Marx's claims against the bourgeois are redundant and (violating his own demand for dialectic and doctrine) without a viable accusation or resolution. His rhetoric is merely street-talk, upgraded to a political and inflammatory vocabulary.
His dismay over private property is absurd. Economically and sociologically speaking, unrestrained greed and borrowing are the cause and tool of social instability, creating a virtual environment that must break down under a real and primal influence. Marx was aware of this and was openly anti-Semitic, using the stereotype Jew as a scapegoat for economic woes like Hitler did (and many others).
In the first place, I'd seriously question anyone who calls for
the destruction or domination of a class or society of peoples. Marx was
obsessed with the feudal system, and this contributed to his ambivalent
message. I see a parallel in the regimes that embraced his work. Under
communist orders, there is (ideally) a 2-class distinction; the bureaucrat
and the proletarian; the credo becomes the sovereign. Is that any different
than the Lord and the Serf? The serf could never (without rebellion) obtain
any credibility from the lord because the serf was basically a slave; ignorant
of the matters and policies of the state. This kind of oppression was in strong
evidence in communist Russia, etc. The following quotes illuminate the motive
and (hence) the execution of such doctrines.
The nobility of Marx's motives becomes suspect and his true aspirations
(or, delusions of grandeur) become clearer when we read an amorphism that
can be attributed to him:
� 1997