Ch 7 Marx and Engels The communist manifesto

The rest of the world has begun to speak of Communism as a power then so too should the people of the communist party itself. From this belief came the communist manifesto.

Each societal shift has been accompanied/resulted from a growth in the market system and this has left us with two huge and hostile distinct classes.
Bourgeoisie- capitalist owners that pay workers, those in control of resources and production
Proletariat- those that work for wagesType your summary here

Type rest of the post here
Section one part one: The bourgeoisie

Our politicians are from and attend to matters of upper class capitalist desires. The executives of the modern state are in fact managing the affairs of the bourgeois class.

The bourgeois have pretty much trampled the lives of the proletariat peoples. They removed them from any source of work that could be fulfilling and reduced their work to a greedy scramble for wages, the common man is constantly in fear for his livelihood. They reduced jobs of intrinsic merit (like artist and doctor) into just another labor position. They embraced the concept of free trade, which in reality is nothing but the freedom to exploit others and if they couldn’t control it they drowned it in religion and called it sin. This global consumerism is destroying the local market systems and killing local structures.

I can’t help but feel these conditions all hold very true for our own society. I don’t think it’s as total as Marx claims it to be, but people hate going to work half of the time and if they’re lucky enough to be in a job they love they’re probably getting paid jack. People feel like they have no job security.

The global consumerism comment is a huge topic. First off there’s the loss of culture. When a country begins to do business with another country the hosting country will adopt or be forced to accept the guests traditions in order to continue business, for example; when China was up for the Olympics. They had massive public campaigns to make their cities friendlier to Western culture. People were told that it’s rude to cut in line or spit in public and a bunch of other little courtesy things that we think are kind of gross, but were common place in China. But whether or not the loss of culture is a tragedy is debatable, in fact, Marx says it’s for the best as individuality fosters national pride, which in turn fosters hostility against foreigners. Secondly there’s the issue of the loss of local market. This is still very relevant and the consequences of globalization for some regions of the world have been devastating. We ship our subsidized farm grown corn to Mexico and South America and their own agricultural systems collapse. We send old t-shirts to Africa in the name of charity and their textile mills all go under meaning ruin for the employees and the suppliers. When the “less developed” nations cant compete with the big business culture of “developed” nations they’re bound to suffer and then we accuse them of not being able to support themselves. Well duh we just dismantled their livelihood.

Section one part two: the proletariat

The proletariat is her/him self a commodity, bought and sold only as long as (s)he is able to produce a product. The longer the hours, the harder the work, the more abhorrent the job- the lower the wages. We can easily find examples of this in our society. Childcare workers, teachers, auto manufacturers, boat loaders, ect are paid far below the worth of their capital because their jobs are construed as requiring little skill. The methods of this are two fold. It’s important to realize that some jobs have been purposefully specialized to the point where they require little skill. The fact that they require “no training” is construction by the company to justifying paying lower wages. And then with some jobs the image that they require no skills is just an out and out lie like with teacher and child care worker. Have you ever been in a room with a two and a half year old, a 12 year old, or a 17 year old for more than five minutes? Taking care of someone else’s children (cause lets face it 70% of teaching is really babysitting) is exhausting and wrought with moments likely to get you sued or fired.

Marx and Engels briefly touch on one point that I find interesting from a feminist standpoint. On page 101 there is a sentence that reads “Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarch into the great factory of the industrial capitalist.” I’m not positive that they meant for patriarch to be interpreted in the way I have, but it’s intriguing to consider how modern capitalist structure has diverted power away from the male “head of the household” and into the market. This laid the foundation for the disruption of male hierarchy. Because money was now the determining factor in relation to power men maintained control as long as they were the main source of income. In the second half of the 20th century the increase of market greed made it almost impossible to survive on a single income, forcing women into the market whether anyone wanted them their or not. So while anti-feminists for decades (cough* Reagan) were claiming that women were the cause of male unemployment it is much more likely that pro market legislation resulting in increasing employee exploitation was to blame. M&E conclude by saying that age and sex no longer serve to distinguish members of the working class. To the market they are all just laborers of a different price.

