Draft:Critique on the Communist Manifesto

I leave the idea of the Communist Revolution aside. The purpose was obviously the ending of capitalism. I will rather focus on the assumptions that Marx and Engels made to achieve this goal.

1. Proletarian Revolution

Marx and Engels believed that the contradictions within capitalism—such as alienation, exploitation, and wealth inequality—would create unrest among the working class. This discontent would eventually culminate in a proletarian revolution, where workers would overthrow the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) and seize political power. The revolution was seen as a necessary step to dismantle private ownership of the means of production.

The idea of a Proletarian Revolution is straight forward and not a unique feature of Communism. Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifest in 1848, the last year of the "Age of Revolutions" that started in 1792 with the French Revolution and ended in the same 1848 with the Springtime of Nations. Therefore both had been influenced by revolutionary movements all along. And it made totally sense to rely on the Proletarian Revolution. To change realities like an economic system requires state power. Therefore I do not have much to critizice on the approach especailly since democratic structures had not been enabled yet and monarchies had been predominant.

The revolutions eventually happened in Russia, China and Cuba. Leaving aside the further development of the concerned countries the act of the Proletarian Revolution was successful as expected.

1.1. Inherent Exploitation

Marx and Engels argued that capitalism inherently requires the exploitation of labor to generate profit. The relationship between the bourgeoisie (owners of capital) and the proletariat (workers) is fundamentally unequal, with workers producing surplus value that is appropriated by capitalists. They viewed this exploitation as an unavoidable feature of capitalism, making reform insufficient to address the root problem.

The diagnosis of capitalism as inherently exploitative is undeniable and has not changed until today. The surplus or wealth generated by the employee for the well-being of the owner is no less than structural and systematic inequality that eventually leads to exploitation. Although social legislation operates as a safeguard for workers rights it is limited to national law and only a consequence of the inherit exploitation. It is a patch that addresses the sympthoms instead of eliminating the root cause.

The implementation of state socialism is the fig leaf that established capitalism rather than addressing the structural exploitative nature. It created new dependencies and a political class that took care only of the capitalist excesses.

1.2. Alienation

Under capitalism, workers become alienated from their labor, the products they create, and their own humanity. This alienation arises because workers have no control over the means of production and are treated as commodities rather than individuals. Marx and Engels believed that this alienation was baked into the system and could only be resolved by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

The concept of alienation was basically developed from the observation of belt workers but it still applies to modern professions. The division of labor disconnects the worker from the product such employees hardly find any meaning or fulfillment in their work. Modern management theories try to overcome this issue but must fail eventually since they are also employees limited to their contractual obligations. This leads to unprecedented conflicts between employees and management whos obligations are mostly bind to stock performance.

To overcome this issue it is necessary to align the owners interest with the workers interest which actually should be the managements interest since those are workers, too. But as we all know managements is the agent of the owners instead of their own cast. In a capitalist sense they are bribed workers hired to oppose their own best interest. Management therefore fosters alienation within the workforce and it is in its basic interest to avoid any kind of collective organization within the company. The alienation is kept alive by the workers themselves represented by the management whos aim is to avoid any solidarity that might disrupt the dynamics of exploitation.

Interestingly it is the owners point of view that is subject to academical studies. Meanwhile the managements alienates its own cast, just like Marx stated, the owners created a theorem called Principal-Agent-Problem which actually addresses the illoyality of the management towards the owners. The management therefore alienates with the workers it is supposed to oversee and it alienates with the owners that mistrust them generally. Still so many people try to become management since the compensation is obviously worth the suffering, which is nothing else than the experienced alienation. Suffering is considered normal in nowadays work environment such that compensation is considered surplus. Sometimes the world is upside down .

1.3. Cycles of Crisis

Capitalism’s drive for profit leads to cycles of economic instability, such as booms and busts. Marx and Engels argued that these crises are not anomalies but systemic outcomes of capitalism’s contradictions, namely overproduction and underconsumption, profit motive and competition, crisis and reset and structural instability. Reforming capitalism could not eliminate these crises; only replacing the system entirely could address them.

The boom and bust cycles that Marx and Engels identified as results of overproduction and underconsumption as well as profit motives and competition driven are questionable as I stated before. Those are rather related to market economy instead of capitalism.

