. Marx said that the abolition of family will take place automatically when bourgeois capital is eradicated. The bourgeois view their own wives and children as means of production. To Marx they are all fixated on the fact that they look to increase their wealth and affluence by any means necessary. Marxist and believers in communism must also use any means necessary to counteract these workings of bourgeois. Education is one of the tools needed to bring rise to the proletariat. If the proletariats are not educated in what is happening, they will never have the intellectual means to achieve their goal of unification.

With night there is always day, and so with Marx there is always Hayek. Though written almost one hundred years apart, they still have arguments for either belief. Hayek would reject Communism almost on the basis of its meaning of "common", whereas Marx believed that government should be collective or control most aspects of its nation. One of the most crucial observations as to why Hayek is opposed to any type of collective governments is "who, whom?" (Hayek 119) decides what is right and just for the people. How can one man or a small group of people become blind to what is to be governed and not be influenced by personal bias? At some point, the person or small group appointed will infringe