USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Hello,
This is for my college Anthropology class, It requires to read a paper “Manifesto of the Communist Party” Marx and Engles which i have attached to this Question and Write a 2 page (double-spaced) response answering 1 of the 2 questions (which i have also attached). The paper is due in the next 8 hours, it’s pretty simple and will not take much time. Let me know if you’re interested.
1
Manifesto of the Communist Party
Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, 1848
Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians(1)
The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class
struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-
master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed,
stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an
uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time
ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or
in the common ruin of the contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a
complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold
gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians,
knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals,
guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these
classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins
of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has
but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new
forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this
distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a
whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps,
into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and
Proletariat.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#a1
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#a2
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#a3
2
From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers
of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the
bourgeoisie were developed.
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up
fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and
Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the
colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities
generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse
never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in
the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production
was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the
growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took
its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the
manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the
different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour
in each single workshop.
Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever
rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam
and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of
manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of
the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of
the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the
discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an
immense development to commerce, to navigation, to
communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted
on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry,
commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion
3
the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into
the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the
product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions
in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was
accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An
oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and
self-governing association in the medieval commune(4): here
independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there
taxable“third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in
the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal
or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility,
and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the
bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry
and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern
representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the
modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs
of the whole
bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary
part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got 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 “cash payment”. It has
drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of
chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy
water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#a4
4
exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible
chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom
— Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and
political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct,
brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto
honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the
physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into
its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental
veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal
display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much
admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful
indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can
bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian
pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has
conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of
nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising
the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of
production, and with them the whole relations of society.
Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form,
was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier
industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production,
uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting
uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all
earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of
ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all
5
new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that
is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last
compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and
his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products
chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must
nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions
everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market
given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in
every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn
from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it
stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed
or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries,
whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all
civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous
raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones;
industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in
every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the
production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their
satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the
old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have
intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of
nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The
intellectual creations of individual nations become common
property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become
more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and
local literatures, there arises a world literature.
6
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of
production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication,
draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The
cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it
batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’
intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all
nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of
production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation
into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word,
it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the
towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the
urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued
a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.
Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has
made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the
civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East
on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the
scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and
of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means
of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The
necessary consequence of this was political centralisation.
Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate
interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became
lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of
laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-
tariff.
7
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has
created more massive and more colossal productive forces than
have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s
forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and
agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing
of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole
populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had
even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the
lap of social labour?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose
foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal
society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of
production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal
society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of
agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal
relations of property became no longer compatible with the already
developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They
had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a
social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and
political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern
bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and
of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of
production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer
able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called
up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and
commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive
forces against modern conditions of production, against the
8
property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the
bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial
crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire
bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In
these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also
of the previously created productive forces, are periodically
destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all
earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of
over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state
of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war
of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence;
industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because
there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too
much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the
disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the
conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have
become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are
fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring
disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence
of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too
narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the
bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced
destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the
conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of
the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive
and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means
whereby crises are prevented.
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the
ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
9
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring
death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to
wield those weapons — the modern working class — the
proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the
same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class,
developed— a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find
work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases
capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a
commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are
consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all
the fluctuations of the market.
Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of
labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual
character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He
becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most
simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is
required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is
restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he
requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But
the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to
its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness
of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion
as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the
same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by
prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work
exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.
Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the
patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist.
10
Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like
soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under
the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not
only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois
State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the
overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois
manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims
gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the
more embittering it is.
The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual
labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes
developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of
women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive
social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour,
more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.
No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the
manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash,
than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the
landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople,
shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen
and peasants— all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly
because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on
which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the
competition with the large capitalists, partly because their
specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of
production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the
population.
11
The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With
its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest
is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a
factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against
the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct
their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production,
but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy
imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to
pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by
force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.
At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass
scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual
competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies,
this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the
union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own
political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion,
and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage,
therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the
enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the
landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois.
Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands
of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the
bourgeoisie.
