Karl Marx
Introduction John Ranieri
Without question, the Manifesto of the Communist Party is the most well-known of the writings of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). How- ever, this does not mean that it is the most typical expression of their thought or that it represents a definitive statement of their views. The Manifesto needs to be read, not as a final formulation of the worldview of Engels or Marx, but as a response to a particular historical situation. We also need to take seriously the document's own self-description as a "manifesto"; in other words, that this is not a treatise or a systematic presentation of communism. Rather, it is a proclamation, meant to state in provocative, non-technical language, the self-understanding and aims of the communist movement. In writing it, Engels and Marx were interested in addressing their contemporary situation and how it came to be the way it was.
This was a period of social and political unrest in much of Western Europe, with several revolutionary uprisings taking place during 1848. Both the beneficial and distressing effects of the Industrial Revolution were being felt. In England, in particular, the wealth of society as a whole was increasing dramatically, but this was accompanied by tremendous upheaval and dislocation of workers. Tra- ditional rural agricultural ways of life were disrupted, and people crowded into cities looking for work. Cities at the time were not equipped to handle this huge influx, and living conditions among the working poor were often appalling. In fact, Engels' first major work was a study called Condition of the Working Class in England. In some places workers began to organize and protest. In 1836, a group of radical German workers living in Paris formed a secret association called "League of the Just." In 1847, they changed their name to the "Commu- nist League," and asked Marx and Engels (who had recently become members) to draft a manifesto. The Communist Manifesto was originally published in Feb- ruary 1848 in London; in June of the same year it was published in Paris shortly before the outbreak of revolution there. We should be careful, though, about assuming any causal relationship. It is more accurate to say that the Manifesto reflected the unrest among much of the Western European working classes; it did not create it. At the time of its publication, Marx and Engels were leaders with the German communist movement, but their influence at the time did not extend much beyond that. In fact, it would take a decades-long struggle among various European workers' movements before communism as understood by Marx and Engels became the dominant form of European socialism.
Part of the significance of the Manifesto is that it moved the communists from being a secret association without a clearly thought out plan or theory to a movement with definite aims and a more sophisticated analysis of social and historical evolution. Although much of earlier socialism had been quite strong in its criticism of the failings of capitalism, this criticism tended to be moralistic in tone, with socialism embodying the forces of good and capitalism depicted as the embodiment of evil. The workers' movement lacked a comprehensive and specific analysis of social and economic processes. That changed with Engels and Marx. Whether we agree with their analyses or not, these were seri- ous, sophisticated thinkers who produced between them an extensive body of work that claimed to give a "scientific" interpretation of social, economic, political, and historical development.
In order to appreciate the Manifesto, it is important to understand some of the assumptions about human behavior that underpin the claims made by Marx and Engels. Fundamental to Marx's philosophical anthropology is the notion that what is distinctively human about human beings is our ability to interact with the natural world and to transform it by our labor activity. For Marx, hu- man labor ought to be an expression of human creativity, through which we "humanize" nature and bend it to serve human needs. Thus, Marx's philosophy, despite its sometimes dense theoretical language, is primarily concerned with human activity, or to use a fancier philosophical term, with praxis. This attitude is pithily expressed in one of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is, however, to change it."