At one point M&E discuss the infighting of classes and I get a little lost but what I’ve gleaned is that- when the bourgeois fight among themselves they turn to the proletariat for political support. To gain this support they must educate the public of their cause and through this political education they give the workers the resources to fight the bourgeois themselves. (I guess I thought of it this way- It was much easier for politicians (typically members of the upper class) to control the general public when they were remote farmers (with little access to political news) than it is now when we can easily gain information (albeit often distorted) through our multiple sources of media.)

Then they take a moment to recap- The proletariat man has lost property, his place in the family, his connection to his work, and his sense of nationality. Law and religion have become tools of the oppressor. “When movements have occurred in the passed they have always been by a minority or in the interest of a minority” which is why the changes have been able to take place within the existing social structure. But when the proletariat revolts they are the majority and this revolt will require the restructuring of the way things are.

The defining factor that proves that the bourgeois is unfit to rule is that they cannot keep their workers at a stable station even to their own benefit. The current market system is flawed. The workers keep getting poorer and become unable to support themselves let alone their “masters”. Then the bourgeois end up needing to assist them (thought social programs). It defeats the purpose. It is through their own greed that the bourgeois sets up its demise. The over throw of the system is inevitable. (Notably Marx’s time table foresaw this overthrow some time ago, but theoretically still likely.)

Section two: The proletariat and communism.

Communism is not based on unproven theory but on the events that have been forming throughout history and structures that you can see all around you. The idea of abolishing property law is not new or untried. Marx sites the French revolution as an example but you can find examples of this today in the US. It is possible for the government to obtain private property from individuals against their will if it is determined to be in the best interest of the state for, say, roads or federal buildings, or even in a few cases to be given to large corporations that could bring jobs to the area. Most of the time actions like these result in a monetary settlement, but not always and not every private citizen is content with the barter of their home for money.

Criticisms of communism:

Communism seeks to take away the property that the common man has worked so hard to obtain. M&E argue that the bourgeois already destroyed that, it virtually doesn’t exist. I find this a little hard to grasp but at the same time- You really can’t just go out and work the land until it’s yours. You have to buy it from some bourgeois jerk and in able to be able to buy it from that jerk you have to work for some other jerk that pays you jack.

Doing away with society as it is and making everything communal is to do away with individual freedom. M&E make the case that the market system has already killed the individuality and freedom of the common man so therefore the only person losing anything, the only person whose really pissed off about change, is the bourgeois themselves.

If there’s no personal reward there’s no incentive to work. Those who do not work get everything (earn the capital of someone else’s labor) and those who work have nothing to show for it. If the argument is that lack of reward results in lack of work than the current system would have collapsed long ago.

Bourgeois claim “Communism will establish a community of women!”
M&E retort “Well you’re sleeping with each others wives anyway…”
Marx and Engels are rather forward at this point and note that there has always been a “community of women”. The bourgeois treat their wives as just another instrument of reproduction and communists would like to recognize them as individuals. Communism seeks to elevate the status of women and children just like everybody else.

Other arguments mentioned are the loss of culture and national pride, loss of private education, and the destruction of the family. M&E note that the market system and the bourgeois have pretty much already destroyed all of these and further destruction might not be a bad thing. National pride creates hostility between countries, private education creates intellectual hierarchy, and the family power structure is messed up anyway and *should* change.

Closing thoughts by M&E
Marx and Engels close with a summary of events that are likely to occur to make the shift to communism possible (pg 110). The basic idea is that the proletariat (in the form of the communist party) will use their political power to (by degrees) confiscate all property. The state will then distribute it to the people and spread them over the land so there are no concentrated towns or cities. Then there will be a nationalization everything, banks, shops, and education alike (which will be free). Eventually the concept of the state will disappear and there will only be the people.

My personal commentary- Marx’s theories are pretty sound and I don’t find his plan abhorrent, but the execution of such a plan seems rather impossible. A whole generation of people doesn’t want to get f*cked over during the transition and several generations following such will feel rather screwed by the changes. Then you have the issue of people running “the state”. Marx often talks about the people as if they’re an abstract concept, but they’re not, they’re individuals. I hesitate to say that Marx’s belief that people are genuinely interested in one another’s well being is naïve. Some people just suck. You cant simply say that the proletariat become the state and it’s all good. When the proletariat become the state they’ve suddenly found themselves in a position of power they’ve never had before and it’s not hard to imagine that this new found power is corruptive. At the end of the day someone is still running the affairs of state and you’re just as likely to be stuck with some jackass as with any other system.

J. corwin