The Communist Manifesto: On the Bourgeoisie and Proletarian Classes and Their Relation to the Communists
Greetings friends of the blogosphere! I trust this post finds you all well…
Here’s my paper on the first two chapters of the Communist Manifesto. I decided to only do the first two chapters in a section, and then do the third and fourth ones later on... Depending on how much of a response this gets. Anyway... I know that (or rather hope that) there will likely be little to no tangible debate in the comments section as to the true/false nature of Communism since I’m assuming most of my readers are presupposing the fact that it is wrong, but I nevertheless readily invite criticisms of my work and any discussion is also welcome. Anyone is free to spew forth their singular thoughts. :) That said, I hope this paper is of some interest to you and that you will get some sort of thought-provoking pleasure from reading its contents! (I should also note that I did this on my free time… Not as a school paper. Hence the prolonged “release date”. :))
Before I begin, for those who are particularly interested, I would suggest that everyone read the Communist Manifesto (from here on “CM”) in its entirety for themselves. Although in this paper I tried to be as unassuming as possible when it came to judging whether or not any of my readers have actually read the CM, it may do many of you good to read it for yourselves. I found it quite intriguing, as opposed to exclusively revolting, as some might think it would be. I mean, it’s dreadfully horrible in the sense that its proposed propositions for the creation of a utopian society and civilization are appalling and mortally inaccurate (for proof of this claim we but need to take a glance at the outcome of Stalin’s Russia, or Mao’s China), but analyzing it from an objective stand-point makes for quite an interesting read despite its obvious fallings-short. I believe that Karl Marx and Friedriech Engels were both correct in there analyzation of the problem of society at the time of their writing of the CM. But as I say further into the post, their solution to this problem was drastically faulty. Just like Shaeffer says, many people see problems in this life correctly, but not many are able to come up with correct answers.
I shall go through in as much detail as possible the three chapters which join to form the CM. Starting, then, rather appropriately with Chapter 1 entitled Bourgeois and Proletarians we find this beginning sentence:
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
I think this is rather obviously the underlying premise behind the formation of the Communist party. Communism attempts to eliminate class struggles by forcing everyone to live in an equal society. But as to the statement itself: I am rather inclined in a sense to agree with and disagree with it at the same time. Assuming that, hitherto, no society/civilization has ever tried its hand at democracy, this statement is most definitely factual. Obviously, you have throughout the ages the noble class, the middle class, and the peasant class. Each of these classes, particularly between the two extremes of poverty and prosperity, are seen to be almost always struggling between each other. Marx and Engels say this in their next few sentences which read:
“Freeman and Slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on in an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
But think of the founding of the United States and the writing of the Constitution and the overall entering into the realm of societies that of democratic thinking. The United States by definition allow all men to be free to do what they will. If someone fails and is poorer than another man in the US, it is undoubtedly his own fault unless he has a paralysis of some kind. Overall, however, US society is free to do what they will and that is what men of all classes will always yearn for: simple yet powerful Freedom to do what they do best in their own way. It is this whole proposal of total class freedom which makes me disagree with the idea of a never-ending history of class struggles. But let us continue with the next quote in which the writers of the CM describe what they believe to be the universal modern class struggle:
“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.”
The writers then continue in great detail to explain the history and evolving of the bourgeoisie to where it is today. I’m afraid I lack the space and time to quote and analyze each paragraph of this, but if you feel so compelled, reading this section for yourselves would most likely be helpful for greater understanding of the bourgeoisie class.
Allow me, then, to skip a few paragraphs and pick up where the writers begin to describe the modern bourgeoisie:
“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… The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.”
The writers believe that the modern bourgeoisie are destroying themselves using the very same means of “production and exchange” by which they became “above” the common working man, or the proletarian class. They go on to say that not only will these means of production and exchange turn back upon their creators, the bourgeoisie, but that those who wield them, the proletarians, will also do their part in the destruction of the “upper class.”
Indeed, I must admit that in this regard Marx and Engels were right. The common working man under the yoke of factory employment which gets worse and worse will always eventually turn on his superiors and strike back for what he believes are his rights. Yes, Marx was correct in his belief that some men should not have to be under the whip of others. But, as is often the case, his solution to this problem was radically erroneous. Toward the end of Chapter 1, the CM writers come to the conclusion that the modern bourgeoisie class is no longer fit to rule the common working man since “it cannot help letting him sink into such a state [of pauperism], that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him.” The chapter ends with the fall of the modern bourgeoisie class being completely inevitable.
Upon the belief that men should live equally, then, is formed one of the most despicable societal parties to ever be thought up by man. Communism. We have arrived at Chapter 2: Proletarians and Communists.
