Diana's Various and Sundry Essays

The Communist Manifesto and the Blind Idealism of Karl Marx

The Communist Manifesto is one of the most widely-read works of societal philosophy in the world. The ideas expressed within its pages still affect the world today. The theorist, Karl Marx, suggests that the only way for them to work, however, is to implement them abruptly and drastically. When he calls for the abolition of personal property rights, the state of marriage, and nationality, he means for these changes to be immediate and not gradually eased into, which some might argue is a better strategy for such fundamental societal reforms.

One such reform is his petition for the abolition of personal property rights (Marx 66). This idea would place all property into the hands of the state for the common good. The only people who would stand to lose in this situation would be the bourgeoisie, since they owned all of the property. The proletariat would have everything to gain because they owned nothing. Therefore, most of the objections about this reform come from the bourgeoisie class, making them irrelevant to a party whose motivation is empowerment of the proletariat. In any case, the social repercussions caused by the confiscation of personal property would be immense. Society is usually somewhat resistant to change, and an issue involving the right of ownership is even more heated since it raises related difficulties pertaining to basic human rights. If one can be abolished, are the rest not in jeopardy as well? The presumption that rights pertaining to property are only present because the properties are personally owned is accurate. However, individually possessed assets already exist. By the same theory, one does not abolish punishment for a murderer because they do not want murder to occur. It simply does not make any logical sense.

A little bit closer to home hits the idea that the state of marriage should be abolished and that women should become a community resource (Marx 72). To faithfully married bourgeoisie couples, this idea is horrific. Regardless of what goes on behind the scenes, the marital façade is a necessary one that keeps the social order together and functioning sufficiently. Of course, the aim of Marx with this proposal was not to keep the social order together, but to disrupt it, perhaps hoping to flabbergast the world into shape. The argument which Marx puts forth that in the communist society the male bourgeoisie automatically lump women into the category of communal resources, without understanding that these women are actually being liberated in some manner, is a little weak. Once again the objections of the bourgeoisie are not taken into consideration, since they are seen as the enemy. Abrupt disruption of an institution that has been in existence in some form since the beginning of time is also an incredibly bold move, and one bound to cause unease among all classes.

Finally, the abolition of countries and nationality is called for (Marx 72). This demand of a global community that embraces nationalism as relatively new and exciting seems preposterous. The theory that all proletariat suffer under the same abominable circumstances seems accurate, but the idea that they are able to efficiently unite for the greater good of their own class is yet another matter. The proletariat by nature does not have any experience in politics, and the idea that they will be able to force positive and constructive change on their own is too optimistic. Despite the small measure of success that revolutions have achieved in the past, ascribing to the attractive belief that a mob of revolutionaries can be trusted to set up a society based on cooperation for the common good is nothing more than idealism. The proletariat may not be able to be contained within the misery of the industrial world, but the utopia that Marx envisions for them is not practical when juxtaposed with the ever-present mob mentality of insurgents. It is particularly ludicrous to expect of a throng of workers used to a class system and still harbouring bitterness about their exploitation. Ridding the globe of sovereign nations is an incredibly radical measure that has the potential to cause immense discontent as people begin to feel that they are losing their cultural identities, and becoming lost in the huge population of the earth as it struggles daily to survive the rigours of life.

These social reforms that Marx suggests bringing into practice with such lack of delicacy are not innately bad. However, due to his somewhat unfocused writing style, his ideas are not expressed as clearly as one might wish when trying to read the document itself. His ideas, introduced more slowly to society, might be more viable. The main flaw of The Communist Manifesto is the presentation of everything suggested as necessarily immediate. Marx wants the proletariat to fully comprehend how appallingly they are being treated, which is admirable.

Unfortunately, however, he does not allow for the residual anger that the people may have regarding the situation, as well as the power that societal tradition will retain over them, when they come to power as a class. The slow adjustment of society to new ideas cannot be overcome by a small book full of badly expressed good ideas. His arrogance is apparent throughout the work. Marx seems to be under the impression that his philosophy is above the natural tendencies of humankind because he feels that it is intrinsically right, and will solve the majority of the world’s problems.


Work Cited

Marx, Karl, and Frederich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Signet Classics, 1998.



Back to Diana's Various and Sundry Essays

Back to Diana's Insanity