Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Marlan Magdalaga STEM 11-13

Philosophy

Prof. Jimmy Fernando


Reaction Paper of Communist Manifesto

The Communist Manifesto is an informative and influential political pamphlet


bewilderingly written by well-known German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels. While reading this text, I comprehend and I come up with a realization that
Communist Manifesto offers a logical method to the class struggle, in the past and up to
present time. It also includes the dilemma of capitalism and the goals of the capitalist
and its mode of production, rather than a calculation of communism's possible future
forms. Because this text aims to be read by the public like students like myself. It was
easily grasped by the general audience by starting in giving the purpose and
broadcasting the views and goals of the Communists in the world. It is a comprehensive
explanation of what communism as a theory and political movement really means. The
unending questions in my mind and some difficulties about communism was now
cleared and I guess, Im quite illuminated.
After a lot of the working class were oppressed by the bourgeoisie and upper
class. I think Karl Marx decided to write this Communist manifesto as a stepping stone
and a key to the conflict of worker exploitation. He really hoped that with writing the
Communist Manifesto he could create a utopian society which everyone can live in.
Although, it had great purposes when Communist Manifesto was written, it noticeably
failed to form an ideal society which Marx dreamed about, since its essential for a
dictator to go into control and organize it into an egalitarian structure and give up his
own power. Obviously, we humans, as greedy beings, a dictator would never give up his
own power and that is why it failed.
The Communist Manifesto is separated into an introduction and four distinct
sections. I was enthralled, it left me asking questions in my mind and the eagerness to

continue reading by the statement "A spectre is haunting Europethe spectre of


communism. in the introduction. What the word Spectre really means and why
Spectre was used to be combined with communism. The first section of the Manifesto,
"Bourgeois and Proletarians", clarifies the materialist view of history, that "the history of
all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". I found out several ideas
were introduced by the author in the first section of this powerful pamphlet. All of history
until the present age is the story of a sequence of class struggles, I guess that is the
main idea. The notion that every society has a distinctive economic structure is the most
fundamental concept which is explained in this text.

This structure gives different

classes, which now are in as they oppress or are oppressed by each other. As history
"marches" on, the situation is not eternal rather it is progressing, sooner or later the
means of production ends to be well-matched with the class structure as-is. Instead, the
structure starts to hinder the development of productive forces. The current structure
must be demolished at this time which results to the explanation of the appearance of
the bourgeoisie and its ensuing demolition out of feudalism. Marx has a belief that all of
history should be understood in this way--as the process in which classes readjust
themselves in agreement with changing means of production.
I guess that the most important feature of this theory of history is what it
doesnt deem important. History is formed by economic relations only based from
Marxs Theory. Culture, ideology, religion and every individual are elements that play a
very brief part. But, impersonal forces move history, and its overall direction is
unavoidable. Marx has a belief that this kind of history isnt forever, however. The
Manifesto will far along argue that the modern class dilemma is the final class conflict;
the end of this conflict will mark the end of all class relations. I grasped that this section
begins to suggest why this might be, signifying the ways in which the modern era is
exceptional. The first way is class antagonisms have been abridged with this two
contrasting classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, developed. Then, while unequal
relations were formerly concealed behind things like ideology, today the veil has been
raised and everything is realized in terms of self- interest. Thirdly, for the bourgeoisie to

exist, bourgeoisie must frequently revolutionize the instruments of production. An


unprecedentedly unbalanced state leave social relations.
The second section is "Proletarians and Communists and it explains the
relationship of the communist and the working class. In my point of view, I guess one of
Marx's most fascinating claims in the second section is that the ideas of philosophy and
religion which are actually entrenched in individual's material existence; only the
outcomes of certain relations of production are in particular ideas. The most prevailing
ideas are just those that aid the everlasting interests of the ruling class. Thus, this ruling
class makes our rules in which structures our society, and supports those ideas that
advancing its own ends. For a brief example, the bourgeoisie adore property rights
because obviously they are the ones in society with possessions and property. Also, this
section where Karl Marx gives a sense of what his point of view or what he really thinks
this revolution will be like. The workforces become our rulers, and work to eradicate or
eliminate private property. It is significant to reflect in which examples the Manifesto is
basically trying to give a description about the historical process, and also theres some
instances which it is also supporting specific methods and goals: Communism
comprehends history to be an unalterable force, but also as important to a ethically
wanted outcome. The questions I found here are: What is the role that the Communist
are playing in the historical process? If the revolution is an unavoidable force of history,
we should even question why this Communist Manifesto is really essential.
Last of all, I found this section interesting mainly because it shows Marx's
techniques of responding to disapprovals. Marx is strict and quite sarcastic about the
critiques of Communism. Reflect whether his method is oratorically effective. Would he
be more substantial if he acquired a more serious tone about the critiques of
Communism?

This third section "Socialist and Communist Literature" is mainly a review of


other Socialist philosophers. The author argues that each method didnt succeeded

because it lacks out on a main key component of Communist theory. The Reactionaries
fail to perceived that the predictability of the bourgeoisie's rise, and of their final fall at
the hands of the proletariat. The Conservative Socialists also fail to see the inevitability
of class antagonism, and of the obliteration of the bourgeoisie. This Critical-Utopian
Socialists fail to understand and comprehend that social change must happen in
revolutions, and not by just merely pure dreaming or words not going to act out.
For a current reader like myself, Marx's argument of the second subgroup
perhaps merits the most consideration. The Conservative Socialism that Marx convicts
is exactly the attitude incorporated by countries like the United States to the dilemma of
workers. Welfare, Social Security and a minimum wage are all actions that Marx would
dismiss as efforts to preserve the capitalist system by the creation of the situation of the
proletariat tolerable. It is worth seeing, then, whether Marx's analysis is undoubted.
Essentially, Marx appears to claim that these "reforms" are really done in the benefits
and interests of the bourgeois to pacify the proletariat and to make them receive or
accept their underlying social role. Marx has a belief that this form of Socialism is
mistaken; he resists that the only method to really address the complaints of the
proletariat is through a rearrangement of economic and social relations. This is a
revolutionary act; the optional reforms of Conservative Socialists are just soothing. This
lead me to questions. How does Karl Marx's analysis or critique hold up to states such
as the U.S. or Western European nations which have introduced such "Conservative
Socialist" programs? Is Marx is really right in uttering that these reforms aid the benefits
and interests of the ruling capitalists, and not the workforces?
Last of all, the final section discloses the political agenda of the Communists.
The communists final goal is continually a proletariat revolution and the elimination of
private property and class antagonism. Because they really be certain of that history
must go over a set of stages, however, this may mean occasionally supporting the
bourgeoisie, in order to finally make a hands' revolution possible. While this
Communists have a strong theoretical foundation, integrating comments and forecasts,
theyre also advocating those predictions, and trying to hasten their realization.
Therefore, they do not just state that workforces shall one day unite. Somewhat, they

call on labors to unite which they promise them to have freedom and a better world to
live in. How divisible are the political and theoretical messages of the Communists? Is
the theory of history by the communist is a vital part of its revolutionary memorandum?