The crisis and reset cycles are rather cycles than black swan events. This kind of events got huge impact on the real economy despite the capital market is not necessary related to the corporations performance. It is rather argued that capital markets anticipate the future outlook of corporations. If that would be the case black sawn events like black friday or the financial crisis of 2008 can not happen. Reality shows that manipulations of the stock market and its derivatives are driven by the motivation of capital accumulation, one of the three basic features of capitalism. Capital markets in that sense can be understood as the unproductive way of wealth accumulation since it is unrelated to wealth generation through labor itself. Its permanent crisis mode results from the interdependences that had been established through financial backed insurances or retirement funds. The integration of capital markets into society and market economy creates an unforseable risk that is necessarily subject to manipulation since the dependence on the success of capital markets is vital for such a society. Therefore capital markets are a substantial threat to the wealth of the majority since it redistributes wealth generated from work towards unproductive owners of the means of production through capital markets. The system is rescued from default since a collaps would destroy the free income of broad sections of the population.

Although the payments made to capital markets are considered investments they are rather speculation. From an economic perspective within the GDP framework they are accounted for as savings but from a real economy approach they got little impact on corporate performance. This kind of savings can be accounted for as delayed consumption except it is handled under the paradigm of capitalism that stores capital with the purpose to accumulate more capital. In that case capital markets are doomed to grow perpetually. Otherwise the capitalist system can be accounted for as collapsed which manifests as Black Swan events when the manipulation escalated to the point that reinsurance and financial products can not cover the lack of wealth generated through labor anymore.

To avoid such developments it is necessary to redistribute capital allocated to the capital markets. Therefore it is necessary to reduce the amount of financial vehicles available. This can be achieved by linking derivatives to the amount of underlying available. Options for example can not exceed the total amount of the underlying. Banks and investment funds will naturally oppose such limitations as it is not considered that underlyings are actually delivered. The business model assumes a compensation between market value and option value being sufficient which is clearly against the intent of capital markets which was to secure supply and demand of certain commodities for corporations .

Overproduction and Underconsumption:

Capitalism drives constant innovation and production to maximize profit, often surpassing the actual demand for goods. This overproduction leads to surplus goods that cannot be sold, causing financial strain on businesses. At the same time, the working class, whose labor produces these goods, is not paid enough to buy them in large quantities, creating a demand shortfall—what they called underconsumption.

The idea of overproduction and underconsumption is persuasive although not surprising. It is the outcome of a market economy that can naturally not adjust in real time since consumer preferences are not transparent. Although a lot of efforts are made to observe consumer behavior it is hardly impossible to produce on point. Such an approach would either underestimate or overestimate the consumers total purchasing preferences. As long as consumers can not produce for themselves anytime they need something this problem will never be solved. Remember the replicator from Star Trek, the ultimate decentralized, unlimited ressources, just-in-time production machine? Such a thing would be the solution but it is far from reality and exists in a world only where capitalism is ancient history already.

Profit Motive and Competition:

The relentless competition among capitalists pushes them to cut costs, often by reducing wages or adopting technologies that replace workers. This further reduces workers' purchasing power, exacerbating the gap between production and consumption.

Marx and Engels argue that the cost efficiency pressure is reflected in the workers financial degradation, while price increases open the gap between individual income and individual expenditures resulting in cycles that constantly disrupt the economy. I agree on that but I do not believe that this is an exclusive capitalist feature. Profit maximization through cost cutting and price increase is bound to the production possibilities curve that can shift outward only when innovation occurs. Innovation naturally emerges when the gap between income and expenditures increases such that cheaper production options need to be discovered to satisfy demand. According to Schumpeter this process is the basis of progress and I agree on that. Since supply and demand are finally human bound, the gap between income and expenditures is necessary for progress. If this progress increases happiness in peoples life is a difficult question. In a consumption economy it is always answered with "more is better", which may be true for a particular level of the Maslow pyramid but not as a general rule of satisfaction. Do I agree with Marx and Engels on the diagnosis? Yes, I do. Do I agree with Marx and Engels on the abundance of competition and and profit motivation? Yes, to a certain level. The consumption of physical goods will be saturated in lower levels of the Maslow pyramid eventually. However that does not exclude the possiblity of a market economy to adjust towards higher levels of the Maslow pyramid like belonging, esteem or self-actualization which can still be monetized as long as services are requested to achieve fulfillment. In that sense the critique of Marx and Engels on the disruptive cycles stays valid inculding overproduction and underconsumption as well as profit and competition motivation. So far I do not see a better option for development. Abandoning the idea of a market economy must at least offer a more sophisticated solution like the replicator from Star Wars for non-physical goods. A decentralized and democratic production approach is a nice idea .

