On Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei section one Bourgeois and Proletarians

Much of the narrative on the development of the capitalistic society does offer insight. It is relatively positive about the process until it begins to focus on economic downturns. And, there its focus on production as the core of economic systems which limits its ability to see that hopes, fears, and expectations often play a larger role in the type of disruptions it describes than actual physical or monetary realities.

But its true misappreciation is in assuming that the poverty will cause workers not to value those possession and income that they have acquired. This is a very serious error. To fail to see that a man will care more about his last loaf of bread or dollar than he would about any other is fatal.

“They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.”

This reveals a paternalistic and superior judgment of the masses. Since the author doesn't value the possession of the poor they are assumed not to value them either. It also ignores the sense of ownership that can accompany employment even one that is know to the employe to be exploitative. This view seeks to create a class distinct from the self interested Bourgeois who want a better life but who will be unable to make any progress toward that end. This is unrealistic as even in the most destitute and limited environment there are grades of existence and some accomplishment is never out of reach. Through these small acquisitions and victories the Proletarian learns to value this possessions and the luxuries he has gained. While he might be convinced that revolution will gain him even more or right the injustices in his life he will not embrace it out of a contempt for those things he has for himself won. He may feel that they are not sufficient or adequate for his needs and wants or the value he holds himself in but he won't abandon his possession on that basis. Wealth is a relative value.

Also the power wielded by the people in a democratic system is not fully appreciated even though an early example is mention. Nor is the possibly of cheap and efficient production creating goods for the Proletariat isn't explored even thought the benefit of continued market development is recognized. The benefit to the capital holders of developing market values in all within a society is not seen nor its danger to the revolutionary impulse realized by the author.

I think that the view of the Proletariat presented has more in common with a nobles view of serfs or a slaver owner's view of slaves that a rational view of a class to which one belongs. It seems to contend that lesser classes do not feel and desire in the same manner as their betters. This is needless to say a disastrous delusion.