This chapter begins with the inquiry:
“In what relation do the communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?”
And is answered:
“The Communists do not form a separated party opposed to other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. The do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.”
Basically, then, it is stated that the Communist party is in essence synonymous with the interests of the common proletarian, right? Right… Except for one thing, says Marx, and this is presented as follows:
“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 working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced 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.”
So, actually, I would say that yes, the Communist party essentially claims to have the interests of the working man at its heart. That is the reason for its proposed drive and call for action from proletarians around the globe. The difference is that it believes that it forms into a resolute society what was before simply a scattered bunch of confused individuals who didn’t know what to do about their present conditions. Indeed, Marx and Engels say that the “immediate aim of the Communist party” is to form the proletarians into one solid, powerful society and then “overthrow the bourgeois supremacy.”
Here’s my question: How can you overthrow one supreme class without creating another one at the same time? How? You can’t! Not unless you are prepared to tell each and every person in your society exactly, and I mean exactly what they are supposed to do, and what they are allowed to have in terms of physical means. But even then, doesn’t that make the enforcer of the above said radical measures a bit of a supreme being himself? Any given society simply cannot not have one group of men constantly ruling, or guiding, if you will, over others. Even if it is only a general overseeing such as we have in the United State’s President/Senate/Congress etc (or used to have...).
But Marx and Engels believed that given hugely strict measures and standards, this could be accomplished and then successfully implemented into a country and used for practically forever. For instance, Communism strongly advocates the eradication of private property and other rights:
“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
There you have it. No individual rights. None whatsoever. If you directly take away one private right of a human being, how can that human be sure to have any rights at all? Here is what Marx says when reproached for the desire of abolishing personal property when under certain conditions that property may have been honestly and painstakingly gained by even a proletarian:
“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 already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.”
He completely avoided the question! Completely! He simply said that there is no need to destroy something that he believes already barely exists. But he refused to outright state that when it came to it, he would take away the land from a working proletarian; the very man he is claiming to protect against people like himself! The illogical nature of Communism is utterly amazing. While making strong assertions that Communism seeks to offer freedom and equality to all, its very nature takes from some to give to others. Even if the ones which it takes from are those to whom it is making allegations to protect!
Ah well, let us continue with our next quote:
“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 other words, no-one really produces for his own gain. Everyone receives the same amount of production by which to live on. So a person who works hard is not rewarded with increased wealth or augmented production to be applied to his own family and personal benefit. This sort of society hardly constitutes any reason for existence, in my opinion. If there is no such thing as individual economic growth and capitalistic spread, why should anyone bother to work hard? Or work at all for that matter? This is what happens when a government takes complete control over the populace. And then comes the uprising. The very thing which Communism seeks to eliminate and yet the very thing that will inevitably happen to it. Marx is now guilty of what he was accusing the modern bourgeois of doing. Namely, that what his society produces and those who are the producers will be the ultimate downfall of his society and culture.
Moving on…
“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 bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians and in public prostitution.”
How can anyone accuse a family as a whole of existing simply for private gain? Families exist because there needs to be a way for the next generation to be taught by those who have been in the world for many years already so that the next generation will not make the same mistakes as the previous one. Private gain? No, say rather that the family is based on leaving the world with a capable next generation. If you destroy or undermine the power of the family, your society will never last. I believe this may be one of the most fundamental errors of Communism. The family is the place where the next generation is started, and if that is undermined, how can a civilization last?
Okay, everyone, this next part will blow you away. Here, my friends, are the ten “pretty generally applicable” measures of Communism:
“1. Abolition of private 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. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization 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 wastelands, 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 production, etc. etc.”
In effect then, the populace are robots, too stupid to handle their own lives, so the government must do it for them. Stunning. Completely stunning. This is a recipe for destroying a civilization. First deny citizens all rights. Then tax them heavily. Centralize in the State each major industry. Force everyone to work the same amount. Force everyone to live where it would be most economical, even if it means uprooting families and moving them around against their will. And finally force the children to attend “free” public schools. Noticed the word “force” yet?
I must repeat that every man will always desire freedom. Freedom is such a precious thing and should never be taken for granted or, on the other extreme, flaunted. Capitalism defines economic prosperity with every man working hard in whatever area he is most skilled in and raising his family according to the standards of God, not the government. I pray that America will never let die that which she was built upon. Already, traces of Communism can be seen in the way our Country practically enforces public schooling and the way they handle taxes and private property. Don’t get me wrong, we are a very long way from becoming radically communistic, but we do have a small start. May the Lord be pleased to spare us from the horrors of Communism undergone by the Chinese and other countries.
