Marx explained the ideology of estranged labor based on the political economy whereby he pointed out that the worker sinks to the point of a commodity to become the most wretched of commodities. As such, Marx's ideology on the sinking nature of a worker does not give a comprehensive explanation of the reason but only directs us to the end where there exist classes. Additionally, alienation might have been caused by poverty where people hailing from poor backgrounds were treated as hostile and were forced to work as laborers for the wealthy. According to Lemert, Marx stated that wretchedness meant that one was not sturdy, and level of production was down. It can be said that power and magnitude of a worker rely on other factors like skills, working hours among others and not on the wretchedness as pointed out by Marx.

According to Marx, alienation meant that capitalism was on the rise and brought about to the restoration of monopoly since capital fell into shorthand. Besides to the same, Marx brought to light the relationship between capitalist and landowner and even likened it to a factory worker and the entire society where there were several classes. Nonetheless, interpreting his ideology from the current perspective, alienation can lower the productivity level since workers will be demotivated and opt to work more for subsistence purposes and in the process lead to a slow growth rate of the economy. Contrary to Marx, classes are not bred by alienation but by one can fall into a particular category depending on the social position of the parents. For instance, those born from noble parents were mostly land owners while those in poor families ended up being laborers for the noble.

While Marx stressed that political economy emanated from private property, there exists no explanation or formulae through which private property moves and also factors in the aspect of laws which also fails to provide a clear comprehension of the laws.

Marx pointed out that due to the failure of the political economy to grasp the link within the movement there came into being the existence of doctrines that counter-posed. Doctrines in a real case scenario relate to each other or rather are interdependent. For instance, Marx pointed out that the doctrine of competition counter-posed that of monopoly. Competition in favor of a firm or individual tends increase the market share that leads to monopoly in the long run.


Marx asserts that the more a worker becomes poorer, the more wealth one tends to produce, so is production level in power and range . According to modern economics, the more one works, the more wealth one tends to amass or accumulate in the form high production level. Unlike Marx, the more one works or rather, the more wealth produced, the more expensive and valuable the worker tends to become. Marx also stresses that the more commodities produced, the more one produces themselves since they (workers) are viewed as commodities. Marx's ideology of the estranged labor tends to alienate them which economically can be regarded as being inconsiderate of the economic welfare of the consumers (or the workers).

Marx pointed out that definite individuals productively active in a definite manner enter into these particular social and political relations. He also observed that empirically, each must bring out a connection of the social and political structure with production. He pointed out that ideology is a ‘camera obscura' that moves the image in a real situation on its head or rather ideology explains the social reality as an inverted image that is false and out of shape. Plainly speaking, he says that the truth regarding a real situation and as it is conceived via ideology are counter-posed. He also links the role of ideology to material reality and the intercourse of human material development the two cannot be bound in the real world. Marx's argument on the fact that ideology is the result of material reality and the distorted image in a real situation is because of social, economic states is misleading and has drawn criticism from various economists and sociologists. While Marx believed that whoever was in control of the production means controlled the means of ideological production, others might see his ideology as a fallacy since whoever was in control of means of production was also in control of the factors of production.

Manifesto of Class Struggle

Together with Friedrich Engels, he brought about some themes that included The Communist Manifesto, which starts with a theory of global background about conflicts among classes. Another involved the portraying of the virtues of communism in which he and Engels refuted the objections of the bourgeoisie and showed the profits to be gained entirely via communism. They also dealt with contemporary social motions and had several inadequacies.

After the publication of the Manifesto of Class struggles, a broad range of reactions were sparked especially among the intellectuals and revolutionary enthusiast and condemned its adherence to its philosophy.

According to Marx and Engel, the modern bourgeois society originated from the ruins of the feudal system kind of the corporation and has not gotten rid of the class ideology or antagonisms and instead put in place new classes, new conditions of oppression and newer forms of struggle to replace the older ones. While the two relied on the fact that modern society embraced the practices of the older ones and replaced them, the aspect of classes mostly originated from poverty or lack of resources where the weaker ones were crowded out or forced to work for others.

They pointed out that breaking of monopoly marked the start of industrialization whereby production was becoming capital intensive to satisfy the rising demand. Examining their ideology on a different angle, they failed to mention the definite process as to how the feudal system was broken. It can be presumed that may be people especially the middle class were growing intellectually with time and sought other means to hasten the production process.

While Marx and Engel acknowledged the developments brought about by the bourgeoisie, others may view their way of governance similar to or even worse than the medieval times due to the inception of higher taxes to support the production system. Despite the many contributions the bourgeoisie development brought as explained by Marx and Engel, the system was no different to the feudal system since wealth is concentrated among few individuals and others (those without) in exchange have to work for them to make them wealthier. Additionally, Marx and Engel failed to grasp that the bourgeoisie system eliminated room for competition and only led to monopoly due to the heightened nature of capitalism, in other words, a few owned factors of production. The bourgeoisie according to Marx and Engel brought into existence the proletariat who were the modern working class that is similar to the undesirable estranged labor since they worked to increase capital for the bourgeoisie or their superiors. While Marx and Engel thought that the bourgeoisie played an essential part in creating the modern world, modern economists and scholars subjected their ideology to vicious condemnation of the negative aspects it brought into being like neo-colonialism and cold war. Nonetheless, it can be said that the communist manifesto will always have a place in schools of thought due to its force in modern social, political and economic thought.

In regard to the case of Louis Bonaparte, he showed that the growing strength of the proletariats and its immense struggle with the bourgeoisie was a prevalent feature among the French. While Marx in the Eighteenth Brumaire showed that the proletariat were in a position to be a part of the revolutionary process especially when they were autonomous, it can be pointed back to his work (Manifesto of Class Struggle 1848) that the modern working class (proletariat) were dependent on the bourgeoisie.

In his analysis of Bonaparte's victory, he pointed out that socialism cannot be built via bureaucratic and administrative power but through smashing of power. His analysis can be subjected to criticism since socialism according to Sinclair can be achieved through equality and brotherhood.

While Marxists argued that any revolutionary movement would emanate from the urban parts, radicals maintained that revolutionary movement by the peasants would come from the rural areas.



Related essays