With this in mind, we can begin to appreciate Marx's critique of life under capi- talism. The key here is his understanding of alienation. Since Marx identifies the human person with his/her creative labor activity, anything that comes be- tween or separates that activity hom a person is seen as deeply alienating and dehumanizing. This is precisely what he and Engels believed happened to work- ers in the capitalist system. Under capitalism, human labor was understood to be a commodity to be bought and sold just like any other commodity necessary to produce certain goods. The owners of the means of production (referred to as the bourgeoisie in the Manifesto) purchased the labor power of the workers (the proletariat) by paying them a wage. As with any other commodity, wages are based upon what it costs to maintain a worker in existence. When there is an oversupply of workers, wages go down and workers compete against one another for the existing jobs. In addition, whatever the workers produce does not belong to them but to the employer, who then sells the product to make a profit. This alienation of labor and product results in a situation in which the misery of workers continually increases. Describing the effects of alienation, Marx observes how:
Labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his essen- tial being; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself.... His labor is therefore not vol- untary but coerced; it is forced labor.... Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labour is shunned like the plague.... Lastly, the external character of labour for the worker appears in the face that it is not his own, but someone else's, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another.... Private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labor, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself (Есоnоmіс and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844)
Marx and Engels believed that the capitalist system (just like every other eco- nomic, social, and political system before it) would eventually bring about its own demise. Marx summed up the reasons why in the following passage:
The general result at which I arrived... can be briefly formulated as follows: In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, rela- tions of production which correspond to a definite stage of devel- opment of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or-what is but a legal expression for the same thing-with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. (A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1859)
What Marx means here is that every society, civilization, and historical epoch exemplifies some "mode of production"-which is a brief way of describing the various historically determined ways of organizing economic life. For example, bourgeois society embodies a capitalist mode of production, whereas medieval society was an example of a feudal mode of production. Instead of bourgeoi- sie and proletarians, the medieval world had nobility and serfs who reflected the particular economic basis and structure of the time. A "mode of produc- tion" consists of two main elements: the "forces of production" (referred to as "productive forces" in the previous passage) and the "relations of produc- tion." The forces of production comprise the material resources available in a given society. This includes natural resources such as minerals, land, water, and so on; however, it also refers to the available human resources such as the character of the population, the skills they possess, and the techniques they can bring to bear in their work. By comparison, the relations of productions are (according to Professor of Economics Robert Heilbroner) "the social arrange- ments that direct the forces of production and that allocate its output." These include institutions of power and hierarchy embodied in social classes. For Marx and Engels, social classes are largely defined by their relationship to the productive, distributive process, and the relationship between classes is often antagonistic. It is the playing out of the relationships and tensions between the forces and relations of production that constitutes history. Existing rela- tions of production allow for the development of the forces of production. In turn, these developed forces create new economic conditions that threaten the existing relations of production. For example, in late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century England, improvements in agriculture (forces of production) led to a situation in which fewer workers were required to produce food for the nation. The growth of technology to make textiles also meant that land previously farmed for raising food could be used to graze sheep to provide wool. This resulted in the freeing (or expulsion) of agricultural workers from the land, and led many to seek work in factories in cities. A new class of industrial laborers (the proletariat) was thereby brought into existence, accompanied by new relations of production (between bourgeoisie and proletarians). Marx and Engels predicted that the relentless desire for profit would drive the bourgeoisie to bring about changes in which the living conditions of the proletariat would become intolerable. Once again the development of forces of production would have led to a situation in which the existing relations of production would be shattered-in this case, as the proletarians seized political power and ownership of the means of production.
It is important to emphasize that neither the forces nor the relations of produc- tion should be understood in narrowly economic terms. Marx and Engels were both of the view that the social, political, religious, and cultural realms all inter- act with-and are in turn affected by the economic realm. Note the following passage from Engels on this point:
According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if anybody wishes to twist this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a mean- ingless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure: political forms of the class struggle and its results... political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas, all also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles, and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. Marx and I are partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasize the main principle vis-à-vis our adversar- ies, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place, or the opportunity to allow the other elements involved in the interaction to come into their rights. (Letters on Historical Materialism)
This means that economic motives do not necessarily dominate non-economic Concerns, nor do economic activities directly dictate what people think. What Marx and Engels sought to emphasize was the ways in which the economic base sets limits on what to emphasize the social, political, and cultural realm. Because they thought this insight had been underappreciated by previous thinkers, they were determined to highlight it, even at the risk of exaggeration.
There is a sense in which the Manifesto takes these insights and presents them in narrative form. It tells the story of the class struggles that brought human his- tory to the point in time in which it is written, and it confidently predicts where history is heading. The story, as told by Marx and Engels, is a powerful one that has come to exert tremendous influence. Today we may tend to read it in light of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and thereby conclude that the document is of interest only as a historical artifact whose ideas have been once and for all proven wrong. However, such a judgment would be hasty. Soviet communism represents but one development in the history of Marxism; it is certainly not the only way to apply the teachings of the Manifesto. During their own lifetimes both Marx and Engels were aware of ways in which the predictions contained in the Manifesto had not occurred as they expected, and the two authors admit- ted that their vision for society would have to be adapted to changing circum- stances. In admitting this, they were not abandoning their previous convictions, but applying them to new situations. In reading the Manifesto today it will be well to keep this in mind. Rather than dismiss the document as a relic of the past, we might consider ways in which its insights are applicable in our current circumstances.
MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
From "Manifesto of the Communist Party," English translation by Samuel Moore, published in 1888.
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 Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police spies.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its oppo- nents in power? Where the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
1. Communism is already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a Power.
II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself.
To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
I. Bourgeois and Proletarians¹
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master' and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, car- ried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, sub- ordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and proletariat.
From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodi- ties generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.
Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial produc- tion. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navi- gation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune; here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France), afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the semi- feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end of all feudal, patri- archal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimen- talism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom-Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to shew what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, ever- lasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose prod- ucts are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one- sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, na- tions into civilisation. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enor- mous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi- barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the popu- lation, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected, provinces with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxa- tion, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff.
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more mas- sive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole con- tinents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground-what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bour- geoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the develop- ment of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufac- turing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compat- ible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political con- stitution adapted to it, and by the economical and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the re- volt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society.
In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity-the epidemic of overproduction. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary bar- barism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much indus- try, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois so- ciety, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploi- tation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons-the modern work- ing class-the proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed-a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.
Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the work-
man. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most
monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost
of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence
that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price
of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of the machinery, etc.
Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.
The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, ac- cording to their age and sex.
No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoi- sie, the land-lord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
The lower strata of the middle class the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants-all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the work people of a factory, then by the operatives of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of pro- duction themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the
vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.
At this stage the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole coun-
try, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form morecompact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is com- pelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industri- al bourgeois, the petty bourgeoisie. Thus the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.
But with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing com- petition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions be- tween individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form combinations (Trades' Unions) against the Bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there the contest breaks out into riots.
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the work- ers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletar- ians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.
This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political parry,
is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus the ten-hours' bill in England was carried.
Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a con- stant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all times, with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for its help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of politi- cal and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with Weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.
Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling classes are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their condi- tions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlighten- ment and progress.
Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolu- tion going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, as- sumes such a violent, glaring character that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of compre- hending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.
Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of modern industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peas- ant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a pro- letarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
In the conditions of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industrial labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests. All the preceding classes that got the upper hand, sought to fortify their already ac- quired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abol- ishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. 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.
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the low- est stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.
Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoi- sie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bour- geoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antago- nism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain condi- tions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, în other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labour. Wage labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The devel- opment of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
II. Proletarians and Communists
In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat whole. as a
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which the proletarian movement. to shape and mould
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the work- ing class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere repre- sent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The theoretical conclusions or the Communists are in no way based on ideas or princi- ples that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of Communism.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bour- geois property.
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 prod ucts, 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.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of per- sonally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the ground work of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent al- ready destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?
But does wage labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labour, and which cannot increase ex- cept upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.
To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in produc- tion. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.
Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power.
When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.
Let us now take wage labour.
The average price of wage labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence, which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a la- bourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capi- tal, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.
In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.
In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has in- dividuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individu- ality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.
But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeoisie about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when op- posed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population: its existence for few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is, the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.
From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individ ual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than th bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swep out of the way, and made impossible.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; a that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means
such appropriation.
It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who ac- quire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage labour when there is no longer any capital.
All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic modes of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the dis- appearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappear- ance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.
That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.
But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bour- geois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.
The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property-historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production- this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bour- geoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the fam ily among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes,
and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge e us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To
this crime we plead guilty.
But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when education by social. we replace home
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in educa- tion; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bour- geoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially estab- lished by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois? not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seduc- ing each other's wives.
Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to intro- duce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised, community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of produc- tion must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and
nationality.
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got.
Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more van- ishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.
The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.
The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express the fact, that within the old society, the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dis- solution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious; moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philoso- phy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradic- tion to all past historical experience."
