A Brief History of Communism: a critical examination of the works of Karl Marx
The Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels, 1969) encapsulates the building blocks of Marx’s Social theory (Marxism) and offers a road to achieving what he believed to be a just social order; one based on the ideas of Communism and Socialism. While the Manifesto was originally published in 1848, it was subsequently updated in response to political events of the time which spawned various editions in later decades. This essay covers two broad paradigms: the first is to examine the ideas contained within the Manifesto and contextualize them within Marx’s other works while further examining their usefulness within the broader scholarship. The second is to use the Manifesto’s socio-political premise as a starting tool to examine the motivations of Marx in elucidating these ideas.
The ideas of the Manifesto generally relate to the historical development of an antagonistic, binary-class struggle (Proletariat and Bourgeoisie) which actualizes in an industrialized society and additionally examines the historical literature of Communist/Socialist movements as a basis for positing Marx’s own criteria and aims for these movements. While the struggle between oppressor and oppressed is not a unique phenomenon in any historical epoch, Marx argued that the Bourgeoisie as a social class, while derivative of reactionary classes against previous epochs’ ruling elites, is able to crystallize its position as the new ruling class through the economic upheaval that industrialization entails. Old power structures such as those perpetuated in Feudal societies crumbled as the advanced means of communication and transport, coupled with the ability to increase production through mechanizing labour created a global market; one where the owners of the means of producing goods are able to exponentially increase their profits as compared to the closed, artisan-based economies of pre-industrial societies. These economic gains help generate political capital in modern States such as constitutionally enshrined, individual liberties (as opposed to systems such as monarchies) and eventually shape a global order which is reliant on the increased productive capacity of industrialized societies and thus subservient to the Bourgeoisie’s interests. On the other end of the class spectrum, the mechanization and division of labour meant that individual craftsmen are no longer able to effectively compete against machines which could produce goods more efficiently and no longer find prestige in the piecemeal tasks of the overall production process. The prestige associated with professions such as Doctors, Lawyers, etc. diminishes until the resulting yardstick by which this Proletariat class’ worth is measured is one enshrined in capital and defined by the wages of their labour ascribed by the Bourgeoisie. By controlling and defining the relations of production, the Bourgeoisie are able to effectively manipulate the Proletariat into subservience and ensure that groups of people in between these two classes either rise up to Bourgeois status through exploiting labour and creating profit or fall into the Proletariat by being paid wages which are not enough to afford materialistic needs such as owning property, etc. The “absurdity” (pg. 17) of this Capitalist system is that it creates crises of overproduction by the thorough usage of labour and other means of production while many individuals lack a bare minimum and subsequently destroys the additional productive capacity by relieving the usage of these means thereby engaging in a cycle; the harms of which become more visceral after every crisis.
It is argued that Communists, while representing the plight of the Proletariat, are themselves individuals who promulgate the movement’s end goals irrespective of nationality and developmental phase of the Proletariat class. These aims encompass the abolition of the social characteristic of individuality attached to Capital by the Bourgeoisie in favour of a Communal one through a violent overthrow of the Bourgeoisie. Since Capital forms the basis for exploitation, through things such as ownership of property and other means of production, getting rid of the false notion that it is individually acquired through meritorious labour and thus used justly allows for a systematic breakdown of the social order that the Bourgeoisie created and its replacement; one where wage-labour is accurately representative of each individual’s actual work, removes the exploitation of labour by individuals who seek to generate undue profits. This ultimately would lead to the establishment of a union of Proletariats where each individual is politically equal to one another, and therefore the notion of a State will cede away.
