http://www.hermes-press.com/marx_engels2.jpg
I agree with The Communist Manifesto and Friederich Engels gels in regards to their views about class struggle, but Communism does have its setbacks. To begin with, they state that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (57). Classes are created as a result of birth, education, and socioeconomic factors. However, Marx and Engels condemn class differences; they hope to abolish the bourgeoisie and create a world of only proletarians. This does sound extremely appealing. The lack of classes would prevent internal rivalries and disagreements in governments. The number of wars would decrease, and people would settle into a state of peace and tranquility. However, Communism does not directly promote industrial advancement. Countries would become backwards and corrupt. One significant example of this is present- day China. They have a Communist government but still manufacture goods extremely well. While they maintain a somewhat capitalist approach in terms of their economy (a much better alternative to communism as will be discussed), their social system is completely backwards. Communism does not protect the people but actually oppresses them. Overall, while Communism seems like a potentially fantastic idea, in practice it is not very successful.
Furthermore, Marx and Engels wanted to destroy private property and capitalism. However, this is not natural, because people are designed to compete and strive to become better. Therefore, class differences (in a perfect meritocracy) are results of ambition. Destroying capitalism would obliterate all human determination. Progress would not be achieved with Communism and certainly not with socialism. Marx and Engels adopted an extremely cynical view of the rich, which is ironic considering that Engels was extremely wealthy. Throughout history, the wealthy have certainly prompted many problems. However, the answer is not Communism, a system that endorses laziness. Marx and Engels themselves even admit it, for they state, “…upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us” (86). Communism and socialism only promote lack of creativity and individuality. Work ethic would decrease. Overall, capitalism is necessary to stimulate progress.
As mentioned above, the use of Communism to destroy class struggles is admirable but not necessarily practical, especially considering the force of capitalism. Furthermore, unlike Marx and Engels, I do not believe that Communism is the end of dialectical materialism, for capitalism is inevitable. Throughout the centuries, countries have evolved from feudalism to capitalism and finally to Communism. This constant change in governments is called dialectical materialism. They state that during each era, people have resurrected their beliefs as “eternal laws of nature”. Therefore, they believe that human nature does not exist, because (according to the people) nature changes during each era. For example, I only believe that humans are naturally inclined to be competitive, because I live in a capitalist era, but someone living in feudalism would believe that serfdom is just a natural way of life. However, Marx and Engels believe that countries will evolve directly to communism, and I agree. An economic crash, for example, could easily catapult a nation into Communism, a system that fuses all the classes together and prevents any struggle. Communism does seem to be a perfect utopia, a place where equality and stability are promoted. However, while Communism may be inevitable, it is not the end of all change (as Marx and Engels believed). People would eventually become exasperated with the lack of ambition and individuality in society. This would prompt struggles that would eventually divide the people into classes, creating capitalism. In my opinion, the constant cycle between governments will inevitably lead to Communism, but that system will not last for very long.
