The Communist Manifesto: the Statement of Germany Revolutionary Group Essay

Introduction

The manifesto brings about an argument of the changes in the society as a representation of the history running from the ancient roman emperor to the current modernized and industrialized world. The communist manifesto defines the statement of Germany revolutionary group with a reflection on the political undertakings of the time.

For the fight of political and economical oppressions, the activist groups set out barricades for existence by setting out a system of private ownership of production referred to as capitalism. In the description on the manifesto, the argument shows the division of the society along the line of bourgeoisie or the capitalists who engage in the production fields such as milling, mining and other industrial productions.

The other category comprises the workers who sell their workforce to the capitalists. The capitalists pay to the workers is very little for the services because the system allows them to dictate and get away with the misdeeds. The communist manifesto is a wakeup call for analysis of the political actions that urges people to unite and find change.

There is use of various theories to motivate people such as that of historical materialism indicating that change occurs because of the political class struggle. The struggles realize various economical goals and the orders or economic concepts replace each other until the fine one is found. The social and political alliances cause the relationship that determines the production.

This means that production depends on the social setting, because different settings have diverse modes of production, dissimilar organization techniques and equally distinct techniques for division of labour. An individual will have personal attitudes, actions and perception on the societal or political loyalties. According to the manifesto, this uniqueness derives from the social setting in relation to production. People either are politically exploiters or exploited and either of the categories merge easily to form alliances with those of the same grouping based on the similarity of the identifiers.

I disagree with the manifesto on the notion that bourgeoisie alters all the aspects of the society and families and destroyed all the cultural or traditional believes and practices through industrialization and urbanization. Arguably, the bourgeoisie’s specifications that collective struggles along economical divide causes the changes in the social setting, political and historical events create good reality. Historically since ancient Rome to the current scenarios, the struggle against federal societies takes a shape along the social, political and economical classes.

The economical interest of a master is quite different from that of the servant. The manifesto indicates that the livelihood of the bourgeoisie emerges to be wealthier because of its ability to sweep away poverty through world exploitation and discoveries referred to as revolution. This makes bourgeoisie a dominant class that shapes the society in a close reference to its personal interests.

The replacement of the class struggle along wealth line causes a huge impact on the social setting by creation of a scenario where every one has to struggle to aim at acquiring a capitalistic style of production, but not to the level of altering the fundamental aspects of the family or social setting. The technological advancement in the production markets translates to change and less manual works and therefore the modernized workers have to upgrade skills to be in terms with such progressions.

The loss on the production duties causes the low production. Expansion on capitalism may be forcing the poor to sell their labour forces to the bourgeoisie, but this is not the basis for compromising the family settings and societal cultural believes and traditions. The cause of the traditional changes is arguably due to the generation differences, poverty levels, formality on education systems and differences in understandings.

Secondly, I disagree with the notion from the manifesto that the bourgeoisie force the working class to be like them through the well-established mode of production. The working class are either emulating the bourgeoisie or drawing away to their side of struggle against the poor in society.

As the communist manifesto indicates, there is likelihood that the struggle over formation of class differences will force a split between the modern industrial workers and bourgeoisie. The political revolution, current advancement in technological matters and education makes the industrial worker to recognize their suffering in the hands of bourgeoisie. This will force a struggle for liberalization once they are in a position to realize their common association besides the struggle and competition for the ever-decreasing wages.

The poverty levels are forcing the workers to form a divide among them but once they realize the existence of a common fate, the workers will gradually form a collective state over demands in the political sphere and force recognition. The growth of huge industries and superior industries owned by bourgeoisie lowers the likelihood of entrepreneurial growth for the middle class. This will possibly force a struggle causing some division between the two sides of growing entrepreneurs and the bourgeoisie. This is the struggle for realizing the economical advancement.

Lastly, I disagree with the aspect of reducing the production to commodity exchange to the specific behaviour regarding the measure of exchange: money, thus avoiding the social representation. The communist manifesto has brought out many logical theories applicable and logical in today’s markets. For instance, the fundamental units of capitalism are commodities. The usefulness over satisfaction of needs or wants of a commodity determines the user-value and exchange value. It helps in determining the worthiness of a commodity in relation to other values of similar commodities.

The common market indicates existence of a measure for all commodities of different sorts to satisfy different needs but is measurable in the same unit known as money. The existence of value in the market means that the commodity has an exchange or monetary value. The manifesto posed the question of how the user-values of commodities are measurable in similar units. Monetary measure of many corresponds to the amount of labour force and time in making a commodity.

In the situation of commodity exchange, the value was measurable in terms of labour time. The labour time theory was an indication that commodities possessed a social relationship concerning the human efforts in their productions. This social aspect fails to reveal itself in the current social markets because the quality of commodities depends on the prices and not the labour in the capitalist social setting.

The argument in the manifesto is that the value of commodity in the modern social setting seems mystical and according to the bourgeois economists’ production and exchange of commodities in monetary terms avoids their social significance or representation. Bourgeoisie avoids the fact that commodities materialize from the fact that there exists an explosive system of wages to compensate labour thus the continuation of a social aspect.

Conclusion

To increase resources, the capitalists rely on the disposal of labour forces from the poor workers who measure the power to work in terms of commodities and sales, which emerge from them. The capitalist accumulates products to sell in the markets as surplus values. Capitalists’ invest majority of their efforts in generation of profits to satisfy their personal needs.

This means that they are the key causes of exploitation, because they want to enjoy the competitive prices by buying as much of the labour forces as they can, at the least price possible. There existed no laws or regulations to curb the exploitation back then, but today the workers are taking stands through their unions to ensure they have powers over their rights.