How do Marx and Engels conceptualise the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and what implications does this have for revolutionary change? Is their analysis convincing?

Marx and Engels see the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as fundamentally exploitative and antagonistic emerging with the rise of industrialisation in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when machines owned by the wealthy replaced skilled tradesmen. This shifted workers from being independent craftsmen to wage labourers with no tools or control over production, reducing them to commodities “deprived of the last remnants of their independence.” As capitalists gained control of the means of production the worker was reduced to a piece of capital, a tool for profit, with his labour bought and sold for wages that barely sustain him.

The traditional social structures, like family life, were also undermined. Capitalism didn’t just create material poverty but also moral and social decay, where the worker’s humanity was stripped away, even with the private interest of capitalism lurking in households eroding family affection. Marx and Engels argued that poverty is an inherent feature of capitalism; it’s a system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer — the more the proletariat produces, the less it benefits. For Marx and Engels, revolution was inevitable; the working class, alienated and oppressed, would eventually rise up to replace the system that kept them enslaved.

Looking at the conditions and historical development of the working class to the proletariat class of the industrial revolution, we can see how their violent oppression led them to revolt. With little to no protection from the law and faced daily against the hypocritical pretence of respectability and humanity of the bourgeoisie of the time, the proletariat could either revolt inwardly and decay even further into ‘drunkenness and general demoralisation’ or ‘escape despair’ by revolting against those who supported a system that kept them oppressed.

For Engels, the distinction between earlier lower classes and the proletariat lies in the shift from passivity to active rebellion. The poor of earlier periods may have acquiesced to their circumstances, but the proletariat, driven by collective struggle, actively demands a transformation of the social and economic order. Engels argued that the industrial revolution marked the decisive moment when the working class became a historically distinct, revolutionary force. Unlike preindustrial workers, who were not fully proletarianised, the modern proletariat’s condition of total poverty—spanning material deprivation, cultural decay, moral degradation, and intellectual impoverishment—fostered a new class consciousness. The proletariat was set apart from the earlier poor as a unified, self-conscious, and rebellious force. Engels contended that this transformation was fuelled by the intensity of the capitalist exploitation and pauperisation, which made the revolution not only inevitable but urgent. The "social war" was bound to culminate in a full-scale revolution where ‘the proletarians, driven to despair,’ would rise against the capitalist class.The revolution would require capitalism to face the consequences of its own mistakes.

It is important to recognise the potential for one hegemonic class to simply replace another—the "dictatorship of the proletariat." The revolutionary class struggle must not become a means of substituting one form of oppression with another. True unity can only be achieved by identifying capitalism itself as the root of the problem rather than focusing on individual capitalists as the sole cause. While certain individuals are clearly complicit in the system’s cruelty, the attack must not be against people as individuals but against the political economy that allows and shapes their greed. Marx’s historical materialism asserts that social and economic systems, rather than individual choices, drive history. Marx argues that individuals are shaped by class relations and embody roles associated with their class. While this theory should encourage us to see individuals as ‘the personifications of economic categories’’ we must not overlook or excuse the importance of individual accountability. But rather than resorting to violence against individuals, what is needed is a widespread process of re-education for both the capitalist and proletarian classes.

Capitalism must be destroyed, but not individual lives; instead, they must be won over by enlightening them on the cruelties of class oppression. So too must the proletariat undergo its own re-education, transforming not only its conditions but its consciousness. Those who believe human nature to be innately greedy or violent may see this re-education as a naïve attempt. But if we consider the possibility that it is mainly due to the political and economic structures that we live under that foster these traits within us as a means to survive, then such traits can instead be seen as adaptive responses to a system that rewards competition and exploitation. If all basic needs were met and rights granted, then the possibility of each individual thereafter striving to reach their full potential could be achieved, not at the expense of another. A new way of human interaction based on co-operation, solidarity, and shared understanding is possible, but it requires we each challenge the very foundations that have shaped our present attitudes and behaviours.

Marx’s theory of alienation encompasses four dimensions: alienation from the product of one’s labour, from the process of labour itself, from other individuals, and from one’s essential human nature or species-being. He writes of nature forming part of human consciousness, of our dependence on nature as a part of nature. Further, as a consequence of the first forms of alienation, a worker is also torn from nature, himself as nature; his species life. Still Many Marxists say that the Marxist concept of exploitation is a ‘purely scientific one with no moral content.’ I’d like to argue that its core importance is its moral issue. While technically it can be argued that labour does not create value, what is evident is that the products created through labour do have value. And moreover, if the value placed is on human life and not on pure economic theory alone, then the value is grounded in the dignity, potential, and well-being of the worker rather than just in the marketability of their labour. If we acknowledge that labour is not merely a means to produce economic value but is inherently tied to the worker’s humanity, then the exploitation of labour under capitalism becomes a profound moral issue. Their time and their very being are commodified as they are subordinated to the demands of capitalism, reduced to mere tools of production. This process of dehumanisation strips away the inherent worth of human life—such exploitation is not just one for economic or scientific review but must be seen as a moral injustice.

