Division of Social Classes

Seeing as the purpose of The Communist Manifesto is the conceptualization of communism, it is only fitting that one of the major themes is the division of social classes. In this case, it is the relationship between the bourgeoisie—wealthy business owners and industrialists—and the proletariat—the working class—that exists in a capitalist society.

Marx and Engels point out that class-based inequality has always been a problem. This modern division of bourgeoisie and proletariat simply reflects an entrenched dynamic of oppressor and oppressed that has existed in various forms. Across history, economic inequality has haunted humanity; today, they argue, it continues to do so. 

However, technology has allowed this rift to deepen. As the bourgeoisie finds ways to leverage industry to cheapen and automate the manufacturing process, worker’s wages decrease and the proletariat falls ever deeper into poverty. For too many, increased industrialization is not a wonder; instead, it merely worsens a deep, preexisting social divide.

Marx and Engels have good intentions when it comes to the working class. They realize that unless an organized revolt is to take place, the proletariat will sink further into destitution with no hope of relief.

Inequality of Labor

This class division also reflects a commensurate division in labor; the proletariat works hard with little pay, but the bourgeoisie work little for immense profit. This uneven distribution of labor is neither logical nor humane and can only exist because of the power the bourgeoisie holds and maintains over wage laborers.

Marx and Engels locate the bourgeoisie’s power in their ownership over the “means of production.” Their outright ownership of the manufacturing facilities and large-scale industries that employ the working class keeps the proletariat constrained, their sole means of income reliant upon the whims of the ruling class. 

This form of employment—and the work itself—is undesirable. Further still, working-class wages are little more than that “which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer.” Payment “merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence.” Thus, there is no escaping the insurmountable obstacle of bourgeoisie power. The proletariat shares neither in profits nor ownership, leaving them entirely at the behest of the ruling class. 

To solve this inequality, Marx and Engels imagine creating a workforce of “accumulated labour” so the laborer’s profit is not exceedingly less than that of their employer. They envision a world in which the masses might share the wealth of the bourgeoisie and the class division of the present might yet fade into the past—resolving the inequalities in both labor and wealth is the sole means of doing so. 

Private Property

The abolishment of private property is another theme that, like the preceding two, is not easily implemented. Besides the logistics necessary to create such a change, many oppose the elimination of individual property.

The bourgeoisie believes that private property is necessary or else “all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.” However, the authors remind readers that although the proletariat does not own property, they still work, disproving this simplistic view of property abolition. 

The fear of “universal laziness,” they argue, can never be a valid argument because, despite having no hopes of gaining capital and land ownership, proletarians still work. Labor, as it is, does not need to be incentivized.