Crisis and Reset:

The system collapses under its contradictions during periods of economic crisis, such as recessions or depressions. Businesses fail, jobs are lost, and investments dry up. These crises act as a reset mechanism, clearing out weaker businesses and creating conditions for the next cycle of growth.

Expanding the crisis and reset behavior of a market economy to recessions and booms seems questionable. Markets clearing happens all the time and they are part of the innovative destruction process. This does not explain recessions and booms. It is very unlikely that all companies go out of business the same time although it is imaginable that huge dominating companies going bankrupt have a high influence on the total economy due to the spillover effect. In a market economy, mismanagement and unproductive practices naturally lead to defaults. Since Marx and Engels oppose market economy in general they subsequently oppose default which comes from their denial of competition and profit motives. Well, the alternatives to a market economy, such as monopolies and oligopolies, can run deficits without consequences. The lack of accountability results and is the root cause of inefficient ressource allocation. While Marx and Engels might avoid crisis and reset cycles, such systems would end up in permanent crisis mode due to the inability of decentralized decision making which allocates ressources effectively. Such behavior was proven historically by planned economies already.

In my opinion boom and bust cycles are less of an economical than of policy origin. Additionally they are almost always bound to capital markets and their speculative behavior. It is an ex post observation that economic crises occur after stock market crashes. Although businesses may run successful such crashes, which concern the poeples valuables in terms of savings, provoke a huge uncertainty within the population that loses trust in capital markets and withdraws its funds. Moreover they stop consuming to keep their funds together since they can not expect free income from the capital markets anymore. Therefore the real economy begins to suffer from the lack of demand which sets of the cycle of recession until trust is restored and the game starts over.

Structural Instability:

Marx and Engels emphasized that these crises are not anomalies but systemic features of capitalism. The constant pursuit of profit ensures that these cycles repeat, each time revealing and deepening the system's inherent contradictions.

I can agree on that in terms of the concentration of the means of production. In case of default it is mostly the surviving competitor that takes over the manufacturing equipment which is the means of production. Therefore the capital accumulates in fewer hands over time until a monopoly controls the whole industry. In that case the systematic features, according to Marx and Engels, would be obsolete. Such marginal value consideration does not devalue the observations made by Marx and Engels but it questions the systematic feature approach. However, if such state of development would be achieved capitalism can be considered completed. In fact it will be completed when everything is owned by a single person only.

Marx and Engels figured out basic features of a market economy, which can exist without capitalism as we know. Their request for destruction of the same will not end capitalism but consumption economy which is the basis of innovation and wealth, independent of the applying state economic model.

Summary

Marx and Engels observed capitalism very detailed. I do not go along with their definition of capitalism in general but that might be due to the post perspective I take on this subject. I do agree on the inherent nature of capital accumulation in a few hands. I do see the problems of its intriguing behavior that undermines societal norms and individual rights. I do see the problem of collapsing economies although I consider different causes. I also agree on the exploitation of workers and the opening wealth gap between wealth creators (workers) and wealth receivers (capitalists). I oppose the consideration that market economy should be abolished. I oppose the idea that efficient ressource allocation should be centralized, although Marx and Engels believe in decentralized self governing ownership of the means of production through the liberated working class, not even for a transformation period.

1.4. Class Struggle

For Marx and Engels, capitalism is defined by perpetual class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This conflict, rooted in the ownership of the means of production, shapes society and politics. They believed that capitalism’s reliance on class divisions made it inherently oppressive and incompatible with their vision of an egalitarian society.

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

This famous quote of Warren Buffet not only describes but openly acknowledges the existence of a class warfare between employees and owners. The logic is straight forward. Capitalism can exist only when the working class receives less than the wealth it creates. This is rooted in the accumulation of capital logic. To acquire more capital it is necessary to reduce cost such that profits can grow. These profits are then reinvested to generate even greater margins which is achieved through either cost cutting or higher revenues.

The logic of class warfare arises from a mindset that perceives investments and growth as negative features. A class struggle will persist as long as workers are not rewarded with the wealth they produce. This struggle is rooted in the assumption that workers are reduced to the status of mere assets. This mindset continues to manifest in modern HR practices, which are still referred to as "Human Resources."

