Karl Marx's “Communist Manifesto” and “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” comprise an interesting line of literary tracks, including the first work which presents abstract ideas and elaborations of history, as well as Marx's lesser-known journey through "revolutionary" France adjacent to the period of publication of the "Manifesto". Therefore, according to Marx's specialty, he provided an excellent resource for the criticism of class social relations that had preceded, or in his opinion, caused the current situation, since history capitulates in the present, according to his academic dialect on the subject . Therefore, these works discuss, among many other topics of competition, the relations of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to historical modes of production and the social relations intertwined in them. To be general and brief, these two publications have in common the theme that the result of history is the capitalist system, which manifested the bourgeoisie and its subsistence, the proletariat, a ghost that exists outside of culture while maintaining every other structure of society, including the heteronomy of the state, the economy and the ruling bourgeois class itself. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Referring to an earlier short excerpt from the “Communist Manifesto,” in which he states the primordial goals of communism, Marx asks: “ What does this accusation amount to? The history of all past societies has consisted of development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that have taken different forms in different eras. But whatever form they have taken, one factor is common to all past eras, namely the exploitation of one part of society by the other" (489). The “charge” he initially mentioned refers to his exposition which clearly establishes that communism is truly revolutionary, not just in appearance as in the bourgeoisie. Instead of conforming to the past with fewer benefits for the bourgeoisie, Marx points communism to the future To elaborate further drawing on the “Manifesto”, as history has progressed, money has emerged from the feudal era as the driving force of its master class, the bourgeoisie, which Marx defines as the leaders of industry, of the “revolution” ( of material means, above all) and capital. In his own words: “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has gained the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal and idyllic relations. It has ruthlessly broken the various feudal ties that tied man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other link between man and man other than naked personal interest, the insensitive "cash payment", - said Marx , thus illustrating the situation. deconstruction of social relations in favor of economic ones (475). Although the transition from feudalism was necessary to create the proletariat, as a class that could potentially become aware of this conceptualization of history, it discarded the individual, as a worker and as a member of a hierarchy; the result places all sapiens in the same position, a drone compared to the "general" objectives of industrialization which can be reduced to mere capital. To digress, while introducing the denser content of "The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte", Marx draws a clear line between the processes of development of the revolutions of both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the processes through which the classes respectively attempt to reform the society or to manipulate it, stating: “Bourgeois revolutions, like those of the eighteenth century, run from success to success; their dramatic effects surpass each other...but they are short-lived; they soon reach their peak, and a long depression takes hold of society before it learns to soberly assimilate the results of its period of storm and stress” (597). After the high eyebrow, idealistic action phase, there is a relaxation phase that follows in every bourgeois revolution, in which the principles that guided the force of action, be they vague abstractions such as “universal rights” or “freedom” , are dissolved in the heart of bourgeois intentions. , which are driven by profit. Proletarian revolutions, on the other hand, like those of the 19th century, constantly criticize themselves, continuously interrupting their course, returning to what is apparently accomplished to start it all over again, mocking with ruthless fury the inadequacies, weaknesses and meanness of the first attempts...", meanwhile wasting precious time that the bourgeoisie constantly takes advantage of (597). As if the two classes corresponded in an impossible and disproportionate way to those of the proletariat "they seem to overthrow their opponent only so that he can draw new strength from the earth and be reborn more gigantic before them, retreating from time to time before the indefinite prodigiousness of the proletariat" . one's goals, until the situation has been created which makes any turning back impossible..." (continued from 597). Therefore, the wheel of history is accelerated by the bourgeoisie, outside the control of the proletariat, which effectively pushes the wheel forward. No longer serfs or slaves, proletarians are “free” workers, free in the sense that they are free to attempt to sustain their lives without the provisions of society, which require work, almost by coercion. In Marx's historical documentation of "The 18th Brumaire..." only one trace remains which is that of the small peasants, small because they are made up of land-owning peasants who only have enough land to not be able to survive with its potential. Referring to these lands as estates, Marx states that “what causes the ruin of the French peasant today is his own dwarf property, the division of the land, the form of property which Napoleon consolidated in France. It is precisely the material conditions that made the feudal peasant a small peasant and Napoleon an emperor" (610). Unfortunately, starting with what Marx calls a “peasant religion,” the voting peasants owe Napoleon their support for allowing them to keep their tiny holdings, which, as he states above, are causal to the permanent downfall of the peasantry as a class . Marx observes in this regard that "the roots that this small landed property laid on French soil deprived feudalism of all nourishment", giving way to the new organizations coming from modern wealth (611). This dried up the well of feudal organization of economic and social structure to the point that the only section still left under its watery spell was the vestigial peasant class. These farmers refused to give up the small land they privately owned, even though it was not enough for the peasant families' livelihoods. At the same time, those who cannot maintain a standard of living or a small business enter the proletariat, like the rest of the conglomerate classes from the feudal age. The formation of the bourgeoisie, a subjugated class, manifested a symbiotic relationship between it and the proletariat through the transition from feudalism to modernity. Marx expresses it very succinctly in the “Maifesto”, establishing that “the essential condition for the existence and domination of the bourgeois class is the formation and increase of capital; the condition of capital is wage labor,” making the worker a mere instrument, a means of production for the purpose of capital (483). Therefore, unlike.