Signing off…
Here’s my paper on the first two chapters of the Communist Manifesto. I decided to only do the first two chapters in a section, and then do the third and fourth ones later on... Depending on how much of a response this gets. Anyway... I know that (or rather hope that) there will likely be little to no tangible debate in the comments section as to the true/false nature of Communism since I’m assuming most of my readers are presupposing the fact that it is wrong, but I nevertheless readily invite criticisms of my work and any discussion is also welcome. Anyone is free to spew forth their singular thoughts. :) That said, I hope this paper is of some interest to you and that you will get some sort of thought-provoking pleasure from reading its contents! (I should also note that I did this on my free time… Not as a school paper. Hence the prolonged “release date”. :))
Before I begin, for those who are particularly interested, I would suggest that everyone read the Communist Manifesto (from here on “CM”) in its entirety for themselves. Although in this paper I tried to be as unassuming as possible when it came to judging whether or not any of my readers have actually read the CM, it may do many of you good to read it for yourselves. I found it quite intriguing, as opposed to exclusively revolting, as some might think it would be. I mean, it’s dreadfully horrible in the sense that its proposed propositions for the creation of a utopian society and civilization are appalling and mortally inaccurate (for proof of this claim we but need to take a glance at the outcome of Stalin’s Russia, or Mao’s China), but analyzing it from an objective stand-point makes for quite an interesting read despite its obvious fallings-short. I believe that Karl Marx and Friedriech Engels were both correct in there analyzation of the problem of society at the time of their writing of the CM. But as I say further into the post, their solution to this problem was drastically faulty. Just like Shaeffer says, many people see problems in this life correctly, but not many are able to come up with correct answers.
I shall go through in as much detail as possible the three chapters which join to form the CM. Starting, then, rather appropriately with Chapter 1 entitled Bourgeois and Proletarians we find this beginning sentence:
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
I think this is rather obviously the underlying premise behind the formation of the Communist party. Communism attempts to eliminate class struggles by forcing everyone to live in an equal society. But as to the statement itself: I am rather inclined in a sense to agree with and disagree with it at the same time. Assuming that, hitherto, no society/civilization has ever tried its hand at democracy, this statement is most definitely factual. Obviously, you have throughout the ages the noble class, the middle class, and the peasant class. Each of these classes, particularly between the two extremes of poverty and prosperity, are seen to be almost always struggling between each other. Marx and Engels say this in their next few sentences which read:
“Freeman and Slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on in an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
But think of the founding of the United States and the writing of the Constitution and the overall entering into the realm of societies that of democratic thinking. The United States by definition allow all men to be free to do what they will. If someone fails and is poorer than another man in the US, it is undoubtedly his own fault unless he has a paralysis of some kind. Overall, however, US society is free to do what they will and that is what men of all classes will always yearn for: simple yet powerful Freedom to do what they do best in their own way. It is this whole proposal of total class freedom which makes me disagree with the idea of a never-ending history of class struggles. But let us continue with the next quote in which the writers of the CM describe what they believe to be the universal modern class struggle:
“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.”
The writers then continue in great detail to explain the history and evolving of the bourgeoisie to where it is today. I’m afraid I lack the space and time to quote and analyze each paragraph of this, but if you feel so compelled, reading this section for yourselves would most likely be helpful for greater understanding of the bourgeoisie class.
Allow me, then, to skip a few paragraphs and pick up where the writers begin to describe the modern bourgeoisie:
“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… The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.”
The writers believe that the modern bourgeoisie are destroying themselves using the very same means of “production and exchange” by which they became “above” the common working man, or the proletarian class. They go on to say that not only will these means of production and exchange turn back upon their creators, the bourgeoisie, but that those who wield them, the proletarians, will also do their part in the destruction of the “upper class.”
Indeed, I must admit that in this regard Marx and Engels were right. The common working man under the yoke of factory employment which gets worse and worse will always eventually turn on his superiors and strike back for what he believes are his rights. Yes, Marx was correct in his belief that some men should not have to be under the whip of others. But, as is often the case, his solution to this problem was radically erroneous. Toward the end of Chapter 1, the CM writers come to the conclusion that the modern bourgeoisie class is no longer fit to rule the common working man since “it cannot help letting him sink into such a state [of pauperism], that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him.” The chapter ends with the fall of the modern bourgeoisie class being completely inevitable.
Upon the belief that men should live equally, then, is formed one of the most despicable societal parties to ever be thought up by man. Communism. We have arrived at Chapter 2: Proletarians and Communists.
This chapter begins with the inquiry:
“In what relation do the communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?”