Under such assumptions, class conflict remains inevitable as long as workers are not treated as equals to owners. In my opinion, this struggle is not solely about the wealth distributed to workers but centers around their involvement in decision-making processes within the company. Workers may accept lower wages if they are actively engaged in shaping the corporation's strategic direction. Such an approach was clearly unthinkable for Marx and Engels, as democracy was not yet established during their time, and both were critical towards its development denouncing it as bourgeoise democracy.

In retrospect, their critique of democracy was well-reasoned, as politics reacted differently to class warfare. A notable example is Bismarck's social insurance laws, introduced in 1883—40 years after the publication of The Communist Manifesto—as a response to the rising Social Democratic movement. It is important to remember that Germany was still a monarchy at the time, and Bismarck, a staunch monarchist, felt deeply responsible for the welfare of the people. However, the threat of socialism and democracy compelled him to introduce the first social insurance laws to prevent revolts and unrest within the country.

Although these measures reduced the negative impacts of capitalism, they created new dependencies—namely on the government. These dependencies did not disappear with democratization later on but rather solidified the capitalist system instead of liberating the workers.

In modern democracies, social democrats are widespread, while communists are almost universally banned. This raises concerns about the influence of capitalism on our societies. The dependencies created through integration of the capitalist system into the state and social systems—such as insurances, governmental debt, or retirement funds—have built networks that make individuals reliant on factors beyond their immediate control. These networks pose a threat not only to democracy but also to the existence of every individual, who has to rely on the goodwill of centralized market participants, colloquially known as whales, and a government that is not the master of its own house.

Corruption and lobbying have further deepened these dependencies, making it increasingly questionable whether governments in democratic countries are still capable of mitigating the negative impacts of capitalism.

Summary

The class struggle in the sense of Marx and Engels exists. It is inherent in the system. I agree on that. How shall I doubt that when even Warren Buffet acknowledges its existence. Anyway the idea of abolishing capitalism as a whole is questionable since investment and growth are not generally negative in my opinion. I do see a problem with capitalism being integrated in state structures such that dependencies are created which are out of control from governments and therefore out of the legitimacy of the population.

1.5. Vision of Communism

Rather than reform capitalism, Marx and Engels proposed replacing it with a communist system, where the means of production would be collectively owned and class distinctions abolished. This vision was rooted in their belief that capitalism’s core structure—private ownership and profit-driven production—was incompatible with genuine equality and freedom.

In order to make the idea of communism understandable, I must first clear up some misunderstandings and probably also deliberate misinformation about communism. Marx and Engel's vision of communism was by no means a central state that distributed resources and held the property rights in a planned economy manner. The establishment of a central state was not intentional. It is the consequence of the takeover of the existing state within the framework of the proletarian revolution. Marx and Engels were aware of the fact that revolution can only take place within an existing state. This transitional state was subsequently to establish equality among its inhabitants, which in turn was to lead to the only acceptable version of a democracy among equals, the classless society. From this classless society, the decentralized distribution of resources should take place according to the needs of local enterprises and communities.

I am aware that this version of Communism is almost unknown to most of the readers. The misinformation about the idea is strongly rooted in society. I do align with the idea although I do not agree on the path to transformation. A decentralized-democratic society focusing on individual progress is exactly what the Decentralized Digital Revolution amis to achieve. Our Proletarian Revolution will be a peaceful one by using blockchain and payed education. We have the technology. We can make it better than it was. Better, stronger, faster.

Conclusion

Marx and Engels saw reform as insufficient because it would leave capitalism’s fundamental contradictions intact. Their revolutionary approach was aimed at creating a new system that could resolve these contradictions and foster a classless society. This radical vision reflected their commitment to addressing the root causes of exploitation and inequality, rather than mitigating their symptoms. This book is to be understood as the successor of the Communist Manifesto and as "The People*s guide to Democracy".

1.6. Alignment with Marx’s Expectations

The idea of the Proletarian Revolution found expression in historical events such as the Russian Revolution and later periods of centralized governance under leaders like Stalin and Mao, where the means of production were brought under state control. Therefore the first step towards an egalitarian-non capitalist-world was made. Nevertheless it was the first step only.

1.7. Deviation from Marx’s Expectations

Shift to Social Democracy: Instead of the envisioned revolution, many nations transitioned toward social democracy, using centralized states to moderate capitalism through reforms such as labor rights, welfare systems, and progressive taxation. This shift:

Protected Capitalism: Social democracy maintained the fundamental structures of capitalism while softening its harsher aspects to prevent unrest.

State Interference: Governments played an active role in redistributing wealth and regulating markets, achieving some of the egalitarian goals Marx sought but within the capitalist framework.

