The Communist Manifesto

The Communist Manifesto arguably stands as the crowning (or at least the best known) achievement of the collaboration between Marx and Engels in defense of Communist philosophy and the theory of class-conflict. The document describes the history of society as being one driven by this conflict, more specifically between the oppressors and the oppressed. Although these oppressors are inevitable overthrown, they have always been replaced by a new class that assume the position of supremacy left vacant. The Manifesto holds that the current class division in industrialized society lies in the conflict between the Bourgeoisie (those who own the means and benefits of production) and the Proletariat (those who sell their labor and in doing so fuel the industrialized capitalist system). Marx and Engels regard the Bourgeoisie as a class that has become impossible for society to support. They further argue that although the Proletariat is exploited by the capitalist system, subjected to long hours and hard labor and compensated barely enough to survive, as a unified force they hold the power to not only overthrow the Bourgeoisie but also to put an end to the cycle of class-conflict forever. This is achieved through the adoption of the Communist Party’s proposals, including state assumption of all private property, transportation and communication services, increased income/consumption taxes, and liability to work to name a few.

I feel that particularly in section two, Marx and Engels make a compelling argument in seeking to refute potential objections from the Bourgeoisie. I found the discussion of the process by which the Proletariat would effect these changes particularly interesting: the idea that the laborers would need to assume control of the methods of industrial production in the capitalist system (at least initially) rather than simply doing away with them really intrigued me. Marx and Engels reason that for the revolution to occur, this is a necessary step in transition, whereby these old means of control can be utilized to achieve the brighter future in which every person’s development is free and unhindered by property or inheritance. It seems that in their ideal system, not only would these be eliminated as concerns of the common man (or society as a whole), but as standards for a fulfilling life, to be succeeded by more equitable and attainable goals.

However, I also questioned the transition as they described it, for the manifesto offers no assurance of the success of this process. Although Marx and Engels are assured of the inevitable rise of the Proletariat to the tune of the destruction of the Bourgeoisie, if they achieve revolution through the same channels by which they were subjugated, who is to say that this will not simply result in a purporting of the status quo? Furthermore, the Proletariat is not of this revolutionary world that these theorists have envisioned, but of the old one in which the goals of owning property and securing capital are still the standard of success. Marx and Engels themselves mention that the Proletariat family resembles an engine by which to generate capital; in other words, once in power, it seems likely that they would have at least some inclination to seek the measures of success they had pursued throughout their lives, rather than simply abandoning those and adopting new ones. Finally, in any movement one is bound to find leaders, and the Proletariat movement would be no exception. This Communist Utopia would have need of government leaders as any other state, and so therefore I feel that opportunities for corruption and exploitation would persist, especially if the state were to have a monopoly on services, education, and of course the means of production. In other words, there was still great potential for the continuing of the class-conflict cycle under this Manifesto. Centralization is a slippery slope when it comes to power, and I should like to see an expansion of Marx and Engel’s explanation for how they intend it to work. I’ll bring this exceedingly long post to an end – thanks for reading!