And is answered:
“The Communists do not form a separated party opposed to other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. The do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.”
Basically, then, it is stated that the Communist party is in essence synonymous with the interests of the common proletarian, right? Right… Except for one thing, says Marx, and this is presented as follows:
“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 working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced 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.”
So, actually, I would say that yes, the Communist party essentially claims to have the interests of the working man at its heart. That is the reason for its proposed drive and call for action from proletarians around the globe. The difference is that it believes that it forms into a resolute society what was before simply a scattered bunch of confused individuals who didn’t know what to do about their present conditions. Indeed, Marx and Engels say that the “immediate aim of the Communist party” is to form the proletarians into one solid, powerful society and then “overthrow the bourgeois supremacy.”
Here’s my question: How can you overthrow one supreme class without creating another one at the same time? How? You can’t! Not unless you are prepared to tell each and every person in your society exactly, and I mean exactly what they are supposed to do, and what they are allowed to have in terms of physical means. But even then, doesn’t that make the enforcer of the above said radical measures a bit of a supreme being himself? Any given society simply cannot not have one group of men constantly ruling, or guiding, if you will, over others. Even if it is only a general overseeing such as we have in the United State’s President/Senate/Congress etc (or used to have...).
But Marx and Engels believed that given hugely strict measures and standards, this could be accomplished and then successfully implemented into a country and used for practically forever. For instance, Communism strongly advocates the eradication of private property and other rights:
“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
There you have it. No individual rights. None whatsoever. If you directly take away one private right of a human being, how can that human be sure to have any rights at all? Here is what Marx says when reproached for the desire of abolishing personal property when under certain conditions that property may have been honestly and painstakingly gained by even a proletarian:
“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 already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.”
He completely avoided the question! Completely! He simply said that there is no need to destroy something that he believes already barely exists. But he refused to outright state that when it came to it, he would take away the land from a working proletarian; the very man he is claiming to protect against people like himself! The illogical nature of Communism is utterly amazing. While making strong assertions that Communism seeks to offer freedom and equality to all, its very nature takes from some to give to others. Even if the ones which it takes from are those to whom it is making allegations to protect!
Ah well, let us continue with our next quote:
“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 other words, no-one really produces for his own gain. Everyone receives the same amount of production by which to live on. So a person who works hard is not rewarded with increased wealth or augmented production to be applied to his own family and personal benefit. This sort of society hardly constitutes any reason for existence, in my opinion. If there is no such thing as individual economic growth and capitalistic spread, why should anyone bother to work hard? Or work at all for that matter? This is what happens when a government takes complete control over the populace. And then comes the uprising. The very thing which Communism seeks to eliminate and yet the very thing that will inevitably happen to it. Marx is now guilty of what he was accusing the modern bourgeois of doing. Namely, that what his society produces and those who are the producers will be the ultimate downfall of his society and culture.
Moving on…
“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 bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians and in public prostitution.”
How can anyone accuse a family as a whole of existing simply for private gain? Families exist because there needs to be a way for the next generation to be taught by those who have been in the world for many years already so that the next generation will not make the same mistakes as the previous one. Private gain? No, say rather that the family is based on leaving the world with a capable next generation. If you destroy or undermine the power of the family, your society will never last. I believe this may be one of the most fundamental errors of Communism. The family is the place where the next generation is started, and if that is undermined, how can a civilization last?
Okay, everyone, this next part will blow you away. Here, my friends, are the ten “pretty generally applicable” measures of Communism:
“1. Abolition of private 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. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization 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 wastelands, 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 production, etc. etc.”
In effect then, the populace are robots, too stupid to handle their own lives, so the government must do it for them. Stunning. Completely stunning. This is a recipe for destroying a civilization. First deny citizens all rights. Then tax them heavily. Centralize in the State each major industry. Force everyone to work the same amount. Force everyone to live where it would be most economical, even if it means uprooting families and moving them around against their will. And finally force the children to attend “free” public schools. Noticed the word “force” yet?
I must repeat that every man will always desire freedom. Freedom is such a precious thing and should never be taken for granted or, on the other extreme, flaunted. Capitalism defines economic prosperity with every man working hard in whatever area he is most skilled in and raising his family according to the standards of God, not the government. I pray that America will never let die that which she was built upon. Already, traces of Communism can be seen in the way our Country practically enforces public schooling and the way they handle taxes and private property. Don’t get me wrong, we are a very long way from becoming radically communistic, but we do have a small start. May the Lord be pleased to spare us from the horrors of Communism undergone by the Chinese and other countries.
Signing off…
posted by pete | 8:36 AM
<< Home