In the book ‘The communist manifesto’ by Karl Marx, chapter 1 and 2 both presents a clear idea about proletarian movement. In chapter 1, it is seen that Manifesto turns to proletariat after evaluating the history of bourgeoisie. In the book, it is seen that after the development of bourgeoisie and of proletariat, proletariat is seen to be harmful for bourgeoisie and will be the reason of its destruction (Tucker, 2017). However, in chapter 1, Marx shows that the proletarians are very workaholic as well as capital determining and this is because they behaved like a commodity and did not have any problem in the market fluctuations. Due to this, the wages of proletarians decreased and their work became degraded. According to Marx, labours were slaves and sometimes they were warriors and that is why despite of their age and gender they turned out to be instruments used to put effort on something (Tucker, 2017).
In chapter 1 of the book, it is understood that, the Proletarians lost their charm with the machine, labour development, and became the adjunct of a machine. The labourers in the book was seen to be exploited first by their employer and then by their property owner. This created a problem in their lives and their work as well (Johnson, 2014). The book depicts the fact that the people who were of the lower class sink into the proletarian class, this was because of having less capital, and that their effort and skills were no longer marked as important thing due to the advancement of technology. The first chapter describes a clear notion about proletarian by highlighting the history of the proletariat (Weeks, 2013). The proletariat after creation started struggling with the bourgeoisie and this involved the labourers and workers who revolted against the bourgeois because the bourgeoisies directly exploited them. The workers revolted due to the reason of bringing change in the status of their works but they were distinguished geographically and were in competition with one another. After reading the book, it is understood that even after the proletarians formed their own unions, they still remained under the control of the bourgeoisies and had to follow their orders and serve them as well. In the chapter one of the book, the readers got to see that along with the modern development the proletarians were increased and with the increasing number their strength also increased (Weeks, 2013). This brought change in the difference of the labourers, it ended all the difference, and the workers shared equal wages and lives. Along with this change, they formed more unions and this formation was in a continuous process at the time of the Manifesto creation. The advancing technologies and increasing communication process helped the proletarians to get more help on a national basis. On the contrary, the formation of proletarians to a class was constantly damaged but again it gained back their origin whenever they tried to come up and show case themselves (McLellan, 2013). The proletarians were provided with tools to fight against the bourgeoisies from the other existing classes and this was because the other classes also wanted to use the proletarians for gaining the top position politically. The proletariat class was the most revolting class as described in the book by Karl Marx. This was because the other classes pursued a conservative life and they were only concerned about their existence whereas the proletariat not only fought for their own existence but also tried to develop the existence of the middle class. As Marx said in the book, “Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests." (Marx, 2015). Marx said this because in the book it was found that the old society was the only one that owned the preservation. On the contrary, the proletariat had a different approach and this can be said after reading the first chapter as this chapter provides a very clear concept regarding how the upper classes aimed to implement their own appropriation mode in the society. Though the proletarians had less land and property, which they would have used for expansion they thought of destroying the security of the private property. The proletariats were seen to work as majority in a unique way, be it managing of the bourgeois or indulging in history they never failed to show their uniqueness in the first chapter. It is because of the first chapter that helped the readers to have a clear view or concept regarding the lives and problems of the proletarians.