Under capitalism, labour power is treated as another commodity. Looking at the labour value theory only through the lens of 'pure economic theory' overlooks the broader dimensions of human life and the quality of the worker’s experience. While wages may offer material survival, they do not resolve the alienation and exploitation inherent in the system. This dynamic is not merely economic; it reflects a deeper social injustice. But are workers really forced to sell their labour? Ultimately, structural domination occurs when workers have no real alternatives but to submit, undermining their political equality and perpetuating systems of subordination.Thus, workers are not simply coerced individually but are collectively unfree, trapped within a system that leaves them with no real alternatives. It’s important to ‘distinguish between the freedom to do something and the capacity to do it.' 

Marx critiques formal political equality—focused solely on political rights—as insufficient writing that ‘political emancipation is not human emancipation.’ The distinction between “human emancipation” and “political freedom” remains central to understanding the limitations of political reforms in addressing deeper economic inequalities. The belief in the necessity of integrating political values into the market confronts the realities of economic globalisation, which perpetuates similar structural outcomes across nations. While this opens up the possibility for a new form of internationalist politics, Marx and Engels’ framework is constrained by historical determinism and a reductionist view of the state. These limitations continue to echo in contemporary analyses of corporate and political globalisation, where recurring structural dynamics shape global power relations in ways that resist easy reform.

Marx and Engels envisioned a classless society, liberated from arbitrary power and domination, as the ultimate goal of human progress. However, capitalism continues to be promoted as the pathway to the realizations of individual economic aspirations, conveniently obscuring the fact that such achievements, if attained within a system built on profound inequality, effectively ‘crush human potential’ and foster ‘isolation’. Furthermore, a system of such extreme inequality not only distorts economic relationships but alienates us from our very humanity. Beyond the economic dimensions of Marx and Engels' critique, I contend that a deeper exploration of self-alienation—alongside its implications for positive freedom—could yield crucial insights into how society might better align itself with human flourishing, offering a foundation for genuine social transformation based not on individualistic domination but on collective socio-political wellbeing.

This essay was a university assignment. Module—Political Philosophy. Autumn, 2024.

Bibliography

Balibar, E., Lock, G. and Althusser, L. (1977) On the dictatorship of the proletariat. London, Atlantic Highlands, N.J: NLB ; Humanities Press.

Cohen, G.A. (1980) ‘The labor theory of value and the concept of exploitation’, Marx, Justice and History, pp. 135–157. doi:10.1515/9781400853557.135.

Cohen, G. A. (1983). The structure of proletarian unfreedom. Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (1):3-33.

Engels, F. (1969) Condition of the Working Class in England; Excerpt from ‘The Great Towns’.UK: Panther Books.

HIMMELFARB, GERTRUDE. "Engels in Manchester: Inventing the Proletariat." The American Scholar 52, no. 4. 1983.

Marx, Karl, 1852. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louise Bonaparte. Translated by Saul K. Padover. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1937.

Marx, K. (1867). Capital. A Critique to Political Economy. Volume I. The Process of Production of Capital. English Edition (1887). Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Marx, K. and Engels, F. The Communist Manifesto, ed. Jeffrey C. Isaac (Yale University Press, 2012).  Introduction, Parts I-II & IV.

Marx, K. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (Preface, ‘Alienated Labour’) and ‘Alienation in the Productive Process’. Excerpts from Karl Marx: Selected Writings, ed. McLellan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)

O’Shea, T. (2019) ‘Are workers dominated?’, Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 16(1). doi:10.26556/jesp.v16i1.631.

Pelz, W. A. (1998). Class and Gender: Friedrich Engels’ Contribution to Revolutionary History. Science & Society, 62(1), 117–126.

Wood, A. W. (1994).  ‘Marx on Equality’. In The Free Development of Each: Studies on Freedom, Right, and Ethics in Classical German Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References in order.

 The Communist Manifesto P48

 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts P85

 The Communist Manifesto P48

 Engels, F. (1969) P42

 Ibid. P112

 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts P86  

 Engels, F. (1969) P186

 The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louise Bonaparte. P40

 Engels, F. (1969) P108

 HIMMELFARB, GERTRUDE. P495

 Ibid. P491

 Ibid. P486

 Ibid. P493

 Ibid. P 479  

 Pelz, W. A. (1998). P122

 Balibar, E., Lock, G. and Althusser, L. (1977) P121

  The Communist Manifesto P197  

 Marx, K. (1867). Capital. A Critique to Political Economy.P7  

 Balibar, E., Lock, G. and Althusser, L. (1977) p107

 Marx, K. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts P p89/90

 Ibid. P91

 Cohen, G.A. (1980) P41

 Ibid. P350

 Ibid. P354

 Ibid. P340  

 Ibid. P347

 O’Shea, T. (2019) p17/20

 Cohen, G. A. (1983). P21

 Ibid. P26

 Wood, A. W. (1994).  p262  

 Marx, K. and Engels, F. The Communist Manifesto P155

 Ibid. P187

 Ibid. P188

 Ibid. P189

 Cohen, G.A. (1980) P342

 Engels, F. (1969) P111

 HIMMELFARB, GERTRUDE. P488