The Communist Manifesto
Introduction
First published as Das Kommuniste Che Manifest, the Communist Manifesto was commissioned by the communist league, a political organization formed by working class individuals in northern Europe. The manifesto was jointly authored by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel. Though much credit was initially given to Engel, he later told the world that the manifesto was purely based on the ideas of Karl Marx. The manifesto is best understood through an analysis of the challenges faced by the working class in Europe (Marx & Engels 2009). Essentially, the writing is based on class struggles. According to Karl Marx, class struggles explained the existence of the modern society. Arguably the most influential political publication, the Communist Manifesto was first published in the year 1848. After the German revolution, which involved students and people from the working class, Karl Marx made some adjustments to the publication as it had polarized the ideas of the people. While the Communist Manifesto has been met with different reactions, political scientists and historians have described the publication as a systematic approach to struggles among social classes. The book, which predicts that society will, gradually, move from capitalism to socialism and finally to communism, reflects class struggles, both from the past an in the present. This paper is an evaluation of the primary political philosophy of the book.
An overview of the central ideas
When Friedrich and Marx met in France, they had one common idea – communism was the ultimate political solution to class struggle. On the seventh month of 1847, Engel was elected to the Communist League. The league officials appointed him to write a manifesto for the party. Initially, the manifesto was referred to as a catechism. The first draft produced by Engel was referred to as Communist Confessions of Faith. The second draft, which was referred to as The Principles of Communism, formed the foundation for the Communist Manifesto. When Karl Marx, a German political revolutionary, was elected to the Communist League, he combined the ideas of Friedrich Engel with those of his to make what would be later – up to this date – referred to as the Communist Manifesto. The elements making up the Communist Manifesto was obtained from Marx’s book, The Condition of the Working Class in England, and Engel’s The Principles of Communism. However, in the preface of the book, as many have noted, Engels acknowledges that the primary ideas of the book were purely contributed by Karl Marx. Essentially, the central idea of the book is the presumption that communism is the ultimate key to achieving equality among social classes, which are in constant conflict.
Critics have argued that the book by the two communists focuses so much on the weaknesses and inefficiencies of capitalism instead of outlining the way forward for the communist movement. While this may be true, the approach that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels give to class struggle looks real and practicable. It is possible that the working class will replace the controllers and owners of the means of production. According to Karl Marx, the working class will rise up through revolutionary efforts such as strikes and riots to replace the owners of such resources as land and capital (Lansford 2007). Apparently, the working class that will replace the owners of such means will as well be replaced by yet another working class. The cycle will go on until the classes achieve equality. Clearly, what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had predicted was not far from a precise description of what is happening today. This is why the Communist Manifesto has been described variously as a prediction of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ time.
In the first part or section of the publication, which is titled Bourgeois and Proletarians, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels explain that in a capitalist society, the owners of resources exploit the working class. The owners of resources exploited the working people because capitalism advocated for property in land, something that communism was seriously against (Marx & Engels 2009). Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels further explain that the European countries were not ready to embrace communism for reasons revolving around the law’s favor for the bourgeois, as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels call the owners of resources. The proletarians were being exploited because they did not have the political and economic power to control substantial resources. The bourgeois were continually revolutionizing the methods of production with the changes in the labor market. Therefore, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ point was that the main troubles of the working class were attributable to the presence of private property.
As much as the communist manifesto has been criticized as being immature in the legal-political sense, most political scientists accredit the authors for embracing relevance. Talking of relevance, the political scientists and analysts argue that what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote is not much distinguishable from what is taking place in many parts of the world today. The only difference, they say, is that currently, political leaders and people of the working class use civilized methods to approach such matters as change in the political guard and ideology (Fandel 2007). Again, the proponents of the manifesto believe that the document was not only relevant at the time, but had foresight. Marxism, as researchers have established may come to be among the most acceptable political ideologies in the near future. Apparently, with the Baby Boomer generation now making up a substantial part of the working class, demographics are bound to be radical.
