The Communist Manifesto

[Beth]

Not sure if this has been covered before, but I am wondering what your thoughts on the Communist Manifesto (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html) are, or if you have any?

[squian]

First and foremost, it's a wonderful piece of rhetoric. Everyone should read it for that alone. What would the world be like if more documents reflected the passion and clarity of this document?

Second, the indictment of the bourgeoisie as incompetent to rule should be carefully considered.
Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions 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 the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process 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 overriding 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, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.
What historical events since 1848 demonstrate the incompatibility of capitalism with society? On the flip side, if capitalism is so incompatible, why has it lasted almost 150 years?

Third, it's interesting that Communism has been subverted as a dogma given Marx's own statement about Communists.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
What would Marx think about Marxism?

Fourth, the statements about Germany are very interesting.
The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilization and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.
What happened to the proletarian revolution in Germany?

[Beth]

squian, thank you. I have been re-reading the Communist Manifesto. I had inteded to make a follow-up post on some of my thoughts about it. I hope I have time to tomorrow. Anyway, very good questions, squian, it gives me something to chew on.

[fragment]

Haven't read it, so I can't really comment directly. I can attempt an answer for this question:


What historical events since 1848 demonstrate the incompatibility of capitalism with society? On the flip side, if capitalism is so incompatible, why has it lasted almost 150 years?
19th century style laissez-faire capitalism hasn't lasted 150 years. For historical events, how about the rise of labour unions and labour parties seeking to overthrow or at least temper the excesses of capitalism? Or the 1929 crash and subsequent depression, leading many to think capitalism was dying and turn to communist and ultra-nationalist ideologies instead? The most successful societies that weathered this storm adopted various kinds of welfare state projects and mixed economic strategies. New Deal anyone? How about the founding of international finance institutions in an attempt to consciously manipulate the global economy so as to avoid future depressions?

I've never bothered much with Marx, but part of the quote you provided, "[the bourgeousie] 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," seems a pretty prescient description of the conditions which led to the rise of mixed economies and welfare capitalism. I might just go and read some of his stuff one of these years.

[squian]

19th century style laissez-faire capitalism hasn't lasted 150 years.
It's valid to say that things have changed but I think it's irrelevant to the way Marx and Engels characterize society. Namely, they would say that economic classes rule society and the role of the state is to maintain the status quo. The interference of the state in "laissez-faire capitalism" does not change the fact that the bourgoisie is the ruling class. The "welfare capitalism and mixed economies" are state-sponsored mechanisms to quell class warfare -- but they do not represent the rule of a different economic class.

Then again, maybe Marx and Engels were too polar in their characterization of society. Has the nature of capitalism changed in such a way that it is now more compatible with society?

[fragment]

The interference of the state in "laissez-faire capitalism" does not change the fact that the bourgoisie is the ruling class. The "welfare capitalism and mixed economies" are state-sponsored mechanisms to quell class warfare -- but they do not represent the rule of a different economic class.Agreed.

Then again, maybe Marx and Engels were too polar in their characterization of society. For myself I don't see the concessions as entirely irrelevant. That people struggled hard for change, that ruling classes resisted this and only grudgingly conceded a few things, suggests they people were of the same opinion.

Has the nature of capitalism changed in such a way that it is now more compatible with society?This would depend on just what it takes to be "compatible with society". As you point out, the mechanisms exist to maintain the ruling class by dampening down class warfare. If that means a society survives for longer, then that could be considered compatible I suppose. If someone has a more idealistic idea of what "society" should be than merely something which survives, they might not think so.

As an aside, the last 3 decades have seen significant rolling back of the socialist/welfare measures in western countries. Any guesses as to how this might play out in the long run?

[Blake]

Those are some excellent questions, squian.

What dissatisfies me about Marx's analysis is the extent to which he generalizes. "The bourgeoisie" is not the ruling class, as such; certainly in the present-day United States it's a twisted, boorish sort of perpetually renewing aristocracy, made up of legislators, high-level bureaucrats, directors of corporate boards and pundits, which is a numerous but relatively small group of people compared to the nation they rule. This changes any analysis hoping to find a way out of this millennia-lasting exploitation.

[squian]

What dissatisfies me about Marx's analysis is the extent to which he generalizes.
This is a common criticism. Marx's generalizations are often characterized as oversimplifications. That said, many people have carried that even further. Marxist Literary Criticism and Marxist Cultural Theory beg the question, "Is everything a function of economics?"

"The bourgeoisie" is not the ruling class, as such; certainly in the present-day United States it's a twisted, boorish sort of perpetually renewing aristocracy, made up of legislators, high-level bureaucrats, directors of corporate boards and pundits, which is a numerous but relatively small group of people compared to the nation they rule.
It seems to depend upon how you define "the ruling class."

Your point is that the bourgeoisie are not the ruling class because they do not hold the political reigns of power themselves (with rare exceptions). However, you do point out the connections to directors of corporate boards. And let's not leave out the special interest groups and lobbyists. The allows the bourgeoisie to trade their economic power for political power. Many who are not Communists already argue this influence undoes democracy.

That said, I think Marx looked at power differently. The state has the "body of armed men" as it's source of power but the bourgeoisie, like the ruling classes before it, own the means of production. In other words, they control whether factories build gas-guzzling automobiles or fuel-efficient mass-transportation; and hence, the fate of our environment. Whether farms grow food or tobacco; and hence, who will eat and who will starve. In the large, they decide who works and who doesn't. They decide how long people will work and what they will be given in return. How much more power does a group need before they are considered the ruling class?

There is another criticism in your comments. The people who make up the bourgouisie in the United States seems to change often enough -- how can they constitute a "class?" The Forbes list has as much as 75% turnover in a 20 year period. And our history is dotted with get-rich-quick millionaires and billionaires such as Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. With so much change, could these people still form any kind of cohesive group?

Marx and Engels lived in a time when the bourgeoisie was also very much in flux. They believed that the common relationship to the means of production would override other conscious factors. In other words, wealth makes people behave a certain way because people will tend to act in ways that protect their wealth. The bourgeoisie is self-selecting in this way because those who do not protect their wealth will lose it to fierce competition within that class. But as competitive as they may be, they have common enough interests in maintaining a social structure which legitimizes their wealth. For Marx and Engels the bourgeoisie can change frequently but still cannot help but be conscious of their position in society.

This changes any analysis hoping to find a way out of this millennia-lasting exploitation.
With that, we ultimately return to the original point about generalization and oversimplification. Does the class analysis of history provide enough useful information to make a positive change to society? If not, what's missing?