The Communist Manifesto and Marxism

The Communist Manifesto is one of the most influential texts and one of my personal favorites. Many of Karl Marx’s ideas, including those found in the manifesto, induce highly emotive and polarized partisan reactions partly because of its political and revolutionary nature, but also as a result of the ways in which many of these ideas have played out throughout an often bloody history. When analyzing Marx’s ideas, I believe it’s important to maintain an awareness of the context in which we judge them: in the context of his own time, in the context of recent history, or in a purely theoretical or philosophical context. All are important considerations, but we must be conscious of which ones we use and when.

Marx believed world history was best understood as dominated by class struggles (Marx & Engels, 2000). The most recent classes, those in Europe’s Middle Age feudal system, had been consolidated by the disruptive technologies of the Industrial Revolution into 2 classes: the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The relationship between these classes was nothing less than that of the slave-owner and slave. This oppressive system would, by unconscious design, devolve into such irreversible inequality and economic instability, that it must come to an end. Either by revolutionary overthrow, or inevitable catastrophic destabilization. What must then take its place is a communist utopia, a union of the emancipated working class.

Marx was primarily concerned with the problem of oppression. Oppression of one ruling class over the other. Oppression not simply of economic mobility, but of the human spirit by an economic system. He believed that the Bourgeoisie, obsessed with growing its capital, and motivated fundamentally by economic greed, would export the capitalist system to every inch of the globe. But since ‘capital’ is akin to “stored-up labor” and the Proletariat are “a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital”, the Bourgeoisie depended entirely on the Proletariat (Marx & Engels, 2000). While this interdependence should provide the laborers with leverage, the division of labor and the mechanizing of manufacturing rendered them as nothing but replaceable cogs in the system. Objects.

Initially, I found it difficult to understand why this was such an important problem for Marx. Of course, oppression, economic inequality, and slavery all seem undesirable. But why? Why does he obsess over inequality? Why does he see the problem as one of economic class and not, for example, race? And why does he judge this type of inequality as a bad thing? There are 2 main things that stood out to me.

First, using a historical context, we consider the societal conditions in which he lived. In the Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 Marx quotes Wilhelm Schulz who, commenting on the length of a laborers work day, remarked that “for the English cotton-workers these have been increased, as a result of the entrepreneurs’ mania for profit, to between twelve and sixteen hours a day during the past twenty-five years or so” (2016). As Marx well knew, factory conditions in 19th century Europe were deplorable. As more and more people moved from the countryside to work in the factories and the ruling class earned more capital, the factory conditions and the worker’s power could only deteriorate further.

Second, Marx’s metaphysical conception of human nature informed his moral framework and thus, that which was ‘bad’ in the capitalist system. What was most deplorable about the oppression of the worker was a result of the division of labor and the hyper specialization of tasks. This type of labor robbed humans of the thing that makes us human, separate from animals, because to him, the object of labor was “the objectification of man’s species-life” (Marx, 2016). The objects that humans create help one to see “himself in a world that he has created”(Marx, 2016).

The Communist Manifesto might appear to suggest that Marx’s ideas were only of an economic and political nature. So, this begs the question: What does this have to do with social and communication theory? One key sentence in the Manifesto makes a claim that broadly forms the foundation for Western Marxism, the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, Feminism, and others. Marx suggests that “[l]aw, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests” (2000). The methods used by the Bourgeoises to maintain control over the working class are much more complex than economic or political pressures. Marx implies that legal and cultural institutions and ideas are employed as tools of control. These institutions and ideas must then be viewed, not just critically, but as hostile.

After Marx, a new school of thought evolved that tried to wrangle with this idea, though not focusing on the same struggling classes or the economic imperative. Known as Western Marxism, it examined what it called ideology, a term adapted from Marx, that “describes how dominant ideas of a ruling class promote the interests of that class and help mask oppression, injustices, and negative aspects of a given society” (Kellner, 2005, Marx, 2000). Though ideologies may seem natural, essential, or beneficial to all members of society, they’re not. They exist solely to maintain a system that benefits the dominant group. Antonio Gramsci identified this as one of the two ways in which a dominant social group retains supremacy through “intellectual and moral leadership” (Bennett et al., 1981). This idea is now widely known as ‘hegemony’. Gramsci argued that a social group cannot retain power for long through antagonistic power only, what it also must have is the ability or consent to “lead” (Bennett et al., 1981). It ascertains this ‘consent’ by influencing “public consciousness” or “popular beliefs” (Bennett et al., 1981). Essentially, the ‘leaders’ use the cultural and political institutions and communicative channels to influence the ‘led’ so that their leadership seems legitimate (Bennett et al., 1981). But while there must be some sort of negotiation and compromise, the ruling group will not budge on their essential interests (Bennett et al., 1981). Thus, dominant culture, ideas, morals, laws, and institutions still primarily represent the interests of the ruling group, oppressing and exerting power over the rest (Bennett et al., 1981). Being critical of this hegemony, then, is essential for any sort of emancipation.

Marx’s ideas, as presented in the Communist Manifesto, and subsequent Marxian thought, is important in its demand to critically analyze, not just economic and political systems, but culture, ideas, and institutions. However, Marxism must itself be critically analyzed, for it’s not obvious that its model of critical analysis is optimal or worthwhile. Key assumptions need to be questioned. For example, Marxian thought assumes that society is best understood through the lens of power imbalances and group oppression. Is this really the best way? How does one quantify or qualify oppression? If power balances do exist, must they be consciously altered, and if so, why? Also, Marx simplifies society by breaking them down to essentially 2 distinct semi-homogeneous groups based on economic function. Yet would it not be better to divide groups up based on race, gender, religion, or something else? How many groups should society be divided into? Finally, since Marx assumes that society and its fundamental structures are unjust, unstable, and immoral he is keen to raise them to the ground through any means necessary, even violent revolution. But this sort of certainty in its assumptions, hypercriticism, and eagerness to deconstruct, may be quick to throw into the refuse bin ideas and institutions with key functions and benefits. These I believe to be important questions to which I do not have any answers but hope to explore!

Regardless, the Communist Manifesto and Marx’s ideas are important to discuss not just because of their historical influence, for better or for worse, but because of what they say about how we relate to and construct our societies. Our complex societies do not equally represent all people and favor some over others. Marx helps us to understand and critique these imbalances and maybe, if deemed important, change them.

References

Bennett, T., Martin, G., Mercer, C., & Woollacott, J. (1981). Antonio Gramsci. In Culture, Theory, and Social Forms (pp. 191–218). Batsford Ltd.

Kellner, D. (2005). Western Marxism. In A. Harrington (Ed.), Modern Social Theory: An Introduction (pp. 1689-154–174). Oxford University Press.

Marx, K. (2000). A Critique of The German Ideology. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845-gi/index.htm

Marx, K. (2016). Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. Social Theory Re-Wired: New Connections to Classical and Contemporary Perspectives: Second Edition, August 1844, 152–158. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315775357