The Communist Manifesto is an 1848 political pamphlet written by the German philosopher Karl Marx and later translated into English by Friedrich Engels, recognized as one of the most influential political manuscripts in the world. This piece was written in the context of bourgeois domination, rapid social change and revolutionary developments in production. Marx took an analytical approach to the nature of society and politics and explained how capitalism will be replaced by communism over time. This article will demonstrate the connection between the Communist Manifesto and various aspects of European culture since the Enlightenment: Romanticism, the rising New Bourgeoisie, the State and Democracy. It will also show which part of Marx's work strikes me most as a reader and establish a relationship between that part and a crucial aspect of European culture since the Enlightenment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Rousseau's Romanticism and Confessions are closely related to the Communist Manifesto because they share the same passion for freedom and equality, and both emphasize male creativity. Marx wanted to build an ideal utopian society in which there would be no class antagonization and exploitation of individuals, reflecting through his statement that "to the extent that the exploitation of one individual by another is put to an end, the exploitation of a nation by part of another" will also be put to an end” (Marx, chapter 3). His communist ideals are well supported by reasoning in the context of his society, but he is also guided by his passions for the “free development of each” and the “free development of all” (Marx, chapter 3). Marx's passions resonate with Rousseau's feelings that his love of freedom "made [him] impatient of moderation or servitude" (Rousseau, 4). Similarly, Marx's idea that it is unfair for proletariats to be alienated from their species because their work has blocked their creativity can be compared to Rousseau's emphasis on emotions and creativity as key elements that connect beings humans to Nature. In that society, although many proletarians may not fully understand communism, but since Rousseau stated that passions and emotions can be felt entirely before they are conceived or understood (Rousseau, 3), a large number of them must have felt the impact of unequal treatment and is willing to make a change. The main purpose of Marx's work is to convince and emotionally appeal to the public, especially the proletarians, to take control of their own destiny and unite against the rule of the bourgeoisie, which can be compared to the actions of the republican in the film Les Misérables. Throughout the piece, language is used by Marx in a very strong, assertive and affirmative way that demands actions. For example, phrases such as “the bourgeoisie is no longer capable of being the ruling class in society”, “society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie”, and “its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (Marx , chapter 1) appeals to pathos and inspires passion. Evocative and powerful slogans such as “Workers of all countries, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!” (Marx, chapter 4) are also used for the same purpose. Similarly, in the film, Republican leaders made inspiring statements and slogans such as “we are citizens of the Republic,” “we cannot abandon our Fatherland,” and “Freedom, Equality, Fraternity” to motivate and maintain followers. That isreveals that the communist ideals of Marx and his supporters at the time were not only supported by reasoning, but further fueled by passion and romanticism. Marx's concept of alienation resonates with the emerging new bourgeoisie and Tocqueville's Democracy in America. As Marx suggests that proletarians are alienated from the production process because they do not like working at all, stating that "the more the repugnance of work increases, the less wages decrease", Tocqueville wonders what would happen to the mental state of a man who has spent twenty years of his life in making pinheads (Tocqueville, chapter XX). Marx's arguments that proletariats are separated from their natural creative capacities as human beings can also be compared to Tocqueville's view that "the more the worker improves, the more man degrades" and that the worker "does not he belongs more to himself, but to the vocation that has been entrusted to him." he chose" (Tocqueville, chapter XX). Since Tocqueville states that the mind of the bourgeoisie expands to the extent that that of the workers narrows (Tocqueville, chapter XX), it can be deduced that both Marx and he agree on the fact that in a democracy the worker (the proletariat) always becomes narrower. Furthermore, Marx and Tocqueville share the understanding that although the production process becomes much more economically efficient and trade and production become more globalized, this does not mean that everyone's lives improve along with these advances. Marx is fully aware that while “the markets continued to grow, the demand constantly increasing” (Marx, chapter 1), the proletariat did not derive any benefit because “the bourgeoisie stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe." ” and wage labor creates no property for workers (Marx, chapter 2). Likewise, Tocqueville stated that this new mode of production “impoverishes and debases the men who serve it,” and that “the manufacturing aristocracy which is growing before our eyes is one of the harshest that has ever existed in the world” (Tocqueville , Chapter XX). Although Tocqueville argues that democracy and the bourgeoisie bring about “equality of conditions” and does not offer a solution, just as Marx understands the social problems that the bourgeoisie can bring. Marx's methods for establishing a communist state and eliminating class antagonism can be linked to the state and democracy and also to the social contract theory. According to Marx, his intentions are precisely to abolish every form of bourgeois property (Marx, chapter 2); the bourgeoisie must sacrifice their property and individual rights to achieve equality. This can be compared to the idea of ​​social contract theory that people organize themselves into a functional society by entering into a contract with each other to give up all or part of their individual rights to the proposed society. Marx's desire to restore rights to the majority, which are the proletariat, would seem to correspond to Locke's idea that sovereignty should belong to the majority of the people since Locke states that "the majority having, as has been demonstrated, in the first person men uniting in society, naturally carry within them all the power of the community” (Locke, chapter hands of the State”, the “centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State”, “the extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State”, and the “confiscation of the assets of allemigrants and rebels” (Marx, chapter 2). Parallels can be drawn between his beliefs and Hobbes's idea that the government is the head of society and therefore has sovereignty over the people, as both assume that the state knows what is best for its subjects. Marx, to a certain extent, justifies the taking away of property and individual rights from the bourgeoisie on the basis of social contract theory. The part that I personally find most surprising was Marx's progressive mentality and his open-mindedness towards change. He states first of all that "the bourgeoisie, wherever it has gained the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relationships", "it has mercilessly broken the various feudal ties that tied man to his "natural superiors", and has left no connection between man and man other than naked personal interest, of the insensitive "payment in cash", "has drowned the most celestial ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the frozen water of calculation selfish,” and “resolved personal value into exchange value” (Marx, chapter 1 ). But at the same time he also recognized the fact that "the bourgeoisie, during its rule which lasted just a hundred years, created productive forces more massive and more colossal than those which all previous generations created together", which "created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population compared to the rural one, and has thus freed a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life", and that "the bourgeoisie, with the rapid improvement of all the instruments of production, with the immensely facilitated means of communication, drags all nations, even the most barbaric, towards civilization” (Marx, chapter 1). This reflects the fact that, despite all the damage that the bourgeoisies as a class were doing to society, Marx is not unaware of the benefits and wonders they have created for the modern world. It can therefore be inferred that Marx does not emphasize religion and social relationship between individuals to convince people that the feudal lifestyle is better; it doesn't try to make things go back to the way they were before the bourgeoisie. Instead, it wants to maintain the beneficial aspects of the bourgeoisie – its machinery, factories, scientific innovations and division of labor – but improve them by proposing methods to improve production relations. It can therefore be deduced that he wants society to continually progress so that, while production and trade remain effective and active, forms of exploitation and oppression do not occur. Many aspects of Marx's description of the relationship of the bourgeoisie to the proletariat are similar to Tocqueville's negative description of the new relations of production in Democracy in America. Tocqueville underlines that in this new world "there is no profession in which men do not work for money" and that "men see clearly that it is profit which, if not entirely, at least in part, drives them to work" (Tocqueville, Chapter XVIII), which is in line with Marx's view that men became increasingly materialistic and motivated by self-interest. Tocqueville also reminds us that between rich and poor “their relative position is not permanent; they are constantly attracted or separated by their interests”, and that the social relations between the two classes become increasingly distant because “the manufacturer asks the worker nothing more than his work; the worker expects nothing from him other than his wages" (Tocqueville, chapter XX), just as Marx accused the bourgeoisie of replacing every bond between men with the insensitive cash payment that caused alienation (Marx, chapter 1). Furthermore, although in that period the bourgeoisie was just beginning to emerge as a class,..