Marx in Communist Manifesto has focused to evaluate the need of fulfilling the interest of common persons rather than concentrating of an individual (Lamb, 2015). While portraying the demands of workers Marx focused to point out that group performance in anywhere is more important than the performance level of an individual for the development of a society. Therefore, in order to fulfill the needs and demands of the workers communists tend to focus on common interest rather than fulfilling the interest of an individual. In this specific point of view, an individual can distinguish the communists from other socialist parties as well as national movement. In Communist Manifesto Marx pointed out that society is primarily divided into two specific sectors that include haves and haves not. Private property primarily destroys personal freedom, independence and activity. Capital should be used as social power rather than the power of an individual. In this kind of situation, the gap between poor and rich can be demolished. People who are having flexibility in personal property should never impose their power on the mind of a worker (Farr & Ball, 2015). Otherwise, an individual would never be able to make a balance between strength and money. Society people are intensely dependent on each other. In order to develop the society the physical strength of a labour is equally important. Therefore, the personal freedom, independence of an individual should never be demolished. Marx highlighted in this specific book that communists are accused to destroy the family. As per the perception of a capitalist children and spouse are the instruments of production (Marx & Engels, 2016). However, as per the point of view of Marx this particular belief is the ultimate destruction of society. A women belonging to the society is not flexible to maintain her education system in a healthy way. As a result, they fail to expose their talents and skill that they are having within them. Marx has highlighted the issues that centralization should be rendered within the communication (Roberts, Hite & Chorev, 2014). Every individual state should interact with each other. In this kind of situation, the society would be able to exchange their thoughts and ideas for developing their skills and competency. According to Marx, responsibility and liability should be distributed equally with the help of which not an individual person would have to take over burden (Firer-Blaess & Fuchs, 2014). As per the liability labour wage should be distributed like the same way. Marx has raised a major voice against discrimination among the labor. The chapter two of the book highlighted the part of communists and the readers understood that communism does not dispossess anyone to correct the products of the society; it denies an individual with the power to overcome the power of the labourers. Marx highlighted in this specific book that communists are accused to destroy the family. As per the perception of a capitalist children and spouse are the instruments of production. Marx particular belief was that the ultimate destruction of society was due to the bourgeois (Marx, 2013). According to the book, the bourgeois were a society that ought to have gone a long ago to the dogs for their sheer idleness but they did not go for those members, who did their work but acquired nothing and the workers who achieved anything did not work. The overall objection was nothing but a different appearance of the tautology: that ascertained that there can no longer be any wages or any labour in case there is no capital at all (Engels & Marx, 2016).
However, it can be concluded that Karl Marx has written the book by highlighting both the proletarian movement and the communists. Both the chapters very clearly show the readers how the proletarian led their life and provides an enlarged definition about the role of the communists in the proletarian’s lives. The first chapter of the book analyses the work and life structure of the proletarian and the second chapter marked the role of communists and defined communists as someone who highlighted the revolt of the proletarians. They were the one to highlight the movement of the other classes at the time of revolt against the bourgeoisies. The communists in chapter two provides the readers the clarity that they had the same aim that the proletarians had which was to turn the proletarians into a class and help them get away from the leadership of the bourgeoisies and providing a leading power to the proletariat.
Engels, F., & Marx, K. (2016). The Manifesto of the Communist. Narcissus. me.
Farr, J., & Ball, T. (2015). The Manifesto in political theory: Anglophone translations and liberal receptions. The Cambridge Companion to The Communist Manifesto, 155.
Firer-Blaess, S., & Fuchs, C. (2014). Wikipedia: an info-communist manifesto. Television & New Media, 15(2), 87-103.
Johnson, M. (2014). Communist manifesto.
Lamb, P. (2015). Marx and Engels''Communist Manifesto': A Reader's Guide. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Marx, K. (2013). Manifesto of the communist party. Simon and Schuster.
Marx, K. (2015). On the question of free trade. Arsalan Ahmed.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2016). The Communist Manifesto. Author's Republic.
McLellan, D. (2013). Karl Marx And Friedrich Engels-The Communist Manifesto. Read Books Ltd.
Roberts, J. T., Hite, A. B., & Chorev, N. (Eds.). (2014). The globalization and development reader: Perspectives on development and global change. John Wiley & Sons.
Tucker, R. C. (2017). Philosophy and myth in Karl Marx. Routledge.
Weeks, K. (2013). The Critical Manifesto: Marx and Engels, Haraway, and Utopian Politics. Utopian Studies, 24(2), 216-231.