While Marx wrote extensively throughout his lifetime, the significance of the ideas within the Manifesto can be observed within some of his more important works. In the Preface to “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” (Marx, 1976), first published in 1859, he posited that the development of human societies is one which revolves around conceptions of Materialism. While the Manifesto explains how the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat arose as a result of the way productive forces were created and shaped through industrialization, the Preface argues this method of generating goods and their subsequent management to be the premise upon which human societies arose, regardless of time period. Similarly, as the Bourgeoisie used these economic tools to create political capital and define ownership rights and subsequent social relations, the Preface argued that control over the means of production or the Base Structure of society allowed for the subsequent creation and manipulation of the socio-political Superstructure of society. Furthermore, Marx’s “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844” (1932) posited his theory of alienation of work, where the worker in a Capitalist system comes to define his physical existence in relation to the materialistic wants he can acquire through his wages thus leading to work being seen through the lens of capital rather than any peripheral prestige. The same theory is present within the Manifesto when discussing how the division and mechanization of labour leads to the loss of affinity with work and a shift to the capital-centric notion of labour. Another famous work, “Capital” (Marx 1990), first published in 1867 examines in-depth the nature of value and the genesis of money and how values are affixed to labour. Considering the central importance the Manifesto places on capital as a fundamental tool through which the means of production are structured and thus relations are defined, exploring its history and nature provided useful insight into the true depth of the Manifesto’s ideas.
An early critique of Marx can be found within the writings of Durkheim (1997) pertaining to the role of division of labour. While Marx saw the phenomenon as breeding alienation from work and contributing to class struggle, Durkheim viewed it as strengthening the social order. He believed that pre-modern societies lacking in division of labour would have individuals primarily engaged in the same or similar professions and thus their social solidarity being “mechanical”; enforced by the collective nature of the society upon the individual. This would be represented in their laws which would tend to be punitive as the underlying premise was that society at large had been harmed. As division of labour created more specialized tasks tied together by specific relationships and led to the growth of societies, social solidarity would become “organic” as individuals within professions would feel affinity amongst themselves while at the same time being different from and yet tied together to individuals from other professions due to the dependency relationship created by modern economies. This individualistic nature of modern societies would lead to restitutive laws as there would be no universal conception of what harms society. Weber (Weber, Baehr and Wells, 2002) on the other hand took aim at Marx’s conceptualization of Capitalist societies. Rather than the continuation of a class struggle, Weber believed that Capitalist societies are an inevitable result of the Protestant and Calvinist values of hard work in the pursuit of profit as an end which helps achieve religious virtue. Examining the development of these religious groups in Europe, he argued that they were an important-yet not the only- cause of the creation of the spirit of modern Capitalism; a one-dimensional pursuit of profit. While the religious values underpinning it have declined, the spirit maintained itself, as Capitalism was seen as being quite beneficial for modern economic activity. Hayek (1944) on the other hand, criticised the model of a socialist state itself. He believed that Capitalism created the economic conditions by which individuals bargained for political and individual liberties and these liberties are protected through the anonymous mechanism of prices while socialism invariably leads to totalitarianism. As a centralized form of decision making overtakes the anonymous mechanism, decisions will likely be made to value the goals and interests of those in power to the detriment of those who are not.
Some defence of these its ideas can be found within the Manifesto itself. Regarding Capitalism begetting individual liberties, the Manifesto argues that these liberties themselves are made for and used by the Bourgeoisie to deny the working class of similar rights. The ownership of property and the resulting socio-political importance accrued from it is used to manipulate labour-wages and thus the Proletariat into subservience. As for its inception, it would be difficult to show conclusively how the attitudes underpinning Capitalism first arose, save for the fact that both Weber and Marx expound their ideas after examining different geographical locations across Europe.
Despite these criticisms, the Manifesto holds contemporary importance. Fleetwood (2002) argues that contemporary society is gripped by a postmodern narrative which questions the possibility and desirability of emancipation from contemporary Capitalism. He contends that schools of postmodern thought are critical of organized conceptualizations regarding social thought. This narrative, he believes, derails socialist movements from advocating against the pitfalls of Capitalism. As such, the Manifesto not only offers a predictive view of these pitfalls but also an important call to action. Harman (2010) posits that the Manifesto provides a framework for understanding contemporary globalization and explains the dichotomy of overproduction and scarcity for millions of people in a way that many contemporary economists and sociologists struggle to do so. Furthermore, Osborne (1998) contends that the Manifesto was “the single most influential text written in the nineteenth century” (pg. 170) as it provided an early analysis of a political paradigm that would come to dominate social discourse in the following century. That influence was observable from the fact that many countries in the world came to base their governments in some shape or form upon the ideas of Marx and the Manifesto.