But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only
increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its
strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various
interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat
are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery
obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces
wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the
12
bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of
the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of
machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood
more and more precarious; the collisions between individual
workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the
character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers
begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the
bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages;
they found permanent associations in order to make provision
beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest
breaks out into riots.
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The
real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the
ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by
the improved means of communication that are created by modern
industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact
with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to
centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character,
into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle
is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers
of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required
centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a
few years.
This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and,
consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again
by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever
rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative
recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking
advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the
ten-hours’ bill in England was carried.
13
Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society
further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first
with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie
itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of
industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all
these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to
ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The
bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own
elements of political and general education, in other words, it
furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.
Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling
class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the
proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of
existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of
enlightenment and progress.
Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour,
the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact
within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent,
glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself
adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the
future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section
of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the
bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion
of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the
level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a
whole.
Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie
today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other
14
classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry;
the proletariat is its special and essential product.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper,
the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to
save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class.
They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more,
they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If
by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their
impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their
present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint
to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat]the social scum, that
passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old
society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a
proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far
more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large
are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property;
his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in
common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry
labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in
France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace
of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many
bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many
bourgeois interests.
All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify
their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their
conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become
masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing
15
their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every
other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their
own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous
securities for, and insurances of, individual property.
All previous historical movements were movements of
minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian
movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the
immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The
proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir,
cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of
official society being sprung into the air.
Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the
proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The
proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters
with its own bourgeoisie.
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the
proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging
within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out
into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the
bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have
already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed
classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be
assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish
existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to
membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the
yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois.
The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the
process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions
16
of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism
develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it
becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the
ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence
upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is
incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery,
because it cannot help letting him sinkinto such a state, that it has
to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live
under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer
compatible with society.
The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the
bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the
condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively
on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry,
whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the
isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary
combination, due to association. The development of Modern
Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on
which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What
the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-
diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally
inevitable.
1.By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists,
owners of themeans of social production and employers of
wage labour.
By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having
no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#ab1
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/o.htm#bourgeoisie
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/e.htm#means-production
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/w/a.htm#wage-labour
17
their labour power in order to live. [Engels, 1888 English
edition]
2.That is, all written history. In 1847, the pre-history of
society, the social organisation existing previous to recorded
history, all but unknown. Since then, August von Haxthausen
(1792-1866) discovered common ownership of land in Russia,
Georg Ludwig von Maurer proved it to be the social foundation
from which all Teutonic races started in history, and, by and
by, village communities were found to be, or to have been, the
primitive form of society everywhere from India to Ireland.
The inner organisation of this primitive communistic society
was laid bare, in its typical form, by Lewis Henry Morgan’s
(1818-1861) crowning discovery of the true nature of the gens
and its relation to the tribe. With the dissolution of the
primeval communities, society begins to be differentiated into
separate and finally antagonistic classes. I have attempted to
retrace this dissolution in The Origin of the Family, Private
Property, and the State, second edition, Stuttgart, 1886.
[Engels, 1888 English Edition and 1890 German Edition (with
the last sentence omitted)]
3.Guild-master, that is, a full member of a guild, a master
within, not a head of a guild. [Engels,
1888 English Edition]
4.This was the name given their urban communities by the
townsmen of Italy and France, after they had purchased or
conquered their initial rights of self-government from their
feudal lords. [Engels, 1890 German edition]
“Commune” was the name taken in France by the nascent
towns even before they had conquered from their feudal lords
and masters local self-government and political rights as the
“Third Estate.” Generally speaking, for the economical
development of the bourgeoisie, England is here taken as the
typical country, for its political development, France. [Engels,
1888 English Edition]
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/a.htm#labour-power
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#ab2
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#ab3
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#ab4
SECOND QUIZ:
MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
Select
ONE
of the below for your quiz:
1. How has capitalism and the capitalist class changed society in ways that set the stage for the next (non-capitalist, or communist) society?
OR:
2. The Manifesto argues that the “bourgeoisie creates its own grave diggers.” This question concerns the grave diggers:
Who are they?
What are they to bury?
Why do Marx and Engels believe the grave diggers will carry out this action?
