K. Marx: It's the economy, stupid!
Manifesto of the Communist Party
Introduction
A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
The opposition parties are accused of being communistic by their opponents, regardless of their actual positions. This leads to two conclusions: 1. Communism is recognized by all European powers as a force. 2. Communists must publish their views to counter the myth of the 'Spectre of Communism'. Therefore, various national Communists have assembled in London to sketch a manifesto to be published in English, French, German, Italian, Flemish, and Danish.
I. Bourgeois and Proletarians
The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles: Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, oppressor and oppressed have historically opposed each other, leading to either a revolutionary reconstitution of society or the common ruin of the contending classes.
In earlier epochs of history, complex arrangements of society into various orders existed, such as in ancient Rome (patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves) and Medieval times (feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs).
Modern bourgeois society, which emerged from feudal society, has not abolished class antagonisms but established new classes, new forms of struggle, and new conditions of oppression. The bourgeoisie is the class of modern capitalists who own the means of production and employ wage labor. The proletariat is the current class of wage laborers who possess no means of production and must sell their labor to survive.
The modern age simplifies class antagonisms, primarily distinguishing between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie developed from chartered burghers of medieval towns, propelled by events like the discovery of America, which opened new markets for trade, leading to a rapid industrial revolution. The feudal system, monopolized by closed guilds, could not meet the demands of the emerging markets, leading to the rise of manufacturing and industry, marked by innovations like steam and machinery.
Modern industry revolutionized production and created a world market. Each advance of the bourgeoisie marked a corresponding political advance; they transformed into an armed self-governing association, ultimately achieving political supremacy in the representative state. The executive of the state became merely a committee managing the interests of the bourgeoisie.
II. Revolutionizing Industry and Society
The bourgeoisie played a revolutionary role, dismantling feudal ties and relationships, reducing all relationships to exploitative economic transactions. The bourgeoisie has stripped traditional occupations of their prestige, reduced family relations to mere monetary ones, and demonstrated what human activity can accomplish through industrial advancements.
Modern Industry's constant need to revolutionize production means that it creates transient relations; all societal norms are in a state of flux. Therefore, a constant need for new markets drives the bourgeoisie to seek global expansion and fosters interdependence among nations, which encourages a universal culture and communication globally.
The bourgeoisie's influence drives nations toward modernization and what is characterized as civilization. Their commercial dominance infiltrates nations, replacing local production with global networks and establishing a cosmopolitan and interdependent world.
III. Proletariat's Condition and Struggles
The conditions of the proletariat—those who sell their labor—are deeply exploitative. Workers are increasingly alienated from their labor as the industry grows. The introduction of machinery and division of labor leads to monotonous, dehumanizing working conditions. Labor cost is reduced to mere subsistence, meaning wages decrease as the work becomes more repulsive.
The transition from small workshops to large factories symbolizes the proletariat's transformation from independent artisans to mere cogs in the industrial machine. Employment regulations have reduced skill differentiation, and the bourgeois class's exploitation leads to further economic precarity for the working class.
With time, the proletariat begins to struggle against bourgeois conditions. At first, actions remain isolated; however, economic grievances encourage workers to form unions and associations, endeavoring to improve wages and working conditions. Their struggles are met unevenly, and victories are laborious, yet they lay the groundwork for greater unity. Throughout this development, the workers enhance their organizational capacity, barely dented by bourgeois oppression.
IV. Proletariat’s Development and Political Awakening
The proletariat's political awakening demonstrates a shift from individual agitation to collective actions. As industry advances and capital increases, differentials among workers equalize, prompting solidarity against their shared oppressor, the bourgeois class.
Historical struggles see the proletariat unify in a national struggle against their bourgeoisie. Their conflicts are often politically blurred due to still-acting remnants of aristocracy that preserve old privileges. The emergence of political consciousness leads to a greater recognition of class antagonisms, propelling the working class into a significant political force.
Bourgeois ideological transformations also influence the proletariat's understanding of their condition. Economic crises serve as confronting reminders of the contradictions inherent to capitalist society and fuel organizational unity among workers. The proletariat adapts and responds to the cyclical nature of capitalist crises and the ensuing societal upheaval.
V. The Revolutionary Potential of the Proletariat
The bourgeoisie, through its struggles against feudalism, has unwittingly created its eventual undermining: the proletariat. Each step they take in industrial development leads to a corresponding enhancement of the proletariat's awareness and organizational might in their fight against bourgeois exploitation.