This pragmatic approach proved more sustainable than a full proletarian revolution. By addressing the immediate needs of workers—such as improved wages and social protections—social democracy prevented the revolutionary fervor that Marx had anticipated.

1.8. Implications

The evolution of social democracy illustrates how capitalism adapted to survive, incorporating elements of state interference to address its contradictions without dismantling its foundation. Marx’s vision of a classless society and a withering state remains unfulfilled, as capitalism has shown remarkable resilience and flexibility.

Perhaps Marx underestimated the ability of capitalist systems to adapt and absorb opposition through reform, as well as the challenges of achieving global solidarity among workers.

2. Centralization of Power

Following the revolution, the proletariat would establish what Marx called the "dictatorship of the proletariat." This phase was not intended to be a literal dictatorship, but rather a transitional state where the working class would hold political power. The goal was to:

Abolish private property and centralize the means of production in the hands of the state (acting as the representative of the workers).

Nationalize major industries, banks, and infrastructure.

Implement policies to eliminate class distinctions, such as progressive taxation, free education, and collective control over resources.

This centralization was intended to organize society's resources efficiently and fairly, addressing the inequities of capitalism.

2.1. Alignment with Marx’s Expectations

Centralization of Power: Marx expected that the proletariat would use the state as a transitional vehicle to centralize the means of production, abolish private ownership, and eliminate class distinctions. In this sense, the state’s role as the owner of the means of production in both the USSR and the CCP mirrors Marx’s concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Planned Economy: The shift to planned economies, where production and resources were allocated based on state planning rather than market dynamics, reflects Marx’s critique of market economies as chaotic and exploitative. He sought a more rational organization of society’s productive forces, which state-led systems attempted to implement.

2.2. Deviation from Marx’s Vision

Authoritarian Governance: Marx’s expectation was that the state would eventually "wither away" as class distinctions disappeared and society reached a stage of true communism. However, the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao entrenched state control, creating new elites rather than moving toward decentralization and egalitarianism.

Prolonged State Control: Instead of transitioning to collective ownership managed by the workers themselves, state capitalism entrenched the state as the primary actor, delaying or even preventing the realization of Marx’s ultimate vision.

Economic Challenges: The planned economies of the USSR and CCP faced inefficiencies and stagnation, which contributed to their eventual failure. While these systems temporarily addressed inequality and provided societal improvements, they struggled to adapt to the complexities of modern economies.

3. Gradual Dissolution of Class Distinctions

As the state centralized the means of production and restructured society, Marx believed that the conditions for class antagonism would begin to fade. Without private property or exploitative labor practices, the distinctions between classes (proletariat and bourgeoisie) would erode. This process would involve:

The redistribution of wealth and resources.

The elimination of wage labor as a form of exploitation.

Collective ownership of resources to ensure equality.

3.1. Social and economical achievements

The dissolution of class distinctions in communist systems saw some meaningful advancements, such as universal education, healthcare, housing, and employment guarantees—which addressed key aspects of social equality and sought to eliminate wage labor as a form of exploitation. The collectivization of land ownership also reflected significant efforts to bridge economic disparities.

3.2. Egalitarian economic disparencies

However, these measures were not sufficient to create a truly egalitarian society, as new elites often emerged within the governing structures. This concentration of power in the hands of political and bureaucratic leadership ultimately reinforced inequality in practice. Marx’s vision of a classless society, while ideologically appealing, appears to face inherent challenges in reconciling the complexities of human nature and societal organization with the theoretical ideals of equality.

Marx viewed the market economy as inherently chaotic, exploitative, and rooted in capitalist motives like profit maximization and private ownership. However, in striving for an egalitarian society, the dynamics of decentralized production and shared ownership could lead to forms of competition that bear similarities to market mechanisms—especially when equal opportunities are guaranteed for all individuals.

Market Economy in an Egalitarian Framework: Decentralized Decision-Making: In a truly egalitarian society, production and distribution would rely on cooperation and communal decision-making. However, individuals and communities might still compete to showcase innovation, efficiency, or productivity within this framework. This competition would be detached from capitalist motives but could mirror aspects of a free market, where actors strive to meet collective needs while demonstrating their abilities.

Competition in Egalitarian Societies: Even if Marx anticipated solidarity as a central principle, human nature and diversity of goals could create friendly rivalry or competition among workers and communities. This would be based on shared values rather than profit-driven motives, akin to a cooperative economic model.