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social con- sciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.
The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property rela- tions; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with tradi- tional ideas.
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will of course be different in different countries.
Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial produc- tion, &c., &c.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all pro- duction has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
1.Define the terms "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" as used by Marx, and how they interact in a capitalist system.
2. What does Marx mean by "alienation"? Why is this effect a negative one, according to his"anthropology" (i.e. his way of viewing humanity)?
3. How does Marx describe the changing class struggles throughout history?How did the feudal world of the middle ages lead into the capitalist one that he encountered?
4. What, according to Marx, have been some of the results of "the reign of the bourgeoisie"?
5. Do any of Marx's ideas resonate with current events?
Of course, you do not have to agree
with him, but try to apply his ideas to a current situation and examine whether or not they make
sense. Remember that you may agree partially or say that his ideas apply in a certain way, but
stipulate how much and in what ways.
the terms "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" as used by Marx, and how they interact in
Summary of John Ranieri's Introduction to the Communist Manifesto
The Communist Manifesto, authored by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a pivotal document in the history of political thought, reflecting the socio-political unrest of 1848 in Western Europe. It serves not as a definitive statement of Marxist ideology but as a response to the historical context of its time, particularly the upheaval caused by the Industrial Revolution.
Historical Context
During the 1840s, Europe experienced significant social and political turmoil, marked by revolutions and the adverse effects of industrialization. The rise of the bourgeoisie led to the exploitation and alienation of the working class (proletariat), who faced dire living conditions in rapidly industrializing cities. The Communist League, a group of radical German workers, commissioned Marx and Engels to draft the manifesto, which was first published in February 1848.
Key Themes
Class Struggle: The manifesto posits that history is defined by class struggles, culminating in the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Alienation: Marx critiques capitalism for alienating workers from their labor, reducing them to mere commodities in the capitalist system.
Historical Materialism: Marx and Engels argue that economic structures shape societal relations and consciousness, leading to inevitable social revolutions when productive forces clash with existing relations of production.
Predictions and Influence
Marx and Engels believed that capitalism would ultimately lead to its own downfall, as the proletariat would rise against the bourgeoisie. The manifesto outlines the development of the proletariat as a revolutionary class, emphasizing the need for unity and political organization among workers.
Misinterpretations and Legacy
While often viewed through the lens of Soviet communism, the manifesto's insights remain relevant today. Marx and Engels acknowledged the need for adaptation of their ideas to changing circumstances, suggesting that the manifesto should not be dismissed as a relic but rather considered for its applicability to contemporary issues.
Conclusion
The Communist Manifesto is a call to action for the working class, advocating for the abolition of bourgeois property and the establishment of a classless society. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of economic, social, and political realms, asserting that true freedom can only be achieved through the collective ownership of production1.Define the terms "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" as used by Marx, and how they interact in a
s to a current situation and examine whether or not they make
sense. Remember that you may agree partially or say that his ideas apply in a certain way, but
stipulate how much and in what ways.
1. Definitions and Interaction
Bourgeoisie: The capitalist class that owns the means of production and exploits the proletariat.
Proletariat: The working class that sells their labor for wages and is exploited by the bourgeoisie.
Interaction: The bourgeoisie profits from the labor of the proletariat, leading to class struggle as the proletariat seeks to improve their conditions.
2. Alienation
Definition: Alienation refers to the separation of workers from the products of their labor, reducing them to mere commodities.
Negative Effect: This alienation dehumanizes workers, preventing them from realizing their potential and creativity, leading to dissatisfaction and misery.
3. Changing Class Struggles
Description: Marx outlines a historical progression of class struggles, from feudalism to capitalism.
Transition: The feudal world gave rise to the bourgeoisie, who established capitalism, simplifying class antagonisms into the conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat.
4. Results of the Bourgeoisie Reign
Outcomes: The bourgeoisie revolutionized production, created vast wealth, but also led to exploitation, alienation, and increasing misery among the proletariat.
5. Current Resonance
Application: Marx's ideas resonate in discussions about income inequality, labor rights, and the gig economy, where workers face precarious conditions and alienation, suggesting that class struggle remains relevant today.