The ideology of marxism is “revolutionary socialism” based on the theories of Karl and Engels, emphasizing common ownership of the means of production and a planned, or command economy. The principle held is that each should work according to his or her capacity and receive according to his or her needs. Politically, it seeks the overthrow of
capitalism through a proletarian (working-class) revolution. The Manifesto reflects an attempt to explain the goals of Communism, as well as the theory underlying this movement. It argues that class struggles, or the use of one class by another, are the motivating force behind all historical developments. Class relationships are defined by an era’s means of production. However, eventually these relationships cease to be well-matched with the developing forces of production. At this point, a revolution occurs and a new class emerges as the ruling one. Modern Industrial society in specific is characterized by class conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. However, the productive forces of capitalism are quickly ceasing to be compatible with this unequal relationship. Thus, the proletariat will lead a revolution. However, this revolution will be of a different character than all previous ones: previous revolutions simply reallocated property in favor of the new ruling class. However, by the nature of their class, the members of the proletariat have no way of appropriating property. Therefore, when they obtain control they will have to destroy all ownership of private property, and classes themselves will disappear. The Manifesto argues that this development is inevitable, and that capitalism is inherently unstable. The Communists intend to promote this revolution, and will promote the parties and associations that are moving history towards its natural conclusion. They argue that the elimination of social classes cannot come about through reforms or changes in government. Rather, a revolution will be required.
Communism seems very enticing on paper, but from what we’ve actually seen in the past, it’s not necessarily the most effective way to run a country. Having the proletarian class over throw the bourgeoisie sounds alluring because of their current compatibility. The bourgeoisie are the middleclass merchants while the proletarians are the lower class labors, wage earners. The bourgeoisie want to produce their products as cheap as possible, while the proletarians are trying to make a living on a pettily wage that won’t increase because of the selfishness of the bourgeoisie. From a proletarians perspective, this makes communism attractive, which made it attractive to the western society because the bulk of society was of the proletarian class. From what we’ve learned in the past, communism was a reasonable response to the situation of the western world in the nineteenth century. What we say previously in lets say France, was the French revolution. They abolished the monarch to acquire more freedom to the people, but eventually evolved into another monarch with napoleon Bonaparte. When a country is ruled by a monarch, it seems a lot of blood is shed for political advancement. The cost of Napoleon’s rule was high: 750, 000 French soldiers and 400, 000 others from annexed and satellite states. With numbers like these its no wonder why communism is so attractive. Putting power into the hands of the lower class seems like a good idea at this point.
I believe that there are some aspects that Christians can agree and commend, but for the most part, communism eventually down spirals. If communism were so effective, then there would be more than a handful of countries practicing it’s ideology. The idea of bestowing power onto the lowers classes sounds lovely because of the way they have suffered in the past. I certainly don’t agree with slave labor, or working for the most minimum wage possible. Giving power to the people would break the bonds and give them more freedom. However, human nature has its own characteristics and from what I’ve learned, equality amongst the people would fade. Its in our nature to be competitive and you always want a better quality of life then the next guy. You may work harder then the next guy and think you deserve more. Why should someone who works hard and someone who is lazy be considered equal. People work hard for their achievements and should be awarded accordingly. Communism fails in this aspect of its ideology. Bestowing power to the people sounds good, but the equality talked about would never last. Human nature doesn’t allow us to share equality, we always want to be one step closer or higher then the next. It’s the way we’ve been design, it’s our completive nature to outdo the next guy.