Ultimately, the ideas of the Manifesto while cross-examined to varying degrees in hindsight, must also be understood within the social context during which it was conceived. As such, examining the political ethos of Marx’s surroundings when writing the Manifesto together with the implications and origins of his ideas can offer key insights into his rationale for writing the extract and the social problems he intended to address.
As mentioned in the preface to the Manifesto, Marx and Engels were commissioned by the Communist League to draw up a party Manifesto that could act as a directive tool for the League. The political situation across Europe at the time was one where there was an increasing hostility towards the societal power structures in place, which is what the Manifesto likely refers to in its first sentence: “A spectre is haunting Europe- the spectre of communism” (pg. 15). The revolutions of 1848 which were scattered across Europe, as noted by Evans and von Strandmann (2000), were widely predicated on demands for increased participation in democratic processes, an increasing affirmation of individual liberties, and a reorganization of the governmental structures that were in place. This is also evident from the Manifesto as it contained a “Demands of the Communist Party in Germany” section where it advocates for the creation of a unified Germany as a Republic replete with the aforementioned liberties for an emancipated working class within a system of a nationalized State. It is discernible then that Marx and Engels were influenced greatly by these political events and the Manifesto was on one level a general response to the events but on a second level a specific document outlining the action that the German Communists ought to take towards a just system of affairs.
Secondly, examining the ideas of the Manifesto itself, Boyer (1998) notes that the empirical basis for these ideas were reliant on Engels’ 1945 book “The Condition of the Working Class in England” particularly those related to the “process of industrialization, the development of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and the causes and consequences of business cycles” (pg. 6). He posits that due to Engels’ analysis of Capitalism being predicated on the economic developments of England, particularly on the conditions in industrial, class-segmented Manchester, Marx likely modelled his arguments based on that context. Holistically then, it is plausible to conclude that Marx was heavily influenced by the economic industrialization in Europe in the 18th and 19th century which he felt created many of the social ills that the Manifesto discusses and in trying to address the strife, he made it into a document which called for a universal action by the Proletariat and a specific set of actions for the Communists in Germany.
In conclusion, the Manifesto is an extract of great importance. The ideas offer an early historiographic analysis of socio-political problems that would come to dominate the discourse of ensuing time periods. Marx’s analysis of Capitalism, from the economic genesis of industrialization to the subsequent structuring of its social order along the lines of an antagonistic struggle of social classes, has survived the confines of a party Manifesto meant for the 1848 German context and is a cornerstone within contemporary sociological literature, regardless of the depth to which its ideas have been criticised. Perhaps one uniquely important facet of the Manifesto was that it was not just a thorough critique of Capitalism, but unlike many social theories of the time and since, it also advocated for change; both for the Germans at the time but also for the world generally. As Marx once famously wrote, “The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it” (Wiltshire, 1995).
Bibliography
Boyer, G. (1998). The Historical Background of the Communist Manifesto. Cornell University.
Durkheim, E. (1997). The Division of Labour in Society. New York: Free Press.
Evans, R. and von Strandmann, H. (2000). The Revolutions in Europe 1848-1849. P.4.
Fleetwood, S. (2002). The continuing relevance of the communist manifesto, Critique. Journal of Socialist
Theory, 30(1), pp.211-220.
Harman, C. (2010). The Manifesto and the World of 1848.
Hayek, F. (1944). The road to serfdom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Marx, K. (1990). Capital, Volume I. London: Penguin Books.
Marx, K. (1932). Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1969). Marx/Engels Selected Works, 1, pp.98-137.
Marx, K. (1976). Preface and Introduction to A Contribution To The Critique Of Political Economy. Peking: Foreign Languages Press.
Osborne, P. (1998). Remember the Future? The Communist Manifesto as Historical and Cultural Form. p.170.
Weber, M., Baehr, P. and Wells, G. (2002). The Protestant ethic and the "spirit" of capitalism and other writings.
Wiltshire, D. (1995). Marx's Theses on Feuerbach and the tasks of the Revolutionary Party. London: Union Books.