The reason why Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels predicted that the political ideology would change is because of demographics. According to Marx and Engel, the social order would change from capitalism to collectivism, and to end with communism. This is not strange in the world today. Population is making capitalism practically impossible. Perhaps this is the reason why The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state. Socialism was found to be more effective than capitalism in China since the government was not in a position to efficiently organize the huge private sector. The republic is currently working on the population growth through such things as legislation and public policies (Fandel 2007). Presently, China has a one Child policy for all people living in urban centers. This has been described as one of the ways of moving the country from socialism to capitalism. This clearly explains the connection between socialism, and communism and population. Again the relevance of the communist manifesto comes out clearly.
In the manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels explain that at that time, the working class was growing under capitalism. This can be criticized as false since, in his later works, Karl Marx corrected his point and said that, actually, the working class was shrinking under capitalism as the Bourgeois were exploiting the working class prompting resignations and serious turnover (Camara 2011). Eduard Bernstein, a renowned philosopher criticizes the publication as being inaccurate and upholding violent tendencies. Bernstein is in favor of reforms and suchlike civilized methods of political change. Bernstein at the same time praised Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ manifesto for having predicted 150 years into the future. Writing in the year 2003, Bernstein praises the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels saying that the Manifesto is a reflection of the global politics of today.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels conclude section one of the publication by saying that communism is the key to equality as far as class struggle is concerned. The second chapter concerns itself with the connection between proletarians and the communists. This section endeavors to make clear the fact that the sober communists were willing to form political parties, but such political parties would not duplicate those of the working class. Even so, the parties to be created by the communists would represent the working class (Marx & Engels 2012). The working class, according to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, had the most pressing needs of all classes in the society. This way, popularity was enjoyed by those parties that prioritized the working class. The second section of the publication as well sought to defend the manifesto from attacks. The most prominent attack designed against communism was the fact that the system would have no incentive to encourage the citizenry to work.
The critics argue that that unlike capitalism, which works on the basis of profits and motivations, communism is based on communal benefit. The essence of communism as explained by Karl Marx, the German economist, and Friedrich Engels is that resources be controlled by the administration for the betterment of the general public. This may entail the pooling of communal energies to come up with a certain facility that will benefit the citizenry. Apparently, it is an issue of commonsensical facts that when people work communally with no individual benefit, some individuals will desist from working hard since the benefits derived are equal. In straightforward terms, the benefit is not in direct proportion to the efforts (Camara 2011). Individual effort is irrelevant in relative terms. The man that works to produce one unit of food, for instance, will reap the same yield as that man whose efforts can produce ten units of food. This brings about an element of unfairness. Apparently, capitalism does not support laxity among the people.
It is in the third section that the negatives of the communist manifesto come out clearly. Among the primary negative characteristics of the communist ideology is the actuality that the administration has to tax the citizens heavily in order to sustain the provision of indispensable goods and services (Marx & Engels 2012). Considering that the private sector contributes little in a communist economy, the government needs a lot of monetary resources to sustain the economy. This implies heavy, usually, exorbitant prices for goods sold by the insignificant private sector. The citizen bears a heavier burden than one operating in a capitalist economy where the taxes are much lower. This has been the chief reason why the communist manifesto has received much resistance in many countries. This also explains why the Marxist agenda was rejected in most parts of northern Europe where capitalists planned for the expulsion of Karl Marx, the philosopher that was considered a serious threat in the economy. The fears were worsened by the fact that the communist agenda sought to reform all sectors.
While the abolishment of property in land was received well by the working class, it was considered a very serious demerit by the owners of land, which is the most fundamental means of production. The communist manifesto implied that the land would belong to the government and that the relevant authorities would divide the land in such a style that every associate of society got an equal share. This was a setback to all those that owned and rented out land to the small scale farmers. This provision may be a good proposition but in real sense, it appears impracticable. It is unfair and may take quite a long while to implement especially where a substantial percentage of the property has been significantly developed (Blackledge 2006). Repossessing land may not be a fine initiative especially where the current holder of the land has put it into obvious economic use. Abolishing the right to have property in land would contravene some fundamental rights. It is in many constitutions that citizens have the fundamental right to have titles to property. As such, this would be inconvenient as it will call for a total overhaul of the legal structure.
