Marx and Engels' "The Communist Manifesto"

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than "callous payment". (3)

This is another example of a text in which I have difficulty giving credibility to due to the fact that the author's passion clearly influences his reason. I respect Marx & Engels' idealistic drive to change their world, and what's more, I fully understand that it's written in a pre-soviet Russia which I cannot even begin to understand. Chris's propaganda video showed me that. But still, although I can respect the ideas and the intention behind this manifesto, I have difficulties with the tone and the strategies that they present.

My biggest issue with the tone is their insistence that the bourgeoisie purposefully and maliciously acts in order to oppress the peasant class. I do not doubt that the bourgeoisie gave little thought to the rights of the under-class, however, I have a hard time believing that they banded together to purposefully and spitefully strip them of any semblance of humanity. But then again, you know, slavery. Who am I to think I understand the minds of the privileged masses?

But still. This treatise frustrates me because it is so out of step with my understanding of human nature and Western culture I could go on an on - about how Marx and Engels alienate similar political groups who may have otherwise been on their side, how even the most desperate of common man wants personal autonomy and choice in how his life is lived, how creepy and paternalistic their proto-feministic views on 'women will do what women will do' statements. But really, it's not the ideas that I have issues with, it's the implementation of these basically good ideas, specifically the step which details 'the abolition of all rights of inheritance'.
\
Throughout all of the texts that we've read, inheritance is a prime motivator in Western culture. One works to provide for their family, to create a legacy, to create a name that lives on. Despite the cliché of Achilles' heel, his desire to have his name ring through history was his great downfall. Confiscating the monies and heirlooms of the rich as they pass on would, surely level the economic playing field and within a generation or so, the state would have the funds necessary to implement the social services such as mandatory public schooling necessary to educate and raise the underclass to "productive members of society"; however, this blanket rule would also strip the working classes of what little they have to pass on.

As flawed as this text was, it has been a galvanising force for the need for protection of the working class, and for giving them a voice. Certainly, Canada and other governments around the world have embraced some of the ideas set forth by Marx and Engels, even as others have been set aside as naïve or simply wrong. Clearly, we've seen the downfall of other regimes which have attempted to hold this text up as a mascot, as they were unwilling, or unable to maintain the ideals within it.

Frustrating.

Works Cited:

Marx, Karl and Engels, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. Public Domain: Amazon. Kindle e-book.