Equal chances mean equal platforms for workers to excel, leading naturally to comparative evaluations of output, creativity, or contributions—an aspect closely aligned with market dynamics.

Opposition to Monopolies and Oligopolies: Egalitarian societies inherently reject concentrated power structures like monopolies and oligopolies, promoting decentralized and fair systems. These systems could function similarly to non-capitalist market economies, where access and fairness are prioritized without exploitation.

3.3. Conclusion

Marx approach of an egalitarian society contradicts its opposition against market economy. Since market economy is the natural opposite of monopolies and oligopolies he indicates that those are preferable which aligns with the idea of central planning. However it is scientifically proven that monopolies and oligopolies are economically inefficient. Even in non-capitalist societies.

Moreover in a society where resources and opportunities are distributed equally, individuals will still naturally strive to excel, innovate, or distinguish themselves. This drive doesn’t disappear—it just shifts focus.

For example, in a theoretical egalitarian society, competition might manifest in areas like intellectual achievements, artistic expression, or contributions to communal well-being. The absence of capitalist profit motives doesn’t eliminate the desire to stand out or improve; it simply redirects it toward non-materialistic goals. This aligns with the idea that competition isn’t inherently tied to capitalism—it’s a broader human trait.

4. The Fading Away of the State

Once class distinctions had been eliminated, Marx envisioned the state itself "withering away." Since the state primarily exists to mediate class struggles, a truly egalitarian and classless society would no longer require a state apparatus. At this stage:

Power would be decentralized, and collective decision-making would guide social and economic organization.

Communities would self-manage production and distribution, operating based on communal needs rather than profit motives.

This final stage represented Marx's vision of a communist society—where human relations would no longer be dominated by economics or power hierarchies.

4.1. Vanishing of the nation state

Marx’s assumption that the state would "wither away" under communism stems from his understanding of the state's role in class society. According to Marx, the state exists primarily to mediate conflicts between classes and uphold the dominance of the ruling class. In a classless, communist society, where exploitation and class distinctions are eliminated, Marx theorized that the need for such a state apparatus would disappear.

Reasoning Behind Marx’s Assumption: Class-Based Function of the State: Marx argued that the state is fundamentally a tool for the ruling class (bourgeoisie under capitalism) to maintain its power over the working class. He believed that once class distinctions were abolished through the "dictatorship of the proletariat," the state would lose its primary function.

Transition Phase: The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was envisioned as a temporary phase where the working class would use the state to dismantle capitalist structures and reorganize society. As inequalities and exploitation were eradicated, the state would gradually become unnecessary and fade away, replaced by decentralized, communal decision-making.

Global Communism: Marx envisioned communism as an international movement. He believed that once all nations transitioned to communism, the concept of a nation-state would become obsolete, as there would no longer be economic or political boundaries necessitating state governance.

Ignoring the Role of the Nation-State: While Marx’s theory addressed the structural role of the state, it overlooked several practical realities:

National Identity and Governance: Marx underestimated the deep-rooted cultural, historical, and social significance of nation-states. Even in classless societies, people often organize around shared identities, which can necessitate governance structures.

Complex Global Dynamics: The assumption of seamless globalization under communism ignored the complexities of international relations, such as economic dependencies, cultural differences, and geopolitical interests, which make the dissolution of nation-states difficult.

Challenges of Decentralization: The idea of replacing the state with decentralized, communal systems has proven challenging, as large-scale societies often require coordination and infrastructure that resemble state functions.

4.2. Conclusion

Marx’s vision of the state fading away was ideologically grounded in his belief in historical materialism, but it did not fully account for the practical and cultural roles of nation-states. While globalization under communism might have reduced the significance of national borders, the complete disappearance of nation-states remains a highly ambitious and arguably unrealistic aspect of his theory.

5. Context

Despite my critiques of the *Communist Manifesto* and the assumptions made by Marx and Engels, I recognize the societal vision behind their work. Their ideas touch on what we now consider basic human rights, such as housing, education, and labor. These themes will play a significant role in this book and in the broader context of the Decentralized-Digital Revolution.

Reflecting on the fact that the *Manifesto* was published 177 years ago, it is striking that no universal consensus has yet been reached on the social challenges it addresses. The aspiration for an egalitarian society that overcomes the inherent obstacles of capitalism, as outlined in *Das Kapital*, remains relevant. While the method to achieve this vision may differ, the concept of *Communismus Oeconomicus* stands as an essential first step.