Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
In The Communitst Manifesto by Karl Marx, Marx contended that the history of Europe has been essentially about a class struggle between two classes. The two classes that he defined are the Proletariat and Bourgeois. He stated that the Proletariat are laboureres who do not have any factors of production. The Bourgeois are the owners of the means of social production and employ the wage labourers.
It is evident that Marx based his argument in past events and previous explanations of classes in history. For example, he referenced the feudal serf and lord relationship of the middle ages in multiple parts of his pamphlet. Marx claimed that the Proletariat, “seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages” (Marx). In this excerpt Marx contended that the workmen of the Middle Ages still owned the factors of production in the form of privately owned shops. Marx acknowledged that the technology of his time caused the class struggle that he wrote of. Thus, he took into account technology as a significant factor in history. He even framed the economic system by describing the labouring classes as merely an extension of the machines. The manifesto was also a call to action for socialists.
Marx drew upon past events for his argument but he used only facts that progressed his argument. As joshuadw88 stated in his post, Marx made broad assumptions of time periods instead of relying on multiple sources. I agree that Marx can not be considered a proper historian.