Exploring Dynamics and Contradictions in Economic Structures

Question 1)

Capitalism has an evolutionary history within societal class struggle. The bourgeoisie, as a class of
modern capitalists, appears from the ashes of feudal society they affirm (Marx & Engels, 1848). Modern
industry, driven by factors that include the discovery of America and technological progress, developed
new classes and modes of oppression. The bourgeoisie, as a revolutionary force, was critical in
destroying feudal relations, building free competition, and making it possible for markets to grow
worldwide.

According to the authors, capitalism is a system, which is characterized as dynamically changing the
means of production and the relations of the society. The bourgeoisie, motivated by the imperative for
an ever-growing market, emerges as a global phenomenon by forging relationships and reconfiguring
production and consumption practices worldwide. The authors focus on the role of the bourgeoisie in
constructing a cosmopolitan nature of production, weakening national peculiarity, and building global
interdependence. But they insist that the bourgeoisie’s triumph in building huge productive forces ends
up with the crises of overproduction endangering the existence of bourgeois society and its relations of
property.

The capitalist model is described as one that turns social relations into marketable commodities and
class hatred. Although these achievements of the bourgeoisie form part of its historical contributions,
they are accompanied by the exploitation of the modern working class proletariat. The proletariat,
whose only life is work, becomes a commodity and therefore subjected to the whims of the market.
With its machinery and specialization, modern industry makes labor uncreative; the worker becomes a
limb of the machine. The authors contend that capitalist development and industrialization which the
bourgeoisie created through fighting feudalism would lead to its fall as it creates the environment for
the emergence of proletarians who will challenge and overthrow the capitalist system.

Question 2)

Slavery and capitalism as outlined in the Communist Manifesto are two different epochs in human
economic history, outlined by their foundational structures and socio-political dynamics (Marx & Engels,
1848). Embedded in ancient cultures, particularly prevalent during the transatlantic slave trade- slavery
serves as a socio-economic structure turning individuals into commodities and hence property. Stripped
of their autonomy, laborers are forced to work, serving the interests of a slave-owning class. This system
is characterized by economic practices that are interlaced with human commodification, which
translates to a society with embedded inequalities and a pronounced lack of individual liberties.

On the contrary, capitalism, according to the authors, takes the form of an economic order monopolized
by the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Under this new system wage labor becomes the focal point as
workers offer their labor power to capitalists in exchange for wages. Private ownership of the means of
production becomes a distinctive property, and economic processes gain the momentum of profit
maximization. The defining characteristics of capitalism include free markets, competition, and the
accumulation of capital, and these are markedly different from the entrenched ownership of labor that
is part of the institution of slavery. Although both forms of class exploitation are characterized by class
struggles, slavery is undergirded with direct labor personalization while capitalistic society is a complex
nexus of wage labor within a vast web of commodity production and commerce.

Question 3)
Economic change tends to be caused by fundamental antagonisms and struggles that arise in the
structure and dynamics of a society. One major agent of transformation is the inherent class struggle
between owning and controlling the means of production from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, the
working class (Marx & Engels, 1848). The economic structure manifests tensions that can sometimes
reach the limits of tolerance. The bourgeoisie’s quest for profit, which is often associated with low
wages and poor working standards, constitutes a contradiction that propels calls for economic reforms.

The changing nature of production is another state of conflict that drives economic transformation.
Industrialization and technological revolutions form the basis of transition from individual labor As
industries evolve and labor structure shifts, conflicts arise on issues such as working hours, working
conditions, and equitable distribution of income. These processes function as agents of economic
transformation because societies have to evolve their economic systems to respond to the changes
occurring like production.

In addition, the contradictions that surround the concept of private property also promote a need for an
economic transformation. This tension comes from the nature of bourgeois private property, which
often relies on the exploitation of labor in the course of the accumulation of capital. However, as this
contradiction becomes clearer, there is a rising need for economic arrangements that find a solution to
the underlying imbalances and ensure a balanced allocation of resources. Resolving these conflicts thus
becomes an important factor in the further development of society, and economic transformation is
often a reaction to these contradictions within the economic structure.

Question 4)

Marxism and Engels' Communist Manifesto offer valuable analytical conclusions on class fighting,
historical materialism, and revolutionary changes depending on the economic systems (Marx & Engels,
1848). Historical materialism as the main focus of the manifesto highlights the fact that the societal
structures and the institutions that he has are formed by the economic conditions that prevailed in a
given period in history. This analytical framework enables an understanding of how economic relations
underpin social and political formations. The manifesto shows how class struggle is the primary driving
force of historical change and brings out the fundamental antagonism existing between the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie’s profit-seeking from the exploitation of labor in the creation of
capital at the expense of working-class demands for fair payment and improved conditions of work leads
to a contradiction. This class-analytical approach still holds its significance in observing power relations
within capitalist societies and the possibility of revolutionary change through the resolution of class
antagonisms.

But the manifesto is not without its paradoxes. Despite its outspokenness for the removal of bourgeois
property, it is not a detailed roadmap for the building of a communist state. However, the focus on the
proletariat as the revolutionary class poses challenges related to the leadership of the other social
groups in the transformative process. Moreover, the concept of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” can
be treated as a contradiction, which suggests that it may lead to authoritarian manifestations of
revolutionary activity. Furthermore, the claim of the manifesto that communism eliminates eternal
truths, among which morality and religion are included, could be viewed as a gross rejection, without
taking into account the dialectics between the economic structure and cultural, moral, and religious
aspects. The tensions that arise as a result of this translation illustrate the difficulties and intricacy of
translating theoretical frameworks into practical socio-political realities.