The communist manifesto advocated for the abolishment of the right of inheritance. Inheritance is explained by Karl Marx as a way of passing down wealth for people that did not endeavor to achieve such wealth. According to the German philosopher, inheritance is among the most unjustified social practices in a civilized economy. He argues that upon the demise of a land title-holder, the government should take over such land and have it appropriated for the poor and less fortunate. Inheritance, according to Karl Marx inheritance is among the social factors that promote class struggles. When a rich person dies, chances are high that the principal inheritors will be their children. As such, the poor remain poor and this phenomenon degenerates in to what is commonly known as the vicious cycle of poverty (Marx & Engels 2009). The cycle is an endless social phenomenon that keeps the gap between the society’s rich and the unfortunate poor broadening by day. As such, banning inheritance can be said to be both a negative and a plus as far as social balance is concerned. It may emerge as a proper tool for breaking the vicious cycle of poverty, something that the economists have defined as unbreakable.
Among the most conspicuous provisions of the communist manifesto is the point that the government should confiscate all property belonging to emigrants and rebels. People that rebelled were assumed to be social misfits and were not allowed to own property as the property belonged to the community. Individuals do not control property under communism. Researchers have explained that while confiscating the property belonging to rebels may be beneficial, repossessing property belonging to emigrants was not socially fair (Blackledge 2006). Emigration takes place for various reasons, among them education and career-related factors. Taking away property belonging to people emigrating for such socially acceptable reasons is not justified at all, as it amounts to dictatorship and some form of tyranny. Further complications arise where putting such property into use becomes an issue. Apparently political leaders may hold different ideas relating to the provisions of communism. This means that they may be in disagreement with one another over the appropriation of the reclaimed property.
Among the positives of the manifesto were such points as the abolition of child labor and the provision of cost-free schooling to all children in public schools (Marx & Engels 2012). While this may seem like a step to be unfair to the children of the rich, many social scientists have approved of the step, as it caters for the financial burden for the poor and ignores the rich children that attend private schools. Abolition of labor is a move that was welcomed by people across the world. The capitalist entrepreneurs used child labor in their elementary industries for quite long. This was a violation of the fundamental rights of children, according to the most prominent psychologists and social scientists. Such things as the centralization of means of transportation and public communication can be termed as a brilliant idea since, if left in the hands of the private sector, transport and communication channels will be in a total mess as private investors have no direct interest in the public resources. Additionally, they may lack the capital to lay down such public assets.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is substantially clear that communist ideas have both negative and positive philosophies. Among the primary negatives are such points as confiscation of land belonging to emigrants, abolishing inheritance, as well as heavy taxes and other compulsory levies. Such seek to bring equality in society, but do it in a manner that offends some classes while satisfying the needs of others. This may make communist leaders appear like tyrants to some extent. Analyzing the communist philosophies from the positive side, it is apparent that such provision as free education for all children in public schools is a critical point. Free education provides the children with equal opportunities. In the real world, the children of the rich attend very expensive private schools. On the contrary, the children of the poor cannot access the cheapest education. Essentially, therefore, abolishing child labor and introducing free education is one of the most significant parts of the communist manifesto.
Reference list
Blackledge, P. (2006). Reflections on the Marxist Theory of History. Manchester [U.A.], Manchester Univ. Press.
Camara, B. (2011). Marxist Theory, Black/African Specificities, and Racism. Lanham, MD, Lexington Books
Fandel, J. (2007). Communism. Mankato, MN, Creative Education.
Lansford, T. (2007). Communism. New York, N.Y., Marshall Cavendish Benchmark.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2009). Manifesto of the Communist Party. New York, Cosmo Classics
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2012). The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition. London, Verso
