“A spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.”

These are the first words of the Communist Manifesto, composed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, with the sole target of addressing a new revolutionary movement that had been experiencing an upsurge across European nations: Communism. Moving on, this article dives into the main points of communist ideology and examines how they were, or were not, implemented in practice.

The Manifesto begins with an attack on the ruling establishments of the 19th century, who, as mentioned, were moving to eradicate this radical movement that threatened their dominance and the exploitation of the working class (the proletariat). However, it continues with two rather optimistic acknowledgements. Firstly, it recognises that communism had already become a power feared and acknowledged by the “Powers of old Europe.” Secondly, it calls for a formal declaration of its goals and beliefs,a manifesto for the working class.

At the heart of the Manifesto lies a historical narrative: all history, Marx and Engels argue, is the history of class struggle. From freemen and slaves to lords and serfs, every epoch of human society has been marked by the conflict between oppressor and oppressed. In the modern industrial era, this dichotomy takes the form of the bourgeoisie,the owners of the means of production,and the proletariat,the working class that sells its labour to survive.

The bourgeoisie, according to Marx, played a revolutionary role in history. It tore apart feudal bonds, destroyed the power of hereditary monarchies, and built the modern world through industrialisation and trade. Yet in doing so, it also created its own gravedigger: the proletariat. By concentrating workers in factories and uniting them in shared exploitation, the bourgeoisie unknowingly fostered the conditions for its own downfall. The workers, bound by the same chains, would one day rise collectively to break them.

This section of the Manifesto reads not merely as political theory, but as prophecy. It paints capitalism as a force that, while once progressive, will eventually collapse under the weight of its contradictions,inequality, alienation, and the ceaseless drive for profit at the expense of human dignity.

Marx and Engels then turn to clarify the relationship between the communists and the broader working-class movement. Communists, they write, “do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.” Their distinguishing feature is their theoretical clarity: they understand the larger historical direction of the workers’ struggle and seek to advance it toward the abolition of private property and class distinctions altogether.

The communists’ ultimate goal, therefore, is not merely political power but a social transformation so deep that it renders exploitation impossible. They envision a society in which the means of production,the factories, land, and resources,are no longer privately owned, but collectively managed for the common good. In this sense, communism is not just a political program but a moral one: it demands human liberation from all forms of domination, economic or otherwise.

However, Marx is careful to note that this revolution will not happen overnight. It requires consciousness, organisation, and the political unification of the working class across national boundaries,a vision beautifully encapsulated in the manifesto’s closing call: “Workers of all countries, unite!”

The Manifesto also distinguishes between different strands of socialism that existed at the time. Marx and Engels were not alone in critiquing capitalism; utopian socialists like Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen had already proposed cooperative models of production and social harmony. But Marx dismisses these as naive, lacking a scientific understanding of history and class struggle.

Whereas utopian socialism appealed to the morality of the bourgeoisie, Marxist communism sought to empower the proletariat to seize control of society. It rejected charity in favour of revolution. Other forms of socialism,such as reactionary or conservative socialism,were, in Marx’s view, attempts by parts of the bourgeoisie to soften capitalism’s rough edges while preserving its essence. Communism, by contrast, aimed to abolish capitalism altogether.

Politically, the communists of 1848 found themselves in a world of competing movements: liberals seeking constitutional reform, nationalists struggling for independence, and reactionaries defending monarchy. Marx and Engels urged communists to support any revolutionary movement that weakened feudal or bourgeois power, but always with the ultimate aim of pushing beyond them.

In practice, this meant that communists would ally with democratic forces against monarchy, while preparing for the moment when democracy itself would become a platform for the working class to assert power. The communist project was thus both pragmatic and visionary,rooted in real political struggle, yet oriented toward a radically different future.

The most profound challenge for communism, however, was never simply its vision of equality but its transition. How do we move from the capitalist status quo to socialism (where the state owns the means of production) and from socialism to communism (where ownership is truly collective and class distinctions disappear)?

This “transitional problem” haunted every subsequent communist movement. Marx offered few practical answers, leaving later thinkers to interpret his theory through their own circumstances. The result was a century of experiments, revolutions, and tragic missteps,all in the name of an idea that was never fully realised.

When Vladimir Lenin confronted this problem in early 20th-century Russia, he proposed a solution: the vanguard party. According to Lenin, the working class alone could not spontaneously achieve revolutionary consciousness; it needed a disciplined, centralised party to lead it.

While this idea was meant to accelerate the revolution, it ultimately replaced one hierarchy with another. The “dictatorship of the proletariat” became the dictatorship of the party, and soon, the dictatorship of the leader. In theory, the party was the instrument of emancipation; in practice, it became an apparatus of control.

Lenin’s vision paved the way for Stalin’s totalitarianism, in which the state claimed to represent the workers while suppressing them. The dream of equality devolved into bureaucracy, censorship, and fear.

The 20th century witnessed the rise of regimes that called themselves communist,Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, Kim Il-sung’s North Korea,but their realities diverged sharply from Marx’s ideals. Instead of abolishing exploitation, they often perpetuated it under new forms. Millions were imprisoned in gulags or perished during purges and famines.

These states nationalised property but not power; they replaced capitalist bosses with party officials. The means of production were not owned by the proletariat, but by the state,an institution that became alien and oppressive. True communism, in the Marxist sense, never came to exist. What the world witnessed were distorted versions of socialism trapped in the first phase of Marx’s transitional vision, never reaching the stateless, classless society he imagined.

Yet it would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss communism solely through these failed experiments. The ideal that inspired millions,the belief in human equality, solidarity, and justice,remains morally powerful. The tragedy of communism lies not in its aspiration, but in how it was betrayed.

If communism is to have a future, it must confront its central paradox: how to achieve collective ownership without authoritarianism. The answer may lie not in the old forms of revolution or state control, but in new modes of democratic participation and cooperative economics. Worker-owned enterprises, participatory budgeting, and digital commons represent small but genuine steps toward reclaiming production for the people.

Communism’s legacy, therefore, is not only in what it failed to achieve, but in what it continues to inspire: the relentless critique of inequality and the demand that human labour serve life, not profit. The Manifesto remains a call to question who controls our world,and why.

More than a century and a half later, Marx’s words still echo in an age of billionaires and precarity, of automation and alienation. The spectre of communism may no longer haunt Europe, but it lingers wherever people dare to imagine a world beyond exploitation.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!