Manifesto of the Communist Party - Marx, Engels

Marx believed that 'The History of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.'  That there were always people on top and people on the bottom.  He believed that his current epoch pitted the bourgeois against the proletariat and he wanted to help the proletariat win out and stop the cycles.  If an educated work force could get rid of their masters, they could run things in a more rational and compassionate manner.  
Some helpful definitions:

By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern Capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage-labor. By proletariat, the class of modern wage-laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling the labor-power in order to live.  

Marx and Engels put out the Manifesto in 1848 to describe the movement they were creating.  They wanted to lay down some of the general principles and win over converts.  They would help the work force unite and rise up.  And what would their big blow against the establishment be?

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

Once property is converted into a common property, it would lose it's 'class character' and presumably cease to be an obstacle to the well being of the proletariat.  They would also do away with such things as family and religion.  In fact, religious objections 'are not deserving of a serious examination'.  Once the program is in place and production has been put in the hands of the masses, 'public power will lose it's political character'.

I'd never read the Manifesto before and I found it very interesting.  The entire thing is short enough to be read in one sitting and most of it is open enough in meaning to be easily understood.  There are parts that almost read like a parody of Marxist students, though perhaps that's unfair to both Marx and the students themselves.
In the early 19th century, European thought on society was in flux.  Monarchy and feudalism had been entrenched for centuries.  They were now suddenly on the outs or at least greatly curtailed.  The industrial revolution had changed the relationship between rural and urban workforces, not always for the better.  Marx and his kin were honestly trying to figure out a better way.  They would recreate society.  In doing so, they would have to recreate man himself.
Well, why not?  Great changes had been made; great strides in democracy and the rights of man.  Why not more?
Of course, we know much more now, some 165 years later.  We know that human nature isn't quite so easy to shape.  We know that non-Revolutionary means can more reliably bring about great improvements in the standard of living.  And we're a bit more skeptical about the wisdom of central planners.
But it's hard for me to hold any of that against Marx.