Marx extends a polemical call to arms for the 'working men' of the world in his Manifesto of the Communist Party. The main premise of the Communist Party is a struggle against private property and private ownership of capital. Marx elaborates the class antagonisms of the past, neatly placing all men in one of two categories: oppressor and oppressed, extending to bourgeois and proletariat. The point of differentiation between these two classes is quite unclear, but Marx seems to favor the 'oppressed' class of the proletariat and considers them has having received the short end of the stick throughout history.

Marx uses the book (pamphlet?) as an instigation to form a universal party of laborers to rise up and overthrow the bourgeois class. The seemingly imminent revolution supposedly stems from recognizable class struggle that is concomitant with industrial progress and the unfair treatment of laborers by the owners of industry. The point of contention, ownership of private property, is the impetus for change, with the Communist party intent on abolishing it as such. Marx argues that private property is an extension of feudalism, and the bourgeois class 'enslaves' the proletarian workers by owning the means of production and seeking to minimize wages to the point of mere subsistence for the worker. From the labor (specifically excess labor) generated by the worker, the bourgeois continues accumulation of means of production by accumulation of capital. Marx declares that wage labor predicates capitalism and the tension between the classes as a result of the increasing need for labor and insubstantial wages that compensate the worker will lead to a revolution by the proletariats. Property is based on antagonism of capital and wage labor and no private property is created for the laborer.

What might be the answer to this mess? According to Marx, an uprising and appropriation of private property (and thus, the means of production) by a "ruling class" of proletariats. He calls on the "state" to obtain and "centralize all elements of production", effectively releasing everyone from the precarious class struggle by eliminating individual property ownership.

Marx should be examined in historical context. The conditions of the worker in mid-19th century England and Europe were no doubt dismal. In less than one hundred years, however, two shifts have occurred which change the landscape of work: a) manual-intensive industrial and agrarian work has diminished substantially, replaced with the demand for knowledge-intensive non-physical laborers, and b) unchecked, unregulated free-market environments have given way to regulated, publicly transparent market policies. These two social/economic/political phenomena have greatly reduced, if not effectively eliminated, the conditions of back-breaking labor and subsequent exploitation in Marx's time. Marx ignores the symbiotic relationship between the entrepreneur (capitalist) and the professional (laborer). If the capitalist exploits, abuses and generally underpays his hired talent, he will ultimately find himself out of business. If the worker decides not to work, destroys capital or, in general, rises against the capitalist, he will find himself out of work. It can be argued that the capitalist creates opportunity for the worker and any worker can become a capitalist himself (thus creating opportunity for other workers, or other capitalists, for that matter). Assuming a regulated market system, unfair exploitation is twice dangerous: fundamentally from the previously mentioned "Catch 22" of losing one's work force and criminally from the aspect of legal repercussions as outlined by labor laws and representative legislation of society. Moving into an 'Information Economy' where brain-power and personal talents are the most sought after commodities, no doubt essential to the capitalist, the worker is not just an 'element of production' as Marx would argue. He becomes crucial to the livelihood of both himself and the capitalist. Increasingly, workers engage in independence from the corporation and deal more and more amongst themselves, trading services with other knowledgeable professionals for the benefit of both parties. Both are capitalists. Both are workers. Both are at once exclusive and interdependent.

Marx's plan emphasizes subservience to the state as opposed to subservience to self. Is it more desirable to live in a state-controlled economy and have no choice but to work than compete in a free-market economy and have the choice not to work? Marxists seem intent on enforcing a 'moral' obligation on society, ensuring everyone gets a 'fair share.' However, morality is unenforceable. Morality and immorality will occur in all individuals, in any society under all political and economic systems and conditions. Overthrowing the bourgeois class and replacing it with a ruling class of proletariats is still only swapping 'humans for humans' and the likelihood of 'immoral' treatment or unfair practices will be present, even in an intended 'benevolent dictatorship.'

Assuming this position of inevitable human fallacy (as well as inevitable human triumph), it is my opinion that the better option would be to allow a choice in the matter - allowing individuals to make decisions, moral or otherwise, versus relegating the decision to the state.

Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. 1998 (1848). The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition. London: Verso Books.