All prior social movements were confounding struggles of the minority for minority interests. In contrast, the proletariat represents a self-conscious majority striving for the liberation of all. Their causes, drawn on universal principles of justice and equality, may radically shatter existing class relations. The impoverished working class symbolizes the essence of history; they cannot rise without inciting societal upheaval, as the foundational social structures rely on exploitation.
VI. Communists’ Position and Aims
The Communists stand not apart from other working-class movements; they align closely with the interests of the proletariat. Their views highlight the common interests of the working class internationally, asserting the necessity for global solidarity against bourgeois domination.
Their immediate aims align with those of other working-class parties: to form the proletarians into a class that can overthrow the bourgeois supremacy and seize political power. Theoretical foundations are rooted in actual class struggles occurring in their time, rather than any abstract reformist ideals.
The Communists champion the abolition of bourgeois private property, emphasizing that the problem is not property itself but the nature of bourgeois property tied to exploitation.
Politically, Communists engage with various movements (Chartists, Agrarian Reformers, etc.) to promote working-class advancement, aiming to push existing parties to recognize the antagonistic class structure between bourgeoisie and proletariat while facilitating deeper revolutionary objectives.
The Communists believe their aspirations can only be realized through the violent overthrow of existing societal structures, calling upon the proletariat to unite against authoritarian oppression internationally. Their rallying cry remains: "Working Men of All Countries, Unite!" They proclaim that the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains, and in the struggle lies the potential for a new world.
On the Jewish Question (Critique of Bruno Bauer)
I. Bruno Bauer's Argument on Emancipation
Bruno Bauer addresses the German Jews' desire for civic and political emancipation in his 1843 work. Bauer argues that in the context of Germany, where no one is politically free, the Jews' demand for a specific emancipation as Jews is egoistic. He posits that:
The Nature of the Christian State: A Christian state, by definition, can only grant privileges or permit separations; it cannot grant true emancipation while it remains religious.
The Nature of the Jew: So long as the Jew remains Jewish (clinging to a particular, excluded identity), they are incapable of receiving universal emancipation.
Solution Through Abolition of Religion: Bauer suggests that the religious opposition is resolved by making it impossible—specifically by abolishing religion entirely. As soon as religions are recognized as developmental stages of the human mind, the relationship becomes scientific and human rather than religious.
II. Marx's Critique: Political vs. Human Emancipation
Marx argues that Bauer’s formulation is one-sided because it investigates the relation of the Jew to the Christian state, but fails to investigate the relation of political emancipation to human emancipation.
Secularization of the State: The state can emancipate itself from religion (becoming a secular state) without the individuals within it being free from religion. Example: The United States is a state where the constitution imposes no religious belief, yet it remains pre-eminently religious.
Limits of Political Emancipation: Political emancipation is not completion of human emancipation. The state can be a "free state" () without the man being a free man. Religion is thrust from the public sphere to the private sphere of civil society, where it continues to exist as a manifestation of secular narrowness.
III. The Dualism of Modern Life (State and Civil Society)
In a developed political state, man leads a twofold life:
Life in the Political Community (Heavenly): Man considers himself a "species-being," an imaginary member of an illusory sovereignty, endowed with unreal universality (the Citizen).
Life in Civil Society (Earthly): Man acts as a private individual, regards others as means, and becomes a plaything of alien powers (the Bourgeois). This is the sphere of egoism and the "" (war of all against all).
IV. Critique of the Rights of Man
Marx distinguishes between "Rights of the Citizen" (participation in the political community) and the "Rights of Man" (rights of the member of civil society).
Liberty: Defined as the power to do anything that does not harm others. Marx views this as the liberty of man as an isolated "monad," withdrawn into himself.
Private Property: The right to enjoy and dispose of assets at one's discretion, independently of society. It is the right of self-interest and separation.
Equality and Security: Equality is simply the equal right to isolation. Security is the "insurance of egoism," ensuring the preservation of the individual's person and property.
V. Conclusion: True Human Emancipation
Political emancipation is a dissolution of the old feudal society into independent, egoistic individuals on one hand and the abstract political state on the other. True human emancipation is only achieved when:
The real, individual man re-absorbs the abstract citizen into himself.
Man recognizes and organizes his "own powers" as social powers.
Social power is no longer separated from man in the form of political power.